What the hell kind of strangled thought process led to an incomprehensible question like that? Get a life Pascal, and stop worrying so much about your navel.

Sonic demonstrates the left’s strange compulsion to equate contempt for the religion of socialism with “hate.” Its why the concept of “hate speech” is so dangerous. These totalitarian creeps will eventually turn everything into ‘hate speech’, even the merest criticism of socialism, and you will be prosecuted for disagreening with them. Don’t doubt it. Its happened everywhere totalitarian leftists have gained the political and social supremacy they obsess over. Funny isn’t it, the way they disparage the Exclusive Brethren? When doctrinal socialists like Klark and Sonic are even more intolerant and controlling than the EBs would ever be.

And yet, reading through your list, it would seem to me that a number of people have made their own decisions. Would you allow them to make a decision you disagree with?

Must be horrible hating so many people so much.

The dull the mindless and the ignorant. The half educated freshly indoctrinated students. The dopey fifty year old dole bludging pot heads. The brainwashed feminazis. The indolent parasites who think democracy is all about politicians giving them money earned by other people. The drooling Goebellian propagandists who call themselves journalists. The paranoid and the psychotic, the deluded and deranged dribblers who fear capitalism the way small children fear the bogey man. The profit haters. The level playing field charlatans. The liars cheats and cowards from Kiwiblogblog. The slovenly shiny arsed regulation hooked bureaucrats, the legislation junkies who dream every day of bigger government and greater empires. The cronyists who curry favour with their political mates and have the fucken gall to call themselves business men. The clod hopping ignorant thugs who control unions, and steal their member’s money and give it to their Labour party cronies. The ivory tower academics who delude themselves they know how the world works yet prefer to indoctrinate children with socialist dogma rather than teaching them the skills to make their own decisions on such things. The scum who hand out taxpayer funded government grants to their political favourites in the entertainment industry. The untalented losers who depend upon such grants to keep a shirt on their back. The research groups who can’t get funding from any real enterprise because their chosen field is pretty much useless to society. The dribbling drooling thieving bludging stealing pathologically immoral dross of mankind. They can all be grouped under one banner actually- socialists.

What does it take for the public to relegate the tyrants in the pulpit to the opposition benches?

The matter should bedealt with by a panel of up to 3 retiredHigh Court Judges hearing submissions an then outting up to 3 models to a binding citizens referendum.

That is the only democratic alternative,

What we have is a sham and a scam of major proportions

Now I have yet to see a single left wing blogger come up with reasoning like that, or is it going to be the again continual referral to kiwiblogblog or the Standard.

Unlike them, Slightly and I like to do our own research and make our own minds up from all the information available. It’s a time honoured process called thinking.

And it’s just what the Labour Party does not want to happen. Just all follow on like sheep please, Baa Baa Baa!

3 Purpose
The purpose of this Act is to strengthen the law governing
electoral financing and broadcasting, in order to— 10
(a) maintain public and political confidence in the administration
of elections;

The bill fails in this aspect. This bill gives less confidence, not more, by keeping political discourse in the hands of politicians, and is designed to favour one party over another. This bill has not been written for egalitarian reasons. The purpose of this bill is the preservation of power by Labour.

(b) promote participation by the public in parliamentary
democracy; and

Of course, given the onus placed on members of the public to ensure that “free speech” does not break the law, I would think the general public might well be discouraged, not encouraged to participate in parliamentary democracy. This part of the bill must be read in conjunction with the appropration bill which gives encumbant MP’s more rights than a challenger, who would happen to be a member of the public.

(c) prevent the undue influence of wealth on electoral out
comes; and

unless of course you are a government department, running an information campaign, or an electorate MP publishing a newsletter emblazoned with a logo and a parlilamentary crest, which, while not expressly soliciting a vote, and are therefore not considered electioneering by law, can only be considered such when applying King’s “Law of Common Sense”.

(d) provide greater transparency and accountability on the
part of candidates, parties, and other persons engaged in
election activities in order to minimise the perception of
corruption; and

Yeah Right. So the theft of $800,000, which was repaid, the subsequent legislation to make what was a crime, legal. The legislation now passed to make such spending legal in the future provided it does not expressly solicit a vote, is not corruption? But the decision of individuals to campaign against the government, having checked that such a campaign will not hurt those they support financially, all within the law, is? This whole bill is as corrupt as it gets in NZ.

(e) ensure that the controls on the conduct of electoral
and election campaigns—
(i) are effective; and
(ii) are clear; and
(iii) can be efficiently administered, complied with,
and enforced.

Are they effective? time will tell. I don’t think they will acheive their stated goal for the reasons outlined above. I feel that voter backlash will stop the bill from acheiving it’s unstated goal, that is the preservation of power by Labour.

Are they Clear? We see from Annette King’s statement in the house yesterday that these laws have been rushed, that the extent of the laws as devised are far reaching with a host of unintended consequences and a reliance on “common sense”

And since when has political discussion in NZ needed rules that need to be “enforced”. How will that enforcement take place? Who will administer these laws and ensure they are complied with?

This bill must be killed. We must start again.

Because it doesn’t involve a financial transaction, eg doorknocking, holding a placard at a rally.

English is just taking advantage of Labour confusion over the Act they are clumsily putting together.

Look, iiq, resistance to the EFB is understandable. No one likes to be regulated if they can help it.

The poor young hairdresser girls were always fearful of making a mistake everytime the Kingy dragon walked in the door .

This women is as insane as Clark and Wilson !!!

is an explicit purpose of the act; and clause 4 & 5 explain what transparency, accountability is required by what people in what general acts; how is the example nonsensical given that it is covered by clauses 3,4 & 5?

The purpose of the act is explicitly expressed and is a clause that precedes and can be interpreted as framing both 4 and 5, which have been identified as containing the offending legislation. Clause 3 should be considered as part of the interpretation.

The purpose is interpretive and the method is prescriptive.

Read the Bill, then comprehend the Bill then THINK about it.

So is it your contention that a Court should disregard breaches of the EFB when, in their opinion, the breaches are not serious enough to be contrary to the expressed purpose of the Act. That would be a most unusual rule of statutory interpretation.

3 Purpose
The purpose of this Act is to strengthen the law governing
electoral financing and broadcasting, in order to— 10
(a) maintain public and political confidence in the administration
of elections; and
(b) promote participation by the public in parliamentary
democracy; and
(c) prevent the undue influence of wealth on electoral out- 15
comes; and
(d) provide greater transparency and accountability on the
part of candidates, parties, and other persons engaged in
election activities in order to minimise the perception of
corruption; and 20
(e) ensure that the controls on the conduct of áelectoralñ
áelectionñ campaigns—
(i) are effective; and
(ii) are clear; and
(iii) can be efficiently administered, complied with, 25
and enforced.

While it isn’t clear, anyone using their common sense can connect the dots and assume that this provides the framework for the implementation of the act. However, it needs to be made clear for it to be good legislation.

Of course we have seen similar sloppy thinking about the Anti Smacking Bill where Bradford and her ilk insisted that even if touching one’s child was a technical breach of the law (a point they were loath to concede) the police would never prosecute.

Why can these people not see that badly drafted law cannot be glossed over by relying on everybody to know what the law is supposed to mean and how it is supposed to be applied – even if that is not what the law says.

Mind you it does create a strong argument for Hansard to be given more weight by the Courts in interpreting what a statute actually means. The Labour Party and its cohorts seem to have adopted Humpty Dumpty’s maxim:

Humpty Dumpty: When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.

I have some clients who have a sticker on their letter box which says –
`Party Vote National’. It is a left over from the 2005 election (I know it should have been removed by election day).

What is their position if it stays there.

They are not political activists just people who like to help out their friends.