Talk:Ahmed Zaoui

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Last night I attended the launch, in the "Beehive", of a book about him (promoted by members of two parties in Parliament) and was persuaded to buy a copy. Seems fairly factual despite a spelling error in the first sentence. It quotes most of the decision of the Refugee Status Appeals Authority that gave him official refugee status in August 2003.

I have easy access to every issued New Zealand Court decision about him (in case anyone's interested); currently (ie this morning and probably much of the afternoon) I'm doing things to an "rtf" version of the 30 September 2004 judgment of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand (which I noted on the September 2004 page). Robin Patterson 21:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Picture wanted[edit]

Does anyone have a public domain or suitably licensed picture of Zaoui, with which we could illustrate the article? Drop me a note on my talk page if you have a picture but don't understand the process of uploading it to Wikipedia and linking it into the article.

Good job by the anon who included the Supreme Court decision in the article so quickly, by the way.-gadfium (talk) 04:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV and factual errors[edit]

Wow, this article REALLY needs a cleanup on both counts. As it stands, it might have well been written by Zaoui's lawyers. Just a few examples:

  • "Algeria sentenced him to death in absentia." -no cite, this was Zaoui's claim when in fact, the LEADERS of the FIS are alive in Algeria
    I've added a cite. Note that the Algerian referendum of September 2005 may have changed matters.
    Comment - the current situation does not change the fact he was sentenced to death in Algeria. No one's disputing that.
    As the article stated. The current situation however, offers an amnesty. Armon
    The amnesty does not offer any protection from the ongoing torture of disappearances of FIS members, information which you keep removing. Tell me to get back to work! 02:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a military coup d'etat occurred in Algeria, with French complicity" -no cite, conspiracy theory
    The best source I could find was a book in French (which I don't read). This isn't important to the Zaoui article, so I've removed it
    The claim has been made by a number of parties (see here [1] for one such example), but it is contentious, and I don't think it has a place in the article. Tell me to get back to work! 02:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "New Zealand Security Intelligence Service, which will not reveal its reasons" -they have
    Good point, although they didn't reveal their reasons for quite some time
    Comment - they've released a summary of allegations, and have not released any of the classified information. The only person outside the SIS who will see all the information is the Inspector General
    Which also means the RSAA didn't have all the facts. Armon
    You've contradicted yourself - either the SIS has revealed its reasons, or they haven't. As for the SIS, see below. Tell me to get back to work! 02:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He went to Europe, where he lobbied for a peaceful solution for Algeria. European governments were unsympathetic." -because the armed wing of his party terrorised Algeria
    There is considerable doubt that Zaoui was associated with that armed wing.
    Comment - the GIA is not generally considered the armed wing of the FIS.
    No but the GIA splintered out of the FIS after the election. The FIS' armed wing (and it does have an 'official' one) is the Islamic Salvation Army.Armon
  • "Immediately after the September 11, 2001 attacks, France convicted him in absentia for "associating with terrorists"" -implies 9/11 had something to do with his conviction when his case was already before the courts
    Fair enough, I've removed it.
  • "Following a declaration by the Refugee Status Appeals Authority in August 2003 that he was a genuine asylum seeker," -states that's what they found while ignoring the controversy surrounding the RSAA's declaring "unsafe" his convictions in democratic western countries.
    The decision by RSAA was a 215 page document. If we want to say more than those three words, then maybe we should quote their conclusion in full, which is:
    "The appellant has a well-founded fear of being prosecuted for a Convention reason if returned to Algeria."
    "The Authority finds that the appellant is a refugee within the meaning of Article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention. Refugee status is granted. The appeal is allowed."
    I think the three words sums that up adequately. I've linked to a PDF copy of the document.
    Comment - the RSAA does not exclude convictions from comparable countries lightly. The reasons are too long to reproduce in full here, but can be found in para's 867 and 868. That said, the protest from these countries about the affront to their courts certainly deserves its place here. Tell me to get back to work! 10:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This section needs to be fleshed out in any case. Outside of Zaoui's supporters, the RSAA's decision is astonishing. We also need to add in the French and Belgian reactions. The cites are already in the references. Armon
    Armon, if you haven't already, I would really recommend that you read the RSAA's decision before you disparage it. There's a link on this page... It comes to over 270 pages and is extremely well referenced, and its decision is considered and measured. Your characterisation of the decision as 'astonshing' speaks for itself. The RSAA acknowledges that the SIS would not give it the classified evidence it claims to hold (the SIS is still soliciting for evidence to use against Zaoui), but was highly critical of the very poor standard of unclassified evidence offered against Mr Zaoui. I don't actually hold an opinion on the guilt or innocence of Zaoui, but I _am_ highly critical of the process so far, because of the violations of fair trial principles.
  • a general lack of any skepticism or links critical of Zaoui and his supporters' claims
    Please add some. I went look for them. The best I found were a number of sections of David Farrar's blog (http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz), but they're scattered over several years worth of moderately prolific blogging. He gave a couple of links he thought summed up the case rather well: [2], but on examining the links, one comes from the Green Party, and the other is from a blog called NoRightTurn, so I didn't think those links would satisfy you.
    Comment - one thing to be careful of is lumping all those concerned for the welfare of Mr Zaoui into one group. While groups like Amnesty International have serious concerns about the nature of the process, and human rights abuses, they don't assert his innocence or guilt of criminal acts.
    See Amnesty_international#Criticism_and_response. When I was a member, AI only supported non-violent prisoners of conscience. If they've slipped into advocating on behalf of people who may be guilty of violence themselves, the criticisms are warranted, and central to a case of a possible terrorist being granted refugee status in NZ. Armon
    Did you even read what I wrote? Let me state it again in clear and simple language. Amnesty explicitly does not consider Zaoui a prisoner of conscience, and takes no position on whether he has engaged in violent or terrorist activity. Amnesty's sole concern is for the rights of Mr Zaoui. Tell me to get back to work! 02:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered your points above with my comments indented to your bullet points, and I'v made changes to the article in response. Please feel free to edit the article directly, but please cite your sources for any claims made.-gadfium 22:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some comments that I think are relevant. I don't subscribe to a position on whether Mr Zaoui is guilty of the claims against him, but I am disturbed at the large amount of mis-information and confusion surrounding his actions and circumstances. Tell me to get back to work! 10:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but you haven't actually pointed to any mis-information and confusion in this article, just slapped the NPOV tag back on. Your biggest beef seems to be too much information re: the SIS summary. Armon 12:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That the majority of the article consists of the position of one of the two main actors in this dispute (the other being Zaoui and his counsel) means that it certainly isnt NPOV Tell me to get back to work! 02:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SIS Summary[edit]

I am concerned at the inclusion of the full SIS summary in the article. Firstly, this summary now takes up the bulk of the article, which unbalances it.

  • That's a fair point but it's only temporary. As I said in my edit notes I'm "chipping away at it" -the article will be much longer in the end and will include a "cause celebre" section which will present his supporters critiques of the case against him.

Secondly, assuming we have the right to republish it, it is a source document, and should go in WikiSources.

  • Maybe it should go in both places? If the government has released a document publicly don't WE have the right to publish it? (That's not a rhetorical question)

Wikipedia is not a suitable place for very lengthy quotes, and certainly not a place for the complete text of documents. I would prefer to see a summary of this document, and some of the information in it moved to the main part of the article detailing Zaoui's life before arriving in New Zealand.-gadfium 18:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see your point here too, but I think it succinctly describes the issues surrounding Zaoui and the case against him as well as the reasons for the lengthy legal battles surrounding his case. It's a bit long but, ironically, already a summary, and I think anyone coming here to find out about his case needs that information as a starting point.
  • This brings up a question though -should I not "chip away" at the article but rather submit a full re-write at once? Cheers, Armon 11:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think "chipping away" is a good way to approach it. I don't know what the copyright status of the SIS summary is. There are a number of copies freely available on the web but that means very little. The problem with using the SIS summary as an account of Zaoui's life is that it shouldn't be edited by anyone. If we take the exact same information, but put it in our own words and put it in the "Background" section of the article, with links to the original document, then others can expand on it. As it is, we have much of the same information in both sections. I have no objection to quoting individual paragraphs of the SIS summary, as appropriate.-gadfium 18:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV and Disputed Tag[edit]

Hi, I put those tags on the article and plan to remove the Disputed tag once I think all the factual errors are gone. I don't however feel I should remove the POV tag until I get at least a second opinion once I think it's neutral -is that the right way to do it? Armon 11:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine to me. I've posted on the New Zealand Wikipedians' noticeboard suggesting that more people getting involved with this article would be a good idea. There are other places to ask for outside comment, but that seemed like the place most likely to get people who had some familiarity with Zaoui.-gadfium 18:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time to remove the POV tag. Any vigorous objections?-gadfium 01:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I stuck it on in the first place but I admit I haven't done as much on this article as I should have. I don't have a problem with that so I'll take it off. BTW I removed the AI "position" that you restored because it's uncited and may be problematic in terms of NPOV. Armon 12:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm putting the tag back on because the SIS summary of allegations is still far to large in relation to the rest of the mans life, and any contrary assertions. It hasn't been chipped away at, which was the rationale for keeping it there. If it doesn;t change within a few weeks I'll remove it and replace it with a smaller section. Tell me to get back to work! 10:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point about me not continuing to chip away at the article, but the SIS summary doesnt need it -it's already a summary. His case in NZ is the reason he's notable and therefore even in WP. As for you edits tonight, some are good, some aren't, but none of them cite sources so you'll need to put them in. Please keep in mind though, that claims by Zaoui himself, or via his lawyers, don't meet WP:RS. This is why the reference to his supposed torture scars is coming out now. Armon 11:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to the scars on his arm being caused by the 1986 torture is accepted as true by a court of NZ, after verification from an independent medical expert. As far as I know no-one has contested this except you. Your apparent refusal to accept anything published in the RSAA appeal is getting ridiculous (ie, you've reverted every edit I've made that used the RSAA as a source) Tell me to get back to work! 23:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amnesty in Algeria[edit]

While I didn't add the Amnesty position in the first place, I think something is necessary to balance that paragraph. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe that Zaoui can't go home anytime he wants now that there is an amnesty. Clearly, it isn't as simple as that. The cite for the AI position isn't hard to find: crtiticism of amnesty, continued torture. On the other hand, maybe we should be producing a paragraph or section in History of Algeria about the amnesty and its critics, which this article can then link to.-gadfium 19:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there is an amnesty, (Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation) and that the chief criticism of it is that it has allowed both Islamist and government murderers to get away with their crimes, and also keeping in mind that the FIS leadership (ie Ali Belhadj and Abbassi Madani) is free in Algeria -there really isn't any need to balance the article with a non-credible threat against Zaoui. It's simply his supporters' rhetoric. 14:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've linked to the Charter article from that para, so those who want to get the full story on the amnesty can do so.-gadfium 19:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should have done that myself ;) Armon 09:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the amnesty is to be included, the existence of continued torture and abuse needs to remain. Otherwise this article is giving the false impression that there is nothing preventing his return. The bias in the article is already strong enough. Tell me to get back to work! 05:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would favour the paragraph on the amnesty being rewritten to explain that although there is now an amnesty, and Zaoui is therefore presumably no longer under a death sentence, there are good reasons why he cannot be expected to return to Algeria. I don't know exactly what those reasons might be. The paragraph has to be about Zaoui, not about the amnesty.-gadfium 08:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this needs a bit more research. I'm assuming that Zaoui has has given his reasons why the amnesty is unacceptable. There should be a source for this somewhere. Armon 00:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a proper cite for this?[edit]

I suggest that we copy text here which need citation. Armon 00:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mr Zaoui decided to leave Malaysia shortly after it was visited by the head of the Algerian police services, on what was claimed as an investigation of Malaysian policing methods.
    Claimed by who? Is there a cite for this? Armon

Have added reference to RSAA decision. The actual text of the decision reads:

[435] The following year, during the appellant’s time in Malaysia, the head of

National Security in Algeria, Ali Tounsi, visited the country ostensibly to observe Malaysian police practices. The appellant remains highly sceptical of such an explanation, pondering what the Algerian police might learn from the Malaysian police that they do not know already. He believes instead that this official visited Malaysia at least in part to liaise with the Malaysian authorities about his presence there. His fears were reinforced by information passed to him by a friend to the effect that the authorities were planning to detain him. This caused the appellant to make plans and

ultimately to depart from Malaysia.

Senor Pluma 00:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but it will need a rewrite. The claim of an Algerian/Malaysian conspiracy needs to be attributed to Zaoui rather than presented as though it's a fact. <<-armon->> 00:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith[edit]

Armon has been reverting discussions made by myself (including as IP 210... and 131... sorry, I didn't always log in.) without discussing his reasons on talk. This is getting frustrating. I'm busy, and will do a thorough rewrite of the page later in the year, and at the moment I've only got time to add small snippets. Armon, you seem dedicated to removing information that does not fit a particular view of the case unless it is immaculately referenced. Stop it. Tell me to get back to work! 01:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check out Carbonite's law. -I think you mean edits, not discussions. I've responded to all of your points on this page. Please log in when you edit, and please cite the page of a novel-length document. As for removing improperly cite material, if want your edits to stand [3] -cite the page so everyone can see what you're referring to. The fact that you are busy (as is everyone) is not an excuse. Armon 00:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I'm using paragraph numbers is because there are two versions of the document - printed and online, and the page numbers don't correspond. This way anyone can find the information, and more accurately and faster too. I can't always log in to edit (wikipedia is often extremely slow to load on my connection (up to 10 minutes per page); despite having broadband, meaning logging in can take another 20 minutes). As for your reversions, they were removing factual information from the article without discussion, often replacing it with incomplete or incorrect material, implicitly assuming that my contributions couldn't (or shouldn't) stay. Tell me to get back to work! 03:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Make that are removing uncontested, referenced factual material and replacing it with incomplete or incorrect information. By rv'ing as soon as I say anything, you're making out that I'm making shit up. You're reverting way to much, way to quickly. Tell me to get back to work! 09:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death sentence in Algeria[edit]

Cleaned up an egregious bit of misinformation just now -the claim that Zaoui in under a death sentence in Algeria. This is wrong. His convictions there carried (pre-amnesty) life imprisonment. Armon 01:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, wrong again. He was sentenced to death at his 1993 trial, and then to life imprisonment in 96 and 97, which is where some of the confusion arises. (RSAA para 468). We should also note the serious contravention of the norms of justice (ie these were kangaroo courts) (RSAA paras 466-502) and that no serious legal system in the world would consider these convictions safe. Tell me to get back to work! 02:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph you refer to states:

[468] Convictions and sentences were routinely entered in absentia, including the majority of those sentenced to death. This is illustrated by the rather stark figures that exist for the relevant time: between February 1993 and June 1994, 10, 194 people were tried by three Special Courts. Of these, 1127 were sentenced to death (964 in absentia, including the appellant) and 6507 to terms of imprisonment (including life). 2500 were acquitted. Before executions were suspended by moratorium at the end of 1993, 26 people had been executed.

It not about Zaoui -it's about cases that may be similar to his. The RSAA's inquiry to Interpol produced the two convictions as stated in the text I will restore. As for quoting the paragraphs of the RSAA document -good idea, but you might want to make sure it says what you think it does. Armon 05:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry, but I have a printed copy right in front of me and it states

[468] On 1 August 1993, the appellant was convicted of a number of offences, including attacks on state security, criminal association and bearing arms (being offences under the Penal Code and Articles 3, 4 and 7 of Legislative decree 92-03). He was sentenced to death by the Special Courts operating in Algeria at that time

. The corresponding text is at para 458 of the pdf version (I did not expect that there was a difference between the two). I'll check the refs and cite the appropriate pdf paragraphs, since thats what we're linking to. I'm rv'ing your rv as a result though. Tell me to get back to work! 08:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the pertinent paragraphs are (sorry this will be long):

[365] On 14 March 2003, the Authority wrote to the chief executive, invoking his further assistance under section 129P(4) of the Act. Inter alia, we sought:
a) all Interpol and Police communications regarding the appellant since his arrival in New Zealand; and
b) all information about the appellant held by the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (the SIS).

[366] The material received from Interpol and the Police was reports regarding the appellant's travel and use of a false South African passport and information from Interpol Algeria, setting out warrants against him, issued by the Algerian authorities, namely:
a) Warrant 727/01-p and 160/01-INS, issued on 10 November 2001, for "belonging to and setting up a terrorist group abroad";
b) Criminal conviction No 89.96, dated 26 May 1996, for "establishing a terrorist organisation to destabilise state institutions and terrorise the population";
c) A sentence of life imprisonment, No 173.1997, dated 2 February 1997, for "plotting against the state, criminal conspiracy, inciting armed rebellion and assassinations and destruction of property";
d) A sentence of life imprisonment, No 263/96, dated 12 December 1996, for "acts of aggression to destabilise state institutions and inciting armed rebellion to carry out assassination and destroy property".

[367] The information received from the SIS was:
a) A report by the Belgian Security Service to the SIS, recording the appellant's conviction in that country;
b) A report by the Swiss Security Service (the SAP) to the SIS, recording the appellant's time in that country;
c) An SIS-compiled chronology of the appellant's background;
d) SIS-compiled reports on the both the GIA and the FIS.

[368] On 8 April 2003, the Authority wrote again to the chief executive, under section 129P(4) of the Act. Inter alia, the Authority sought:
a) Copies of all communications between Interpol Wellington and Interpol Algeria regarding the appellant;
b) Confirmation that the only outstanding warrants against the appellant are those issued by the Algerian authorities.

[369] On 9 April, the New Zealand Police confirmed that the appellant is the subject only of the four arrest warrants, all issued by the Algerian authorities, as above and that he is not wanted by any other jurisdiction.

See also:

[416] That the appellant has been convicted in Algeria of a number of offences is without doubt. What is less clear is the nature of the charges and, in particular, the penalties imposed.

[417] It is the appellant’s evidence, corroborated by independent material, that he has twice been sentenced to death – at the beginning of August 1993 and in November 1997.

The RSAA's belief in his death sentences consisted entirely of Zaoui's testimony:

[123] Not long after his return, the appellant learned through friends that, on 27 July 1993, he was convicted in absentia by the Algerian courts of, inter alia, carrying arms, attacking national security and forming armed groups and was sentenced to death. He had been unaware of the charges. In view of the convictions, which he knew were specious, he realised that it would be dangerous for him to remain and he returned to Morocco on 1 August 1993, travelling on the Zenati passport.

...for the 1993 sentence, and...

[235] On 25 November 1997, Arabic News reported that the appellant (and 19 others, including Anwar Haddam) had been sentenced in absentia to death for "belonging to armed groups and for weapons trafficking". The date of those convictions is uncertain but was, presumably, shortly before the Arabic News article.

...for the 1997 one. The RSAA took the view that Zaoui's claims were credible despite the evidence to the contrary. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, you're not entitled your own facts. The "death sentence" issue is a only a (possibly self-serving) claim from Zaoui, and the RSAA's opinion, is only that, opinion. Other democratic governments have been far more skeptical of Zaoui, as have other branches of the NZ government.

Mostlyharmless, please re-read WP:NPOV in order to understand why I am reverting your edits. It is not acceptable to write the article from the RSAA's POV and present opinions as facts.

BTW, the paragraph numbers are from the PDF. Is there any reason to believe that it's non-canonical if it's different from your printed version? If so, we need a better reference. Armon 13:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO! You don't get it. The information received against Mr Zaoui refers to outstanding warrants.

[417] It is the appellant’s evidence, corroborated by independent material, that he has twice been sentenced to death – at the beginning of August 1993 and in November 1997.

Emphasis added.

[419] The communiqué from Interpol Algeria to Interpol Wellington refers to the

imposition of two sentences of life imprisonment but it is clearly not a complete record of the penalties recorded against the appellant. (We doubt, for example, that he escaped punishment on the May 1996 conviction.) Further, it is reasonable to rely on the information provided to the appellant while he was in Burkina Faso that there were six life sentences. Accordingly we find that the appellant has been convicted of a number of serious terrorist-related offences and sentenced to life imprisonment on six occasions, and on two occasions to death. All convictions were entered in absentia following trials before either the Special Court or the Military Tribunal.

I'm quoting facts. You're removing them because they don't fit your POV - again I refer readers of this page to your criticism of the RSAA decision as 'astonishing'. 

I'm taking this to an RfC. Tell me to get back to work! 21:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe not an RfC just yet, but I am going to find others to comment on your behaviour (and the dispute over facts on this page). I'm very close to leaving this project for a significant period of time because on WP, it's not who's right that succeeds, its the most persistant. And I don't have the time to be more persistant than you. Notice how your edits on Algerian Civil War haven't been reverted? That's not because your changes are correct, it's simply because no-one, and particularly User:Mustafa, who actually knows his shit, can be bothered edit warring with you. I'd like to refer users to [[4]] for just one example of Armons disruptive and aggressive refusal to properly discuss controversial edits. Tell me to get back to work!

(Very much informal) request for arbitration[edit]

User:Mostlyharmless has left a message on my talk page asking me to mediate a dispute on this page (or give a third opinion, it's not entirely clear). The claim is that User:Mostlyharmless and User:Armon are in a content dispute of inclusion of certain sources. From looking at the history, it looks to me that there is a slow revert war going on, so I certainly see that there is some sort of dispute in the air. Now, at this point nothing has been put even on the Mediation Cabal page, so it's even less formal than "completely informal", but I'm willing to lend a hand to get this straightened out. Here's the question: do the two users in question think it's a good idea for me to try and mediate this dispute? --- Deville (Talk) 23:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I didn't follow the correct procedure, I haven't done this before! I'm in support of an impartial commentator looking at the dispute, and if you'd like to play that role, that would be cool.(perhaps it should go to the mediation cabal then?) Tell me to get back to work! 23:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's totally not a problem at all. The MedCabal is already extremely informal so it doesn't really matter much. I'll just wait until we hear back from Armon and then I'll jump into it. --- Deville (Talk) 00:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I've got no problem with that -though I view this as a content/POV dispute. The irrelevancies of any other arguments I may have had, plus his obvious following me here from another page, [5] suggests to me that Mostlyharmless is beginning to meet the definition of a wikistalker. Armon 01:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I reject those allegations entirely. I came to this article, and then went to Algerian Civil War for more information (being both an FA and something I'd used earlier in the year for research). When I was there I tried editing, as there were significant POV and reliable source issues with some of the information you were contributing. I was reverted without talk after trying to change things, behaviour you're repeating here. In my opinion the debate there remains unresolved, but after realising I didn't have the tenacity to stick it out over you, I gave up. Then I came back here, and haven't touched any of the pages you've edited. I research thoroughly, which is why I looked at your contributions (the contributions link is there for a reason!). This is about content. But it's also about your constant reversions. 210.86.85.138 02:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you went trolling for "ammo" against me -rather than looking up the proper citations you were "too busy" to provide. Also, given the expansion of this talk page since you've arrived, your repeated claim of "I was reverted without talk" is more than slightly dubious- spare me. Armon 03:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've just called me a stalker and a troll. Since I realised that you require a much higher standard of proof than any other article I've edited for anything you don't like to stay, I've referenced to as high a standard as possible. But you're right - I have 45,000 words of uni to write in the next 6 weeks, and there is no way I should be here. I would appreciate comment from Deville as to what course of action to take. Perhaps something more formal would help Tell me to get back to work! 03:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clear reason why RSAA's opinions are not to be presented as fact[edit]

They are disputed:

European lawyers deny Zaoui 'flaws'
23.04.2004
By CATHERINE FIELD
PARIS - France and Belgium, and defence lawyers in those countries, have bluntly rejected allegations made by the Refugee Status Appeals Authority that convictions handed down by their courts against Ahmed Zaoui were flawed.
Those allegations lie at the foundation of the RSAA's decision to classify Zaoui as a man fleeing persecution and thus deserving of refugee status in New Zealand. continued

From the same article:

The note from the French Foreign Ministry followed a request for information regarding Zaoui's trial and conviction in 2001. A French diplomatic source noted that the request for information had come from the New Zealand Government after the RSAA ruling had been handed down - and not while the case unfolded.
In that light, France viewed the Zaoui affair as a turf battle, the source implied.

-emphasis mine. Armon 02:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to quote sections that are UNCONTROVERSIAL, and NOT OPINIONS, without any comment at all on the convictions in the French and Belgian courts, and the SIS security risk certificate. A large portion of the judgement falls into this category and this is what I've quoted from. I could have gone much further than I have.I could also have quoted from the many sources that go futher still - had I tried to present the position of Mr Zaoui and his counsel, which is still absent, is unlikely to be presented while you are editing this article (and don't you dare accuse me of being a supporter of him! I most certainly am not!) But you seem determined to reject anything the RSAA says as counterfactual. And that disturbs me. But thank you for not reverting me immediately. 210.86.85.138 03:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, there are some facts of the case in the document which are usable without qualification, but not the RSAA's opinions (i.e. their judgement) of them. Armon 04:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To Deville - the RSAA is an investigative body that is widely regarded as one of the most comprehensive refugee bodies in the world. It is not a soft touch, and rejects around 80% of applications. Until the Zaoui case the NZ Government spoke very highly of it. 210.86.85.138 03:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Armon, your emphasis would seem to an uniformed observer to be meaningful. However,the fact that they contacted the French Government after the RSAA judgement is actually irrelevant, as the SIS is entitled to gather information on Mr Zaoui until the end of the SRC process, as they are indeed doing. Tell me to get back to work! 03:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the RSAA presumed to pass judgement on the French case, and they did, finding it "unsafe", then it's highly relevant to note that they hadn't bothered to contact the French authorities themselves. Given his convictions and failed refugee and human-rights claims in 3 different western countries, one would have assumed they would have contacted those governments to begin with.
As for how "tough" NZ is on refugees, Zaoui gave his reasons for showing up here as follows:
[284] The appellant went into hiding. He discussed his situation with X who counselled against going to Australia, where he would be held in detention and recommended that he come to New Zealand. The appellant had read of the New Zealand Prime Minister's humanitarian response to the Tampa crisis and felt encouraged to approach the New Zealand authorities. [6]
Turns out he was wrong about being detained...but he did become a cause célèbre, and after years of legal wrangling costing millions of dollars, he's still here. Armon 03:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who needs the truth, or context, or even just reading sources carefully and in their entireity?[edit]

I'm sick of this. Armon miscontrues the truth once again. He's just gone on a POV rant which shows how it's not about getting the most accurate article, but disliking a refugee who has publicity. The opinion of Mr Zaoui about whether NZ was a safe country for asylum doesn't prove anything, so I'm not sure what your point is. The vast majority of the $1.4 million cost so far is the Crown's spending on appeals and the SRC. The reason the legal battles of Zaoui are not over is because of continued delays from the crown. The latest delay to the review of the risk certificate was not due to any fault of Zaoui or his lawyers, rather, the SIS asked for more time so they could try and find more evidence and put together a case, three and a half years after issuing the risk certificate. Incompetent, or just lacking in evidence required to pass by a retired high court judge? I don't want to know.

I'll come straight out and say it - I'm far better informed about Ahmed Zaoui than you are. I've spent much of the last two months researching this case, and have read thousands of pages and dozens of documents, written by all sides. You only ever take things out of context, ignoring the smear campaign launched against Zaoui and the FIS. He might well be guilty of serious criminal acts. But the RSAA was right to disregard the European trials as unsafe. Irrespective of the guilt of Zaoui, the trials were based on hearsay, confusion, unreliable sources, and hyperbole. Much of the evidence they accepted was just plain wrong.

Given the way you're treating anything I put in this article, I have no confidence that waiting this out or going through processes will have any effect. I really don't think that any editors of this encyclopedia have the competence to assess the respective claims of truth of the evidence we're presenting without doing extensive research themselves. Those who can reliably comment on parts, like User:Mustafa, you're just going to reject out of hand.

So, with that, I'm leaving.

Wikipedia, the encyclopedia where truth doesn't matter. 

Tell me to get back to work! 06:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SIS summary, again[edit]

I asked before that the SIS summary not appear in full here, because it's a source document. Source documents do not belong in encyclopedia articles. It also still is unbalancing the article. Please remove it, or I will do so myself. I first asked this in February, and desisted because the article was a work in progress. I think six months is plenty of time.-gadfium 05:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK I don't actually know how to put it in wikisource -can you do it? Armon 12:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's not appropriate to include the full summary here. It probably can't go on wikisource either, though, since all content there has to be under a free license.[7] -- Avenue 13:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling is that it doesn't have to go on Wikisource, since we can link to it elsewhere on the web. However, although I have no experience with Wikisource either, I'll figure out how to add this document if someone can show me that it was released under a suitable licence.
In the meantime, I have removed the summary from the article in favour of a link to it, and also linked to Zaoui's lawyers' response to it.-gadfium 20:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


NEUTRALITY?!!! I've never done this before and might be doing it all wrong, but as someone who relies on Wikipedia for information I must protest at the way this article stands. It is currently clearly making a political point, and that cannot be right in terms of neutrality. To imply at the end that Zaoui could simply go back to Algeria and all would be forgiven is just silly. No-one takes this seriously on either side of the debate - and even if one side did take it seriously, surely Wikipedia should NOT be taking sides? Both sides of the argument should be presented equally, and the conclusion or final paragraph should be neutral. Is no-one going to take responsibility for this article? (GoggleDog 01:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The situation is Algeria is germane. The civil war is more-or-less over, and the amnesty is a fact - it's therefore not a political point unless the facts are. OTOH I assume that Zaoui must have given his reasons why the amnesty is not acceptable to him. Please give us the sources which state his case. <<-armon->> 01:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes[edit]

The recent changes are all pretty good. In the spirit of renewed cooperation, I hope that we can edit without conflicts :) I've just clarified that refugee status was granted in 2003, but the Security Risk Certificate meant that the NZ Govt had an appeal (so to speak) against letting Zaoui stay in the country (while still accepting his refugee status, which the NZ Govt did not contest) based on security grounds. Mostlyharmless 06:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if there is reason to keep the allegations made against Zaoui by Helen Clark in the article - they were indicative of the New Zealand Government's position towards Zaoui at the time, and as such are useful for the reader who might not know the context of the way the case was being handled by the Govt and media. Mostlyharmless 12:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tracked down what you referred to in an old version:

In September 2004, Prime Minister Helen Clark's office stated that Zaoui had links to al Qaeda, but Clark later withdrew the claim, saying that her "office had probably gone too far in making the link" PM can't back up al Qaeda claim, Ruth Berry and Catherine Masters, New Zealand Herald, 21.09.2004.

In my opinion these references are absolutely the most important things to keep because they fall down the memory hole very easily. The initial allegation will have left a cloud over the case which no timid retraction or failure to restate ever wipes away. This is how smear campaigns achieve the desired results even on the basis of no evidence. It's crucial that people are able to pin down the precise source of the allegations so they can identify where the mysterious imprint on their memory came from, as well as to prove that some smearing happened. So it's disappointing that people have chosen to delete this reference in the interest of tidiness, because this is the only place it is ever likely to be recorded. I would strongly urge people to put it back in somewhere as a side comment before it gets completely lost.Goatchurch 12:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the quote in, but contextualised with the stances of other political actors who took prominent stands on the issue. Mostlyharmless 01:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Ahmed Zaoui. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ahmed_Zaoui&oldid=1200588002"