User:Mathildebutler/sandbox

Peace Movement Aotearoa (PMA)

Peace Movement Aotearoa (PMA) is a national Non Governmental Organization (NGO) based in Wellington, New Zealand’s capital. PMA focuses on networking for peace, social justice and human rights. As suggested by its name, this NGO does a lot of campaigning regarding peace issues, on a national scale. A report written in 2016 specifies that despite defending the rights of Maoris, PMA emphasizes the fact that they do not speak on their behalf. In addition, resources and information are provided for individuals around the globe who are interested in human rights, especially involving Indigenous groups, as well as resolution of conflicts by peaceful means rather than military involvement. While its task of "networking" might sound ambiguous, here is a concrete example of contribution in favor of Maori rights: while the UN investigated for discrimination towards native groups living in New Zealand a few years ago, Peace Movement Aotearoa, alongside other like-minded NGOs, provided a report denouncing mistreatment of Natives on their own land.

History of the NGO

One first has to know that "Aotearoa" is commonly used, as it stands for "New Zealand" in Maori, which is the native language of the country.

Based in Wellington, PMA was first created and registered as an incorporated society in 1982. Indeed, the NGO first started as a classic peace coalition, as part of the global peace movement that occurred within this decade. Alyn Ware, one of the co-creators, first came up with the idea after working on several means to advocate peace while going to school at the University of Waikato. The NGO’s first name was Peace Movement Aotearoa New Zealand. "Aotearoa" first was used as a polite, yet quiet recognition of the country's name in Maori. However, since the promotion of Maori rights is at the group's core, using the Maori name is what made sense.

Since nuclear weapons were a crucial issue at the time, Ware and other activists, mainly, first created Peace Movement Aotearoa for networking. Networks usually took place in collaboration with other, usually more powerful, organizations. The latter have also been in favour of the ban on nuclear weapons. This choice of cause can partly refer to the involvement with Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) movement. Over time, the focus of the organization has equally been on the protectionof Maori rights.

Peace Movement Aotearoa is an accessible organization to join: social hierarchy is absent, most likely because equal human rights for everyone is a key goal. The founders are not considered to be superior, despite winning several prizes and awards, which will be discussed further in this article.

Structure and Funding of PMA

As suggested by its name, Peace Movement Aotearoa stands for peaceful conflict resolution. Regarding the funding of this NGO, most donations are made by individuals, on a national level, who believe in its work. Donations can be made through the organization’s official website. PMA is an IRD approved organization, meaning that it earns “Income in Respect of a Decedent”. This acronym refers to an untaxed income (donations, in this case), which has been earned, or received during a lifetime The main registered coordinator of PMA, as of 2010 was Edwina Hughes. Yet, there is now an entire coordination committee, which puts campaigns into action. All members of the organization also have a voice.

Goals and Beliefs

Peace Movement Aotearoa’s main purpose is networking with other organizations, regardless of them being international, or working on a smaller regional scale, in New Zealand. As PMA mainly works on a national scale, all their projects and campaigns strictly concern New Zealand. Providing information and resources in favour of peace, social justice and human rights issues is crucial for PMA. They work to see changes in New Zealand. Two main goals of this NGO, which can be identified through all of their projects are the following:

First, the rights of Indigenous people should be equal to the rights of the non-Indigenous. Despite the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, discrimination occurs on a daily basis in several Commonwealth countries, and New Zealand is no exception. Through the assessment of different campaigns undertaken by PMA, one can rapidly notice that the means of expression which are used often qualify as grassroots, raw activities. Protesting in the streets of New Zealand is one of them

Second, since the organization describes itself as a peace advocate, it seeks a ban on nuclear weapons. PMA works for the country to be free of any nuclear violence, production, or involvement. Despite the fact that New Zealand is considered a “nuclear-free” state because of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, some groups, such as banking institutions, still fund the production of nuclear weapons internationally. For New Zealand to be a peaceful, ethical country, PMA believes that all sorts of involvement with nuclearweapons has to stop.Indirect encouragement, as well as funding both contribute to the continuity of the use of nuclear weapons.

Activities

Networking

PMA’s main networking is with Pakeha (non-Indigenous) organizations, as well as individuals. Despite protecting Indigenous rights, most actvists involved in PMA's campaigns and projects are Pakeha, as they are in majority in New Zealand. PMA uses mailing lists to advocate its interests and promote causes. The people included in these lists are mainly representatives of over one hundred national or local community organisations, whose interests align with PMA’s.

Promoting

According to PMA, human rights should be respected, and available to all human beings, regardless of social class, race, or sex. In order to maintain peace in all communities, regardless of their size, human rights must be acknowledged and respected by both minorities and majorities. Particular attention is given to Indigenous rights, as majorities have outnumbered the latter in New Zealand.

Past Projects

Petition (2006-2008) A declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples was made in 2007 by the United Nations. This document has been considered a crucial tool for the present issue of respect of the rights of the Indigenous. However, New Zealand was one of only four member-states that voted against it. Meanwhile, one hundred and forty-three member-states of the UN voted in favour of the declaration, to be one hundred and forty-four in 2009, when Australia readjusted its vote. In order to advocate for the cause and try to reverse this decision, PMA, alongside with other NGOs created a petition. The report associated with this petition states that under no circumstances does agreeing with the declaration of intervene with international law nor harm New Zealanders in any way

Peace and Disarmament Activism

In June 1987, under the Labour government of Prime Minister David Lange, New Zealand then became the first Western country to adopt some kind of legislation against nuclear-armed. The ban also went along for powered warships on the territory. The first Defense Review for this cause was carried out in 1986: peace groups, such as PMA, contributed to the coordination of the event. Indeed, effective reports had to be created in order to prove to the United States and Australia (allied countries of this case) that New Zealand was right to ban nuclear arms and nuclear-powered warships from its territory. Therefore, Peace Movement Aotearoa, along with Just Defence, a legal help organization, published the report as proof that withdrawing from such alliances was in fact beneficial. Benefits can be experienced on regional, national, and global scales

Human Rights Committee, 116th amendment

Peace Movement Aotearoa has openly criticized legislation that have previously been adopted, regarding the following topics/issues:


 * Terrorism Protection
 * Racism
 * Indigenous people’s rights
 * Public Spending priorities

“Article of the UN”

In addition, the UN Declaration includes the requirement that no decision affecting the rights and interests of Indigenous peoples are to be taken without their free, prior and informed consent - a minimum standard that the state party has yet to meet. Furthermore, Article 32 of the UN Declaration specifies that such consent should be obtained via Indigenous peoples' own representative institutions. Indigenous individuals also have the right to determine, and develop priorities, as well as strategies for the development, or use of their crops of land, territories and other resources

NGO information for the 82nd session of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, February 2013

In this report, PMA assesses all articles which were in some way discriminatory, or disrespecting the right to self-determination for Maoris.

Construction of the prison on wähi tapu at Ngawha

In 2002, the Northland Regional Council, based in the upper region of New Zealand’s north island, denied access to resources which currently were on Maori territory that would be dedicated to the construction of a new prison. This controversial decision was later overturned by the national environmental court. Maori cultural and spiritual beliefs have been completely ignored by the law, despite universal claims made by the UN regarding native nations. The fact that the land on which the prison would be built in the future had been completely ignored. For Peace Movement Aotearoa, and several other NGOs, this decision which gained support of the High Court did not make any sense. Therefore, peaceful protests were organized, all of them publicized in local newspapers. Meeting points were in main cities, such as Wellington and Auckland, but also on the sacred Maori land on which the prison would be built. This method of advocacy could be described as very organic, raw: all that was needed for people to attend. What they all have in commonis the strong belief that Maori rights and traditions must be respected. PMA also encouraged individuals who were familiar with the case to write a letter to Mark Gosche, Minister of Corrections, to contribute to a fair review of the decision. Finally, to promote peace and rights to Maoris, PMA encouraged New Zealanders of all social groups to join Maori protesters in a three-day fasting and prayer ritual. The latter’s purpose was for voices to be heard: maybe the Prime Minister would review his decision, and finally choose to work towards a better future, for both the Maoris living on this land, and the environment itself.

Sub-Networks

Working hand-in-hand with the Network Opposed to Weapons and Related Production in Aotearoa / New Zealand (NO WARP), both NGOs campaign for the production and export of non-harmful products in New Zealand

Recognition (Awards and Honours)

The main recognition PMA has had over the years is being mentioned in several issues of international scope. Maori rights at first glance seem to only concern New Zealand. However, as the UN has been investigating, this issue has been raised to a much wider level. Articles in several newspapers have acknowledged the involvement and change that PMA has brought. Moreover, co-creator Alyn Ware is considered one of the most influential peace activists worldwide. He has won a number of awards, notably the Right Livelihood Award in 2009. Ware was also nominated in 2015 for the Nobel Peace Prize. Despite his withdrawal from Peace Movement Aotearoa to focus on projects with a wider scope, the co-creator’s vision is embedded in the NGO. When assessing the projects he has taken part in, one will quickly realize that they perfectly align with PMA’s beliefs.

Criticism/Controversies

Even though explicit critics of Peace Movement Aotearoa’s work have not been found online, one can assume that several groups would be against their methods. For instance, despite the historically peaceful organized protests, people who are against any kind of gatherings which express discontent would without a doubt critic the methods. Also, typical critics of NGOs would claim that their work is irrelevant: that petitions and protests do not make a difference.

comment
This sounds promising. As you develop the draft, you will want to write in a neutral tone that does not include yourself - so remove the first sentence in this version. The second sentence can be left for the body. Your third sentence really introduces the topic. As you research more, you will of course make the entry more specific. So far, the topic is introduced but not yet fully summarized. Still, looks like it will make for a very interesting entry as it's developed. Dwebsterbu (talk) 02:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Peer review: Duncan Crabtree
This is a solid article that tells me a lot about the beliefs and mission of PMA. The lead does give me a good understanding of the importance of the topic. Perhaps you might think of organising your article in a chronological order as it can be at times hard to follow the development of your NGO. For example, if you discussed which strategies started to be used at which point in your NGO's history and in order of appearance, the article could be easier to follow and more informative.

At times while reading your article I felt that there was a bias that was trying to convince me of the crucial nature of the work of PMA. Although this is an important organisation, could you try to make your article more neutral? I feel as though this might be reduced by more reliance on sources to back up claims and just a general tone that is more neutral.

Do you have a source to cite for your claim that hierarchy is absent in the organisation? I would have the same question for the provenance of funding, goals, etc. I would also cite the UNDRIP when you discuss it, mention it explicitly, and maybe link to the article on Wikipedia as well.

Please try to maintain a neutral tone in the promoting section.

I'm confused as to why New Zealand would have to respect articles of the UNDRIP if they did not sign onto it. Is this what you are claiming in your Human Rights Committee section?

I would definitely cite a source for the claim: "This method of advocacy could be described as very organic, raw:"

Also I would refrain from using "the devil’s advocate" as a source.

In general I believe that reliable sources should be presented much more in your article.

With a few changes your article will be outstanding. Good luck!

Peer Review Number 2:

This is a good article and it seems like you put a lot of research into it.

Here's a few things that could help improve it:
 * Try putting the text into the correction website "grammarly" it will correct your punctuation, spelling, and spaces.
 * You can also use heading and subheadings to keep the article clearer and to understand what belongs with what.
 * A few times you used rhetorical questions. I'm not sure how appropriate that is for a wikipedia article and it might seem to personal.
 * Your introduction is a little unclear. Some of the information from the quote does not seem prevalent to the introduction and could be added on later to the article. It might be more understandable if you paraphrased the quote to use more direct information.
 * History of Organization:
 * at one point you wrote " going to school the University of Waikato" it might be better to say "going to the University of Waikato"
 * You also refer to PMA as "very accessible". In what way is PMA accessible and what scale makes PMA more accessible than other?
 * Goals & Beliefs:
 * "all projects and campaigns they are involved in strict ly regard to New Zealand
 * Human Rights Section
 * There are bullets in the middle of the text.
 * Maybe choose between "Recognition" and "Awards & Honours" for titles.
 * The last sentence says "when assessing the projects..." it might be helpful to give a few examples so it is clearer for the reader.
 * You say "Number of wards" I think you mean "numerous awards"

The article is really good with a lot of good information I think if you go through it again with a focus on sentence structure it will make the article very good.