Still here
Been over on Waiheke Island and there was no mobile Internet coverage. Blogging will resume tomorrow.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: DPFStill here
12 Responses to “Still here”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
August 4th, 2007 at 12:06 am
DPF
Excellent thread on Chinese Government but how about asking the legal beagles what they think of Section 55 re intent to commit a crime – this is truly unbelievable
August 4th, 2007 at 12:46 am
Happy to help Castifiore (I saw the comment in the other thread, but wanted to confirm something before responding).
You’re talking about cl 121 (and by extension cl 157), I think – search warrants available in cases of suspected intent to commit an illegal practice?
Search warrants have, since at least 1957 (and I suspect long before, but I don’t have a copy of the now defunct Crimes Act 1908 on me) been available to search in cases of suspected intent to break the law.
This is not an great extension of the law in relation to Election offences. This is already the law in respect of most other intended offences; arising from, no doubt, the long-standing obligation on police to prevent crime.
The reason it is in the bill is that search warrants, whilst already available in exactly these circumstances in relation to “corrupt practices” under the Electoral Act, weren’t available in respect of “illegal practices” (you can generally only get search warrants in relation to offences that carry prison terms).
August 4th, 2007 at 8:22 am
Good information graeme.
The realities of the proposed laws are that they are based on existing restrictions .
All the hysteria about freedom of speech , which isn’t affected,
but the right for other groups to campaign without the existing restrictions that apply to political parties has been proposed to change.
We already have many restrictions on commercial speech, such as advertising.
Political parties are partly covered by commercial speech restrictions ( when they advertise) and partly by restrictions on broadcasting- which national broke -
In the old “rogernomics” days this would be called a level playing field.
By the way DPF do you still watch Fox news avidley like the old days.
or does their Pravda on the Hudson approach to distortion begin to pale on you
August 4th, 2007 at 9:09 am
Selma – unfortunately, large parts of the new law are substantial extensions.
Where the old law regulated “advertising”, the proposed law regulates “any form of words or graphics”. This is a vast extension – the old law didn’t ban political parties from putting out press releases criticising government policy in election year – as written, this one does (political parties can only issue press releases that ask for votes, or ask people not to vote for someone else).
It will be illegal for candidates to hold up placards at protest marches, etc. This is a major inroad on candidates’ free speech.
August 4th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Dear Selma ,
Does that mean we won’t be getting another Auntie Helen Club pledge card in the mailbox this election ?
It is impossible to have a level playing field dear selma, as labour keep shifting the elevation by changing rules to suit themselves !
August 4th, 2007 at 10:23 am
Graeme, very useful information.
“This is a major inroad on candidates’ free speech.”
So answer me this – is the word “candidates’ ” the key to all the righteous indignation. I personlly dont give much of a toss about “candidates’” free speech but his seems to be an afront to my free speech also.
August 4th, 2007 at 10:30 am
What a surprise – Selma is wrong on the facts yet again. Hey I think she is heading for ten wrong in a row.
August 4th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Graeme says: “It will be illegal for candidates to hold up placards at protest marches, etc. This is a major inroad on candidates’ free speech.”
I can’t believe that is true, even with Clark involved in drafting the law. Can you double check?
August 4th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Which mobile connection were you using? I ask because whether it works on Waiheke will be a big factor in my choice.
August 4th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Vodafone. I could get GPRS but not 3G at the hotel I was at. In the village one had 3G.
August 4th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Anon – I have checked. I’ve thought about it a lot – I can only imagine that it is entirely unintended, but that’s what the bill, as drafted says.
Porcupine – no, the word “candidate” isn’t the key to all the righteous indignation. There are grave concerns with some of the third party rules too. I used the candidate restriction as an example because it involves an actual ban – not a ban over $5000 or $60,000 but a total ban. Selma suggested that this bill doesn’t affect free speech – I thought the candidate example was a good one to use to rebut that assertion because it actually makes illegal some forms of (monetarily) free speech.
Concerns around third party spending generally (i.e. for people other than candidates, and political parties) include the $5000 limit for many groups. $60,000 might be justifiable (Crown Law thinks so) but most churches, and other unincorporated bodies like “Vote for the Environment” or “Campaign for Civil Unions” won’t meet the criteria to list as third parties (with a $60,000 limit) and will instead have a $5000 limit. If the law stays as it stands, the Salvation Army’s “we’re all in this together” won’t be able to run next year, for example.
August 4th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Yeah I thought 3G wouldn’t work. Already got GPRS for those days when I absolutely must have the net, no matter how much of a rip. It was useful abroad.