Last Monday I flew to Wellington to spend the day.
I had an appointment with the Mexican Embassy to sign some documents so my oldest son could get his Mexican passport.
The office was bright and filled with images that reminded me of happier times in Mexico.
The ladies that assisted me were all very kind and we all spoke in Spanish.
When that was done I stepped out onto the sunny street and set off confidently in the wrong direction for my next appointment.
After about five blocks of not getting where I wanted to go, I stopped and asked for directions.
I was meant to go back about six blocks and take a left.
All along the way I worried that I would be late for my meeting with former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer and that we wouldn't be able to speak at all.
My worries momentarily dissipated when I looked up to see that I was walking past the Supreme Court of New Zealand.
I got a thrill just looking up at it and a wave of relief to see that the building I wanted was just across the street.
I arrived at Sir Geoffrey's office right on time.
As I was shown in, the Dean of Law at Victoria University was just stepping out.
Sir Geoffrey apologized for the delay but said he liked to make time for the Dean too.
I said I understood.
Just outside his office window I could see The Beehive and I wondered briefly if he and John Key ever found themselves staring each other down.
He motioned for me to have a seat and I almost made the mistake of sitting down in a distinguished looking antique chair placed in the corner.
Sir Geoffrey intimated that doing so might have disastrous consequences for both me and the chair so I sat on the more modern number closer to his desk.
He asked me if I would tell him a little about myself before we began.
I told him about my coming to the country to do a PhD on indigenous autonomy with a look at the Mapuche people of Chile and the Ngai Tahu iwi. I spoke about studying with Juan Guzman Tapia in Chile and my current pursuit of a law degree.
I spoke about my presentation on the Mavi Mamara incident and how I had used the Law of the Sea as a legal framework.
His report for the UN had been published right before I was due to present my findings to the class so I incorporated it into the paper and presentation.
His report cited the San Remo manual which dealt with naval blockades, belligerents and the rights of military entities to interfere with transit on the high seas.
The report had come to a different conclusion than I had about the legality of the blockade and the interference with the Gaza Freedom Flotilla.
I had always wondered how and why.
I focused on two questions regarding the San Remo manual.
The first was from Section III "Classes of Vessels Exempt From Attack." Point 47 (ii) which states; "vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations."
The Mavi Mamara's stated aim was to break the Gaza blockade but it was also carrying medical supplies, food and concrete for housing purposes.
Some criticisms were made by the media that the medicines were out of date and that the supplies were not in the best condition.
I believed that the Mavi Mamara qualified as a vessel engaged in a humanitarian mission and should have been left alone. Sir Geoffrey had a different view.
My second question was in regards to Section 102 (a) and (b) of the San Remo Manual which states:
The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:
(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or
(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantages anticipated from the blockade.
Sir Geoffrey saw the blockade as legal because Israel does allow supplies through to Gaza.
I could not agree however because the list of items banned is arbitrary and extensive and has led reports on the stunted growth and extreme malnourishment of the Palestinian children living in the area.
Aside from these two points we were in complete agreement on all other subjects covered.
We spoke of the tragedy of the souring of relations between Turkey and Israel.
Turkey saved countless lives during WWII by offering Jews citizenship and protection within their country. As a result they had a special relationship with Israel for decades.
Sir Geoffrey said preparing the report was one of the most challenging things he had ever done.
We spoke of the victims who had been killed and the treatment of the whole affair in U.S. media.
I told him of my interview with Colonel Ann Wright who had been aboard another vessel named the Rachel Corrie during the attack. Her laptop had been taken and she had been interrogated. She had seen activists from other countries subjected to physical punishment.
We also spoke of America.
I spoke about the social segregation that exists between races in the South, how mentioning evolution in a science class is still controversial and how Baptists try to convert all non believers to their cause.
We talked about Donald Trump, the dysfunction of Congress when it comes to making bi partisan gestures and the openly racist individuals one finds oneself seated next to on cruise ships.
I told him about my time in Mexico and my struggles with the U.S. immigration system.
He gave me a copy of his talking points on New Zealand's need for a Constitutional document and I said I looked forward to reading his next book on the topic. (I am currently reading his book "Bridled Power".)
We discussed the high points of New Zealand's politics and how it is still possible for individuals to have a say in how the country is run.
Before I left he told me to be careful of getting too passionate about the cause of a client because it might keep me from seeing the arguments that the other side might present.
I nodded in reply and wondered if I could manage to do that. Perhaps that will be the mark by which I can tell if I have well and truly become a good lawyer.
In total, I spoke with Sir Geoffrey for an hour and a half.
I had a wonderful time trading stories and talking about politics, law and history.
I have a deep admiration for this man and I will always remember our meeting with fondness.
I had an appointment with the Mexican Embassy to sign some documents so my oldest son could get his Mexican passport.
The office was bright and filled with images that reminded me of happier times in Mexico.
The ladies that assisted me were all very kind and we all spoke in Spanish.
When that was done I stepped out onto the sunny street and set off confidently in the wrong direction for my next appointment.
After about five blocks of not getting where I wanted to go, I stopped and asked for directions.
I was meant to go back about six blocks and take a left.
All along the way I worried that I would be late for my meeting with former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer and that we wouldn't be able to speak at all.
My worries momentarily dissipated when I looked up to see that I was walking past the Supreme Court of New Zealand.
I got a thrill just looking up at it and a wave of relief to see that the building I wanted was just across the street.
I arrived at Sir Geoffrey's office right on time.
As I was shown in, the Dean of Law at Victoria University was just stepping out.
Sir Geoffrey apologized for the delay but said he liked to make time for the Dean too.
I said I understood.
Just outside his office window I could see The Beehive and I wondered briefly if he and John Key ever found themselves staring each other down.
He motioned for me to have a seat and I almost made the mistake of sitting down in a distinguished looking antique chair placed in the corner.
Sir Geoffrey intimated that doing so might have disastrous consequences for both me and the chair so I sat on the more modern number closer to his desk.
He asked me if I would tell him a little about myself before we began.
I told him about my coming to the country to do a PhD on indigenous autonomy with a look at the Mapuche people of Chile and the Ngai Tahu iwi. I spoke about studying with Juan Guzman Tapia in Chile and my current pursuit of a law degree.
I spoke about my presentation on the Mavi Mamara incident and how I had used the Law of the Sea as a legal framework.
His report for the UN had been published right before I was due to present my findings to the class so I incorporated it into the paper and presentation.
His report cited the San Remo manual which dealt with naval blockades, belligerents and the rights of military entities to interfere with transit on the high seas.
The report had come to a different conclusion than I had about the legality of the blockade and the interference with the Gaza Freedom Flotilla.
I had always wondered how and why.
I focused on two questions regarding the San Remo manual.
The first was from Section III "Classes of Vessels Exempt From Attack." Point 47 (ii) which states; "vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations."
The Mavi Mamara's stated aim was to break the Gaza blockade but it was also carrying medical supplies, food and concrete for housing purposes.
Some criticisms were made by the media that the medicines were out of date and that the supplies were not in the best condition.
I believed that the Mavi Mamara qualified as a vessel engaged in a humanitarian mission and should have been left alone. Sir Geoffrey had a different view.
My second question was in regards to Section 102 (a) and (b) of the San Remo Manual which states:
The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:
(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or
(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantages anticipated from the blockade.
Sir Geoffrey saw the blockade as legal because Israel does allow supplies through to Gaza.
I could not agree however because the list of items banned is arbitrary and extensive and has led reports on the stunted growth and extreme malnourishment of the Palestinian children living in the area.
Aside from these two points we were in complete agreement on all other subjects covered.
We spoke of the tragedy of the souring of relations between Turkey and Israel.
Turkey saved countless lives during WWII by offering Jews citizenship and protection within their country. As a result they had a special relationship with Israel for decades.
Sir Geoffrey said preparing the report was one of the most challenging things he had ever done.
We spoke of the victims who had been killed and the treatment of the whole affair in U.S. media.
I told him of my interview with Colonel Ann Wright who had been aboard another vessel named the Rachel Corrie during the attack. Her laptop had been taken and she had been interrogated. She had seen activists from other countries subjected to physical punishment.
We also spoke of America.
I spoke about the social segregation that exists between races in the South, how mentioning evolution in a science class is still controversial and how Baptists try to convert all non believers to their cause.
We talked about Donald Trump, the dysfunction of Congress when it comes to making bi partisan gestures and the openly racist individuals one finds oneself seated next to on cruise ships.
I told him about my time in Mexico and my struggles with the U.S. immigration system.
He gave me a copy of his talking points on New Zealand's need for a Constitutional document and I said I looked forward to reading his next book on the topic. (I am currently reading his book "Bridled Power".)
We discussed the high points of New Zealand's politics and how it is still possible for individuals to have a say in how the country is run.
Before I left he told me to be careful of getting too passionate about the cause of a client because it might keep me from seeing the arguments that the other side might present.
I nodded in reply and wondered if I could manage to do that. Perhaps that will be the mark by which I can tell if I have well and truly become a good lawyer.
In total, I spoke with Sir Geoffrey for an hour and a half.
I had a wonderful time trading stories and talking about politics, law and history.
I have a deep admiration for this man and I will always remember our meeting with fondness.
