I got myself into an argument the other day about Algerians, muslims, and immigration. My opponent was against all of the above, and his blatant generalising really rubbed me up the wrong way. But it got me to thinking about why I support the case of Algerian refugee Ahmed Zaoui, given that, as an atheist, we have a rather different worldviews.

Zaoui has been found to be a legitimate refugee by New Zealand’s world respected and very strict Refugee Status Appeals Authority. This means he has a “well founded fear of persecution” should he return to Algeria. (There is an excellent BBC World Service radio documentary which chronicles “The Zaoui Case” in its somewhat complex entirety – listen to it here)

But he has not been able to get on with life in New Zealand – to get a job and pay tax and live peacefully with his family – because the Security Intelligence Service (SIS) alleges he is a threat to national security.

Above all, I support Zaoui’s right to a fair trial, something that is proving very difficult to obtain. No matter how serious an allegation may be, it remains an allegation until it is proved to be either true or false. And an allegation cannot be proven without a fair process.

Remember though, that Ahmed Zaoui is not accused of being a terrorist, but a “threat to national security”. The definition of this encompasses damaging New Zealand’s diplomatic interests overseas, and it is suggested that the potential threat posed by Zaoui is at the softer end of this scale. That’s to say, that his continued presence in the country may aggrieve our trading partners Algeria or France. In my opinion, the idea of sending someone to their death so that Fonterra can keep a few million in profits is abhorrent.

But we don’t know, really, how much of a threat Zaoui poses because the SIS won’t share it’s evidence. New Zealand has very poor structures in place to carry out trials fairly where classified evidence is concerned. And this is why the case is going on for so long. Of course, the government could take a pragmatic course and step in and speed things up. It could put an end to the ridiculously long, drawn out process that has developed. So why doesn’t it? Why does Helen Clark allow this to go on and on and on?

Other posts by Katie Llanos-Small