I for one will not comply and am quite happy to become New Zealand’s first political prisoner. Lets just ignore this steaming pile of shit designed to keep Helen and here corrupt mates in power.

How is this post earlier looking about now?

Now that we’ve all had an hour and a half in Farrar’s echo chamber, you’ll be interested to hear that his claim about the megaphone is a flat out lie and his foreign donors line is a house of cards….

What if most of the people provided authorisation. One unauthorisation does not an illegal march make, which is what you are implying. If that was the case every protest march would be illegal due the omission of at least one member who forgot his name or address.

Keep up the good work!

You’re dead right about this stupid $120,000 limit.

This has not been changed. This is a very sad day for New Zealand.

I am organising a protest march from Civic Square Wellington ( close to the Town Hall) to Parliament for this Wednesday 21 November.

Marchers are asked to assemble from 12 noon and we wil leave at 12.30pm.

This will be an apolitical march.

It is also my expectation that Family First, Sensible Sentencing and myself will have spent in excess of $120,000 protesting this bill before Parliament resumes on 4 December. We will do this deliberately to show the people of New Zealand a protest like this will be illegal next year, and then one year in three thereafter.

Just to repeat the question.

Yes Nicky is always on the look out for emails ? Stolen , it don’t matter to Auntie Helen as she will fund the play !!!

Without the explicit exemption or a mechanism to infer any implicit exemptions, everything that meets the criteria of advertising, which is broad enough to set off alarm bells, will be covered under the act.

DPF will have to watch his rubbish bins as well.

And Pete if you are going to keep asserting your point of view, you need to actually cite the bill to back your view up. Making it up isn’t allowed.

What exactly are you accusing me of making up? I’m not sure how I’d cite “basic reading comprehension”.

I seem to recall the Herald ran your scenario as an example of what would be illegal under the bill, and it was in fact illegal. Not sure if the article was online, or paper only though.

Whatever offends the Labour party.”

My understanding was that this is illegal at present (not sure who passed it, but it may even have been the Nats). It attempts to avoid parties avoiding the spending cap by having goods or services provided at negligible rates. Without knowing the details I would suspect that ‘reasonable’ would be determined by the courts if a case was brought.

If it falls within Clause 5 it is an advertisement for the purpose of this Bill – even if it is not something we would normally consider an advert.

I can see how you might read the bill that way, but you’re being too literal. You have to read all of clause 5 — (a) through (g) — and interpret “words or graphics” in context. Usenet posts and pub conversations are implicitly exempted, because they’re even less like advertisements that the explicit exceptions in (c) through (g).

Interested in comment/rebuttal!

[DPF: She is wrong. Unless any placards advocating against a party are all authorised with names and addresses, and unless every speaker gives his name or address, the march would be illegal]

Come 2011 they will be hoist by their own petard if the Nats copy them and not only DONT repeal the then Act but tighten it up especially as regards Trade Unions.

I’d like to think that if the Nats tried to make this bill even worse to suit their own purposes, that people here would complain about that too.

I know I would.