BrianTracy…

Betrayal of whom, exactly? The only people who could be betrayed in this case are those gullible enough to vote for them … and, frankly, they deserve everything they get. Anyone capable of objectively studying their policies & practices will have seen this one coming a mile off.

Clauses 14-21, clauses 53-57 and clauses 99-118 are a direct attack on that.

I really do urge people to read this Bill, in particular these clauses relating to Third Parties trying to express themselves.

It is such a naked attack by the State on political activism. Under this proposed legislation, Amnesty International, for example, will have its activities curtailed. Peace Groups opposed to New Zealand’s involvement in foreign wars will find themselves under government monitoring. Opposition ot the Foreshore & Seabed laws will be curtailed.

Political activists of all hues must read this proposed legislation – while the obvious intent of it is to silence the EBs, the effect of it will be to muzzle liberal political activism. This is an extraordinary betrayal by Labour.

Post script for pinko socialists, you might think that one must serve the cause of Government by defending the assholes, the rest of us don’t. They should busy themselves with serving us to the extent we require them to – no more.

Errr, no.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental and inate human right. People have a basic right to freedom of speech because of their basic inalienable rights as human beings. Democracy is rule by the ‘people’ – quite different.

Roger nome – before embarrassing yourself further, I suggest you try reading and learning some basic political theory.

When you say ““Who are the super-rich people who want to dominate political debate?” Don’t know. They tend to operate anonymously you see. Though you could read “the hollow men” if you want some good indications.”

Don’t you realise that the proposed legislation won’t stop that sort of thing – even though National said it would work with Labour to stop it. What it will do is stop people who fully declare who they are and how much they are spending from being able to communicate effectively with the public.

So your evil Labour friends aren’t dealing with the problem you are worried about but they are smashing basic principles of the same democracy you say you worry about.

And, clearly, you don’t get that even if no one had ever thought of democracy, free speech would still be a virtue worth having. That you don’t understand that suggests you are either very young and stupid, or a communist.

For what its worth, I think unions should be able to explain policies to their members. But the way in which the Labour government is trying to allow this, yet crack down on any other discussion of policies by any other parties is disgusting and cynical.

Whether they use their liberty or not is their choice, so what’s your point?

“Who are the super-rich people who want to dominate political debate?”

Don’t know. They tend to operate anonymously you see. Though you could read “the hollow men” if you want some good indications.

“You say the ultimate goal of free speech is to facilitate politics.”

No, it’s about facilitating “democracy”, which is quite different.

Freudian slip roger? love it. The subconscious mind always reveals the truth.

Once you get out of university, and into the real world, you will realise that employers rarely actually tend to try to influence the vote of their employees.

“Freedom of speech is not about “facilitating” anything. It is about being human; being heard; being able to express oneself. Do you not see that? It is an end in itself, not a means.”

ah yeah whatever – being super-rich and dominating political debate with your money is about being human etc etc – what a load of twaddle …

“I cannot run my planned campaign next year until the Summer has hit, trying to convince the population to think rationally and resign their union memberships. It is planned around the winter but it is too late for this year.”

The is a load of garbage

The bill is a load of garbage