The Wellington March
A reminder to everyone interested that the Wellington march against the Electoral Finance Bill is today, leaving Civic Square at 12.30 pm.
If you need a succinct reason as to why you should march, here’s it is:
Under the Electoral Finance Bill, a placard in a protest march in January 2008 which says “Down with Labour’s Electoral Finance Bill” will be an election advertisement.
However Labour’s election pledgecard, the centrepiece of their election campaign, will not be an election advertisement if it funded by the taxpayer – even if released in the final week of the election.
Labour broke the law in 2005. The broke it in two ways.
The Electoral Commission and the Chief Electoral Officer both said that Labour’s pledge card was an illegal election advertisement. The Electoral Finance Bill will mean that it will now not have to be counted as part of their election advertising.
The Auditor-General and the Solicitor-General both said that it was illegal for the pledge card to be funded by the taxpayer. However Labour is broke so they are changing the law through their Appropriations Validating Act to allow them to send the bill to the taxpayer again.
I have a huge level of respect for these neutral institutions of state. I think it is important we have an Electoral Commission, a Chief Electoral Office, an Auditor-General who fairly interpret the laws. They are not conflicted with an interest in the outcome.
Since Labour’s illegal behaviour was publicised in 2006, they have had a relentless campaign against some of these officials. They have claimed the Chief Electoral Officer and the Auditor-General were biased, were incompetent, were wrong, were making things up, were inconsistent. It’s been disgraceful to have the Government of NZ attack its own senior officials in such a way.
They were finally made to pay back $800,000. But now in a fit of revenge they are changing the law to fit their bizarre interpretation. Can anything be more ridiculous than a law which will now exempt an election pledge card from being considered an election expense? And worse a companion law which allows them to send the taxpayer the bill for their election pledge card?
So if you do not think Labour’s election pledge card should be exempt from the Electoral Act, then have your say today.
November 21st, 2007 at 8:48 am
Under the Electoral Finance Bill, a placard in a protest march in January 2008 which says “Down with Labour’s Electoral Finance Bill” will be an election advertisement.
But: “Down with the Electoral Finance Bill”, woudln’t be covered?
November 21st, 2007 at 8:50 am
“They were finally made to pay back $800,000. But now in a fit of revenge they are changing the law to fit their bizarre interpretation.”
In passing . . .
Amongst all this krap, did Winston actually pay back the money his party stole or have they hung out until the validating law is yet ‘validated’ further, and bank on the two wrongs make it alright?
November 21st, 2007 at 8:57 am
Mike: I doubt it. Possibly very close to the election it could be argued it is advocating a vote against the parties supporting it or a vote for the parties seeking to repeal it.
Yvette: No Winston and Peter Dunne are yet to pay all of their money back. Winston has in fact paid none.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:02 am
Was Winston on a begging mission in North Korea? BTW – I loved the way Paul Henry was having a dig at him today about his “relationship’ with Condaleeza.
I would love to be in Welly today, but business commitments prevent that – to all those marchers who get out there today – great stuff, and Kill the Bill!
November 21st, 2007 at 9:04 am
Winston has in fact paid none.
Give the guy a break – it costs him an extra $0.50 in fees if he makes a withdrawal from any of the ATMs near Parliament – he’s just waiting until he’s close to one of his own banks money machines.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:10 am
Mike: I doubt it. Possibly very close to the election it could be argued it is advocating a vote against the parties supporting it or a vote for the parties seeking to repeal it.
If all i have to do is leave out the electioneering part of a billboard, placard, mailout ect during an election year, i am quite happy to do so, i dont not feel as if my free speach is being infringed.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:12 am
Danyl.
Thanks for making me smile!!!!
November 21st, 2007 at 9:17 am
Winston will pay the money just before the eklection for the ‘good press’ bank the interest, then overspend to the tune of say $650,000 next time with impunity under the Appropriations Act, then call it a day having broken roughly even after his backroom deal/rort to support the original EFB and Appropriations Bills.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:19 am
Helen’s Pledge Card will be her albatross hanging her neck. It will be her epitaph.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:21 am
Danyl, I may think you are a left wing knob. But that post is damn funny!
November 21st, 2007 at 9:28 am
If you were to march with a placard that said “VOTE FOR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION”, which party would complain about about that and why?
Applying the law of common sense, a party who complained against that would be against freedom, would it not?
November 21st, 2007 at 9:28 am
Sorry! Should be “round” her neck
November 21st, 2007 at 9:32 am
slightyrighty
They would be all queueing up to claim that the cost should NOT be held against their caps though. Work that one out!
November 21st, 2007 at 9:43 am
Just get ouy there and march for democracy.Hope the weather is fine and have fun.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:49 am
Who saw Cullen ridiculing the supposed low turn-out on TV news the other night.
Put the smug git’s nose out of joint!
November 21st, 2007 at 9:54 am
I’ll be there.
Look out for a guy wearing a t-shirt taking the piss out of Communism.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:09 am
Go Wellington – don’t think of the reasons why not – just get out there. I have too many friends in Auck who said they wanted to march but didn’t. This is not the time to be a typical Kiwi and think “she’ll be right”.
November 21st, 2007 at 10:23 am
We have Annette king trying to upstage the King of Common Sense – Hon Peter Dunne Leader of the Common Sense Party
November 21st, 2007 at 10:49 am
So which part of DPFs very clearly stated explanation didnt you Socialist supporters understand Trouble is your eyes and ears are painted on just like the cretin politicans you fawn over
November 21st, 2007 at 10:57 am
Put it in your pants DPF! Is the EFB the closest thing you get to sex, ‘wham bam thank you mame?’
[DPF: And that's 20 demerits]
November 21st, 2007 at 10:59 am
I’ll be the guy standing on the side of the road shouting ‘why aren’t you all at work?’
November 21st, 2007 at 11:04 am
I’ll be the guy standing on the side of the road shouting ‘why aren’t you all at work?’
Why wont you be at work?
November 21st, 2007 at 11:04 am
Question that I think I know the answer (and most probably has already been answered?): would marches such as the recent Terrorism Act one, the Civil Union Bill one or the dire Destiny one be illegal if the EFB comes into force?
November 21st, 2007 at 11:04 am
Could be for the same reason why you aren’t Danyl! Pot … kettle ….
November 21st, 2007 at 11:05 am
Bevan: ha ha – touché!
November 21st, 2007 at 11:09 am
Some people on the right just can’t see irony. And some of them can’t see the apostrophe key.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:09 am
While Bob and his God fearing, straight, white, middle class minions are out on the picket line, Family Firsts promos might spontaneously manifest itself in central Hamilton.
http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/Files/Family%20First%20Promo%2045.mov
November 21st, 2007 at 11:10 am
yes it does illustrate the tendency of some to stand on a moral soapbox and criticise others for doing exactly what they are doing themselves, doesn’t it?
(note to self – ban soap)
November 21st, 2007 at 11:13 am
Why wont you be at work?
I’m a mannekin.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:26 am
Danyl – I didn’t want to be the first to say it….
November 21st, 2007 at 11:27 am
And some on the left just can’t see at all… they are blinded by their ideology.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:34 am
Danyl
Good form today!!
I wish I could be there – I have a sense this march will be bigger and will garner more coverage since it is the capital. To all blog readers in the Wellington region – this is the time for your voice to be heard. Freedom is lost when good people fail to speak up – I never thought it would ever come to this that the cornerstone of our democracy (the Electoral Act) which has been a model of bi-partisan fairness for decades is being amended in such a blatantly partisan way.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:34 am
kk – like my old man used to say – ‘If you keep doing that son, you will go blind.’
I’d reply;
“I’m over here, Dad.”
November 21st, 2007 at 11:34 am
You really have got yourself in a spin over this Davey. Hard to see what all the fuss is about but then again I’m not the one being interviewed on TV because I oppose the bill.
Just so we know in advance, what would a reasonable turn out for the march be? And how many would be so low that basically only a few hard core political types with not much else to do care? Is more than 2000 a reasonable turnout or would you be happy with 1000 or even 500 for it to be a success?
November 21st, 2007 at 11:36 am
I’d say the fact it is happening is a success.
If it was one man and his dog, I’d think “Well at least there is some hope for NZ”….
November 21st, 2007 at 11:38 am
I hope there is a significant turnout and no one is poisoned by 1080 in parliament grounds, but DOC say its alright in our water ways and they allow it to kill our wildlife and forests , however , who cares as Lairbour can do want they want , when they want . Protect the MP’s at all COSTS , as the gang of political cronies rort the country . Civil war is being mooted just look at the WINZ sponsered para military schools in the out back !!
I think the kiwi’s leaving this country in ever increasing numbers have the right idea , because this nation is a cess pit of corruption and is a lost cause . Just look at the disgraceful antics of a fascist government and the dismal performance of our national sporting teams . I don’t think John Key is the answer to drag this country out of the septic sewer it has become under the sinister Helen Clark .
November 21st, 2007 at 11:41 am
RocketBoy, don’t play the numbers game. Any turnout will be both a success in the minds of the protestors, and a sign of failure in the eyes of those who are keen to see democracy muzzled.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:47 am
Danyl
I always thought the Labour apologists calling National party people “hollow” was the pot calling the kettle black. Now you confirm it.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:49 am
“I’m a mannekin.”
Actually Danyl , I thought I saw you in a pet shop front window the other day ? What was that cage all about ?
November 21st, 2007 at 11:53 am
David, it would be good if you or some lawyer on this blog would comment on the following.
I am taking part in collecting signatures at tables calling for referendum to repeal or amend Bradford’s anti smacking legislation. We have signs on the table. None mention Bradford or Labour.
This method of collecting signatures is much more effective than just asking friends and acquaintances. We are 75% of the way to 300.000 signatures.
Could signs such as repeal the “anti smacking legislation” or let the people decide be deemed illegal after 1 Jan?
November 21st, 2007 at 12:03 pm
A coment on a blog like this (because it has some comercial cadvertising) could even be considerd electioneering.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:04 pm
p.s. make sure you turn up for the march. If your working maybe spare a few minutes of your lunch time.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Chuck – I think that is fine as the law eventually was supported by almost all parties. If you mention Bradford that would be different.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Chuck ,
As you know I have been helping with the collection of signatures and I have asked several lawyers to what will happen after Clark has her way with the EFB , the brainwashing bill .They have ALL expressed concern , because it seems to be another legal grey area . Like parental smacking standards the police are now to determine who is guilty of over stepping the line regarding speaking out against the Clark regime . The powers of the police state mentality will further distance them from the public . The judiciary is appalled at the antics of Clark’s corrupt government . It’s like the insane Helen Clark wants anarchy,so she can remain queen bitch ?
November 21st, 2007 at 12:26 pm
If the crowd looks in any way significant, what are the odds that some form of ‘counter demonstration’ will appear. Any news coverage will then focus on conflict between the groups, rather then the marchers’ message.
This is Street Politics 101, something the left knows far more about than the right in New Zealand.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:29 pm
So will those Exclusive Brethren types be at the front, or will the organisers hide them in
the middle?
November 21st, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Hori,
Quite right. Labour said that the Exclusive Bretheren weren’t allowed to make their point of view known. Apparently, the Catholic church IS allowed to though, so family first might be allowed at the front.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Just saw the march take off – only about 200 people mx. DPF sstriding at the front in a mauvish shirt. Mix of ages – a number of suits and some teens.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Oh – and by the way, your nz.politics & nz.general usenet posts will require you to state full name & address on every one of them.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:41 pm
bobux, that would be the worst thing the left could do. With media already turned hostile over the EFB, how do you think a left generated bun fight would play to the nation?
November 21st, 2007 at 12:42 pm
I heard John Boscowan indicating this morning that there would be a second march in Auckland.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Apparently someone in the Wellington march has a banner saying ‘Greens, WTF are you doing?’.
No way should that ever be illegal.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Do you think there will be big numbers on the Wellington march?
Isn’t most of Wellington employed by the Government?
Just a thought.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Yes webwrat – If seen on the march you could end up being “setchelled”
November 21st, 2007 at 1:08 pm
You can bet that no one in the civil service will be marching unless they want to be unemployed for Xmas. The Bosses will be reporting the H2 anyone who breaks ranks.
Watch out for the employment contracts to have a clause that you must vote for the socialists if you sign up for the civil service.
Why not Logical next step.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Just back from the March – numbers a bit lighter than I thought, but good x-section of society. The bloke next to me hadn’t been on a march before, and I hadn’t for >20 years.
Well run and well spoken David.
And Stephen Franks was a real loss from parliament.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Oh and the young labour equivalent did appear and were treated with some dignity and allowed a turn for speech. What the left don’t get is this is about democratic principles.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Numbers anyone?
(I’m not in Wellington today so missed it)
100? 1000?
November 21st, 2007 at 1:52 pm
pkiwi
No No You got it all wrong This is about winning and keeping on winning elections by ensuring your opposition is muzzled.
You people really must get up to speed
November 21st, 2007 at 1:53 pm
First thoughts from the march.
Turnout fairly low – sub 1000 to my highly inexperienced eye. Marchers largely silent until they approached parliament – I had the impression these weren’t people with a lot of experience of demos.
And surprise surprise, there was an attempt to disrupt coverage of the march. Who could possibly have seen THAT coming?
Just as the march reached the barricade outside Parliament, half a dozen young people wearing (bad) John Key masks forced their way to the front of the crowd, carrying a megaphone and a bag of fake money. “Get the masks off” yelled the crowd, who had a better sense of irony than the would-be disrupters. The disrupters shouted down the organisers with their megaphone, until Stephen Franks bvlindsided them with an offer to make their case using the ‘official’ PA system, if they would let the organisers continue uninterrupted. The young guy being asked immediately backpedalled, saying something like “But I haven’t got a speech ready”. Stephen persisted (I couldn’t hear conversation), and they shut up in return for a speaking slot.
DPF was up first, filling in for John Boscowen, who was kept away by the closure of Wellington airport. David did a good job of outlining his objections to the EFB. I hate to say it though Dave, but you ain’t a natural orator.
This was followed by the spokesman for the anti-free speech advocates. His speech was basically “David is a National stooge, National wants to buy the election, National has no ideas, you are all dupes of National.” This didn’t go down terribly well with the crowd.
Interestingly, the spokesman claimed to have never been a Labour member, and not be involved in with Labour in any way. I have no idea if that is the case, but the polynesian guy holding the megaphone and making most of the noise was none other than Sonny Thomas, Wellington rep on the Young Labour national executive. Some of the other faces look pretty familiar from those circles too. It is stretching credibility a very long way to suggest that Labour wasn’t involved in trying to disrupt the demo. See the mug-shots on
http://www.younglabour.org.nz/executive.htm
Stephen Franks next gave a very powerful rebuttal – could some right-leaning party please get that guy back into parliament. Stephen- you were great.
Next up was Jeanette Fizsimmons of the greens, who attempted a defence of the Greens support for the legislation. Bonus points for facing a hostile crowd, but Jeanette, your message sucked. Basically, you don’t have confidence that the average voter can see through political propaganda and make up their own mind. So you want to protect us from exposure to all this nasty advertising. For our own good, of course. Noone down the back could hear you, in any case.
Next up was Nick Smith of National. He was opening in surprisingly strong form (I’ve never heard him at a public meeting) when I left.
It was the only demo I have ever seen where the organisers gave speaking rights to two groups directly opposing their message – bonus free speech points for that.
On the other hand, to lose one featured speaker is unfortunate, to lose two suggests carelessness. To lose three suggests a complete fucking shambles. John Boscowen has a bulletproof excuse (“my father died, then the airport shut”). No idea what happened to the Sensible Sentancing and Family First speakers, but their absence compounded my already dim view of those organisations.
Very interested to see the coverage on TV tonight – it will probably focus largely on the shouting match between the crowd and a handful of disrupters. Which, of course, is why they were there.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:56 pm
“sub 1000″
oops.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Couple of hundred max I’d say – at the start anyway, more may have joined on the way. With DPF leading from the front
November 21st, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Not a bad thing that sensible sentencing and family first were not there. Even Gordon Copeland who spoke seems a bit marginal (and his old mate is still to repay his overspend from the last election too!).
November 21st, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Well so much for that campaign.
How is the weather?
November 21st, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Not as f***ing gale force-insane that November in the capital usually is.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Thanks for that Bobux, it’ll be intersting to see how it’s reported this evening.
Sonic,you really are a drippy bugger. Happy now that someone has responded to your inanities?
G
November 21st, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Dismal, uninspiring, lacking punch. Made the Right look petty. They stayed away in droves.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:18 pm
I think that open politics like demonstrations are not really the preserve of the right Gladstone.
They are much happier with anonymous donations in secret smoke filled rooms (our host excepted of course)
November 21st, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Bobux
Good summary of the march. I have just come back from the march with my husband. When the young labour lackeys joined in, I walked in front of the big one and held my placard about 2 inches from his nose all the way up Lambton Quay. It really ruined his moment in the sun, because the cameras were trying to film him, but all they could get at that stage was my placard. The photographer motioned me to move out the way, but I wouldn’t.
It was worth going to the march just to watch the Young Labour Guerillas reaction, you could see he would have loved to have hit me,or at the very least broken my placard but it would have been such a bad look hitting a middle – aged mother of two on camera.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Kevin Brady did a terrible job in his review. National were simply lucky that most of their spending wasn’t even looked at; they got away with this, while Richard Prebble, who wasn’t running in 2005, was accused of electioneering.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:28 pm
“you could see he would have loved to have hit me”
No offence but is that not a bit of a leap?
November 21st, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Good on you democracymum.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Let me rephrase
“He was not a happy chappy”
” If looks could kill” etc etc
November 21st, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Thanks David. I thought you spoke well. Quite funny having an attack from the Brownshirts though … who’d have thought?
November 21st, 2007 at 2:33 pm
“Young Labour Guerillas reaction”
Bring it on you spineless communist arseholes !!! Harrass mums eh ? You want a good lesson in manners you weirdo creeps !!!
November 21st, 2007 at 2:35 pm
sonic, don’t play the numbers game. Any turnout will be both a success in the minds of the protestors, and a sign of failure in the eyes of those who are keen to see democracy muzzled. I’m marking you down as one of the latter group.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Fair enough democracymum, I’ve certainly tried to create the same reaction in my opponents.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:36 pm
“No offence but is that not a bit of a leap?”
Leap back down your socialist sewer pond – you twisted sonic creep !!!
How long you been in the country , what was that again ?
November 21st, 2007 at 2:36 pm
It was sub 200 marchers, and about a third of them were kids their parents had taken out of school to boost numbers.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Talking about opponents sonic coward . Do you box ?
November 21st, 2007 at 2:37 pm
“don’t play the numbers game”
Sorry Krazy, but all demontrations are about numbers, thats the whole point of them, “demonstrating” how many people are for/against a particular thing.
Otherwise it is a lobby, not a demonstration.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:39 pm
I see dad4Justice is indulging in his sad attempts and intimidation again.
I’ll just follow my usual strategy and ignore him. he is not very well.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Farrar’s line of argument concerntrated on ridicilous interepreations of the defination of publish under clause 5 of the Bill. The left protesters pointed out that the Bill will stop National receiveing huge secret doantions and that’s why they’re so scared.
The Bill will make elections a contest of ‘who has the best ideas, not who has the deepest wallets’ was the joker’s phrase.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Sonic: I think that open politics like demonstrations are not really the preserve of the right Gladstone.
Middle of the week during a working day. Yes, I’m hardly surprised the turnout was on the low side. Of course, some people do have to work – they can’t be part of the “rent-a-mob” collective like Maya and others.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:40 pm
No doubt Sam, there would have been more of Auntie Helen lickspittle lackeys lurking on tax payer funds doing a head count ? How many parasitic public servants in our cess pit Capital !!??
Airway spies , welcome to Helengrad the land of lies and corruption .
November 21st, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Thanks Sam, anyone got a link to any media coverage?
November 21st, 2007 at 2:41 pm
ah, I see they’re pointing that out on Kiwiblogblog too http://kiwiblogblog.wordpress.com/2007/11/21/farrar-froths-over-small-beer/ and other posts
November 21st, 2007 at 2:41 pm
sonic – yes, you’re correct, this march was not exclusively peopled with right-wingers, it just seemed that way. The pettiness tag will however, fall to the right.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Clause 666 – burn the witch
November 21st, 2007 at 2:42 pm
The turnout was not what some , including myself, would have hoped. Perhaps a Saturday morning rally would have more attending?
November 21st, 2007 at 2:44 pm
sam stop posting links to that insane freakshow the sub standard you weirdo .
November 21st, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Sonic
“I think that open politics like demonstrations are not really the preserve of the right”
If by ‘preserve’ you mean “Something considered as being the exclusive province of certain persons or groups”, it certainly isn’t. Thankfully.
If you mean that the NZ right isn’t very good at street demonstrations, I think you are correct.
If you are trying to suggest that the right doesn’t believe in open politics, you are free to hold this opinion.
Suggesting that the NZ left (if you consider Labour to be of the left) doesn’t believe in open politics is no longer a matter of opinion. Their sweeping restrictions on free speech for the whole of an election year confirm that they are opposed to open debate.
Kind of interesting too that members of Young Labour went to the trouble of trying to disrupt a demonstration attacking a Labour Party bill. Scared of bad publicity? No, of course they’re not scared…
November 21st, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Actually we are much happier just getting on with our lives, while the government keeps out of them.
Mind you sonic I have no issues with political doners remaining anonymous, looking at how vindictive Labour is to anyone who opposes them I wouldnt want my name or my companies name to be listed as a doner to National.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Bobux, the counter-demo is just as much a part of free speech as the demo.
You can’t condemn one without condemning the other.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Bevan, have you got an example of a business group that has been discriminated against because it donated to the National party?
Serious question.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:52 pm
The Bill will make elections a contest of ‘who has the best ideas, not who has the deepest wallets’ was the joker’s phrase.
HA! So I take it you will oppose Labour funding any of its re-election using parliarmentary funds then? Or is spending vast amounts of public money OK? How is spending Private money on an election campaign bad, yet spending vast amounts of public money OK?
November 21st, 2007 at 2:54 pm
is it just me, or is Bevan is sounding a bit desperate today?
November 21st, 2007 at 2:55 pm
“Bevan, have you got an example of a business group that has been discriminated against because it donated to the National party?”
Klark made threats to interfere with Maxim director’s business. Something to do with trying to have them excluded from government contracts. I’ve given the reference before. (on Kiwiblog)
November 21st, 2007 at 2:56 pm
I thought it went pretty well for my first march. Sure the numbers were lacking (I guess-timate about 2-300? Pity it wasn’t on a Saturday like the Auckland one), but that doesn’t mean the message wasn’t strong.
The crowd didn’t get there goat up until Young Labour hijacked proceedings just going past Old Bank Starbucks. Masks with Key, English, Brownlee etc. plus Monty Burns, throwing fake money around, chanting into a megaphone anti-money/National/free-speech slogans. They made their way to the front, and continued in that fashion until the gates of Parliament. They were (rightfully) verbally abused with calls for them to take their masks off; state their name and address etc, then they got shouted over by the protest march as of right. Got a bit heated at times between sides, but at least it shows some passion.
The marchers themselves were a good cross-section – teenagers, suits, oldies and mothers/fathers. Some were wearing their (grand)parent’s war medals – a good symbol for the freedom we were marching for today.
At Parliament steps, the YL crowd kept it up with megaphone shouting, trying to stop/delay the speakers from starting. As mentioned above, they were blind-sided by an invitation to give their side of the story using the PA system proper, if they would let us have our say in peace (which they didn’t at times!).
DPF spoke first and had a good crack. John Boscawen he might not be, but he made his message conscise, pointing out that what we were doing – us and YL – was going to be illegal next year under the EFB.
Then the YL rep came up and to give him credit, with no preperation, he made his sides argument against an ugly crowd. The points he made were all from the 9th floor bible, but still good on him for exercising his right to free speech.
I had never heard (or even seen!) Steven Franks before, but if he was contesting an electorate seat, I would vote for him in an instant. Well-spoken with good points on why the Bill should be killed.
Jeanette was very brave fronting for the Greens and in even showing up at all, even after she backed down the first time. She pointed out the ‘Greens – WTF are you doing’?’ placard at the start and I think that was a mistake. A lot of lame “You are allowed to advertise your views…..(and in a quieter voice) but only up to the spending limits). A lot of ’shame’ calls – including me, also of ’sellout’.
Nick Smith gave a rousing speech, pointing out NZ’s proud history of free democracy, and why passing the Bill will go towards ruining part of that freedom. Well done Nick.
And then Gordon Copeland said a few words. Not as rousing – as he now doesn’t have a party backing his views – but at least he was putting his balls out there.
And agree with Bobux, a shame to not have your key speakers there. Also Lindsay Mitchell never got a word in, even though DPF annouced she would – I was looking forward to listening to her words of wisdom.
And a cheeky note by DPF to end the day, annoucing his name and address, should the EFB be enacted retrospectively. Now we know what the ‘P’ stands for!
And Sonic, fair enough about respecting the counter-demo. Pity they didn’t show the march they hi-jacked that respect in the first place.
Well done to those that showed up.
And as I back up DPF’s question: who on the select comittee decided to add in the “megaphone” clause before reporting it back?
November 21st, 2007 at 2:56 pm
I tell you sonic it will be the Prime Minister sounding desperate soon, but my lips are sealed FOR NOW !!!
November 21st, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Agree with bobux & Bevan – the right isn’t good at street marches and so what? The numbers and the chanting in the march did lack a visceral edge, so what? And yet, Stephen Franks got polite applause and hear-hears for ideas well phrased.
People demanding ‘more’ – whether it be students re fees or Brian Tamaki wanting to impose his morality – these do have more drama and intent and can pull a bigger protest.
If you want less – a bit less taxation, a bit less government knows best sort of stuff etc. – well we don’t want ‘rivers of blood’ for that thanks.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:59 pm
I joined halfway up Lambton Quay, so make that “Couple of hundred max” plus 1
I was glad Stephen made a point about secret ballots. I’d had exactly that thought myself this morning. I would rather have secret donations and secret ballots than non-secret donations and non-secret ballots. I further believe that abstention should be secret too, which it isn’t currently because of administrative difficulties, but I say that’s not a good enough reason. My vote is secret, and whether I vote should be too.
The guy who claimed not to be from Labour didn’t say who he *was* from. Who was he? Had he read the bill?
November 21st, 2007 at 3:01 pm
“Young Labour hijacked proceedings”
By exercising their right to free speech?
I’m confused, I thought that is what you were marching for?
November 21st, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Bevan, have you got an example of a business group that has been discriminated against because it donated to the National party?
Serious question.
Why do you only require an example of a business group that has been discriminated? My statement was Labour were vindictive to National supporters, therefore I wouldnt want my name or my companies name listed as donating to National. Sounds like you need to learn some reading comphrehension mate.
For starters Id say the EB, it seems for the crime of highlighting the policies of Labour and the Greens they disagree with, they have been ridiculed wouldnt you say? Or do you think they should not be allowed a voice?
Now lets see, Ms Setchall given the door for the crime of dating John Key’s press secretary.
November 21st, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Oh and sonic, how about Cullen threatening the Herald about a certain retrospective Tax law. Theres one business group, and it looks like RB has given you another.
November 21st, 2007 at 3:03 pm
“. I’ve given the reference before”
But then mislaid it?
0/10
Sorry lets make that 1/10 for at least trying.
November 21st, 2007 at 3:04 pm
The irony will be lost of the YL and the Socialist supporters on this and other sites that the protect march today would be illegal as undertaken.
So why you left arseholes the need for all the crapola under the Bill next year to have a march like todays .
Come on None of you have a logical sensible reasonable explaination because there is none.
The only reason is to shut down any opposition to your Scum Socialist parties and their lap poodles
November 21st, 2007 at 3:04 pm
As I may have said before, Bevan and desperate seem to be words that flow together today.
Poor Bevan.
November 21st, 2007 at 3:07 pm
GD, no offence meant mate, but do you think anyone on the serious left would let the law shut us down if we decided to march?
get real.
We just organised big protests over the “terror” arrests. Do you think a EFB would have stopped us?
November 21st, 2007 at 3:08 pm
dadforjustice – your lips are sealed…with lickspittle??
November 21st, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Aah Sonic. You are a master of the hyperbole, I’ll give you that.
They are allowed as much free speech as you or I, good sir. But when that free speech becomes vindictate, malicious and destructive, what do you call it then? Free speech maybe, but would you still respect it in the morning?
November 21st, 2007 at 3:13 pm
gd: The irony will be lost of the YL and the Socialist supporters on this and other sites that the protect march today would be illegal as undertaken.
Yes they will be and no, they will not be prosecuted. We know there is one law for the government and it’s supporters and one law for the government’s critics. You need only look at the “Not in the public interest” cases littering the Labour election trail to know that.
November 21st, 2007 at 3:16 pm
sonic – my monkey with type writer blog – wanna contribute and add balance to my peseudo-fascistic ramblings?
http://troubleingodzone.blogspot.com/
November 21st, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Sonic, got an example yet of an insurance company donating to National? Not sure why anybody would bother giving examples to you when you are patently unable to give examples for your statements.
November 21st, 2007 at 3:19 pm
As I may have said before, Bevan and desperate seem to be words that flow together today.
Poor Bevan.
Poor sonic, when given examples from even his narrow request he defaults to playing the man not the ball…
I would shake my head, but considering thats Labour’s standard tactic these days I guess its to be expected….
November 21st, 2007 at 3:19 pm
I’d like to have an example Paul, however as National got 1 million dollars+ from “anonymous” donations I’m finding it hard to track down.
perhaps if you joined my campaign for all parties to open the books we could see where we are at.
November 21st, 2007 at 3:20 pm
So because there were only 6 Young Labour folks rarking things up a bit can we assume that the rest of Young Labour joins us in opposing the legislation? Of couse not. Neither does the number demonstrating have any bearing on the disgust that so many people feel.
I was there – my first ever protest march, and I was one of quite a few. I spoke to a labour supporter who’d never demonstrated and we were joined by a green supporter who claimed to have never demonstrated (tho he had collect petition signatures on the street). There was a surprising level of uniformity of our dislike for what Labour and their poodles are doing.
Oh, incidentally I asked 23 people (who I’d never met before) if they worked in the public service.
Result: Nil.
Hmmmmm
November 21st, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Poor Bevan. Playing the man not the ball is it now?
Have you actually read any of your contributions above?
I’d suggest a test for political Altzimers disease my friend.
November 21st, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Sam Dixon
“It was sub 200 marchers, and about a third of them were kids their parents had taken out of school to boost numbers.”
Were you even there? I saw a few pre-school children, but didn’t notice any school-age children at all. Did any other participants think a third of the marchers were school-age kids? Or is Sam just making stuff up again.
November 21st, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Oh Lee, think your new blog is good stuff. Hope you keep it up.
the more voices we have online the better, and you have a voice that should be heard.
November 21st, 2007 at 3:24 pm
making it up
November 21st, 2007 at 3:26 pm
KrazyKiwi, glad you are no longer an demo virgin, so to speak.
Personally I’ve been involved in a few demos that had a humiliating turnout, and I know how it stings.
However the best solution is not to justify it, it is to resolve to do better next time.
November 21st, 2007 at 3:28 pm
bobux, my 17 year old son was there. but then he presented a oral submission to the select committee… so nothing was going to keep him away.
sam suggesting ‘one third’ is utter rubbish but there were one or two kids. perhaps their parents thought it important for them to see their mum/dad being prepared to stand up for what they believe in.
November 21st, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Sonic
By my count, between 1.52pm and 3.21pm you have made 18 posts about a demonstration you neither participated in nor witnessed.
On a topic you think is a non-event.
Disconnect, anyone?
November 21st, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Sonic: I completely agree to all parties in future opening the books on anonymous donations above say $1000. It is a bit hard to open the books on anonymous donations in the past – doesn’t really work that way does it now.
I’m interested in why your favourite party modified the EFB to put some limit on anonymous donations, but only if the anonymous donations were more than Labour collected. So it wasn’t a principle thing, it was a screw National thing. The right answer was to require all anonymous donations to be under $1000, which National would quite happily have signed up to.
I think you’ll find that the law won’t make any difference to National’s donations, whilst people would probably rather their names weren’t known they will at the end of the day still donate. So it really achieves nothing for Labour in terms of reducing National’s funding, despite attempting to do so. But it is petty and spiteful, basically saying that you have to disclose your name and address even if it isn’t in your personal best interest to do so, and opening you up to discrimination on the basis of your political views. In short, creating pain for a bunch of people and achieving absolutely nothing useful in the process. But of course, that was the point, it was always about making life difficult for National supporters, not about principle.
By the way, has anybody yet shown that this legislation would actually have caught the EB campaign – so far as I can tell none of the amendments have closed the loopholes, so if the EB wanted they could go ahead and run exactly the same campaign this election as they did last. Now that is some really shoddy drafting – not achieving your stated intent at all.
November 21st, 2007 at 3:30 pm
sonic, nothing humiliating about the demo at all. but had you been there… don’t know if i could have ever shown my face in public again
November 21st, 2007 at 3:33 pm
There weren’t very many children marching that I saw, just a handful. A few classes were having tours of the gallery and library, so may have been mistaken for marchers in civic square.
But what if they were children there? I would have taken my children if they had been able to come. What do I say to them when they bring projects home about democracy at school?
This government is stealing our democracy from under our feet. If I am not prepared to get out there and protest about what the government is doing, then I don’t deserve to live in a democracy.
November 21st, 2007 at 3:37 pm
“By my count, between 1.52pm and 3.21pm you have made 18 posts”
Exercising my freedom of speech?
Ok I’ll log of now and not return. I’m sure that will make all of my points go away.
xx
S
November 21st, 2007 at 3:46 pm
“But then mislaid it?”
You’re the one who continues to mislay things, most notably any facts that challenge your delusions. We’ve had this conversation before, and I remember it, and I remember providing the example, but to you it never existed. That’s the leftist mindset you see- no facts or information that challenges their sick oppressive religion can ever be permitted to exist.
November 21st, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Ok I’ll log of now and not return. I’m sure that will make all of my points go away.
No problem there sonic, you have yet to make a point anyway.
November 21st, 2007 at 4:39 pm
So the left here agree that the provisions relating to a protest march are like the rest of the Bill a load of unecessary bollocks designed by a bunch of 1984 Nutbars aka Crazy Clark and Sullen Cullen
Well we all agree on that then
November 22nd, 2007 at 8:10 am
bobux: Or is Sam just making stuff up again.
Sam “I have a law degree” Dixon is making stuff up again. He’s been called on it. Several times.