The radome effectively destroyed by three men protesting at
the Waihopai listening base operated by the Government
Communications Security Bureau cost taxpayers $1 million to
replace, according to the bureau the day after the attack in
2008.
Presumably not all of this cost has, in fact, fallen on
taxpayers, since it must be assumed insurance has alleviated
some, if not all, of the loss. It has been reported that some
damage also occurred to the antenna while it was uncovered
for 15 months until a new cover could be fitted.
In short, there was an actual monetary cost to the actions of
the three men, members of Ploughshares, a London-based
disarmament movement which promotes its cause by attempting
to disable military equipment.
It is certainly arguable whether the secret Waihopai
Satellite Communications Station amounts to "military
equipment", since it has a broad role to intercept signals
intelligence as part of a protective alliance between New
Zealand, Australia, Canada, the United States and the United
Kingdom, activity that must be assumed to directly benefit
New Zealand's own security.
Its opponents have long believed the station intercepts
regional private and government telephone, data, internet and
television links carried on satellites operating in the East
Asian and South Pacific sphere and that it is a part of a
spying network operated by the United States and British
intelligence agencies.
The opponents, including the three protesters who damaged the
radome, consider the station complicit in wars, such as the
Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, and that this means New
Zealand has "blood on its hands".
On prosecution, the three men raised a legally dubious
"greater good" defence but the judge reportedly told the
accused they could not be defended by "necessity" and
"defence of others"; the accused then raised a so-called
"claim of right" that their actions, although nominally
criminal according to the law, were justified because they
sincerely believed they were saving people from a greater
evil, namely death by war.
This obliged the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
the men had only hoped their actions were legal, rather than
genuinely believing it, and a jury of their peers found them
not guilty on all charges in just two hours after an
eight-day trial - presumably the test of the validity of the
assertions had not been disproved beyond reasonable doubt.
The jury's decision nevertheless implies a considerable
degree of subjective sympathy for the defendants' cause.
Conscientious objection on religious or political
grounds has a long history in this country and the military
detention of objectors in wartime has been a contentious
public issue; rare in the post-war years until the end of the
National Service scheme in 1972, when pacifists turned to
active protest at New Zealand's engagement in the Vietnam
War.
A name, residential address, and (preferably residential) telephone number is required from readers who comment on ODT Online. These details will not be visible to site visitors.