Comments on: Period of “regulated speech”

By: side show bob

side show bob — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:44:34 +0000

What does the Liarbour’s precious United Nations bill on human rights have to say on this sort of issue?
Having said that given the way the UN works Dear Leader will probably be on top of the UN shit pile if she pulls this one off, instant promotion.
I suggest we all fill our lungs with a breath of fresh air, no sorry didn’t work, the stench of opression is still thick in the air.

By: TIM BARCLAY

TIM BARCLAY — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 05:49:56 +0000

This does not preclude comment in the internet which makes the dissemination of information very cheap. But there should be a shut-down in the Government publicity machine in the run-up to the election except for very narrow purposes with the Auditor General approving payment

By: Murray

Murray — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 04:36:08 +0000

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act
Section 14 [Freedom of expression],/b>
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.

By: anon

anon — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 02:43:38 +0000

In the 2005 General Election, only 47 of the top 120 spending electorate candidates won their seat.

By: peterquixote

peterquixote — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 02:26:07 +0000

mebe we go to jail for saying
LABOUR HELENGRAD DEAD
reintroduce them seditionary conspiratorial act for saying thing,
mn and girls,

By: Anon

Anon — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 00:55:45 +0000

DPF: You are right. People may get around the rules by criticising the Labour Party in advertising in August, September, October, Novemeber and December of this year. It makes sense to extend the new laws back to today’s date. Clark will be grateful to you for pointing this out. Well done.

By: Frank

Frank — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 00:52:00 +0000

The Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) and the proposed Electoral Finance Bills would never have raised their ugly heads if the lollowing involved persons had had the guts to do anything about it.

Reproduced here is only part of the letter 08 08 2005 (Pre election) sent to Police Commissioner R Robinson and copy emailed to Members of Parliament, Media, Auditor-General, Serious Fraud Office and Electoral Commission. Most in the Service of the Crown

“I allege the Labour Government’s announced Labour Party Policy second key election pledge:

“No further interest will be charged for those with student loans who reside in New Zealand” constitutes breaches of Sections of the Crimes Act 1961.
This public pledge by a political party organisation to use taxpayer money to seek to advantage a section of the community over other sections of the community, is conditional on that organisation’s nominated representatives being elected to Parliament and becoming the Government. Thus it seeks support from students and intending students, their parents and grandparents by pledging monetary gain, in return for their vote in order to bring this pledge to fruition. This promised action constitutes Bribery, as a Bribe promises, offers or gives something esp money to (a person) to procure services or gain influence in return. It is a reward, such as money given or offered for this purpose. In this case it is in the form of an interest free loan. It also advantages the Labour Party to the disadvantage of other Political Parties. At present Members of Parliament in the Service of the Crown and paid by the Crown are extolling the merits of the scheme and thus by this massive bribe of Crown money, are seeking to return to Parliament. The outcome of the election is affected by this alleged, Illegal, fraudulent proposal.

By: Graeme Edgeler

Graeme Edgeler — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 00:36:14 +0000

Your hypothetical paedophiles wouldn’t need to form a party, DPF, just stand a single candidate!

By: ROSS

ROSS — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 00:09:02 +0000

I think you’ll find ‘we’ will have free speech for three years. I presume by ‘we’ you’re referring to taxpayers?

By: Spam

Spam — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 00:05:10 +0000

So will the register of people spending money on given issues be used as a “Do not hire” list?

By: Steven Price

Steven Price — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:31:04 +0000

David’s got a good point here. (Also, he’s plainly paying too much for rice). But before we start ranting about free speech, bear in mind that the Crown Law Office has vetted this bill, and says that any restriction on free speech is demonstrably justified. (See http://www.justice.govt.nz/bill-of-rights/bill-list-2007/e-bill/electoral-finance-bill.html). Now, I watch these vets closely because I want to make sure that restrictions on free speech are properly justified. I can say that this vet is more thorough than usual. That doesn’t mean I agree with it, and it doesn’t mean that they’re right. But it does suggest that there are some good arguments on both sides: this isn’t a slam dunk free speech violation. You might note that the Canadian Supreme Court upheld similar third party restrictions. (Importantly, though, those didn’t apply for the whole election year as the government is proposing here.) I think most people – including DPF – agree that reasonable limits can be imposed on third parties spending money to affect the outcome of elections. The question is where to draw the line. The sensible arguments – and DPF is making some of them – are addressed to drawing that line in a better place, not getting rid of it altogether.

[DPF: Yes I am not against there being a time period where there are restrictions. I am not against spending limits. I am strongly against this particular combination. I do think the time period is vital - it does need a logical basis to it. And as I say a period, which can also be mirrored by Govt advertising going to the core minimum. What worries me with 1 Jan on the basis that we have campaigning all year is most people accept we now have a permanent campaign over the whole electoral cycle, so one is setting up an intellectual basis for extending these restrictions further]

By: kaykaybelle

kaykaybelle — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:21:25 +0000

I am for once speechless. The Labour government has sunk to a level I could never have imagined.

By: Seamonkey Madness

Seamonkey Madness — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:10:03 +0000

Agreed Sofia, like I said in my previous post.

I think a couple of cans of spraypaint, a boxcutter and some cardboard come under the $60,000 mark. Creativity is free too.

Reminds me of a stencil down the Allenby steps:
“~~Don Brash~~John Key sez I’m richer, you’re poor, so fuck you!”

Charming. Could have used a bit of polish on it though.

By: Ross Nixon

Ross Nixon — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:09:02 +0000

Can someone look up the “Bill of Rights” and say if this trumps this proposed new silly law?
Thanks in advance!

[DPF: No the Bill of Rights will not trump this law.]

By: CraigM

CraigM — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:08:44 +0000

Strip away one freedom at a time and hope people don’t notice.
We wake up one morning and realise we have given away everything that is important to us. Our fault if we let it happen.

Where is guy fawkes when you need him.

By: Max

Max — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:07:01 +0000

.000048 is the approximate cost of a grain of rice in a $1.78 1kg bag, assuming there are 1000 grains per 27 grams.

[DPF: Ha I knew someone would actually calculate it]

By: Sofia

Sofia — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 22:52:58 +0000

This will bring about quite an upsurge in graffiti around cities – freedom of expression will out, whatever