In 1985 agents of the French secret service blew up the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior in Auckland Harbour, killing a photographer. A few days after the London bombings the BBC homepage featured an article entitled French expat recalls NZ bombings. The juxtaposition of these two terrorist acts is interesting—is someone with a political agenda trying to send a message to the French? More interesting, however, is a journalist's perception of how New Zealand responded and dealt with the French terrorists...
In the article Astier recalls a conversation with a French journalist after the bombing:
Despite tremendous public pressure, Prime Minister David Lange never interfered in the judicial process.
The agents were tried in an ordinary court by an ordinary judge on an ordinary charge—manslaughter, as prosecutors did not have enough evidence for a murder case.
"A terrorism trial would never happen like that in France," Pontaut told me admiringly.
"The government would have controlled the proceedings from A to Z," he said.
Jean-Marie Pontaut learned a lesson in New Zealand. He is not the only French journalist to have felt enlightened by a supremely civilised people.
I'm not so sure we New Zealanders are any more civilised than anyone else. The world was a different place in 1985, and the public may be less shocked, less righteous, and more vindictive today than they were then. What would happen if there was a terrorist attack in New Zealand today? A subsequent atrocity leads me to think the response may not be "civilised".
In 1990 I was a medical student in Dunedin at the time of the Aramoana massacre. Fourteen people including the perpetrator lost their lives. I am aware that the Intensive Care Unit at Dunedin Public Hospital received a call confirming that the gunman had been wounded but captured, and his injuries were detailed so ICU could prepare. Shortly after, however, ICU received a call from the scene saying the gunman would not be coming in: he had been shot dead. There may be other versions of events, and it may be understandable that high emotion could drive police to accede to the guman's death-wish (he was shouting "Kill me!"). If the police did kill a man already in their custody, they took "justice" into their own hands.
We're only human beings, and there is a limit as to how much we are prepared to tolerate. I don't think New Zealand was especially "civilised" in response the to Rainbow Warrior bombing—just inexperienced. If someone blew up a bus in Downtown, Aucklanders are just as likely to want to lynch the terrorist(s) as some Londoners or New Yorkers who are keen to exact revenge at any cost. Courts need not apply.
Let's think as a terrorist group. Is it relevant and significant to terrorise (bomb) NZ? What's the real message sent to the world?
I still confuse with any background or explanations behind the French and Kiwi conflict. Is it related to nuclear testing, or different ideology, or Euro-Anglo connection or provocation?