Is New Zealand hovering on the brink of a police state?

The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened. — President John F. Kennedy

Imagine arriving at Auckland International airport on a Saturday afternoon to meet friends flying in from overseas. You gather other Kiwis there for the same purpose, in a festive sense of anticipation. While chatting with your friend, who arrived with his best camera to record the happy occasion, you are singled out by a security worker who mistakenly considers you’re there to commercially film. With a sense of disquiet at being singled out, you explain that you are not there in a commercial capacity, but the airport employee says — regardless of your explanation — that you are going to be trespassed and the police will be called. This is troubling as it is only you and your friend who are singled out. You try to explain further and gently touch the shoulder of the security person to get her attention, for which you are admonished. You then venture over to other security workers in an effort to see if they would be able to explain the situation to the first security worker. No one is interested. The police arrive and within 18 seconds you’re on the floor of the airport, your arms are twisted up your back with the police constable attempting to hold them above your head. The attack on you was so severe that your wrist is fractured and shoulder ligaments are torn. Your friend has been swung-tackled to the floor and sustained bruising, contusions and cuts. His $15,000 camera has been smashed and confiscated. You’re then both told you’re under arrest and are charged with trespass, resisting arrest, and “assault” — that was the bit where you gently touched the security worker on the shoulder while seeking her attention.

Sadly, this is not a story of fiction, as this happened to Liz Gunn of Free NZ Media and leader of the political party NZ Loyal, and cameraman Jonathan Clark, on 25 February 2023. Two constables brutally assaulted and arrested these two New Zealanders who were doing no harm and were just peacefully waiting to greet a family from Tokelau. They were then hauled through Court over a protracted length of time — one year and two months —— and at substantial cost, perpetuating the pain and trauma already incurred.

On that day, Jonathan had arrived about 30 minutes before Liz and mingled with other supporters and well-wishers who arrived to welcome the family. He was openly taking photos and footage with his large camera. He later said that no one was troubled by this. He was not approached by airport authorities and there was no harassment or questioning until Liz arrived. They both waited, chatting with family and supporters of the family, many of whom had cameras and videos and were poised to take photos — just like Liz and Jonathan. But a short time after Liz arrived, an airport security woman approached and told them commercial filming wasn’t allowed and demanded that they stop. Liz politely explained that they weren’t doing commercial filming but were just there to take photos of friends coming back to NZ. She also asked what law was being infringed. Liz didn’t feel the airport employee understood, so repeated what she said and lightly touched the woman’s shoulder, for less than a second, gently trying to get her attention as she wasn’t told what law was being applied. The employee walked away saying they would be trespassed and the police would be called. Liz, troubled by the singling out of herself and Jonathan, felt the airport employee hadn’t understood, so she sought out another employee, asking him to reassure the security employee that they were not there in a commercial capacity. Footage shows that Liz was concerned by this ominous turn of events. She genuinely didn’t understand what they had done wrong. The link to the shorter version with the key events is here. The longer version is here.

Every time we turn our heads the other way when we see the law flouted, when we tolerate what we know to be wrong, when we close our eyes and ears to the corrupt because we are too busy or too frightened, when we fail to speak up and speak out, we strike a blow against freedom and decency and justice. — Robert Kennedy

Apparently a permit is required to commercially film in the airport, but Liz wasn’t there on a commercial basis, as she had repeatedly explained. Her work there was voluntary, as was Jonathan’s. Wouldn’t it then be usual for the airport official to just thank them and move on? Yet the airport employee said they would be trespassed and the police would be called. Wouldn’t that apply to everyone else there in a private capacity filming the anticipated celebration?

The police miraculously arrived in very short time. Footage shows they entered an airport scene that was calm and friendly with everyday New Zealanders warmly anticipating the arrival of loved ones. Based on the footage, the arrival of the police rapidly turned this peaceful scene into a serious disturbance of the peace, created by the constabulary. There were no friendly policemen of old calmly entering with an interest to sort any issues out with a willingness to communicate in a low-key friendly manner and getting the story of what was happening by asking something like, “Hey guys, what’s happening here?” That would seem more in alignment with the Police Code of Conduct. It was of concern to see that the constables didn’t appear to want to clarify what had happened. There was no communication between the two police but one moved to Liz and another to Jonathan. Watching it leads one to wonder if it was pre-planned and if so, who were they receiving orders from and what were the orders?

From that point on things went badly wrong. Despite 1000 cameras in the Auckland airport, the very limited CTV footage that has only recently been made available shows that within 18 seconds of the police arriving, both Liz and Jonathan were violently assaulted by two constables. One would have assumed the police were also wearing body cams?

When the police arrived, Liz calmly asked what law they were operating under, which she had a right to know, but received no reply. Liz said a policeman (Constable Erich Postlewaight) manhandled her to the floor, gave her a Chinese burn, put tremendous pressure on her hand and wrist and then stretched one arm right up behind her back while over-extending her thumb, to the point where she felt he was trying to break it. Through the shock and pain experienced from such a sudden unprovoked attack, Liz cried out in pain and told him she was not resisting. This was ignored. He grabbed the other arm and roughly wrenched that up behind her back as well, in an attempt to stretch both arms above her head. She could not understand how this was happening as she had asked a reasonable question, and this was met with a brutal assault on her body. “You’re hurting me!” Liz yelled. “Good,” was the reply Liz said she received. The treatment was very rough and at some stage that very odd repetition of, “MOVE, MOVE, MOVE!” was needlessly shouted at her as she was marched towards the carpark. This was the intimidating robot-like phrase used by the police at Camp Freedom that was now being directed at an unresisting 63-year-old grandmother with newly torn shoulder ligaments and a fractured wrist. After she was very roughly manhandled out of the airport, Postlewaight was seen on camera briefly putting his arm around Liz’s neck — like a choke-hold. She was shoved onto a concrete bench outside. He pulled at her hands to put them in handcuffs. She kept telling him there was no need and that her wrist was hurt, possibly broken. He ignored her pleas, pushed her hands together and forced the handcuffs over the sharp pain in her right wrist. By now deeply shaken and in shock, but still speaking calmly and clearly, Liz repeated the question of what law the policeman was operating under. Again, there was no reply. She repeated the question a third time and was told, “I don’t have to tell you.” Liz then asked, “Since when, do you not have to tell me the Law that you’re acting under?” Liz reports that he said, “Since forever.”

Jonathan wasn’t faring much better. “A pair of hands just came from the side — out of nowhere — to grab my camera.” Initially, he could only see the hands and thought someone was trying to steal his camera, so his instant reaction was to pull the camera into his body to protect it. “That just turned into a wrestling match and I was dragged down the terminal and swung-tackled. Then he turned me around and threw me, putting his whole body force on top of me. My camera took a three or four-metre flight and was smashed on the ground.” When he looked back he could see, “Liz over there with this big cop on her and in her distress she was yelling, ‘Stop! You’re hurting me!’. . .” Jonathan kept shouting for people to film what was happening, but they seemed too stunned.

By this time Constable Postlewaight, had Liz — a 63-year-old grandmother — on the floor as he was putting both hands behind her back and stretching them painfully above her head. He was later heard to say in court, “You can get a lot done in 18 seconds.” Within that 18 seconds, as mentioned, Liz suffered from a fractured wrist and torn shoulder ligaments that, after one year and three months since the constable’s brutal assault, still give her trouble. Jonathan suffered from contusions and bruising and his camera was smashed and confiscated. They were both handcuffed and marched to the vicinity of the carpark.

Make injustice visible. — Mahatma Gandhi

There were three police, two of whom seemed to be assigned to Liz and Jonathan. Astoundingly, Liz and Jonathan were charged with willful trespass and resisting arrest. Even more astoundingly, Liz was charged with assault, It is difficult to understand how they could have been charged with resisting arrest when neither of them were told they were arrested until after they were brutally assaulted.

The police who committed the unprovoked assaults remain at large and have not yet been charged.

As a Kiwi, I cannot understand how a soft touch on the shoulder of an airport employee to gain attention can result in a conviction of assault, in comparison to the violent assaults by the two constables on Liz and Jonathan that, by the footage, shows were completely unnecessary. The small amount of limited, partially obscured, video footage of the attack at the airport was eventually provided — after a delay of around 12 months — and shows the brief touch on the shoulder lasted for less than a second. The footage can be seen here, with the light touch at around 11 minutes.

The airport corporation employ staff of all cultures, where they may be unfamiliar with commonly understood English and New Zealand gestures. But surely the Auckland Airport Corporation must ensure that the staff speaking with the public are required to be polite and friendly, made aware of our cultural mannerisms, and also informed that a gentle touch on an arm while talking is known as a reassuring gesture or placed on the arm of another in a gentle attempt to get someone’s attention? And if it is not welcomed by the recipient that’s fine too, but surely, they could just politely say so?

New Zealanders frequently use warm gestures like this. It is part of our culture. This link illustrates how common it is in English-speaking countries as, 31 seconds in, this footage of Prince William clearly shows him reaching out to touch the arm of a stranger while talking to her. His hand was on the arm of this stranger for at least five seconds. Quite rightly, no police were called, no accusations of “assault” were levelled at him, and he wasn’t then brutally assaulted by police, arrested for assault, put in handcuffs, and initially banned from the area for two years.

Footage of the incident was shown in court in May 2023, and later made public by FreeNZ media. Even with this limited view, it is appalling, disturbing footage of a brutal police attack on two Kiwis waiting to greet friends at an airport. Eye-witnesses confirm this.

On reading through the Code of Conduct for police, it is difficult to find anything (with this specific incident) that aligned. It states: “The purpose of New Zealand Police is to ensure everybody can be safe and feel safe. This means we do not tolerate or accept behavior, by either the public or our colleagues, that breaks laws or compromises safety.”
“We act professionally, exercise good judgement and are accountable for our behaviour. We must not do anything that may bring Police into disrepute. We consider the impact of our behaviour on Police at all times, including online or in social media, and outside of work. We protect Police’s integrity and reputation by speaking up about any inappropriate behaviour we see and hear.”
“The Code provides general guidance and minimum expectations of the behaviour Police expects from us. No code or policy can cover every situation, so we need to consider our values, apply our common sense, act with self-respect, and consider the reputation of Police in our decision making”. Serious misconduct includes excessive unjustified violence.

The brutal assault also seems at odds with the Police Act 2008, that under the sub-titles of Principles and Functions, requires them to respect human rights, act professionally, ethically and with integrity and thus expand public support and confidence through their actions.

For the law to make sense to New Zealanders, justice needs to be seen to be done. The majority of Kiwis would see an alarming injustice here: Liz was charged with “assault”, but she was the one with the fractured wrist and torn shoulder ligaments. Jonathan was also assaulted, he was bruised and his camera was badly damaged, and confiscated. Any reasoning soul would consider, at the very least, that this was extreme over-reach by those sworn to protect us from such attacks.

After they were charged, Liz reported that she was taken aside by another policeman on the scene who told her that “We can make this go away if you will admit you did something wrong.” But she hadn’t done anything wrong. In acute pain from the earlier assault, Liz, for a nano-second, was tempted. Almost simultaneously, she felt the presence of her father, a World War II veteran who had served in Greece and Egypt. He stood beside her in spirit. “This is not what I fought for Liz. Stand your ground. Keep going. It will be alright.” She also saw in her mind’s eye, those who would follow. Who would be treated like this in the future if she didn’t speak out about what had happened here? If she didn’t say no to this type of vicious assault, who would? A courageous soul like Liz could not shy away from the path less travelled. This was her country that was under threat from outside forces that seemed to have infiltrated the police, particularly since Camp Freedom, but now seemed to be edging into public places. So, she did not agree. That took integrity and courage.

It is a sin to be silent when it is your duty to protest. — President Lincoln

As well as being required to go to court every two months last year, Liz and Jonathan appeared in court three times this year: On 7 May, 10 May and 21 May. On 7 May 2024 the charges of wilful trespass were dismissed. Matthew Hague, lawyer for Liz and Jonathan, also requested that the other charges be dismissed, but this didn’t occur and the court case resumed on 10 May, with the announcement that the Judge would deliver her judgement on 21 May at 3.45pm. On 21 May, the charges of resisting arrest were dropped for both Liz and Jonathan. Shockingly, Liz was convicted of “assault”.

During the course of the court hearings Liz was still suffering from the injuries incurred over 14 months earlier, but was forced to sit through the replaying of the assault on herself and Jonathan up to nine times, even though she had requested that it not be shown after the third time. She said that in response she was told to answer the questions. As a former NZRN, in my view, one would never force the victim of a serious assault and likely suffering from post-traumatic stress to repetitively watch the footage of their assault. (This was also confirmed by a doctor.) If really vital to the court, wouldn’t it have been possible to excuse Liz from being forced to repetitively watch that brutal attack? The first playing of this assault had already affected Liz the day before. She had said it was very upsetting. So then it was played up to nine times the next day? Isn’t that a form of torture to someone still suffering from the injuries?

On 21 May, Liz and Jonathan were acquitted of “resisting arrest”. Indeed, a little difficult to be arrested for that when you’ve been assaulted without having yet been told you’re under arrest. But Liz was found guilty of “assault”. Any acquittal, discharge without conviction or sentencing, will be made on September 6, 2024. Media threads on this topic show the public were stunned by this conviction. And outraged. Even mainstream media began to play the footage of the brutal attack on Liz and Jonathan.

New Zealanders were still reeling from the bizarre judgement of a man facing a charge of assault at the Posie Parker gathering who had attacked a 71 year old woman, punching her in the head, the face and near the eye, which fractured her eye-socket. He was subsequently discharged without conviction. The victim still suffers from the effects of that intended vicious assault, including post-traumatic stress and ongoing injuries. She has lost all faith in the judiciary system and justice in this country. Yet, two months later, a soft touch on the shoulder by Liz, to get the attention of a security worker at the airport, is regarded as “assault” for which she is to be sentenced.

In an attempt to gain better understanding, this inspired a search for clarification of the definition of assault in the Black’s Law Dictionary. The First Edition gives this definition:

An unlawful attempt or offer, on the part of one man, with force or violence, to inflict a bodily hurt upon another.

The definition gives examples, as seen on pages 94 and 95 of the dictionary, and summarises at the end of the definition:

An assault is an intentional attempt, by violence, to do an injury to the person of another. It must be intentional; for if it can be collected, notwithstanding appearances to the contrary, that there is not a present purpose to do an injury, there is no assault.
In order to constitute an assault there must be something more than a mere menace. There must be violence begun to be executed. But, where there is a clear intent to commit violence, accompanied by acts which if not interrupted will be followed by personal injury, the violence is commenced and the assault is complete.

So, it seems clear that one must have the intention to harm another. That makes sense, and could be seen in the footage where the police were assaulting Liz and Jonathan, but it was difficult to see any hint of that definition applying to a soft touch on the shoulder to attain someone’s attention. Apparently there is also a precedent in law for assault that dates back to the 1600s, where, technically, if anyone touches anyone, that is regarded as “assault”. That would mean police could “technically” arrest most of us every day — along with themselves — but common-sense is applied. Also, remember when former Prime Minister John Key pulled the pony-tail of a waitress, while in a café with several others? There was no charge of assault, and he later apologised, but that was surely more intrusive than a light touch on the shoulder to gain someone’s attention.

Recently, a former front-line policeman, Dan Picknell, said that up until 2022 — at which point he left the police — police were advised to touch the arm of a compliant person they were arresting. So, Dan asked, are they all now guilty of assault? He also mentioned that while he was in the police, especially in recent years, it was always encouraged that minor issues should not make it to court but could be sorted out with good communication. In his view, this should have never have been put before the court. He also asks, “Did the airport employee make a formal assault complaint to the police of her own volition or was she encouraged to by police to try to cover themselves for the absolute mess they made of dealing with Liz and Jonathan, as there would have been no time to obtain witness statements from that employee or other witnesses for any claimed assault before the police assaulted and then arrested Liz and Jonathan for trespass.”

In his view, this was an unlawful arrest anyway as they were not given reasonable time to leave and hadn’t been told they were trespassed before being set upon and assaulted.

So who was pushing for this unprovoked attack? Where did their orders come from? It is unclear but if they were acting on orders from above, shouldn’t that be made transparent? Where is the Commissioner of Police? Is anyone in authority going to thump a few desks about this assault on peaceful Kiwis and ensure it doesn’t happen again?

Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of both body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day. —Thomas Jefferson

Under Common Law, there is no charge to answer unless harm has been done to a person or property. No harm can be seen to have been done here, except to Liz and Jonathan. Shouldn’t justice be seen to be done?

The Policing Act 2008, outlines clear principles:

(a) principled, effective, and efficient policing services are a cornerstone of a free and democratic society under the rule of law:
(b) effective policing relies on a wide measure of public support and confidence:
(c) policing services are provided under a national framework but also have a local community focus:
(d) policing services are provided in a manner that respects human rights:
(e) policing services are provided independently and impartially:
(f) in providing policing services every Police employee is required to act professionally, ethically, and with integrity.

According to the Policing Act 2008, the functions of the Police include:

(a) keeping the peace:
(b) maintaining public safety:
(c) law enforcement:
(d) crime prevention:
(e) community support and reassurance:
(f) national security:
(g) participation in policing activities outside New Zealand:
(h) emergency management.

Based on the footage made available, it was difficult to see these principles or functions applied.

How could this treatment possibly happen in New Zealand? If this happened to you, would you be in shock that this happened in our country? Would you wonder where our friendly police had gone, replaced by police like this who enter a peaceful scene at an airport and create an alarming disturbance of the peace and brutally assault two people who are calmly chatting? Would you describe this traumatic incident as one where police followed the Police Act 2008, that under the sub-titles of Principles and Functions, require them to respect human rights, act professionally, ethically and with integrity and thus expand public support and confidence through their actions? Would the treatment received give you deep concern for our democracy — or lack of it? Would you feel safe with this sort of “policing”? Or would you consider these actions would more describe that of a Police State? Is New Zealand now ominously hovering on the brink of a Police State? Is that what this is?

However one wants to describe this, it is deeply disquieting to see such assaults on our people in our country. If police act like this with impunity, does this mean our country is being lead down a dark dystopian road where it has become OK for police to brutally assault peaceful citizens gathering to meet friends and then arrest them on what seem to be trumped-up charges, and put them through an expensive 14-month period waiting for the charges to be heard? Kiwis were also seriously harmed at Camp Freedom where many peacefully protested the mandates at Parliament and were viciously assaulted including another peaceful woman, Jeanette Wilson, who had her sternum fractured by a policewoman — among others. There is also Barry Young, the courageous whistle-blower, who could not live with the terrible statistics — post-experimental injection — he saw in his job at the Ministry of Health who, with the best of intentions, blew the whistle on the shocking statistics. For the great courage he showed, six armed police arrived at his home on a Sunday afternoon, arrested him, bashed his door down and ransacked his house in a search. At the time he had just returned from the shops and was armed with nothing but a dog-roll. Such treatment isn’t quite the concept Kiwis may envision when reading the Protection of Whistleblowers Act.

As a Nation, surely we all need to confront the brutality of the footage and ensure this doesn’t ever happen again. When would we have ever thought our police would ever consider it would be appropriate to aggressively attack an unresisting 63-year-old grandmother who simply asked a question and, in response, fracture her wrist and tear shoulder ligaments and then charge her with assault? What compelled them to also assault Jonathan, smash his camera and take that and the rest of his photographic equipment? All while she and Jonathan were peacefully waiting to welcome a family to New Zealand?

This is a slippery slope. Is the government testing the reaction of such abusive treatment to see if most Kiwis will just plod on, shielding their minds from what is unfolding before their eyes? Is it to see how far they can go — without raising so much as a whimper from most? We only have to look back at history to see how this has occurred before and how that ended. Does this not show, in incremental steps, how this can creep in, unless each of us is vigilant and calls out any and all violations of human rights by those who are there to serve us — not dictate, intimidate, threaten or bully. Some Kiwis may scoff but, in recent years, have you seen attempts to ban free speech, shut down opposing views, ridicule and make fun of those who speak up, to prefix names of those brave enough to do so with derogatory-sounding terms, such as “conspiracy-theorist” or “anti-vaxxer”? We all have a duty to call bullies out. Ignore them at our peril, for sooner or later they will come for everyone, particularly if we remain silent when we should speak. We must all be vigilant in such times to ensure that we never end up with something described at the Nuremberg Trials that can be seen in footage where Telford Taylor speaks here. I am not suggesting this has happened. But viewing it shows what we must guard against at all costs.

That includes a clear duty we have, right now, to call out any member of parliament and all political parties who consider they can sign away our sovereignty to unelected international cabals without our agreement. We do NOT consent. Liz’s party, NZLoyal, was outspokenly against New Zealand signing away its sovereignty to the unelected, corrupt W.H.O. under the guise of a “treaty” or international agreements about “pandemics”, that is all about total control in a dystopian world. This is the opposite of what political parties currently in parliament seem to be leading NZ towards.

Was this brutal assault an attempt to keep Liz quiet? To remove her ability to stand for parliament? Was it politically motivated? Was it in retaliation for her efforts to help free a family from an oppressive house arrest in Tokelau that lasted for over a year, because they politely refused to receive an experimental gene-altering injection? The actions of the police on that day were so incomprehensible that, rightly or wrongly, these are the current conclusions many have reached.

Many years ago, while working in emergency care as an NZRN I knew many fine policemen and women. I also had a boyfriend around that time who was a Detective Sergeant. He was a good person, as were his colleagues of the time. They had a tough job and almost all of them did it well. But the police who were our friends all those years ago (and good friends in the police my husband and I have made over the years as volunteers and first responders in a remote area, now) would be deeply troubled at what happened at the Auckland airport on 25 February 2023. Stunned. And equally horrified at Liz being charged with assault.

How the good police must hate to see this. How appalled they must be. How ashamed. The substantial goodwill that was painstakingly built up by so many fine police over generations is now in danger of lying in shreds about us, along with our Human Rights, as we ask, “How did this happen?”

Dan Picknell is a former policeman who is admired and respected. He was an experienced frontline senior constable for the best part of two decades. I couldn’t imagine anyone who would be upset with the thought of him turning up at the airport that day. Kiwis would feel confident and safe with him on the scene. Here is his view of the assault on Liz and Jonathan, on FreeNZ media. Also an interview with him can be heard here, on Reality Check Radio.

Last year, I attended a memorial service for a highly respected High Court Judge. He was a rare individual, much-loved and respected, and a good friend. Regardless of his lofty titles, he steadfastly retained a strong, true sense of justice and did not hesitate to help others, including those he wasn’t required to assist. He had integrity. When he was a Q.C. he was known to go into bat for the little guy when he saw an injustice done, because he wanted to see genuine justice prevail. There was not one spare seat at his memorial service. The times when he selflessly helped others through his position were the type of riches one can take as one crosses — what we call in the mountains — that final Main Divide, to the other side. It may behoove us all to remember that.

Imagine if the police and the armed forces declined to be involved with such unprovoked attacks — even if ordered — on New Zealanders who are doing nothing wrong. If that occurred, nothing like this would happen. The thing is, that if we don’t all stand up and speak out against suppression — police included — even just discussing it with family and friends, then what kind of world would we live in?

A well-informed citizenry is the best defense against tyranny. —Thomas Jefferson

Liz has used her skills on a voluntary basis and spent countless hours interviewing the dying, the injured, the abused and the tortured and advocated for them. Her support, compassion and care has meant the world to the many she has interviewed on FreeNZ Media. Regardless of exorbitant cost to herself, like many in the freedom movement, she has kept going. She has been dauntless in the face of what seems to be a creepingly oppressive regime, to which we all need to peacefully say, “No. No more,” and to peacefully turn from, and create a more workable way. Millions are already on this path. Thank God for them all.

Liz feels that this incident has brought to the fore the importance of everyone being aware that we need to be ready to film “full episodes [like this] because that is now our only safety.” She explained that her ability as a journalist to be able to articulately engage in conversation got her nowhere. An excellent editorial in regard to this incident can be seen on the FreeNZ substack here.

There is a silver lining. Despite the deep trauma and ongoing issues of injury, Liz and Jonathan may not yet realise it yet, but they made tremendous ground in shining a light on the current actions of some in the police and judiciary, as it has brought out into the open a reluctant realisation of police thuggery by some and — what seems to many everyday Kiwis — to be creeping politically-motivated arrests, convictions and sentences.

The intimidation and the attacks appear to have backfired on whoever is pulling the strings, as many New Zealanders were so appalled by what happened to Liz and Jonathan that they have stepped in and given incredible support, sent messages, and have been alerted to more of their work on the FreeNZ website. They helped — silently, effectively and loyally. Even those in mainstream media were stunned, and showed support by questioning the severity and showing the footage of what happened at the airport. On 8 May, The Herald ran an article entitled, “The Persecution of Liz Gunn”, following it up by describing one of the court sessions on Liz as a “slow, stupid and unnecessary torture”. Perhaps they realized that if it could happen to two Kiwis calmly waiting to greet friends, it could happen to them. Many Kiwis have now lost all trust in the police and the judiciary and are wondering whether there is justice in this country anymore. It will take an enormous amount of work to make up for the damage done. It also makes it so much harder for all the good people who work in these areas.

Liz, and others like her in the freedom movement, peacefully stand up. They think for themselves and have the courage to speak out. They do this in different ways and that’s great. It’s the beauty of a free society and free speech. They have rolled up their sleeves and constantly given their time to bring the truth to the NZ public and deserve the support of all of us. Our joint push is to retain our freedom, retain the sovereignty of our country and hold our Bill of Rights sacrosanct; and for our country to be run by a government genuinely representing and serving us, not off-shore cabals. (That is, if we bother with a government at all.)

Liz and Jonathan’s work over the past four years or more has been motivated by love and compassion for their country and its people. One has to ask, what was the motivation of the police on that dark day that they were assaulted? Was it “following orders”? If they have family who asked what they did at work that day, would they have said they assaulted a couple of peaceful New Zealanders at the airport and fractured the wrist and tore the ligaments of a 63-year-old grandmother and threw a peaceful Kiwi to the floor smashing his camera gear and unlawfully arrested them? What is the lasting effect on their souls, and the souls of those perpetuating such injustice, or remaining acquiescent — whether in the police, the halls of justice, or parliament? For they will surely be judged on this and not least of all their strongest critic may well be themselves, for they will carry the knowledge of their harm with them forever, unless they take brave steps to make up the damage by sincerely trying to redress the wrongs.

New Zealanders, if you haven’t already, find your voice, support those who bravely speak out. Speak out if you observe or hear of incidents of violence from those who have sworn to defend and protect us from assaults and crimes — even if only to family and friends. Spread the word and encourage whoever you speak to, to do that as well. And keep your phone-camera handy. We can do this together. We are many.

As Gandhi said, “Tyranny never wins. It may seem so for a time, but ultimately it fails.”

In the end, it is truth that always prevails.

Always.

Editor’s Note: Part 1 of this article by Mary Hobbs ‘Liz and Jonathan: The Earlier Beginning…’ was published yesterday and can be found here.