Duncan “Vyshinsky” Garner’s laughable attempt to intimidate Golriz Ghahraman

Duncan “Vyshinsky” Garner’s laughable attempt to intimidate Golriz Ghahraman
FULL TRANSCRIPT

three a.m. show, Thursday 29 November 2017,

Duncan Garner tries to be harsh and cold and aggressive, but he doesn’t really have his heart in it. Someone obviously wrote his questions for him, and told him to “get” Golriz, but it’s clear that he early on recognizes Golriz is far brighter than him, as well as holding the moral high ground over him. This clip finishes a bit early, unfortunately, and doesn’t include the very interesting back and forth between Garner, Mark Richardson and Amanda Gillies, immediately after this travesty. All of them acknowledged that Golriz had done nothing wrong, and Amanda Gillies did not hide her distaste for what Garner had been instructed to do…..

DUNCAN GARNER: Green M.P. Golriz Ghahraman has come under criticism for failing to mention her work defending a war criminal convicting of inciting genocide IN RWANDA. Around eight hundred thousand TUTSI are estimated to have been killed during the nineteen ninety-FOUR ethnic cleansing, uh, by the Hutu EXTREMISTS. Ghahraman was involved in the deFENCE, and she joins me now, Golriz good to have you on the program, really apPRECiate it. Why didn’t you just tell us? Why hasn’t this been OUT there before?

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: I did. It was out there. There’s been a number of journalists that have come forward, Kirsty Johnston from the Herald, Vice New Zealand’s released a transcript, I did a number of interviews before the election where I talked about this. I went around, um, various law schools, I’ve talked about this in the past. My C.V. was online and completely open. Um, so it’s not a problem for me at all, it’s not a problem for any lawyer, and the U.N. is certainly really proud that we now have these trials where there is a defense and a prosecution. It’s about returning communities to a rule of law model, to a human rights model.

GARNER: Okaaaayyy. Okay.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: So it is actually about stopping the cycle of violence. Having the defense ensures that, so either side can’t say, you know, it was victor’s justice, you just came in and arrested our people. Um, so it’s something that I’m really proud of, and I’ve put it out there, there’s been a number of articles, um, it wouldn’t have occurred to me to hide it—

GARNER: [brusquely] I put it to you that you HAVEN’T, actuallyyyy. I put it to you that the GREEN Party, you see the GREEN Party WEBSITE said, uh, “Golriz worked in Africa, The Hague, and Cambodia, putting on trial world leaders for abusing their power.” It DOESN’T SAY that you DEFENDED these war criminals.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: So in the context of all of these articles that I’ve done and all of these talks that I’ve given, and making my C.V. public well before the election, there’s just this ONE line that people have gotten a hold of and—-

GARNER: [interrupting] Quite CRUCIAL, it’s quite CRUCIAL, Golriz.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Well, I would, I mean I would suggest if the Green Party was trying to hide this, someone would have brought me up and said you’ve got to stop doing Herald interviews about this work, it would’ve been a no-brainer, um, for someone from the party to pull me up and say, Stop, stop doing these interviews about it, um, and it di–, it hadn’t occurred to me, I mean the reason it’s come up NOW is because, again, there was a Herald article where they said to me, What’s a defining era in your life? And I said, well actually this was the difficult, you know, this was the thing that was really life-changing for me is when I first went in to the U.N. system, um, it was working for the defense and, what do, you know it really made me think about—

GARNER: [interrupting] Weeeell, I, I READ some of the articles.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: —-and that—

GARNER: And I’ve READ some of these articles, Golriz, and—

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: It was me that brought it up, I mean it wouldn’t have occurred to me to hide it.

GARNER: Yyeeah. But it HAS been hidden by the GREEN Party. Why was, so let’s, okay, so the media might have SAID it, but what about your own Green Party, it wasn’t on your website and you’ve since CHANGED that of course which is the right thing to do.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Oh of course I asked them to change it immediately. I had, ha–, I hadn’t even, er, looked at that, I don’t think, but I mean—
GARNER: Well hang on, hang on, lemme test that, lemme TEST that. You say you hadn’t looked at it, you DON’T THINK. Did you know that it said it, or it didn’t say it?

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: I, to be honest, would have skimmed it at some point, but I would’ve gone Yep, it’s got the places I worked, moving on. I mean, those trials are ABOUT the defense being there as well. Otherwise we wouldn’t have trials, we’d take people out the back. You know, it’s, as a law student, I was inspired essentially by the Nuremberg Trials, you know, when we went, okay, you’re not above the law, genocide IS a crime, but we’re not gonna sink to your level, we’re not gonna be tyrants, we’re gonna have these open, transparent, fair trials—

GARNER: [interrupting] So the GUARDIAN—

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: It’s so INSPIRING as a lawyer—

GARNER: Hmmm.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: You know, I wouldn’t have, there’s NO WAY I would have hidden something like that, that’s why I was doing the articles about it.

GARNER: Did you complain to the Guardian, ‘cos the Guardian, ahh, three weeks ago, doing a tri–, a piece on you, a really good piece on you too, said that you “represented the U.N. in tribunals, prosecuting some of the world’s worst war criminals, including perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide.” They said that you PROSECUTED THE RWANDAN GENOCIDE!

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Yeah I understand our comms team has written to the Guardian. I understand they have written to the Guardian. I mean, yeah, that’s blatantly not what I’ve ever said in interviews. And I mean, the Vice article was all about the defense work, um, Kirsty Johnston’s came forward and said that the latest Herald piece was all about the defense work, and that’s ‘cos I wanted to talk about it. I think it’s an important conversation actually, um, and it IS about the human rights framework—

GARNER: [interrupting] Do you acCEPT—

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: It’s not about denying genocide. That’s what I find offensive. Because we’re all there, the United Nations is there because we want to say genocide is a crime, but we will have a process, we’re not going to have cycles of violence, um, continuing. So that’s the part of it that’s really offensive to me.

GARNER: Okay. And some people might be offended at, in your maiden SPEECH, in parliament, in recent weeks, you talk about your WORK, and this is in your own words, you no doubt wrote your own speech, you talk about this criminal justice system internationally on the front li-i-i-ine, where you went out the-e-ere, y’know, you fought hard for what you di-i-id, and you worked in Africa, worked alongside these genocide trials, and you saw it at the Rwanda tribunal, you saw it at the Hague, and when you PROSECUTED the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, you “held politicians and armies to account for breaching their powers, giving voice to women, and minorities.” You don’t ONCE [brandishing his notes accusingly] describe it in your OWN words, in your OWN maiden SPEECH in parliament that you were DEFENDING some of these people!

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: That IS putting people on trial. I mean, everyone in that trial is putting those people on trial. It’s not the prosecutors putting them on trial—

GARNER: [interrupting] But you don’t say you were deFENDing them, Golriz. You’re happy to talk about PROSECUTING.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: My maiden speech is all about being a DEFENCE lawyer. I raised the fact that I defended a child MURDERER at the Auckland High Court. It’s— my maiden speech talks about human rights in terms of defense work. I mean, to isolate a line out of it, is just, it’s just wrong. And I mean you have to—

GARNER: [interrupting] See I think you’re MINIMIZING it.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: You have to take it in the context that for the entire year of the election I was doing these interviews about both the defense and the prosecution work that I’ve done. So to me it’s VERY public, and it SHOULD be very public, we should be really proud of adv—-

GARNER: [interrupting] So why didn’t you sa-a-a-a-yyy…..

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: —of advocating for a justice system that has both.

GARNER: Why didn’t you saaaay, why didn’t you SAY in your maiden SPEECH that you learned a lot—

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: But why did I make all these Herald articles about the defense work?

GARNER: Can I just finish the question?

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: I mean—

GARNER: I, I’ll just finish the question if I CAN, Golriz, because I’ve let you finish, I, if I could just please finish this question.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Go for it.

GARNER: Why didn’t you in your maiden speech say that you defended some of the world’s most evil men? Like the BUTCHER of Bosnia.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: No, I never had anything to do with that trial. That’s patently wrong. That’s the Mladić trial you’re talking about and I’ve never had anything to do with the Mladić trial at all.

GARNER: You didn’t do any pre, pre-TRIAL work?

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: That was on the Karadžić trial, so that’s a completely different defendant.

GARNER: But the same sort of THING, though, isn’t it!

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: What happened in the Karadžić trial, I can explain that, is that that defendant was self-represented, and in the pre-trial stage the court needs lawyers to actually make the legal arguments when you’re coming up to, you know, defining the crimes and defining, um, the, essentially the spectrum of the trial. Um, and so there are lawyers that work on that, it’s to assist the trial, because actually the prosecution has lawyers, and a self-represented defendant doesn’t, so you can’t have a fair trial without those legal points being hashed out properly. That’s what I did for about five or six months, before I went to prosecutio—

GARNER: [interrupting> Right so obviously he was an EVIL man, okay, a convicted war criminal. Did you morally STRUGGLE with any of this?

…[Here there are a couple of seconds of silence as she tries to deal civilly with the imbecility and insolence of that question]…

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: I don’t want us to resort back to, we take people out back and shoot them. These are, this is what these trials are about, and like I say, from Nuremberg onwards we’ve said, No, we have the moral authority. You ARE criminals, I don’t care if you’re the head of the army, I don’t care if you’re the president of a country, but we’re not gonna resort to what YOU resorted to, we’re gonna put you into a fair process, this community gets to see exactly who’s responsible, we’re not denying that genocide happened, but we wanna know exactly who did what, we want it to be transparent, we want the evidence to be tested and the historical record to be set right. Every lawyer in that system is proud to be involved in that, as was I, and as was I of my prosecution work. Is it difficult work? Totally. It’s REALLY hard to act on the defense in those trials but you’ve got to be really, really committed to that human rights-based process.

GARNER: Mmmkay. Ah, d-, have you EVER deFENDED anyone in New Zealand, say a Rwandan refugee who’s linked to that brutal reGIME?

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Ah, I’ve defended a Rwandan refugee that’s been accused of being linked to, not the regime per se, but yeah that’s something I’ve spoken to on radio before as well. It was around the confidentiality measures of the refugee process in New Zealand that we were challenging.

GARNER: Hmmm. And he was—

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: So it was about, it was about people who were trying to disprove claims being able to go back in to a repressive regime and get witnesses and for us to protect those witnesses.

GARNER: [interrupting> Wasn’t he 2-i-c?

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: And I’ve—

GARNER: [interrupting> Wasn’t he 2-i-c in the regime? Okay, so—

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: —I’ve openly spoken about that.

GARNER: So who WAS he?

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Sorry?

GARNER: Okay, so wha-, wha-, wha-, so who WAS he? Wasn’t he 2-i-c in the regime?

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Um, the problem with that case is that actually the courts have suppressed a lot of the information, but I’ve spoken about the legal point that we were taking before on radio, which was about the confidentiality measures. Um, in terms of the details of the case I don’t wanna, I don’t wanna be breaching any of the suppression orders that the court imposed. That’s an ongoing case which I’m not on any more.

GARNER: So WHY did YOU get involved in THAT?

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: But you can talk to Deborah Maning about that, you know, refugee lawyers who’ve, um, previously defended people like, you know, Ahmed Zaoui, and it’s a similar case to that—

GARNER: [interrupting> This is a guy that LIED. This is a guy that LIED on his refugee, ahmmm, application to come—

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Ooh, I’d be careful there. That’s all been disproven. [laughs derisively] So, yeah.

GARNER: You tell me what ‘e DID.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Sorry?

GARNER: You tell me what ‘e DID.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Ahmed Zaoui?

GARNER: No, not Zaoui. No I’m talking about—

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Oh I’m sorry.

GARNER: I’m talking about this RWANDAN, ahhhmm, who was here in New Zealand that you were—

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: That’s an ongoing case and there’s suppression orders around it, but he’s being accused by the Rwandan government, um, and sought for extradition. So it’s an extradition case, um, and we were trying to get a fair process around it HERE, so that everyone could present their witness evidence, essentially.

GARNER: Right. Where did you— so you were in AFRICA. You LIVED in Africa, did you?

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: In Tanzania, sort of on and off when I worked on cases, yeah.

GARNER: Right. Have you been to RWANDA? Did you go in there and have a look?

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Yeah I’ve been into Rwanda, yeah, but the court isn’t in Rwanda, so you go into Rwanda, you speak to witnesses or, y’know, I mean you’re next door, so you go into Rwanda a lot, yeah. But nobody lives in Rwanda and works on the trial.

GARNER: No, sure. Um, and just, just finally, did you ever have a choice, I don’t know how this works, I mean did the U.N. ever give you a choice and say, Golriz you don’t HAVE to work on this if you have any issues with it, y’know morally or ETHICALLY. Did you ever have a choice to say, I don’t WANTA defend this, y’know, this man?

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: I certainly don’t have any moral, ethical choice, as does NO lawyer that works on criminal trials, in terms of working for either side. You are there to make the process fair. So to say that there’s a moral problem, you know, to suggest that all of these United Nations lawyers, where the U.N. requires that there is a defense and a prosecution, are somehow, um, you know, morally repugnant, um, is just, it is actually offensive, to be honest. I mean, nobody there is denying that a genocide happened—

GARNER: [interrupting] What SOME people—

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: We’re there because we KNOW a genocide happened.

GARNER: Course. Yeah. And what some people are also saying that THEY’re offended by the fact that y-you, y-y-you are in PHOTOS, sort of you know, like a SELFIE with, with some of these WAR criminals, here you are standing with one of these RWANDAN guys who was convicted. Y’know, like a, like a HOLIDAY SNAP!

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Yeah, he was convicted, but I, well, we believe in innocent till proven guilty, right? So when you go over and you’re representing someone, you don’t treat them like they’re guilty. That would kind of subvert the whole process.

GARNER: But do you take HOLIDAY SNAPS with a mass MURDERER?

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: I can absolutely see how it’s jarring to people. But if you actually believe in the system you’re not going there and going, You’re a mass murderer. The minute you start representing them that would be you making the decision for the Court. So it’s not, it doesn’t work that way.

GARNER: Mm.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: But I can totally see how it’s jarring. And, I mean, it’s a process that not many people would wanna be involved in, but to me it’s really important, as my prosecution work was important. It’s really important that we make sure these trials are fair, so that community can actually rely on those verdicts and move forward.

GARNER: Okay, look, um, Golriz, um, we’d better GO-O-O-O. I appreciate you coming on the program. Do you REGRET any of, any of your approach, or the lack of coming FORWARD in terms of the public stuff on the Green Party website and your maiden SPEECH? Do you regret that you could have been fuller?

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: I mean, I’ve had the Green Party website fixed, but I don’t think, because I’ve been so open and I’ve done all of these interviews, coming out to the election, I think taking all of that in context it was all VERY public. But the thing is, I’m glad we’re having this conversation, because we DO need to have a conversation about what fair trials mean, and what justice means to us. Um so, no, let’s, you know, let’s keep talking about it.

GARNER: That you don’t think you have anything to apologize for?

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: No, as I don’t think anyone working in our justice system has anything to apologize for. We’re all there making the process fair.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/11/i-ve-been-so-open-golriz-ghahraman.html