Some Billboards to enjoy
Democracy Attacks Back
The Free Speech Coalition has launched a billboard campaign today against the parties which voted for the Electoral Finance Act.
“The Electoral Finance Act was correctly labeled by the New Zealand Herald as an “Attack on Democracy” so we think it is fitting that Democracy should attack back.” Said spokesperson David Farrar
Three billboards are initially going up. One in Auckland targeting Helen Clark, one in Tauranga for Winston Peters and one in Wellington for Peter Dunne. They are a clear statement that we regard their legislation as anti-democratic and unconstitutional. MPs are there to serve the public, not to silence the public.
As Peter Dunne did flip-flop at the last second and vote against at the final reading, we are considering amending the
We do not know whether these billboards will breach the Electoral Finance Act after 1 January. If they are deemed election advertisements which advocate against a party then we will be in breach of the law if we do not register as a third party. For that reason we yesterday filed a request with the Electoral Commission to register.
It is possible however they could be considered election advertisements advocating against a candidate. In that scenario the limit is $4,000 and we would be breaking the law to keep these billboards up in January. This just illustrates how unclear the new law is. The Coalition will be asking the Electoral Commission for advice as we do not wish to break the law.
We hope the public enjoy the billboards over summer. We only have funding to keep them up for a month but will be asking people to donate to keep them up longer, or to allow us to roll out more billboards in more cities.
ENDS
Q&A on the Free Speech Coalition Billboards
- Where are they going up?
The Helen Clark billboard is was put up today near
It is going back up this afternoon on the corner of
The Winston Peters billboard will go up Thursday in Tauranga at the corner of
The
- What is the rationale for each billboard?
We have carefully selected an appropriate authoritarian for each billboard.
Helen Clark has been a trenchant critic of
Winston Peters of course has just been to
Peter Dunne has been an admirable champion of human rights for the Taiwanese, and the Greens likewise have admirably defended the human rights of
- Some of those leaders have done terrible things. Are you saying the Government here is as bad as them?
No, of course not. We are saying their forcing through of the Electoral Finance Bill against massive opposition and in breach of longstanding constitutional conventions is a step in the direction of authoritarianism, and that one step along that path is a step too far.
We note that both the Dominion Post and the NZ Herald have given out a Kim Jong-Il award this week, to a New Zealand MP. This is in a similar spirit as those awards.
- How much are the billboards costing and who paid for them?
The three sites combined cost $7,000 for a month’s rental. There are some production costs on top of that.
The Free Speech Coalition has had donations from scores of New Zealanders, and all donors get listed on our website at www.killthebill.org.nz
- How can people support the Free Speech Coalition
By donating to allow us to keep running more billboards. Our creative team is ready and waiting to go. People can donate online with a credit card at www.killthebill.org.nz, can post donations to
December 19th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Absolute fucking filth. You should be ashamed of yourself David.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Oh, those are just too funny. Get over yourself, Tane. If you found the cartoon of H1 in Nazi Drag the other day humerous, you gotta find these funny too.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Well done, David. I wondered why you’d gone quiet all of a sudden. By the way, who invoked the ‘controversial’ ad clause?
December 19th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
I didn’t find it humorous at all. I think you people have gone way too far in this and you’re playing a very dangerous game.
You’re cheapening the suffering of people who live under a dictatorship and trying to stoke division and hatred in our society. It’s sick politics and it does your cause a huge discredit. This will come back to bite the National Party.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
No Tane. You are the ‘fucking flith’. you and the party you support.
This government has destroyed this country. Every soldier who sacrificed themselves for New Zealand must be rolling in their graves. Yesterday democracy died in New Zealand. It is bordering on treason!. How dare Labour think that they can do this!
I will stop at nothing to ensure that I do all I can to make sure these authoritairian bastards are thrown out next year.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
You have to love opponents of free speech – they are so articulate as Tane has just demonstrated with his skillful use of the alliterated “F”s.
Alas I am none the wiser as to what it is exactly that Tane is objecting to.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
I think the one with the Greens.
They voted for it too, so should get some mention, and Dunne being on the billboard but crossed out is an accurate portrayal of his actions on the bill/act… a last minute, messy, change of mind.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Equting Fiji with thr EFB…. priceless.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Well Tane, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it aint a squirrel.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
btw,,
isn’t satire breaking the law now ??
December 19th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Oh and Tane… these aren’t National Party billboards… they’re private citizen’s billboards bought with their own money. You’re free to do the same if you’d like… maybe…
December 19th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Great stuff David, lets hope you can secure enough funding to have these things all over the country.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
But Tane…
We think NZ is heading down the path htese guys have already trod… now that is not funny!
December 19th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Every soldier who sacrificed themselves for New Zealand must be rolling in their graves.
Now you’re cheapening the memory of our soldiers to further your political ends. Is there any low you people will not stoop to?
December 19th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Go with Peter Dunne crossed out and the Greens inserted. That shows Dunne as indecisive while showing up the Greens as hypocritical. Well Done!!!
December 19th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Tane, you are saying that expressing your opinion is now a dangerous game?
Exactly, my friend, exactly!
December 19th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
No Tane you moron – they died defending freedom. They died defending democracy.
Yesterday, Labour destroyed everything those soldiers went to war to defend.
I am ashamed of my country today
December 19th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
“I will stop at nothing to ensure that I do all I can to make sure these authoritairian bastards are thrown out next year.”
Um how are you gonna throw them out? by voting against that???
Strange that you can do that, seeing as democracy is dead in NZ?
December 19th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
If this is intended as a joke then ha bloody ha. If not and this is real…then you people are very sad.
New Zealand can pride itself on generally being a balanced and tolerant place, after everyone has said their piece we get over ourselves and move on. The loons running this billboard campaign clearly want to kick that attitude into touch.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Do not wish to break the law ??
I think the ASB will be checking them out under industry codes of practice, funny that the capitalist sytem allready has ‘standards’ which commercial advertising has to agree to.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
“Now you’re cheapening the memory of our soldiers to further your political ends. Is there any low you people will not stoop to?”
No Tane,,
you saw the footage of the EFB protests. They were fronted by the old veterans who spoke for their dead comrades in arms.
This govt cheapened their heroic memories.
This bill is even worse than having the medals stolen.
Human rights were fought for and are more impt than medals.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Listen to Tane’s feigned offence!
Laughable!
This is the assmunch who has no problem with people who are sceptical of global warming being equated to those who deny the holocaust happend but would welcome another one!
December 19th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
For any journalists reading this thread:
The Free Speech Coalition is little more than a National Party front group.
David Farrar is a high profile National Party activist who has been employed out of National Party HQ in Wellington while working on this campaign.
He has previously worked for National in Parliament for more than a decade, including for Bill English when he was leader of the National Party.
The billboards were in part funded by Don Brash and other high profile members of the National Party.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Oh get over yourself Tane, I guess you want these billboards banned.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
“Um how are you gonna throw them out? by voting against that???
Strange that you can do that, seeing as democracy is dead in NZ?”
Democracy is far more than being able to vote, you ignorant little twat.
“The billboards were in part funded by Don Brash and other high profile members of the National Party.”
Ah the truth Tane! You dont want them to have a voice do you….
December 19th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Boo Hoo Tane,
If you don’t like free speech, then piss off to North Korea, China or Fiji.
These are clear examples of where freedom of speech is not enjoyed by thier citizens and NZ will be joining them on 1 Jan.
But then I think you want to have David and the rest of the Free Speech Coaltion thrown in jail for criticising the Labour party and morons like yourself.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Thanks for providing a list of donors. This is really good of you.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
And dont forget to tell them about that anti democratic state , USA, which merely buying a political T shirt from a campaign means you have to register your name address and employers name
December 19th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Tane: This will come back to bite the National Party.
Tane, I know this is tough to comprehend, but this is not a National Party sponsored campaign. This is done by ordinary people because they believe that the party you support, the Labour Party, is a bunch of self serving assholes who, after stealing one election is slowly legislating themselves into a dicatorship.
Get it through your head that people do not like self serving politicians like that. We fucking despise them. And after reasonable efforts at getting a partisan approach to this, to rework the law in such a way that it is fair to everyone and not just advantageous to the incumbent government (Who coincidentally happens to be the Labour / Green / NZ First / etc. coalition at the moment) people have to resort to extremer measures.
You sowed this. You get to reap it now. New Zealanders are not going to take this lying down.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
maybe Don Brash can organise a billboard above the motel where he now lives after being kicked out of the family home
December 19th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Why are you so upset Tane? These billboards will be illegal in January, so just get over it. A few more days and such criticism isn’t allowed anymore.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
For any journalists reading this thread:
Tane is a crackpot. If you listen to him, you will be following the sort of loon Nicky Hager would be embarassed to be seen with.
He once declared that the colours chosen by DPF for Kiwiblog PROVED he was a National party operative. In fact, they were the deault colours provided by the blogging site DPF uses.
He also once declared that the Kill the Bill organisation was corrupt because of $40 worth of anonymous donations! That $40 (in fact 2 lots of $20) were deposited directly into their bank account, and are therefore untraceable.
Search through this blog (and his own pathetic one) and you will find all the proof you will need to realise that by listening to him you risk your professional credibility.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
For any journalists reading this thread:
Yep and the rest of the opposition is no more than a front for the Labour party designed to attract attention to their wonderful, democracy saving, legislation.
Mike Moore is a low profile Labour Party associate who has had limited contact with Labour and all of his billboards are being funded by the unions.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
He once declared that the colours chosen by DPF for Kiwiblog PROVED he was a National party operative. In fact, they were the deault colours provided by the blogging site DPF uses.
Kimble, you’re lying. I never said any such thing.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
lets have a billboard in John keys street telling them about his flip flops.
Sorry billbords are not allowed you know in high priced areas, they are nimbys
Whats that free speech being suppressed !
December 19th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Tane you really are a jerk. Go and have a serious look at the published donor list. I think there is a D Brash with his name against a $250 donation.
Get yourself a little spread sheet (if you know how to use one) and see what the total of donations adds up to.
You people have sadly misunderestimated the mood of new Zealanders. I don’t think it will matter how much Cullen spends on election bribes or how mmany tens of millions Clark spends on departmental advertising for Labour. You people have been shown up for what you really are, a bunch of scoundrels and nobody said it better than Hone Harawira.
Have you read his speech, bro? It’s time you went back to the car park at Wairoa and with luck someone with deal to you in the local time honoured fashion, using rule 303.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Anybody else enjoying seeing Tane in a fluster?
Having said that his reaction only mirrors what will be happening right now on the 9th floor.
H2 will be flat out finding out who owns the billboard sites and you can guarantee that huge pressure will be placed upon the owners of these sites to have these signs removed.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
ghostwhowalks: And dont forget to tell them about that anti democratic state , USA, which merely buying a political T shirt from a campaign means you have to register your name address and employers name
That is bullshit. You are flat out lying now. The campaign by Obama was meant to raise awareness of the issue. It is not a requirement according to their campaign legislature.
And Tane, considering that there is a list of donors which is published – what is the crime in that? Are you so far gone in your partisan blinkers that donating publically to a campaign is now a crime? Get a grip mate. There is nothing – *nothing* – wrong with different people criticizing your government’s anti-democratic policies.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Poor Taney…
Consider it the eqiuivalent of “BushchimpyHitler” so beloved of the left.
This is not going to end well for the comrades.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Sorry Tane if I got you confused with someone else, all you crackpots have the same WRITING STYLE, so it is easy to confuse you all. Or maybe you are all just one person?!?!
December 19th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Tane, please don’t stop… give us more, you will eventually have a heart attack from the stress and then you will end up in the public shambles of a health system run by the same shambles of a Government that has attacked the democratic freedom we have enjoyed for many years in this once wonderful country called NZ.
I think Robbie Deans might be onto a winner moving to AU, and their tax cuts are worthy of being called tax cuts… Labour you are a shambolic joke!
December 19th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
or “equivalent”
December 19th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
You can say whatever you like, Tane, et al. But only because we don’t live in North Korea, or even Singapore.
Nor do we want to.
That’s why the EFB is so objectionable. And why the billboards are so apt.
(And why is the left getting so shrill? Could it be they’re suddenly panicking about public opinion?)
December 19th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Tane, when you said “I think you people have gone way too far in this and you’re playing a very dangerous game”, that is exactly what I thought about the EFB and Labour.
National is on record as saying the EFB will be repealed if National are elected, and a Multi-party approach to electoral reform will be carried out. This is what should have happened instead of the heavy handed dictatorial approach that has been forced through because Helen Clark has a majority of MP’s in Parliament.
Those who abuse thier position to force through this type of legislation against the will of the public, and against the advice of other state entities deserve the comparisons to those who have taken such thinking to extremes.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Wow, what a lot of heat. The billboards are shocking – just as was intended. Having had time to reflect on them, I think they are excellent. They make the point very well that this government have taken a step too far and no, we’re not gonna take it. .
December 19th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Tane, Tane, Tane, you are so so sad, and bitter! But you make me laugh with your whines and pseudo-heroic gasps of desperation to grap the headlines. I’m sure the journalists chuckled too.
But dude, what gives? You and your cronies would laugh too if it were Key, Brash or English. So the Standard has become the double-standard? It’s pretty pathetic that you’ll jump on the soapbox defending morality when you clearly have no sense of moral judgement of your own; and that includes your beloved Labour party.
The billboards are, simply put, an expression of free speech. Last time I looked, freedom of expression and freedom of free speech were valued and fundamental cornerstones of our society.
That is until the EFB.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Marvelous work David and the FSC. But hey, lets not be easy on Peter, he’s a slippery little man, you don’t know whether he’s coming or going. As Cam and David have both said, – “he was given the go ahead from the ninth floor”.
Tane, what’s your problem? New Zealand is on the way to becoming a country similar to one of the ones the leaders above governed, courtesy of Helen Clark and co. It is our duty to get rid of these tyrants.
There is absolutely no disrespect to our fallen soldiers – that doesn’t even come into it.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
“The billboards were in part funded by Don Brash and other high profile members of the National Party.”
You know who else donated? See the name second from the bottom of the donations list on the website. One C Slater. C? Obviously short for Christian!
Fricking Hollywood royalty! Take that Labour! Your not the only ones who can get funding from wealthy overseas interests! Has your guy been in movies with Tom Cruise and John Travolta? Didnt think so!
I dont know about you guys, but I really want to get my name on that list! When is the next update DPF?
December 19th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
For anyone that wants to be taken seriously
Please refrain from childish personal attacks, lest you appear hypocritical yourself – trying to uphold freedom of speech in the same breath as trying to squash another’s views by personal attack is not the way to build credibility.
As for the billboards – I think the NZ public doesn’t give a toss about the Human Rights Commission, nor will trying to be too cute go across with the public.
The message needs to be more simple and more clear.
The government changed the rules to suit itself. It cannot be allowed to benefit from this.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
If you don’t like the comments on this site Tane, then fuck off.
We still live in a democracy with its associated freedom of speech – until 1 January anyway.
Go back to your Labour ridden cesspit!!!!!!!!!!
December 19th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
GWW – straight to the personal abuse – typical and symbolic of the mentality you and your puppet masters advocate. You are a miserable excuse for nothing. As for Tane’s reaction – pure farce and excellent entertainment – thanks bro !!
December 19th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
These billboards are clearly in ill-taste, but that doesn’t mean they should be banned. It is interesting that some fail to be able to tell the difference between a dictatorship where you cannot vote, and the actions of a majority of elected officials, who will need to be relelected, but are simply doing something that you dislike. Comments like “I will stop at nothing to ensure that I do all I can to make sure these authoritairian bastards are thrown out next year.” sound much more anti-democratic than regulating political campaigns.
The idea that this is an attack on those who fought in WWII seems pretty silly. I don’t think anyone has suggested it was intended as such. I’m not aware of any history that suggests Hitler was a staunch advocate of electoral stasis or opposed to electoral reform. The idea might be that WWII was about protecting human rights, but the argument that the EFB undermines human rights is pretty lame. It seems to go something like – to have a human right of freedom of speech i must be able to say anything i want, wherever i want, whenever i want, to whoever i want; the EFB stops me doing this; therefore the EFB is an attack on my human rights. This argument is pathetic, the only places where such ‘rights’ exist are countries in anarchy.
The problem that people have with billboards like this is that they grossly misrepresent the extent of these changes. It seems that some people think they have a human right to say whatever they want and not have people offended by it. That is silly. New Zealand was a democracy, is a democracy, and will remain so for the forseeable future. You may disagree with the EFB, hell it might not be to strong to say you hate the EFB, but completely losing perspective on it undermines what could be a reasonable position.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Tane, I used to have some respect for your opinions, now I just laugh.
You provided a counterbalance.
But this shrill outrage is pathetic. You seem appalled that someone might spend money criticizing the government.
Could you, for one second, imagine if National had bought in this bill to limit unions during and election.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
noj, what a bloody marvelous idea! Repeal the EFA and the very next day introduce the DUB. The Deregister Unions Bill. That should do it.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
The New Electoral Finance Law…
EFLuent
December 19th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
You know, when I read Tane’s posts in this thread Ive got a distinct feeling that the poor chap is crying…
December 19th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
adc @1.02….you’ve brought a tear to my eye.
I’m an expat, and sometimes I forget the general level of public constipation in the land of my birth.
Who’s a dull little twerp then?
December 19th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
BeShakey: The problem that people have with billboards like this is that they grossly misrepresent the extent of these changes.
The Labour led coalition have legislated themselves into a position of priviledge when you compare their capacity for electoral advertising to that of even registered third parties. And if you count the subjective campaigns run in the name of government advertising during election years, they have in passing this law ensured that the playing field is not even remotely level.
Do these billboards grossly misrepresent the extend of these changes? To a degree they exaggurate the effects of what the Labour Party, the Greens and NZ First have done.
But that is what hyperbole is all about, isn’t it?
December 19th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
I am sure that anyone one the Left who is against these billboards, also voiced their concern when Don Brash was labeled a racist for asking for all races to be treated equally.
They spoke up very loudly when their brethren were wearing Bushitler T-shirts. They defend every global warming sceptic from comparison with everything from holocaust deniers to child rapists.
So obviously they have the moral high ground.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Maybe Tane, GWW etc have nothing left but feigned outrage, insults, innuendos or just plain lies.
Must be gettin’ to the bottom of the old tool box of things to throw.
Their ridiculous overreaction is much funnier than the billboards.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
So the people have gone too far? Says who? Labour and Greens? You must be fuckin’ joking. Eight years of railroaded legislation and a few billboards is “too far”?
Fuck the government. They declared war, now they get it.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
For any journalists reading this thread:
Tane is very cranky today, because she’s not happy that her beloved Labour Government is being parodied. The second to last sign of a dying government is when its supporters lose their sense of humour.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Hey Tane, bet now you are regretting the advice you gave regarding JB’s too-wordy newspaper ad!
December 19th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
I think these productions/billboards say more about those who produced them, than those they purportedly target.
Tane, these people have no qualms about whose memories they misrepresent with their lies, or lives they destroy with their actions.
May the EFB weed out the evil influence of big money forever. I certainly wont be crying when the BRT proclaims the funeral note.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
DPF – Well done, I have admired your dedicated opposition to the EFA from the outset. Please keep the Dunne billboard, I believe he flip-flopped only because he knew he could have it both ways.
Tane – you are the effing filth mate, your comments show how thin the skin of the left is and its contempt for the ability of the populace to think for itself. I don’t believe that resorting to personal denigration is generally a good idea, but in your case I’ll make an exception – please, please for the sake of all the people who enjoy Kiwiblog for DPF’s rational and analytical appraisal of the issues of the day, as opposed to the shrill shreiking of mouthpieces like yourself who are incapable of independent thought, could you please piss right off? Cheers.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Tell me, Tane, should these billboards be banned then?
G
December 19th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Tina – what exactly is your point?
Media do read these, and links to these threads get posted in media sites as well. People would do well to remember that when posting. The public has little stomach for what appears to be rabid hatred, so I’d prefer that those in favour of freedom of speech don’t undermine that position by exhibiting it.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Anybody else enjoying seeing Tane in a fluster?
I sure am! I think his head is about to explode.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Policy Prat so when Labour offered free student loans etc that wasn’y considered big money buying votes? The only big money that is going to buy votes is Cullen opening up the cheque book to those more illinformed and offering vote for me bribes.
What do you think of the EFB clause where different groups/individuals can’t raise the same issues or they are all liable for the spending limits? How the hell does an individual know what someone else is doing or spending on a related issue? The only way to comply with the law is for everyone not to speak out on any topic at all. If this is not facsism what is?
December 19th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Policy Parrot,
I think the attendance of a number of ex-servicemen and their families at protests against the EFA debunks your theory.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Peter Dunne is toast anyway – the Greens need to be held accountable for the immense amounts of crap they have inflicted on this country. They are communists who are far more extreme than Labour – stick it to them and make Jeannette cry.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Kimble – just like the fact that Trevor Mallard whacked someone doesn’t give National the right to go round hitting other MPs, the fact that some people who you identify as being on the left did not criticise actions which you see as analogous doesn’t make it OK. And of course not criticising someone is quite different to actively doing the same thing as them.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
For any journalists reading this thread:
Just for the record – we here at Kiwiblog do not value our freedom of speech.
How could we have been so misguided to have thought that as citizens of New Zealand we have any right to spend our money to publicise our opinions and influence society? Thanks to the new Electoral Finance Law, we realise that it is the Government’s job to make all the decisions.
We are comfortable in the knowledge that principled leaders such as Peter Dunne and Winston Peters will continue to represent everyday New Zealanders in every respect.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
adc @ 1.18…..I know you do matey.
You’re a trainspotter that means well.
Best you keep your homilies for the Boy Scouts, you’re on the wrong blog.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Southern Raider – if you are unable to tell the difference between a political party promoting policies at an election and the actions of the Exclusive Brethren then you have shown that you have no understanding at all of any issues at stake here.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
To any journalist reading this thread
Please stop parking in my carpark, seriously its beginning to piss me right off.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Tina, adc actually makes a fair point. Frothing hatred does little to carry the point across, especially if it’s taking a principled stance.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
I just love how the crusaders of free speech in this blog constantly tell people with different opinions to not contribute to this blog.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Tane wrote:
Have you seen your blog lately.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
BeShakey, it might be a good idea to read this:
http://sirhumphreys.blogspot.com/2005/09/exclusive-brethren-vs-greens.html
Follow each link as they detail the Green party policy analysis. Even if you firmly believe the Exclusive Brethren were incorrect in their analysis of the Green Party policies, it is a worthwhile read as it exposes many of the half-truths the Green Party has been spreading.
The fact of the matter is, the Exclusive Brethren highlighted how fundamentally flawed the Green Party’s policies are. For that they were crucified.
And I thought people in New Zealand had the right to comment on political matters that affect them.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Geez. What does it say about us as a country when we can no longer laugh at ourselves in the face of what really are 4 very clever satirical billboards.
Billy T and Sir David Low will be rolling in their graves.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Bwaaa…….”frothing hatred”?…..perhaps it’s a reflection of your sheltered life.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Thanks Pascal, I’d be happy to read that when I have the time. Does your post have anything to do with the discussion at hand? If so, it isn’t clear to me.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
BeShakey, his link is about the Brethrens ACTUAL campaign. This is the campaign that Labour has used as an excuse to foist the EFB on the nation.
Given that it seems to be their primary excuse for the legislation, informed commenters on the EFB should be familiar with what exactly it is.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Assuming (for the sake of argument) that everything the EB said was true, they still broke a variety of electoral laws and tried to deceive the public about the origin of the pamphlets. Can you recognise a difference between that and a party (any of them) promoting policies for an election?
I agree that the EB link was overplayed, probably for some fairly base political reasons. That doesn’t by itself mean the EFB wasn’t necessary and shouldn’t have been passed.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Yeah Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left Says,
but no where near as bad as Labour, Greens and NZ First that we can’t have free speech in an election year to criticise who we want and support the parties that we want to get elected.
After all Tane, Sonic and the rest of the left can comment on this site and nobody stopping them.
We just don’t like read the outright lies they keep repeating.
The billboards are funny and as free speech is been halted from 1 Jan 2008 until after the election is over in Nov 08.
After all the parties concerned can always take court action if they think it’s inaccurate.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Dear Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left.
If you have a different opinion, we welcome it. If you wish to resort to name calling and abuse, we would rather you did it elsewhere.
If Tane wants to lable these billboards as “Absolute fucking filth”, then Tane should explain why they are filth. He has stated that these bills cheapen “suffering of people who live under a dictatorship and trying to stoke division and hatred in our society”
We know that these people suffer. When rights are taken away we know that suffering follows when individuals stand up for the rights to be granted back. Obviously the scale is different but I beleive, as do many others, that any staep down this path is a dangerous one.
And really, How can these billboards be stoking division and hatred in society? And if they are, then certainly the same criticism can be directed at the EFB, which is the bastard child of arrogance and intolerance.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
BeShakey,
If the Brethren broke existing electoral law, why the need for the EFA?
Bearing in mind that these new regulations will not affect the Brethren AT ALL.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Beshakey, what electoral law did the Exclusive Brethren break? And why were they not prosecuted under our existing electoral legislation for that breach?
I agree that the EB link was overplayed, probably for some fairly base political reasons. That doesn’t by itself mean the EFB wasn’t necessary and shouldn’t have been passed.
I agree, the EFB is necessary to a degree. That is why I applaud what National is proposing – to repeal this awful law and to bring all parties and all of New Zealand into drafting this new law.
The Labour party on the other hand colluded with their coalition partners and wrote a piece of self serving legislation.
The two approaches are so different they’re not even like apples and oranges. More like apples and staplers.
Tina: perhaps it’s a reflection of your sheltered life
Yes, dear. Keep up the good work. Ra-ra and all that.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
David – this is gross, fucking gross.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
“Can you recognise a difference between that and a party (any of them) promoting policies for an election?”
Um, are you asking whether I can see the difference between a third party breaking existing electoral laws, and political parties promoting their own policies?
Of course I can, these two things have absolutely nothing in common. You may as well ask, can you see the difference between Tane losing his rag in a completely hilarious way and the usefullness of knowing the en passant rule when playing chess with a gorilla?
You need to reword what you have said BeShakey, it doesnt make any sense.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Personally I think the best quote must go the head Lemon sucker herself It is in this mornings Herald and it goes
‘That if Mr Shadbolt stuck to the issue -and by implication did not criticize the government- his advertising campaign would be within the law’
This statement proves she all she wants to do is shut down dissent just the same as Mugabe
December 19th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
“David – this is gross, fucking gross.”
We finally hear from the emo demographic.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
David – this is gross, fucking gross.
You got an issue, heres a tissue.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
James,
Why is it gross?
December 19th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
let’s face it BeShakey: if the business men (who happened to be EBs) broke law(s) Helen’s would have put all 7 of them on the stand and off to the gaol faster than you can say loonycrazysisterhood.
but she couldn’t, because they didn’t.
instead she chose to defame, smear and persecute these citizens in a way the most NZs find utterly repugnant. she will pay the price for her vitriol.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
I find it amusing that Tane feels the need to tell any journalists reading this page that DF has worked for the National Party, I thought that was common knowledge? DF doesn’t seem to hide anything.
Giving the impression that DF is hiding something like that when he is clearly not just shows you don’t have any real arguments to make and are thus resorting to scaremongering. it’s kinda pathetic…..
December 19th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Why am I posting here?
Okay, no reasonable judgement can compare any Western country – and quite a few non-Western ones – to the crazyness which is NK, and was Maoist China. Not knowing NZ politics, I can’t say how close they are to the authoritarian-lite Frank Bainimarama, but comparison isn’t outside the realms of possibility.
How about Manasseh Sogavare? There’s someone who doesn’t fully realize how he was placed in power!
December 19th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Awesome, I have donated to this cause.
Tane seems to have jumped the shark.
In the (attributed) words of Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
December 19th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
To any journalist reading this thread:
I masturbated to the dirty words that Tane and James Sleep posted.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
David – this is gross, f***ing gross.
As usual, no reason is given. The mere fact that Georgina Beyers, aunty Helen and long-lost uncle Winston are supporting it is reason enough for James.
Come on James, lets see some reasoning here – at least…
December 19th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
James Sleep,
Can you please give a backbone to your hollow statement.
Please explain why it is gross
December 19th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Kimble – my only guess about what the relevance of the EB post was was that I had made an earlier comment in relation to them. My later comment tied back to that, if the post wasn’t in relation to that then it makes even less sense to post a link to an article supporting their criticisms.
My understanding is that electoral ads are required to show the name of the person authorising them and a contact address. EB pamphlets lied or misled in both respects. Of course this in itself isn’t reason for the EFB, my point was more that, regardless of the accuracy of the EB’s criticism, their actions deserve criticism.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
I like all of them bar the last that has a go at Peter Dunne. He did always say that he was going to review his options prior to the last vote, and did so, voting against it on the final reading. I think amend it to “Long Live the Greens” who richly deserve all that’s coming to them
December 19th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Rebel heart,
I can say things far more effectively than you without using such filthy language.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
[b] to any journalists reading this thread[/b]
Got a light?
December 19th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
James Sleep
Is Phil Goff still a property speculator?
December 19th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Boo! what’s that? Do I hear the walls of democracy crumbling?
Hmm, what no, really there’s an election next year, you can vote for who you want, and there won’t be any guns to our heads? Sounds like democracy to me.
Shrillllllll
December 19th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Whats so menacing about this bill is it could never have been passed even five years ago.
This bill is a wet dream come true for labour. And being communist they were the only ones who designed it.
They have been identified and targeted, their days are numbered.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Had the EB complied with the previous laws, put their names etc on the pamphlets, what would the problem be with what they did?
Why does it deserve to be illegal?
You said that the issues at stake were evident in the difference between what the EB did and what ordinary political parties do. Pascal, was showing you what the EB did.
If all the EB did was already illegal, then the issue had obviously been dealt with.
What did the EB do (that was legal at the time) that requires reqriting the law?
I suppose what Pascal, and now I , am asking is what you think are the issues at stake?
December 19th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
It’s interesting that Peter Dunne is still in for some stick. When most of the campaign asked that people contact him and the other leaders reminding them who it is that the House of Representatives represents and not to vote for the bill; when he does just that, still the stick. This makes me question the motives of the stick wielders and just how much they are supporters of democracy and not just their own ends.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
I’m somewhat surprised at Tane’s comments, since I agreed with him yesterday that Mr Boscawen’s ads, while admirable, were poorly executed if their aim was to get the message across to the majority of NZers, who are simply too indolent to take the time and effort needed to absorb detail.
Both Tane and I (and a few, though not many, others) were of the opinion that something short, pithy and to-the-point would work better.
Now the FSC goes and produces some short, pithy, to-the-point (and mildly humourous) billboards and Tane gets upset?
And please, spare me a rebuttal about injured sensitivities. I’m certain that ex-servicemen and women, and indeed the former victims of totalitarian regimes, are quite capable of expressing their own outrage, if indeed they feel it. If they did so, I’d be the first to suggest that the billboards be modified or taken down.
And just who are “you people”? I could count on the fingers of one hand, maybe two, the people in the present Parliament for whom I have any respect or trust, and they’re from (almost) all parties – yes, even NZF.
If Tane et al truly believe that all opposition – or even the most vehement opposition – to this law comes from National and ACT or those aligned to those parties, and it’s not just hyperbole of the sort they’re complaining about in these billboards, then they’re truly deluded.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
BeShakey what the relevance of the EB post was was that I had made an earlier comment in relation to them
That was the relevance. As to your assertion that they did not show the name of a person authorizing them – look here.
http://www.greens.org.nz/election2005/img/Green-delusions.pdf
There is a difference between a political party campaigning and a third party wishing to raise issues that pertain to the election, issues they wish to campaign for and so forth. However, that is no justification for what Labour has done.
I guess I just don’t understand why you would say:
Southern Raider – if you are unable to tell the difference between a political party promoting policies at an election and the actions of the Exclusive Brethren then you have shown that you have no understanding at all of any issues at stake here.
and bring the Exclusive Brethren into it. It smacks of the same smear campaign, as if you are trying to paint them as evildoers. When in reality, there was little wrong with their actions. I’ve yet to see you explain which electoral laws they broke that would justify that type of comment.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
James saids as he pulls the finger from his nose.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
paul, democracy is like a plant. it can be alive and healthy or unhealthy.. by degrees. Labour and their poodles have applied EFB poisionous spray to our plant. you may well want to sit back and admire the gardener, but i’d prefer to save the plant.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
I assume this is John Ansell’s fine work again. If so, well done sir, I’m pleased that my small donation to the coalition has been used so wisely.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
It seems the left can’t take a bit of well aimed humour.
Nothing wrong with the billboards – and I suspect if they were aimed in a different directon Tane would be endorsing them all over the blogosphere.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Tane was gloating the other day how no one would pay any attention to John Boscawens “wordy” advert in the SST and was offering advice on what might catch the publics eye.
Are these ads more the kind of thing you were talking about Tane?
Priceless
December 19th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
To any journalist reading this thread:
Wikipedia is an irrelevant source!
December 19th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
As usual idiots like Tane and James Sleep shoot the messenger instead of addressing the fact that the socialist party they support have traded what little integrity they had for the passing of this bill.
Piss off. See you next year when you’re getting caned as opposition.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Here you are joker!
‘These ads are just appalling in their execution. Too dense, too complicated, and far too many words.
Iwi/Kiwi it ain’t. Where’s John Ansell when you need him?’
Well Tane, when you need him, he’s getting a few more bill boards ready to jam up your jacksie.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Be Shakey….You know dam well the whole process of this legislation has been a constitutional outrage without precedence. In that even leftwing high office holders such as the Human Rights Commission and even various Union Leaders concur. The exception is the Goverment’s own Constitutional Law Expert SIR Geoffrey PALMER who has chosen to be an ostrich.
DUNNE is exposed as a blatant hypocrite and his poster should remain.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Pascal – my assertion was that they lied or misled regarding the identity of the the authoriser and the address on some pamphlets, not that they didn’t show them at all.
While I said that I thought too much had been made of the EB campaign, I can’t agree with you that there was little wrong with their actions. They lied and/or misled the electorate (and before you or someone else gets sidetracked on it: if Labour has ever lied or misled the electorate it still doesn’t make it right). They did this while spending over a million dollars to influence the outcome of the election. I think that this is fundamentally different to a party promoting their policies for an election. If you don’t like the EB point (which was admittedly made simply because they have been the most high profile example, but as I have said I do think too much has been made of that), you surely still agree that trying to buy an election is very different to a party promoting polcies for an election.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
The lefties here have their panties in a bunch so the posters must be a good idea!!
Well done guys.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Tane you dick.
Grow up. Put your own billboards up dopey shit. You guys brought on the fight – get f#&**&d
December 19th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
“Now you’re cheapening the memory of our soldiers to further your political ends”.. (Tane)
The Liabour mob fight dirty; expect worse and underground. My father’s generation gave their lives to prevent the denial of freedom that we have now have had bestowed on us from our own government. We will rise up and we will fight back. I don’ t care if they don’t like it. When ordinary middle NZ starts to revolt this corrupt government is dog tucker. We have tolerated their rot for too long , now they have passed the limits of our tolerance. When those like Tane mock those who died for freedom they invite our retaliation; we cannot let their poisoned minds destroy our society further.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Really Baxter, did the Human Rights Commission say it was a “constitutional outrage without precedence”? Nothing that happened in Fiji was worse than it?’
The EFB could clearly have been handled better, but frothing at the mouth and banging on about how New Zealand is now a communist country (or soon will be) just makes people look stupid.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
KevOB:
Here here!
December 19th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
“They did this while spending over a million dollars to influence the outcome of the election.”
Proof? There is none, so stop using this figure.
The fact remains, any wrong doing you have identified was wrong at the time, so a law change is unjustified. If the purpose of the law was to clarify things, well it has failed at that and you should be opposed to it on that basis.
What it comes down to is that your problem is with the EB trying to “buy” the election.
If that is the case then you need to show that spending $1m CAN buy an election.
But if what they said was true (or substantially true, read the link) then what is the problem with them telling the truth? They lied about who they were, for whatever reasons, this does not change the value of their message.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
They broke rules already in place, so why did we need new rules?
Obviously their legal breaches werent the problem, so what was?
December 19th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
The name of the authorizing agent was on the pamphlet. There was no dissembling there.
The points they made were valid. There was no dissembling there.
They had contact the National party to ensure that their campaign would not count against National. This seems like a reasonable step to me. Surely the Unions clear whatever campaigning they do with the Labour party?
It makes sense. That is not illegal, although it has been painted as such by … well … you’ve probably read the book.
So their one crime was to try and inform the electorate of something they believed, that the Labour / Green alliance was not doing what they said they were doing.
This does not seem like a wrong thing to me. In fact, as a voter I applaud them for spending their own money highlighting issues of relevance to the election for me. Anything which allows me to make a more informed decision when I vote is a good thing.
I do agree with you however that spending money to buy an election is a reasonably different thing to a party promoting policies. In effect a party is spending money to buy an election, but that would just be splitting hairs.
But the Exclusive Brethren were not an example of this. (As you stated in your 2:28 post) Their actions were of benefit to all parties except the Labour party and the Greens. So who were they buying it for? They weren’t. They were spending money to ensure a change of government, a government they felt had been lying to them and to the public.
Is that wrong? Just look at it philosophically for a moment. If you become convinced that the National party is doing something fundamentally wrong, would you want the freedom to tell other people about it if it was within your capability? I certainly would. You could almost say it is a part of our duty as citizens in a democracy to ensure that the truth is out there.
However, I agree as well that something akin to the EFB is a good idea. A playing field that is skewed does not allow for the free flow of information. Yes, I believe money can influence the outcome of an election. We saw it in the last one where the Labour Pledge Card coupled with the time and money invested by Unions saw the big money of the Labour Party win the last election. And, in the next election, the greater resources the Electoral Finance Bill puts in the hands of the incumbent government will skew the financial playing field in the government’s favour.
So yeah, I support the EFB. But not in the way it was implemented. Not to allow the Labour party to buy the next election. Or any other party any other election.
Surely you can agree that allowing one group (The incumbent government) to spend more than any other group is just as wrong in an election year?
December 19th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
what KevOB said
December 19th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Kimble: They lied about who they were, for whatever reasons, this does not change the value of their message.
They lied? The name of the authorizing agent is on the pamphlet! The last time I checked stating your religion was not a requirement for making a political statement.
Or is their discrimination based on religion in New Zealand, when it comes to being allowed to speak your political mind?
December 19th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
How clever putting a picture on a billboard and then MAKING UP STUFF for them to say.
Why bother with an overseas personality, lets stick John Keys face on a billboard and make up stuff we wish he said.
Anybody who says different is trampling on MY free speech
December 19th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
So are you saying Kimble that the amount of money spent on an election has no impact on the outcome? You should tell the EB that because they spent a hell of a lot of money last election, yes over one million (read the Hollow Men – I don’t agree with the interpretation of them but the emails are there), to try and influence the outcome. And my problem isn’t with the EB in particular, the CTU for instance, shouldn’t be able to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the election.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Take a look at the post on this over at the Lowered Standard.
I think there was a run on stocks of tin foil at the local Four Square!
December 19th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Rubbish DPF. Pure, petty, alarmist rubbish.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
GhostWhoWalks: Why bother with an overseas personality, lets stick John Keys face on a billboard and make up stuff we wish he said.
Go for it. It would score double points if you could make it relevant to the actual situations developing. And I’ll even give you a triple word score if you make it hyperbolic.
BeShakey: And my problem isn’t with the EB in particular, the CTU for instance, shouldn’t be able to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the election.
I think we agree in principle. My only point of contention is that the EB did not do anything wrong. But I still support restrictions on campaign finance if they are done in a bipartisan, fair fashion.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
I dont agree with the EFB. That being said there is no need to descend into the same sort of politics that labour, the greens, NZ First and United Future (regardless of the about turn) engage in.
It is one thing to protest a piece of defunct legislation. It is entirely another to play dirty politics. Many will see these billboards as humorous, as they should be, but behind that they will also view it as dirty and the first shot in what will be an ugly and spiteful election year.
If anyone deserves support its Tim Shadbolt. The man is willing to go to jail for his constituents. Many that post comments on this blog should be mindful of being hypocritical. The internet has the memory of an elephant.
National’s billboards last election were far more intellectual than these crass comparisons. (well the Bananarama one is the exception, that is almost on the money)
December 19th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
How fickle are the left.
One moment it’s the Mao god…..next minute he’s a disgusting individual to be associated with.
Well, guess you made the bed comrades……..
December 19th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Fear not fellow freedom fighthers There is a not so little surprise being prepeared for the Socialists and their friends that will take them and you by surprise.
Lets just say that the Bill and subsequent Act was prepeared in haste and as such is very vulnerable.
Tane and others I would love to be a fly on the wall when you find out. Your reaction will be priceless.
In the meantime I suggest the Socialist supporters bask in their short lived victory They will have much time reflect on their defeat.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
but they have for decades and the EFA doesn’t stop them. wonder why? oh that’s right because the Labour party corruptors of our electoral system benefit from their support.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Kimble/Pascal – in the time it took me to write my last post you both posted again, so the points I made shouldn’t be taken as responding to your last post.
In response to that – I (like you) disagree with you much of the interpretation in ‘that book’ – I think he has a very idealistic view of the nature of democracy and elections, where my view is more pragmatic.
I agree with you that the EB should be able to put forward information (within obvious limits e.g. I don’t think it should be OK for the CTU to claim John Key is a paedophile), but I do think that they should be limited in the amount of money they can use to do this. Having read ‘that book’ I do have some sympathy for people like the Business Roundtable, assuming they really believe what they say, and are willing to spend their own money to support it. Nonetheless, the EFB does allow people to state their views, it does allow them to promote them, it does allow them to advertise them, it simply places limits on the amount of money they can spend. Personally, I think those amounts are too low, but I still support the essence of the Bill.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Just as an aside, if anyone needed any evidence of why the ‘Double’ Standard will never gain any proper traction with the public beyond its hateful little cabal of socialists – and I’m not suggesting anyone with more than a single brain cell really would – I’d suggest a strong indicator is the nature of its posts.
Rather than being an online voice of the labour movement, as they claim, which would suggest a blog that was heavily policy driven and pumped their own party, its authors are so fearful of crushing electoral defeat that they spend most of their time critiquing National and associated parties – thereby increasing the profile of those they oppose. A basic but major lesson of PR is that no one can thrive in a vacuum. Yet the Standard’s authors spend about a third of their lives providing the National Party with oxygen.
The two highest posting categories on the Standard are ‘National’, with 75, and ‘John Key’, with 57. Another high-ranking National-related category is ‘DPF’ with 14.
And how many posts has the online presence of the labour movement done on its political namesake? Only 29. All I can say to the authors of the Standard is a big thank you. You’re the best support National could ever have, and you clearly can’t find much to pump or be proud of in your own party.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
I don’t see these as any worse than the left’s attack on Dr Brash with the Monty Burns cut-outs in 2005.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Pascal, I was conceeding one point to make another. I dont think they did anything wrong, but my opponent does. I wanted to show that even if that was the case …. but I didnt want to get drawn into that type of discussion.
“So are you saying Kimble that the amount of money spent on an election has no impact on the outcome?”
No, I am merely asking you to please explain how much it would take. If the EB DID spend $1m, they certainly didnt achieve their goal.
To prevent an election being bought, first you need to determine how much it would take, and then set the level below that. Of course, $120k is below it, but so is $10. You dont want to restrict access to the political process (or at least you shouldnt) so you dont want to drop it too low.
If your only goal is to avoid elections being “bought”, and you have no other concerns than that, then why not set the limit at a low enough level to prevent IT and nothing else?
As an aside, what did they get for their $1m? Seems like a lot of money for a pamphlet. What else did they get?
To be clear, I SUPPORT LIMITS ON SPENDING! I have never advocated removing all limits.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Well done David. If you can make Tane throw his toys out of his pram then you gotta be doing something right.
It’s clear that some of the leftie wankers who comment here don’t think the EFB went far enough. They would want to ban your billboards as well. Speaks volumes about them….free speech for them but not for us..
December 19th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
So you’ll be quite okay when I put up a bunch of billboards comparing John Key to Hitler?
You guys have jumped the shark. More to the point, you’ve given Clark something to push back against. They’ll be honing some lines involving the words “offensive”, “disgraceful”, “fringe lunatics” and “an insult to the memory of the millions of people killed by dictators like Mao” on the ninth floor right now.
Stupid, really stupid.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Tina – Saddam Hussein anyone? I think it’s a bit childish to suggest that because someone sometime who identifies themselves as left wing supported Mao, everyone on the left, forver has to support Communism. But if you want to run that argument then you’ll be sharing your bed with Saddam Hussein and Hitler.
Krazykiwi – the CTU have spent money to influence elections (I don’t know how much but it may very well have been a lot), I think they should be limited in this. And they are. They are still allowed to communicate with their members (as are employers federations – not typical Labour supporters). Do you have any evidence that the CTU can spend unlimited amounts of money under the EFB? Because it certainly looks as if the law applies to them.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
If he’d done something that warranted it Russell then I think the supporters of the Free Speech Coalition would support it. You seem to be confusing the coalition with the National Party. You shouldn’t. From what I hear it has strong support from across the electorate.
Can we take it from what you say that you’re happy that a major change to the Electoral Act has been made without very much public consultation, and without seeking cross party support in the first instance?
December 19th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
BeShakey: Nonetheless, the EFB does allow people to state their views, it does allow them to promote them, it does allow them to advertise them, it simply places limits on the amount of money they can spend. Personally, I think those amounts are too low, but I still support the essence of the Bill.
Surprisingly, I think this relatively mature discussion has shown that there is some agreement between the three of us. (With a few differences)
My two main complaints with this bill:
1. The Labour party irrevocably skewed things in favour of the incumbent government. At this point in time it happens to be themselves. It might or might not be in the future.
2. The Labour party drafted electoral legislation without the aid of their opposition parties. This should be done openly, transparently and in such a fashion that everyone has a chance to give their feedback.
I’m fairly happen that the National Party has signalled their intent to address these two issues. That makes me happy, as I’ll hopefully get to see the moral version of this bill introduced under a National Party government as they show us how fair elections work under a party willing to consult and discuss electoral changes with not only their opposition but also the electorate.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
We dont have MMP we have elected people who join the governing party and taint themselves. I can not beleive NZ First voted for this bill and I am sure we will see a membership revolt.
NZ First stood for democracy and has now shown it was always just tricking about that.
Shame on all the NZ First people. Those of us who helped put them there, who blew balloons and baked the cakes for the party and Winston didn’t do it to give them a mandate to join labour, national or any others. We baked the cakes for them to stand up and be counted. They have betrayed us. Shame shame shame on them all.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
The more stupid politicians are, the more they become targets for the lampooning, which they deserve.
A cartoon wraps up the truth and presents it in a palatable and digestable way to the masses. who perceive, enjoy and at a glance get the Message – Loud and Clear.
The next electiop will be won on cartoon. There’s so much scope.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
On another matter, a bit ironic that now there is a spending cap on third party spending of $120,000 that Labour launch a 5 million dollar billboard campaign. Puts the FSC effort of $7,000 to shame. Just not sure Labour picked the right slogans: Labour’s 5 million dollar billboard campaign
December 19th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Oops. Happen should be happy in that last paragraph. Roughshod proofing there!
December 19th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Off the top of my head I would add to that,
3. Anonymous donations above a fairly low limit should be banned.
4. The limit for thrid parties set at a much higher level, around $500k, which would still prevent elections being ‘bought’ nor allow anyone to control the debate by drowning out opposing arguments.
5. A push for a written consitution that will take this power away from the incumbent parties.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
And add:
6. An option for “None of the above” on the ballot.
I really, really want that.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
BeShakey, what we on the Left have to accept is that, to a lot of people, it does mean poor personal morals and fawning over totalitarian dictators a rather unhealthy Israel fixation.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Amusing reaction from the oddly delicate Tane and his cadre. The billboards are meant to be humourous, whilst raising a valid point that the Act, whilst obviously not reducing NZ to the status of Fiji or North Korea, does go against what we might of thought of as our democratic underpinnings. Why Farrar doesn’t ban them is rather beyond me.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
What if None of the Above win, Pascal?
(I always wanted to start a political party named that, btw, thanks for blowing the surprise!)
December 19th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
The Key=Hitlerlike billboards would be a cracker deal.
They’d invite the viewer to make the comparison with the Hulun=Maolike billboards and look for the most truthful message of the two.
More unhappy comrades.
Of course you’re correct BeS, Saddam was the political inspiration for generations of young conservatives just like Mao was for the left or you’ve got BSE.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Grade B- could do better. These billboards screeh out message in hyperbole and are likely to be seen as a partisan attack piece. This will play directly into the hands of Labour/Green/NZFirst politicians who all along have been trying to portray this as a beat up.
This may come as a schock, but you do actually have a positive message to put across. Why not run a campaign using positive quotes from historical “third party” figures?
Example:
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” – Martin Luther King.
Put his picture beside it with a “Censored” stamp across the top.
Gives a more positive feel, IMHO.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
This just in from a journalist who is reading this comments: Tane you’re a fucking dick.
That is all.
Well actually he said other stuff but thats the short & polite version.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Nice one Russell, dip in, then dip out again. Oh well, thanks for joining this conversation, albeit briefly.
As to the liklihood of lines being honed with words like “disgraceful” and “offensive,” that’s exactly the sort of rise I’d expect. Such emotive responses are always a good sign you’ve struck close to the bone.
Then again, whether you’ve struck a chord with your target or not, the biggest blow to the creators of attacks, in this case the billboards, is to laugh it off. What’s the bet Helen and Winston aren’t comfortable enough in themselves just now to send that mature little sting back at the billboards’ authors?
Thanks again, Labour and Winston, you’ve become beautifully predictable.
Oh, do you think Helen will come out with something as good as “cancerous” Russell? I do hope so – she’s so good at elevating the level of the debate.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
“a rather unhealthy Israel fixation.”
How did Israel get involved?
Why bring anti semitism into this
Are you saying Labour are Zionist agents.
I believe the world is being run by conspiracy but thats going a bit far.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Russell, have you noticed that every pejorative adjective used by Clark against her enemies comes back to bite her on the arse? e.g. cancerous and corrosive used by her to describe the mild mannered Dr Brash.
I hope she does fall into the trap of describing the multitudes who are turning against her as lunatic fringe dwellers. The irony is that she has moved from mainstream to lunatic fringe herself and this legislation has been the means by which the public has been able to see her in her true light. Coupled with the malevolent Mallard’s stupid attacks on public servants, of course. Her savage attacks on the EBs have been noted by ALL Christian communities. Lifelong Labour supporters in my congregation now refer to Labour as ‘totalitarian.’ She has successfully alientated the bulk of the MSM. She singlehandedly created the Maori PArty which yesterday gave the clearest signal yet that it could coalesce with National.
In fact as each day goes by she will find it more and more difficult to find even a fringe dweller who does not despise her.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
“She singlehandedly created the Maori PArty which yesterday gave the clearest signal yet that it could coalesce with National.”
This I knew, said it ages ago.
Love the line Helen single handedly created the Maori party.
Thats why its obvious they were going with National.
John Keys supporting the Maori woman and her daughter from Sth Akld was never going to go against him and thats an understatement.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
I think these are just lame on a creative level, and look the work of “enthusiastic” amateurs.
If the Boscowen ads were too wordy, these are too spartan.
The Nats billboards worked because they very cleverly took very simple words or concepts that would be instantly widely understood and juxtaposed them. In one or two words they conveyed a whole range of meanings. Iwi/Kiwi is probably the exemplar in tapping into the buzz at the time.
While these might preach to the converted I don’t think they will convert many as they are oblique and there is little information for a non ‘in’ crowd member to latch onto. There’s not even a call to action clearly visible.
if I were a guy on the street I would be asking “WTF was that about? Who’s Peter Dunne, what’s this HRC stuff and who is that Chinese guy?” (I’m assuming it’s a young journalist is the guy on the street)
ANd I’m with Russel B on the strategic nous of this. Hyperbole is a common tool in advertising, but you have to use some judgement, and I’m not sure it has been exercised that well here.
Labour might not risk an attack on these as I wonder how many of the former student politicians that are now cabinet ministers might have former visits to and words in support of these regimes highlighted a la Keith Locke.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Kimble/Pascal – I agree that this has been a healthy discussion and has highlighted some areas of actual difference, rather than simple ranting.
To your points:
1. The Labour party irrevocably skewed things in favour of the incumbent government. At this point in time it happens to be themselves. It might or might not be in the future.
I’m not sure I agree with this entirely, but agree with the principle that the Bill (and legislation generally) shouldn’t unfairly favour a party/s. Of course a Bill might provide some advantage to one party, but in a fair way (eg if NZ had a ‘Kill all the Jews’ party, a Bill against hate speech would undermine them, but I think we’d all probably be OK with that). There clearly is an issue with the government (as opposed to Labour) promoting/explaing current policies. I think that they should be able to do this, but it isn’t simple to sort out how this should be done without it being possible to use it unfairly. In essence, I’m not convinced the Bill has unfairly advantaged Labour (or the incumbent generally), but would support changes if I was convinced of this.
2. The Labour party drafted electoral legislation without the aid of their opposition parties. This should be done openly, transparently and in such a fashion that everyone has a chance to give their feedback.
It might ideally be good to draft legislation with the aid of opposition parties, but I’m not sure it is reasonable. However, I think that in this case it would have been good if an attempt had been made at that. I don’t agree that there wasn’t a chance for feedback to be given, although I assume you mean that there should have been more chance. Again, I agree but think that the Bill needed to be passed this year (I’m not clear why it wasn’t introduced earlier to reduce the possible of the kind of ‘skin of the teeth’ timing we have seen, in the absence of a good reason this seems to have been a mistake by Labour).
3. Anonymous donations above a fairly low limit should be banned.
Agreed. I also think that there was an issue around real anonymous donations and fake ones (where the recipience knew the identity of the donor one way or another, but the donation was represented as being anonymous). The Bill tried to address this but I suspect it will prove to have failed in this regard.
4. The limit for thrid parties set at a much higher level, around $500k, which would still prevent elections being ‘bought’ nor allow anyone to control the debate by drowning out opposing arguments.
I agree that the third party limit should be higher, although I don’t have a specific figure in mind.
5. A push for a written consitution that will take this power away from the incumbent parties
I think that a written constitution is an extremely complex issue. My initial position is to be opposed to it, but I could certainly be swayed on this.
6. An option for “None of the above” on the ballot.
Not sure what you mean.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Insider,
You are not going to win many friends by suggesting NZders are thick.
I suspect the left think that, which is why they have passed the EFB.
Oh.. and Labour and the left saying it OK to demonise a minority religious group is just really class.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
I’m not trying to be a scaremonger, but I though this excerpt from an American economist was interesting. The full article is here http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/economist/53358;_ylt=Ai.mxoXq8K8HVswyrl.dAbqER4V4
No Political Safety Valve
2. Political repression in a country is consistently associated with a higher level of terrorist activity.
This includes the suppression of freedom of expression, freedom to assemble, and other civil liberties and political rights. This should be fairly intuitive; when these rights are curtailed, the steam has no way to escape the pot. Krueger writes, “When nonviolent means of protest are curtailed, malcontents appear to be more likely to turn to terrorist tactics.”
To my mind, this finding presents the greatest dilemma for U.S. policymakers. Some of the governments that have been most helpful to the United States in terms of fighting extremist groups, namely Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, have also ruthlessly cracked down on domestic political freedoms. Thus, these governments are simultaneously fighting terrorists while breeding new ones.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
“Nice one Russell, dip in, then dip out again. Oh well, thanks for joining this conversation, albeit briefly.”
Likewise Murray! Words of wisdom, as always.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Russell said: So you’ll be quite okay when I put up a bunch of billboards comparing John Key to Hitler?
Go right ahead, if you can afford it.
“…. you’ve given Clark something to push back against. They’ll be honing some lines involving the words “offensive”, “disgraceful”, “fringe lunatics” and “an insult to the memory of the millions of people killed by dictators like Mao” on the ninth floor right now.
Stupid, really stupid”
Right, so Clark’s been given a chance to trot out the same old tired lines she uses EVERY time someone disagrees with her? She’s like the boy who cried wolf – she’s used those lines way too many times and no one’s listening.
And as for Mao – its a bit late to start crying about the victims of Marxist dictators now, the left have been making excuses for them for decades.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
So you’ll be quite okay when I put up a bunch of billboards comparing John Key to Hitler?
Yes because they and their policies have soooo much in common dont they! Now remind me, which leader and their party has demonised a religious group for political gain in the last three years? Which leader and party favour the increased government interference in peoples lives, I could go on.
But if you want to run that argument then you’ll be sharing your bed with Saddam Hussein and Hitler.
BeShakey, Saddam took his inspiration from Stalin. He was far from Right Wing.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
This billboard campaign is perfect proof of why we need the EFB.
A dirty bit of smearing and sneering dog whistling orchestrated by a couple of wannabe Rush Limbaugh National Party hacks hiding behind a shabby front organisation.
David Farrar loves to remind us of his connections with ugly Republican Right in the USA – his fawning reports from the “Freedom Ranch” are memorable for their sycophancy. In seems he has internalised the viciousness of the GOP.
Thank God for the EFB.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
I have an idea, should anyone opposed to what has happened in this country run into a MP that voted in favor of the EFB, they be given the proper fascist treament. I suggest they stand to attention and give a stiff right arm salute. If the bastards want to be fascists they should be treated like fascists. A month or two of this treatment should make even the most arrogant see the errors of their ways. I say shame and ridicule the arseholes.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
“This billboard campaign is perfect proof of why we need the EFB.”
Well done Toms. You have gone and proven the point of the billboards.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
{{How did Israel get involved? Why bring anti semitism into this?}}
How did anti-semitism get involved? Anti-zionism *checks score card* is not anti-semitism! And on, and on, and on.
{{I believe the world is being run by conspiracy but thats going a bit far.}}
Oh the sweet naivety! You should see some of the things I have… it’ll curl your hair.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
BeShakey: I think that they should be able to do this, but it isn’t simple to sort out how this should be done without it being possible to use it unfairly.
That is a difficult one and I have not been able to come up with a viable answer for that. The three ideas so far are:
1. Allow only for advertisement that is financially comparable to the previous years. This does mean that the government will have to track their budget in this regard, but it also keeps things to a similar level without the blowouts we see in election years.
2. Any new government scheme offered during that year which exceeds the budget should have it’s documentation prepared well enough in advance that it can be scrutinized by all of parliament and by the Electoral Comission. Ideally I would want to see this happen similarly to juror selection, if you will allow me the rather incomparable comparison. Approval should allow it to carry on as it is part of the normal operation of a government.
3. Any existing communication should be cleared through the Electoral Comission to ensure that it is fair and non-partisan.
Those three combined seem as if they will address it, but I can’t help but feel there are still some loopholes.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
“Oh the sweet naivety! You should see some of the things I have… it’ll curl your hair.”
I’m aware of what you’re speaking of… but has nothing to do with this thread.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
ghostwhowalks Says:
How clever putting a picture on a billboard and then MAKING UP STUFF for them to say.
Why bother with an overseas personality, lets stick John Keys face on a billboard and make up stuff we wish he said.
Go for it GWW, that’s the whole bloody point of a democracy.
Put your billboards up and we’ll consider them on their merit, not how much money was spent on them. Simple enough for you?
December 19th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
{{BeShakey, Saddam took his inspiration from Stalin.}}
More than that, he took his training manuels and equipment from Moscow.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Who is paying the bills for this campaign? Peter Shirtcliffe? ACT party bagman Boscowan? A few shekels from the Remuera rent a mob wouldn’t cover this campaign. Or is the so called “Free Speech Coalition” (how many members has this coalition got anyway? As many as the “coalition of the willing?”) just a front for the National Party?
December 19th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
So Helen created a law to make legal that which Labour had done illegally.
And another law to make illegal that which the exclusive brethren had done legally.
this entire matter makes my blood boil
December 19th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Oh and Annette King refers today to money buying elections… when yesterday Cullen talks about tax cuts in election year and of course the very obvious buying of the last election by labour via stolen money pledge card and buying students via taxpayer-paid (not free) student loans.
LABOUR ARE THE ONES WHO BUY ELECTIONS
December 19th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
toms,
Read the authorisation and you’ll see it is the Free Speech Coalition; who have kindly placed a list of donors on their website.
Way to link it to Act people though. Who’s next…Brian Nicoll?
December 19th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
The point I was trying to make was (having said the whole thing was stupid) if you want to insist on claiming that people with left wing views must have got those views from someone else with left wing views, then the same should apply to people with right wing views. I think most people see Hitler as being of the right, but if you disagree simply insert a right wing thinker with odious views.
The essential point was that the argument was stupid, but if it was applied it made an equally stupid point against people with right wing views as people with left wing views.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
VTO – this has been discussed already, A LOT, there is a difference between ‘buying an election’ in the sense suggested by King, and a party promoting a policy. The point has nothing to do with Labour, and accepting it doesn’t mean you have to support the EFB.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
The above thread is pretty good, not much to add.
Just that won’t Shadbolt, Boscawen, etc., if they’re jailed, be political prisoners? If not, why not? Why would Amnesty International not want to know?
Of course Tane would write excuses for the jailing of Andrei Sakharov and Vaclav Havel and people like that, too.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Rusty you idiot. “. you’ve given Clark something to push back against. They’ll be honing some lines involving the words “offensive”, “disgraceful”, “fringe lunatics””
Don’t forget to add those words to their other favourites- scumbag, rich prick, cancerous, corrosive… who gives a fuck dude? Your lot is always screaming shrill insults, what’s new? Fucking filth? check. Fucking gross? check. You’re all a pack of nasty, hollow, partisan lemmings.
So sorry Russell, you’re going to have to better than that.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
I hope this billboard campaign goes ahead full steam. It’s just so comical. I mean, were these dimwits stoned when they came up with this or what? David, did the ‘coalition for free-speech’ let Cameron Slater (the same guy that specialises in harassing 15 year olds by photoshopping their faces into gay porn images) have free reign in the designs of these? If so, why the hell did you?
December 19th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
All tax payers who disagree that Labour knows better how to spend their money (on election advertising for example) should simply be reminded that they do not yet need to wear yellow stars. That’s next years amendments.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Tom
What’s wrong with people campaign against a law that they disagree with?
Oh.. that’s right Labour can’t take criticism of any of it’s policies and by keeping it’s ordinary NZders out of the election campaign they are attempting to steal the election.
Plenty of people on both sides of the political spectrum have campaigned against laws they disagreed with that existed and did so before and during an election campaign.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
PhilBest – interesting, but probably an academic point. If any of the 911 terrorists had been caught they probably would have been political prisoners. Amnesty International may well have had an interest in them. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have been locked up, or that laws leading to it shouldn’t be changed.
Of course Shadbolt et al are very different, my point is that the simple fact that someone could be seen as a political prisoner doesn’t make them good, or mean they should be released, or that the law leading to their imprisonment should be changed.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
I left National to support Winston in his days of difference with National (1993)- left NZ First when NZ First followed fashion labels and Winston forgot who put him in the Kingmakers position – voted National last time because one must vote. It was a cloudy day. Labour was so desparate to govern Helen sold herself short by selling the Forgein Minister position to the outside- insider. Reminds me of the old saying ‘love you enermy you never know when you will need them’. The games they play!
You wont see me near a polling booth to tick boxes where I secure someones salary to stand up and lie/cheat/grandstand and abuse the power I innocently and decently gave them.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
ACT party bagman Boscowan?
Na Tom, Boscawen asked for his money back a while ago when he realised what a ramshackle PR fiasco the Farrar and Whale’s KtB campaign had become. I don’t blame the guy.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
I thought Russell made a good point. If you want to launch a billboard campaign to attack Labour and its allies this one does that. If you want to take away support from them this will probably fail. Of course people who are already Nat/ACT supporters will love it, but to win the election National will need to take votes from Labour, and this campaign is too vitriolic, too poorly designed, and too simplistic to do that. In particular, women, who National really really need to get to vote for it, are likely to be put off by this.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Actually, regarding Bananarama in Fiji, having overthrown a demonstrably corrupt elected government, there is a likelihood that he will draw up the sort of constitution for a future democratic Fiji that NZ cryingly needs.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
BeShakey – the difference is technical only. Both use money to influence votes. Simple. Labour are complete hypocrites – and hence have no credibility
December 19th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Jesus BeShakey
Are you now making rules up as you go along? I had you pegged for a little more nous. But I’ll simplify it. The opposition has no real ability to buy elections with tax bribes and handouts like the incumbents. They can promise that they will , if the win, hand out something. The incumbents can (like last time ) hand out massive lollies (students and WFF) before the election and that acts as a double whammy. ie. “We gave you this…so vote for us, and if you vote for our opposition they will take it all away again…” The only way any one other than the incumbents can get info out is through advertising and the media. And it has everthing to do with labour, they have been the spenders.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Adolf I hate to think of the medication they must be pumping into Crazy to prevent her popping.
All she has to look forward to in the New Year is a concerted campaign to make her and the Socialists look like all those on the billboards.
Shes gonna be grinding her teeth when good citizens start fronting the Police stations demanding to be arrested for. breaching the EFA.
And then launching an impassioned plea from the dock at their trials.
Let face it The nightmare for any politican is seeing fromer blemish free citizens telling the judge that they were only voicing their opinions.
The TV pictures of them being lead to the cells in handcuffs will be worth a million dollars of any election advertising.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
So the left are getting upset by a few billboards. Poor them can’t take a bit of criticism.
It just goes to show that the whole aim was to get rid of freedom of speech.
http://nzdebate.blogspot.com/
December 19th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
BeShackey whats the most democratic country you can name where people have been arrested because the spent more then $120,000 in an election campaign?
December 19th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Well, looking at the Very Double Standard, and teh way the EFB has been rammed through, with its assisting rationales – I think that this proves that Labour Greens Act and Future think they can establish the rules of engagement and get away with it.
Gosh, do you think we can really match them?
Time to bring it on? Well done DPF and the FSC.
Tane –
If you can’t do the time,
Don’t do the crime….
December 19th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
c’mon BeShakey VTO has only repeated thgis a couple of times if that. c.f. the continued shrieking and repetiious claims of “bought elections”, dastardly deeds of the EB’s, “big money” and “overflowing warchests” that have equally been “dealt with …. disputed and even disproven but reapeated and repeated.
I think you are acting a bit like Anne Hartley (spp?) taking an early closure motion!
December 19th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
crikey you’ve got to be quick on this thread.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
The point so obviously missed here and continually raised by David Farrar is the overriding principle that a free democracy is only a free one when the right and principles to speak freely whether for or against the ruling party is enshrined in the law or constitution of a nation.
djp posted at 2.01pm and repeated an important quote :
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
This is what makes the US both great and famous in that all the Presidents accept critcism and defend strenuously the right of the people to make criticism.(as long as it remains peaceful)
Mugabe, Hitler, Clark, Stalin, Peters, Kim Yong II, Dunne, Chairman Mao, NZ Greens, Hussein, and Chavez all now share a very dark repressive legacy—They have all restricted free speech and all with a common denominator blaming “big money” and often persecuting a small harmless societal group i.e. Jews, Falun Gong, Brethren or Buddhists,
December 19th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Is this topic about to set some new NZ blog thread records?
December 19th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
This is the 1st time Ive commented, Ive watched Kiwiblog for months now and have respect for alot of the views shown. I totally disagree with the EFB but to show the billboards I firmly believe would play right into Helens hands. They are funny and clever but after the 1st laugh seem over the top. You are right the about the way the govt bulldozed over everyones objections but to show the billboards is asking for Helen to become a victim of hate.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Bok – I’m not sure what your point is. The parties in government can put in place policies. These policies benefit people. These people may be more likely to vote for that party (but don’t always – I would have got tax cuts if National was in but didn’t vote for them). Any party can do this when in government. I’m not seeing a problem.
You might think the policies are wrong, thats part of a democracy. You might think that the policies were solely designed to get votes to win an election. If that is true it is a bad thing (and happens across both parties), but hopefully the public will not base their vote solely on personal interest. The fact that Labour has made promises before the election (not implemented before as you suggested) is part of a democracy.
I can’t really see what the problem you are pointing to is, other than the issues above. And if it is one of the things above, how can you stop it other than to stop any party from implementing any policy when in power that favours anyone.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Roger Nome – you bring up a good point.
David – Seeing you disagree with this act, are you going to team up with Cameron Slater and produce some more gay porn?
You know that the coalition for free speech is a front for the National party – therefore do you think its a good thing to have Cameron Slater co-head this?
Do you think somebody who sexually harassed a 15 year old boy is a good face for the National party?
Or would he just fit in….
December 19th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
“Boscawen asked for his money back a while ago when he realised what a ramshackle PR fiasco the Farrar and Whale’s KtB campaign had become.”
Another lie from, Tane. Dude, you have a problem with the truth.
BeShakey, what would you define as “buying an election”? How would it be done? What is involved?
December 19th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
yes David, that constant repetition by labour of “big money” (when they have bigger money), “secret trusts” (when they have left that loophole wide open), “buying elections” (when that is exactly what they do), etc etc etc just makes me angry.
Our politicians are constantly lying to us by twisting the truth and leaving other parts out.
I am only a normal joe in struggle street.
King, who I had a little respect for before, is now in the same realms as Clark, Cullen etc in my books now (only small books maybe).
All politicians do it I know – but in this case it is a little more important.
They have broken the law (centuries old conventions) in making this law. The Governor-General should refuse to assent!
December 19th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
If you are going to start making comparisons between NZ politicians (Our country being the least corrupt in the world) and leaders from the most corrupt Nations of the world – then I think its all too fitting to expose Cameron Slater, co-founder of the coalition for free speech.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
James Sleep
If you know about a person sexually harrasing a 15 year old boy then you should report this to the police. A young impressionable 15 year old would deserve this kind of protection.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
YAWN – God you lot are boring.
If National gets in next year, they will kill this law and get the vote of Labour who won’t want it in opposition either.
If Labour win next year, it will be what National and the others deserve because their arguments are obviously less convincing or well expounded.
Everything else being said in this thread is just points scoring to satisfy the egos of the writers.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Cool- the lying racist idiot Roger Philip john mason Nome is back. Wonder if he’s going to call anyone a nigger today?
December 19th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
James Sleep.
Well that was true once – or is the tooth fairy still claiming this as a fact in your world.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
vto,
let me clarify one point, you said “buying election”. They don’t do that, they steal them.
Cheers
December 19th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
BeShakey – get real…
Using money to influence voting patterns = buying elections.
Paint it up any way you want – a brown turd is still a turd.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
VTO
It is amazing that Labour supporters cannot see how this Labour government has lowered the levels of accepted behavior for politicians in NZ.
Example: In Australia Rudd fires a MP for having lunch in a group that included a convicted crim. Here our PM fraudulently signs a painting.
In England a Labour minister resigns because his daughter is involved with drugs and he feels it compromises his integrity. Here MP are investigated for child abuse, yet they refuse to resign (Prima face case was established)
In the US a Democratic Congressman’s career is over because of obnoxious behavior and being caught in a lie, here Mallard can slander some-one , hit another and still be in caucus.
Te list goes on and on. And NZ voters just sit there and does not demand better from their representatives. Instead like Brown and Beshakey, Tane and the rest they simply see it as inconsequential.
They love running out words like misogyny but don’t care about honesty.
They scream about racism, yet are happy to be bigoted and religiously intolerant .
They talk about the environment, yet defend the buying of vehicles that is $100 000 dearer than the predecessors. (Uses less fuel – give me a break You would have to drive them for 70 years to make the $100 000 back in fuel saving)
Yesterday Hone Harawira spoke out in parliament. The lefties must read what he said, because for all their faux bluster in support of indigenous races, this leftist government will be remembered for the one that started stealing from Maori all over again. This time however Maori has a voice.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
David – I didn’t actually mean to suggest he had said it, just that it had been discussed a lot (the caps may have been a bit harsh). I thought it had been dealt with fairly comprehensively, there are problems with the EFB, but the ability of parties to tell the electorate about policies they will implement in power isn’t one of them. If there are some new arguments to suggest otherwise then by all means post away (as if I could stop you).
While the examples you gave have certainly been discussed I don’t think they have been disproven. From what I have read many people on the other side of the political spectrum to me actually agree that there is an issue with the possibility of ‘buying an election’, but disagree with how it has been dealt with.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
sheesh, you really do have to be quick on this thread.
Its like there are ten people at once nationwide tapping away at their keys and hitting ‘submit’ as quick as poss.
hurry hurry!! ha ha
December 19th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
It feels like a Friday.
Trading done for the day.
G&T with bitters.
Watching the slow motion melt down of one of the four main parties of the statist left in NZ documented via blog…..
Does it get any better?
Hulun’s EFB has a mirror in Howard’s IR laws, neither had to do it, neither could contain their hubris.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
VTO – if you want to have it that way fine. But it does mean that pretty much every party in parliament has bought or attempted to buy elections. I don’t think that people see the kind of behaviour you described (telling the electorate ‘this is the policy we will implement if elected, here is how it works’) is buying an election, even if that policy favours some people, and even if the intention of the policy was to get votes. I don’t support it when the above happens, but I don’t think it is ‘buying an election’ in the same way as King (and others) meant. In fact it is pretty much (for better or worse) common practice in most if not all democratic countries.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
gd – the problem is we wont have enough cops to accomodate us all and neither will there be enough handcuffs, unless the Police start doing a deal with the $2 shops for the fluffy ones. It will give some opportunity for people to become security guards to cope with the crowds.
I’m keen to stand up in court and say I was only using my human right of freedom of speech. I guess it will depend on how well I know the judge or if he like my smile as to the length of my sentence.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Chaps and chapesses, this thread seems to have run afoul of Godwin’s Law. Up centreboard, tiller hard right (or hard left, depending on your persuasion), and relax into things. Where’s the Christmas spirit when you need it?
December 19th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Beshakey said
“I can’t really see what the problem you are pointing to is, other than the issues above. And if it is one of the things above, how can you stop it other than to stop any party from implementing any policy when in power that favours anyone.”
What you are doing is spinning. Yes governments release policies, but policies that they work through and at for a number of months with their advisors. However when they make policies on the fly (so badly drafted that millions have to be spent of fixing them, they do it for expediency. And here is the rub. They are there for the good of the country, not for the good of the labour party. Policies of expediency simply is made to get themselves back into power.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Sleepy sez:
Expose Cameron how?
Dork.
Come back when you’ve come up with a rational argument, e.g. not “These are f***ing gross”.
I think your school needs to hire a new debating coach Master Sleep.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
DPF,
What are you trying to achieve?
By running attack ads now (at the beginning of the campaign) you are making it extremely difficult to divorce yourselves from the National Party. The Free Speech Coalition has potential to be a wider organisation than just a NP vehicle to beat up on Labour/Greens/NZFirst, don’t blow it.
Attack ads like these are some of the worst examples of free speech. They’re only there to drive up hatred and loathing of the Labour Party and associates. You are trying to portray yourselves as defenders of free speech against these horrible foes before anyone (except the fools like me that debate politics as a hobby) knows even why free speech is worth defending.
What should be done first is to establish the benefits of free speech and establish your link as a defender of it in New Zealand. To do this you need to be more positive and engage. You definitely need to engage with the majority of New Zealanders who voted for Labour, Greens and NZFirst – inferring their representatives are tyrants will not help to achieve engagement. Get it right and you will attract more funding and more interest.
Get it wrong and you won’t, Labour will use these smears to paint themselves as victims of unwarranted attacks and negate your campaign.
More honey, less vinegar.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
And also that speech by Hone Harawira was brilliant that is one of the best speech’s I have heard for a long time.
The hysteria Helen and Peters have created about the “big money” and “EB’s buying elections” you would think that the EB’s have brought out all the TV stations and all the main newspapers and taken control of the radio stations and the mail service.
When all they did was stay with in the law (labour did not) and send out some pamplets to peoples letter boxes which people could read at their own free will and agree with or disgree with in an instant !!!!
December 19th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
MArk I’m not saying NZers are thick just that most have not engaged in this debate and teh ads do nothing to allow those people to draw the dots.
For example, there is a tui ad in wellington saying something like “we want our $200,000 back”. I think it refers to the council giving money to bring Beckham here but if you weren’t a wellington ratepayer and paid attention to the controversy you might not get it (not sure if I do). That’s not a comment on intelligence but engagement.
I don;t think these ads really engage.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Seamonkey
Sleep is just a 15 year old kid – he said so a few posts back. Ok, he’s 16 now but a few months back he was just a kid. So now he’s just a 16 year old kid… Sheesh.. and he had a piece of me when I called him a kid a few months back – but now it works for his agenda….. So he’s still just a kid or he would have had enough sense to not use the ‘just a kid defense’ when it suited him.
Give the kid a break – he’ll mature one day.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
The billboards are really funny… you lefties take life so seriously.
Oh, that’s right, you’ve had a couple of bad poles recently, bound to make you tetchy…GET USED TO IT
December 19th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
the EB didnt attempt to influence the election anything like those chinless sandel-wearing koots at the unions.
sorry, more hypocrisy (banned in parliament for some unknown reason)
December 19th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
BeShakey re your 4.26pm and earlier. I think I can understand where you are coming from (yes it is a bit difficult with all the noise around) but for the reasons that you accept i.e. we all see things through the lenses of our own beliefs/experiences/biases, I can’t agree.
To me the unwrapping of radical new policies on the eve of an election is blatantly using the position of incumbency for political means. In my (perhaps too pure) world I think that the incumbent needs to defend their actions in the past and demonstrate how the natural progression of their policies will move into the future. It is really more of the task of oppositions and challengers to propose new directions and convince the electorate that their way is better.
Unveiling things like interest free student loans or “20 free hours” very close to the elections and having all the backing of Treasury’s research unit and the whole machinery of Government to support it when there has been no mention in the previous 3 or 6 years is to me dishonest and manipulative in a way that is far more dangerous to creating a “fair election” climate than anything attempted or achieved by National, the EB’s or any other candidate or party.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
exactly David (4.39) to BeShakey
December 19th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Meh, I’ve seen better, cleverer, more well-designed billboard campaigns, and I must admit when I first saw them I thought “good, but could be better”.
But by being inflammatory they’ve ignited an impassioned debate and become an issue in themselves. And since “are these billboards too nasty” is an issue even the dopiest media can run, whereas the intricacies of the EFB were too much for some, the debate on the billboards will cause some people to ask “Why the fuss?” and find out about the EFB for themselves.
That’s just the sort of “teaser” campaign I advocated ysterday should be run round ads like Boscawen’s – something to motivate the electorate to want to read 1600 words.
So in retrospect, I’d say the billboards will do an excellent job, though whether by luck or by genius, only DPF truly knows
December 19th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
People please, don’t go hating on Sleepy.
We all know it’s the education system that let him down.
So he’s 16 now, minus 9yrs of labour governance = 7, factoring in that year 1&2 you learn to eat your lunch, i see fit to blame Labour.
Now that he’s been to junior parliament and meet Helen, and Aunty Sue, i think its safe to say the indoctrination of irrational, naive, and stupid opinions has been for ever set in young James mind.
James:
Imagine if National passed such a law that prevented at 30yr old you from protesting certain events. I posit you would be on the steps of parliament, megaphone in hand, crying foul and leading the charge.
Think before you write something. Don’t just spurt words on a screen thinking your clever, your not.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Yes helmet – I was quoting that great Afro-American hater Malcolm X. Here’s some education for you boy.
http://orvillelloyddouglas.wordpress.com/2007/11/28/malcolm-x-asks-the-question-what-kind-of-black-person-are-you/
December 19th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
One question.
If the children at the school ask why the billboard was taken down, (doubtful I know but bear with me) what should the answer be?
Will it be, We are not allowed to have billboards like this? or, We did not like what the billboard said, or , The government said we can’t display this kind of billboard on our property.
I would also like to know what billboards have been on this site previously, and if political billboards have been on this site in the past.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Jeff @ 4:45
You sum things up well
December 19th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Slighlyrighty
the nearest thing we have here to a child is James and I doubt that it would occur to him to ask why?
He would probably be in detention for improper use of language or use of improper language depending on the quality of his teacher.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
To answer your question, I understand that a National Party billboard was on the site during the last election campaign if I heard Leighton Smith’s caller correctly this morning
December 19th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
David, following on from your 4.39 post, last minute policy announcements should also be banned.
All policies to be announced by the incumbent govt January 1 of election year to stop election buying and undue influencing.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
I believe that the billboards will not in themselves even raise the issue in the minds of many, and relevant interpretation will be difficult (without the benefit of what dpf has provided in the text above).
Nevertheless, it is not their standalone efficacy that will be their only measure, as Rex points out, the inflammatory nature will surely bring the issue out into the ope (or on the otherhand, will the media only report on the inflammation itself?).
I really don’t think the billboards are very good (because the last thing this campaign needs is more hyperbole), but if they are able to raise the EFA issue even further into public focus, then I am right behind them. If they cause the sponsors to become the first martyrs of the new bill – even better ; )
Incidentally, Colin Espiner writes that National are thrusting Shadbolt forward as the first martyr – but Colin suggests that even if he does directly attack the govt during election year, he won’t be prosecuted. What would that mean in terms of case precedence (if anything at all)?
December 19th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Perhaps the billboards were taken down because the people who put them up were not wearing their yellow stars.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
you watch the govt pull out all stops to prevent Shadbolt getting anymore exposure. They will simply write out a cheque of our money. Thats what Hodgson was gunning for on close-up last night.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
I’m a fair man vto, giving everyone a clean shot at the prize, why should all parties not submit their policies by the start of the election period?
Hint – that may not necessarily mean from 1 January either.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
David @ 4:49,
The whole thing about the Education system is that they teach you not to ask why.
You are supposed to agree with what you are taught. After all the teacher is older and wiser.
This is why we have so many twisted people in society.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
David can’t even get his story straight:
On this thread:
“The three sites combined cost $7,000 for a month’s rental.”
At Radio NZ:
“Mr Farrar says the three billboards cost about $15,000″
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/latest/200712191243/political_billboard_campaign_begins_in_auckland
My man Irish Bill’s not often wrong, but it looks like he’s right again:
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=899
December 19th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
vto
Agree. The way the crooks respond to opposition policy by throwing bigger and bigger lollies at the voters is a disgrace. Election policy should be registered and released at the start of the ‘election period’ which is now 1st Jan in the election year.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Tane: “Now you’re cheapening the memory of our soldiers to further your political ends.”
Is that anything like Helen Clark, whose father dodged the draft during WW2, using NZ military personnel to score brownie points to support her future application for a UN job?
December 19th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Godwin’s Law is an observation regarding the probability that someone will make a reference to Hitler, not an indication that the reference is incorrect or inappropriate.
Personally, I think the billboards a bit silly, because of their low level of humour. They could be much funnier, and anyway, there is a difference between the styles of our Dear Leader and those depicted- that such legislation may eventuate in societies similar to Maoist China or DPRK or whatever doesn’t mean that they currently are the same.
The fact that so many believe that the NP will win, despite the EFB [not yet signed, so not EFL yet] is a sign that NZ is far from being a totalitarian state, our Dear Leader’s desires notwithstanding.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
They’d be funnier with a picture of George W Bush saying “We welcome the Green Party adopting American style campaign laws.”
December 19th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
simeon –
“The whole thing about the Education system is that they teach you not to ask why.
You are supposed to agree with what you are taught. After all the teacher is older and wiser.
This is why we have so many twisted people in society.”
- is this what homeschooling has taught you?
- im sure you are very clued-in about the public education system!
December 19th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Tane, you are a double jerk. If the sites cost $7k and the total cost was $15k doe it not penetrate the void you call a brain that the cost of production and installation just might have been $8k?
Better go back to the freezing works at Wairoa and learn some fuckin maths, eh bro?
December 19th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Adolf
Tane’s a bit upset today because his party just passed some really shabby laws and he’s unable to criticise them so he needs to take it out on others.
After he’s had a good sleep and cry into his pillow he might get over it.
December 19th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
“Roger Nome – you bring up a good point.
David – Seeing you disagree with this act, are you going to team up with Cameron Slater and produce some more gay porn?
You know that the coalition for free speech is a front for the National party – therefore do you think its a good thing to have Cameron Slater co-head this?
Do you think somebody who sexually harassed a 15 year old boy is a good face for the National party?
Or would he just fit in….”
I withdraw and apoligise to Cameron Slater
December 19th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Adolf, you’ve still never explained why you’ve chosen to name yourself after a Nazi, but I’ll let that one slide.
I can tell you for a fact that it does not cost $8,000 to produce and install three billboards. Go have a look at Irish Bill’s article, his listed the average costs there.
Far more likely is David wasn’t being entirely truthful when he said it cost him $7,000 for three billboards. Bill’s figures show billboards of that size and location are around $11,500 with a few thousand for production and installation. That adds up to $15,000. If I’m going to trust anyone’s figures it’s his because they’re based on real world figures.
As for your last comment, can you explain what you’re trying to say about freezing workers? It sounds like vile classism, but I’d like to give you the benefit of the doubt.
December 19th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Nah Adolf, that would call for rational thinking, some logic and a willingness to debate issues.
Much more fun to slag off individuals. Hit and run I say, keep it up Tane, you are our poster boy for everything that stinks about the socialist left/labour/union movement.
Question, why is it called a movement (as in Labour movement, union movement)? ‘cos it is really more like a motion.
December 19th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
2 good posts Bok I reckon the attack in 08 should focus on setting out what the Socialists have said or imposed on us and then what they have done themselves. Very simple stuff like:
Fuel consumption 6 litres per 100Km / Government Cars 8litres
Election Spending $120K for citizens /Skys the Limit for Government
December 19th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
James. You might be living dangerously, don’t you think?
December 19th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Interested if there any thoughts on where these billboards will take us. If the Free Speech Coalition want to make martyrs of themselves I am sure the govt will happily oblige. Are they angling for a court appearance and then proposing to go for a breach of Human Rights and get Helen into court ? It seems logical that the game plan doesn’t stop with the billboards.
December 19th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Tane, why have you chosen to name yourself after a tree?
no we will let that one slide also.
December 19th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
James Sleep
Around that time James you were saying people were discriminating against you because of your age – saying that you were not a normal 15 year old and had a much better perspective on politics etc etc.
Now you want to be a boy again… man you are a sad example of a teenager – the same sad example you denied you were….
December 19th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Tane, why have you chosen to name yourself after a tree?
My mother gave me that name. And a tree didn’t gas six million Jews.
December 19th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Tane
To think you were claiming that peoples comments on this thread were an insult. You just took first prize – but hey I guess it’s you that did it and you are a Labour supporter so it’s OK. Labour good – well done Tane.
December 19th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Here’s what makes me sick Tane: had it been a National government that passed the EFB you’d have screamed blue murder. And rightly so.
Thus the only principle that sees you throwing your weight behind the EFB is that it’s your party that brought it in.
From that completely unprincipled position, you then feel like you have the right to take the moral high ground and say that these posters somehow insult people who suffer.
Puh-lease.
When you start demonstrating some integrity and stop being so blatantly, completely and horribly partisan, it might just about be possible to take you seriously. But not a minute before.
December 19th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Tane
To summarise:
You’re cheapening the suffering of people who live under a dictatorship and trying to stoke division and hatred in our society. It’s sick politics and it does your cause a huge discredit. This will come back to bite the YOU.
December 19th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Tane: My mother gave me that name. And a tree didn’t gas six million Jews.
And how many people in the world has the name Adolf? If you Google the full name you might actually learn something interesting about who Adolf Finkelstein was. (If I have the correct, Adolf F Finkelstein)
You are trying to smear someone. And you’re doing it badly. At least the billboards have an element of humour. You? You’re just sad and pathetic.
December 19th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Tane’s true nature revealed. (refer 5.16 pm)
Behind that polite facade lies …………. what indeed?
December 19th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Yes Adolf, I think he might be. What was it that DPF said? – don’t post anything even potentially slanderous/libelious on my blog that may cause me to be summonsed to court.
I think James should mull over those words before he posts again.
December 19th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
James Sleep,
Be careful what you say. It could come back to haunt you one day.
December 19th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Fuck off tane , ,get back into the labour slime, with the other perverts, I SALUTE YOU DF , for your billboards but watch out for nazi inc who have been employed by our ruling pervert party, GO FREEDOM fuck hard labour
December 19th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Yeah and everyone named Joseph is named after Stalin. Every Osama, Saddam, Kim, Fidel, and Hugo are now named after their respective dictators.
Every Bill is named after the Clinton, every George is named after GWB>
Tane, you have lost. Everything.
December 19th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Correct I should SM.
December 19th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Simeon -
Be careful what you say, it might come back and haunt you one day.
December 19th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Tane is the sort of WANKER that is in a state of tears that billboards would feature Kim Jong Il, but sees nothing wrong with dismissing someone by saying they are named after Hitler.
December 19th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
JS – Go putside and play you child
December 19th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Hey, Adolf’s never answered my question. If he’s an old German dude and it’s his real name then that’s fine, I’ll drop it. If he’s named after some other famous guy called Adolf then that’s cool too. If he’s doing it to be offensive then that raises serious questions about his character. It’s just interesting he refuses to answer a simple question.
December 19th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Seamonkey Madness:
December 19th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
James,
I totally agree
How did the YOU meeting go yesterday??
December 19th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
putside, outside….wherever
December 19th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
[Sorry - let me repost that]
Seamonkey Madness:
You do realise this is what happens when James Sleep gets bored, don’t you?
December 19th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
What if he is doing it to be ironic? Like calling yourself, Rasheed Cracker.
December 19th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Simeon – email me
December 19th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Hey Tane Tutae- forgot to give you your Christmas message, so here it is FUCK OFF YOU PIECE OF SHITE.
December 19th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Peak Oil Conspiracy:
Um, WTF?
I think James gets bored yes. He comes on here to troll and stir up shit just to satisfy his ADD.
I on the other hand don’t like seeing DPF’s blog turned into a complete> sewer by little twerps like him, slanging meaningless threats around.
C’est la vie. Argung on the internet etc. etc..
December 19th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Pascal: Adolf F Finkelstein? This dude calls himself Adolf Fiinkensein.
As I say, he may be cool, but I’d be a bit careful about saying stuff like “Better go back to the freezing works at Wairoa and learn some fuckin maths, eh bro?” if I went about calling myself Adolf. I’m just sayin’
December 19th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
How many PR people work in witch helens dept, They cannot be all called tane , or is peter d posting madly, TANE YOU ARE REALLY BORING, go off and look at pol pot movies
December 19th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
tane email james creep
December 19th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Tane you arent really maori so stop pretending so damned hard. No one is buying it, Denis.
December 19th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
casual watcher Its not just the PM that can be called There are also the advisers who under oath have to give evidence of what they advised.
And this will be the big bomb. When the Court is told that the legislation was hastily drafted by people who were advised that it breached NZ and International laws and yet the PM and others pushed ahead out of spite and in a rage against the EBs Nats and those of us who believe in freedom.
The trick is to get the right players into the witness box and then have them spill their guts under oath and threat of contempt all over the Court room floor.
What you saw with Mallard aint gonna be nothing to watch this play out.
December 19th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Ok guys.
Its one thing to disagree on political leanings but now things are getting out of hand.
Buggerlugs – Tane has a right to post.
Tane – normally a balanced opinion but you started the ball rolling today.
Adolf – your being silly
The rest of you settle down. If you want to debate the issue of the billboards then do so without stooping to swearing and being nasty to one another.
December 19th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Seamonkey Madness:
*Sigh*
Judging my your sanctimonious tone, you’ve clearly misunderstood the point of my post.
I wasn’t defending James Sleep’s boorish behaviour – I’ve called him on it on previous threads. James has to decide between being treated like an adult (in which case he’d better start acting like one) or playing the “I’m a kiddie” card (in which case he’ll go full circle, back to when he first started posting on Kiwiblog).
December 19th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Coverage on TV3 site including video: http://tinyurl.com/2cy2hb
“Pollies compared to despots in billboard campaign” http://www.stuff.co.nz/4329940a10.html
December 19th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
PASCAL your 3.04pm comment
I totally agree
National have to deliver in this area if elected, which is still a big if – THEY MUST DO MORE THAN LIP SERVICE
RUSSELL BROWN 2.59 pm
Comments valid. Indeed many comments are as bad , if not worse, than what is protested against
ZenTiger 3.08 pm
Your comments are simply silly and add nothing
KIMBLE 3.09 pm
I agree.
As per a number of my comments on other threads I believe a Royal Commission on Constitutional issues is IMPERATIVE
PASCAL 3.10 pm
Agree, but must have written constitution
Josh 3.14 pm
Go away, you are an idiot and whilst I agree with Voltaire you make it very difficult
unaha-closp 3.15 pm
Agree with you, honey always catches more than acid
BeShakey – 3.30 pm
Broadly agree. Would ove to debate the Hate Speech issue, as there are some real free speech issues there
Bean 3.43 pm
Hitler was not right wing! His government controlled everything.
PASCAL 3.47 pm
1 Agree
2 OK, but need to understand detail
3 Ditto
toms 3.51 pm
Why bother
December 19th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
have been at work all day and can’t believe that scumbag Dunne voted against the bill. He has to be the biggest 2 faced prick NZ has ever seen.
The billboards are great. If Labour expects good people to sit back now she is sadly deluded. We will never forget this day.
December 19th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
If they are so obviously outrageous then people like Tane should have nothing to worry about because the public will see right through them. The only reason to get precious is if you suspect that the public will see them for what they really are:
A) Satirical
B) Making a valid point about the EFB
December 19th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Tane
The cost of the billboards has nothing to do with you.
It wasn’t your fucking money and therefore you have no say in how it is spend.
Think about the pledge card fuckwit and who paid for it before your mate’s thieving hands were caught in the till
Go back to your hole.
December 19th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Simeon, I’m just glad I don’t have a gay ass name like you.
December 19th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
So you’ll be quite okay when I put up a bunch of billboards comparing John Key to Hitler?
I actually agree with the substance of your comment Russell, but the short answer is “yes”. You’d be a total fuckwit – and I’d say so at the top of my voice – , but I don’t think political discourse in the country is short of that quality. And you’d just have to wear any backlash that came from it, wouldn’t you?
Then again, I’m pretty offended at hearing Annette King constantly asserting that folks who opposed the EFA are solely motiviated by the desire to leave our rich prick buddies free to ‘buy elections’. I was extremely offended by the Sunday newspaper that ran a hysterical front page equating Don Brash to Pauline Hansen, and quoting Clayton Cosgrove predicting race riots in the street if National won the 2005 election.
Shall I go on recounting the ways in which free speech really is a total bitch?
December 19th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Great Bill Boards – they say exactly as they should. Perhaps Tane would like to pose for one or would Helen, Winston, Peter and the wonderful greens ban him from doing so.
December 19th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Re. Tane complaining about billboards drawing parallels between the Governments of Fiji, China and NZ … “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
December 19th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
At last the electorate is waking up to the how devious the Bastards in the beehive are.
Go 4 it DPF.
To the PM I say “he that sows to the wind shall reap the whirlwind ”
To the decent people in the labour party eg Ross Robertson I plead-stand up to your leader and get real.
To Peters and Dunne I say pull out of your coalition with labour if you want a chance at the next election-
and to those who try to shut down and vilify the EB- it wont succeed.Do you think they will stop saying what needs to be said?
December 19th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
I can confidently predict that 2008 is going to be one hell of a lot of fun.
The left are in a pickle, Tane and co are watching their house of cards crumble around them and the poor sods just do not know what to do.
Anybody who was not obsessed with keeping control of power would stop and wonder why the public are reacting in such a vocal manner however Labour and their toadies are not able to think like that.
They think so little of the general public that they honestly believe a campaign like this (the billboards) is enough to sway the voters, they arrogantly believe that they and only they have the knowledge and skill to run the country and the words (lies) of Klark and co should be the only ones heard, we (the public) cannot be relied upon to make the right choices if we get to hear both sides of the argument
The bad news for Tane, James and co is that the actions of your leader and your party have done what 10,000 billboards could never do, meanwhile I am going to enjoy watching as the left go into melt down mode.
December 19th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Its going to be fun in 2008 ,free thinking people who hate the leftist party of deviants are going to have a field day , ROLL ON 2008,
December 19th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Great work DPF and the rest of the team involved.
A bit of a side question, if the major newspapers decided to run an article every day on anti EFB action does anybody know if this would be covered by the bill? To my understanding it wouldn’t be covered but perhaps others more familiar with the act could advise?
December 19th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Tane, you are so thick you will never get it. I’m not going to answer your question. EVER. Do you understand? N O T NOT. That is the measure of your importance in the universe.
December 19th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Jeff Love your blog mate. All these posts, Bu why the alias DPF?
December 19th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Are you implying im somehow DPF Bok?
Im a wee bit younger than David and im slighty *cough* more centre than him.
December 19th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Oh I just love it. The left can get as feral as they like, it will only encourage more like me to set out to deliberately break the law. Kind of as a big F*#K YOU to Labour, NZ Fist and the Greens. (United Future gets half a finger).
You see, the law only works at the indulgence we afford Government with voluntary compliance. Loose that and any law ain’t worth the paper its written on, no matter how big your army.
Ignore the law.
December 19th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
James Sleep – I know for a fact that you regularily and willingly chat to Cameron Slater online, yet you and your buddies choose to accuse him of sexual harassment from time to time.
Surely if you feel this way, and you were damaged by some bullshit joke image, then you would not be willingly continueing to chat to him now would you.
Not to mention that accusations of such a nature are highly defamatory. Of course being 15 and without any assets you don’t need to worry about such things.
December 19th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
i think its all been said now hasn’t it?
December 19th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
oh, except this
December 19th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Well Jeff seeing as you are presumptuous enough to tell everybody how to behave I thought that it must be the blog owner. Sorry, my mistake.
December 19th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
I hate what this govt is doing as much as the next person. However there could be a danger in over egging the opposition pudding. The left are masters at playing the victim when it suits and they could well get sympathy by crying foul over this type of bill board. Careful DPF.
December 19th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
David
Some people can help with money others may be able to help with time. I think a letter drop around some key electorates could be very worth while. I for one would be happy to volunteer and I am sure there will be other will.
How about smaller size versions of the billboard? Say about 600 x 800 that a few people could walk carry around certain areas like by an office on Sandringham Road.
Are there any more volunteers?
December 19th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
“..this is not a National Party sponsored campaign..”
oh..!..ok..
..and can i have a look soon at that bridge you said you had for sale..?
(and hey..!..dpf..!…keep it up..!..eh..?
everyone knows you are a national party trout..
..so that was a feckin’ ‘brilliant’ idea having you head a (supposed) non-national-party-front-group..eh..?
you are setting new benchmarks in self-foot-shooting..
..and thos billboards are as funny as pus..
it’s that rightwing lack of s.o.h. again..eh..?
you need to hire writers..
or something..
and those looking back at david farrars’ times in parliament..as an ‘official’ national party trout..
not ‘undercover’..as now..
shouldn’t forget his urgings to shiply/richardson ..to ‘deal’ to sole parents/the weakest..
..even more than they did..
..all in all..dpf..it was a crack-up seeing you having a ‘hurt’ moan..on the telly..
and as i said..keep it up..!
you are fast ‘wetting’ any ‘powder’ national may have on this..
(and this is a good/’beautiful’ thing that you do..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
shouldn’t forget huis urgings to cut/gut the social welfare system
December 19th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
If its after 1 January I’m up for it Chuck.
December 19th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Careful DPF.
It’s too late. David’s performance on One News tonight was hugely damaging for National. Clark was painted as the victim and reaffirmed her commitment to liberty, while Farrar bumbled his way through the interview looking like a mean-spirited little troll. He was also described as a former National Party staffer and a Nat activist.
Not a good look for National guys. In all honesty, I’d be dropping this guy very quickly if I were you. Everything he touches turns to shit.
December 19th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Great Thread guys/gals!
I started reading at about 3 o clock and with a few interruptions have finally caught up. Must be an all time record for postings per hour!
Best and most astute contribution goes to Pascal!
Pascal your debunking of the myths around the EB campaign destroy the very basis for Labour’s attack on our civil liberties.
Keep up the good work Pascal,Kimble and others.By constantly repeating a lie Labour has successfully demonised a law abiding group of NZ citizens and it is only by repetition of te truth that this ghastly injustice will be exposed.
On the adverts; my only comment is why let the Greens off?
Perhaps a photo of Japanese Wartime leader Tojo dining in a bowl full of whale meat saying “Well done Janette, shut up the liitle fish and hava a whale of a time”
December 19th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
there’s your ‘writer’..!
reg is the man..
feckin’ ‘brilliant!”..eh..?
the subtlety..!
the tasteful drawing out of tones..
very oscar wilde..
(or was that ..oscar the grouch..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 19th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
“In all honesty, I’d be dropping this guy very quickly if I were you. Everything he touches turns to shit.”
Except it was probably kiwiblog which centrally exposed the dupicity of the EFB from day one, while eole like you, in all honesty, were peddling the party line about the EBs.
Oh I guess we’d better disregard DPF then, on the basis of that sage advice.
Except we are all discussing this on DPF’s blog.
In all honesty, I can’t really take someone who expresses his outrage at the use of Dictator’s images on billboards in one breath then refers to the chosen name of another blogger and casually mentions the ‘gassing of six million jews’ as if to reinforce his point.
In all honesty, I’d be dropping the fake sincerity very quickly if I were you, everything you have said today sounds fake. What’s up did you draw the short straw and get ‘kiwiblog duty’ today? Yo really do sound like you are making it up as you go along.
Again.
December 19th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Tane, Clark a victim? Heh! You ‘av’in a laugh? She is incapable of being a victim. Her last cat froze to death.
December 19th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Bok mate, i would tell people to settle down in any situation.
Be it on this blog, my blog, in my flat, at my work, at a party, in the street or elsewhere.
I think rational debate is far better for us all in regards to swaying opinions than calling each other names.
That aside, calling me presumptuous is a tad silly given what’s been said already on this thread.
Almost everything written he is presumptuous, as well as subjective to ones beliefs.
BTW thanks for the compliment on my blog.
December 19th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
and dpf..
don’t forget to smother that greasy pig flesh with butter..eh..?
and um..!
drink up..!..eh..?
all those ‘permanent brain damage’ from booze stories are just that..eh..?
you won’t be drooling by the time you hit fifty..?
will you..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 19th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Simeon, I’m just glad I don’t have a gay ass name like you.
That’s nice and Christ-like Stan.
December 19th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
and look..!
chuckys’ offered to help..!
that’s a winner..!..eh..?’
‘
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 19th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
It’s too late. David’s performance on One News tonight was hugely damaging for National.
I wouldn’t say it was HUGELY damaging – especially at this time of year (who kicks of a political billboard campaign at the start of the holidays?)
But since National are currently twenty points ahead of their opponents in the polls a negative campaign against Labour seems bewilderingly pointless – the government is down to core voters and unlikely to lose any more support, the Nats need to maintain their current position by selling themselves as a government in waiting, something that DPF’s and Slaters rather mediocre attempts at wit only undermines.
December 19th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
See Helen’s reaction on TV ONE – that the money could have been better donated to a Christmas charity.
Has she been talking to Winston, or
Is she who Winston got the idea from?
December 19th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Yvette, Clark is just a typical socialist, telling others what to do.
December 19th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Great to see so much advice coming from the left on how much beter DPF could be doing his job.
I think all that money they are spending on BMW’s might have been better going to a CHristmas Charity, but still what do I know?
Shit, imagine much more how effective DPF’s campaign might be he’d be if only he’d take their advice!
December 19th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
PS did nayone see the insane back-peddling today from teh Greens and Labour suggesting they put together a ‘people’s jury’ to discuss electoral reform?
WTF why is that such a good idea all of a sudden?
December 19th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
pdq, that is great I hope we can get a few more. Would you please email me off the blog at chuckbirnz@gmail.com
December 19th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
(who kicks of a political billboard campaign at the start of the holidays?)
Um … anyone who knows that such a billboard campaign will be prohibited by law after the holidays.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
See Helen’s reaction on TV ONE – that the money could have been better donated to a Christmas charity.
Has she been talking to Winston, or
Is she who Winston got the idea from?
No, I think the idea originally came from National’s solution to its GST overspend in the last election.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Can we drop using the old soldiers, I have three uncles buried in North Africa who do not deserve this crap.
This is a fight between a couple of political
parties, no politician deserves to use their
memory unless they have been in old soldiers shoes.
Nor should political supporters use their memories, I do nor see too many of you rushing to join up, sod all in fact.
Oh, and let us not forget the EB who so
many of you believe have earned the right
to have a say in NZ, did not think enough
of NZ to carry a rifle for her.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Tane: “National’s solution to its GST overspend in the last election.”
What does that have to do with the suppression of free speech union boy? Nothing. Go back into you unproductive hole and figure new ways to leech off your comrades who will be voting National despite what you tell them to do.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
So much anger pdq. If you read the comment again you’ll see I was replying directly to another person’s question. Have another beer bro and relax. The Electoral Finance Act’s not so bad when you get past the spin.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
> This is a fight between a couple of political
> parties, no politician deserves to use their
> memory unless they have been in old soldiers shoes.
grumpyoldhori,
If veterans like Forbes Taylor are turning up to protest the EFB, why shouldn’t those opposed to the EFB highlight the fact?
December 19th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
A people’s jury! Brilliant!
But hang on…
…didn’t I read that the Poms invented something suspiciously like a people’s jury a while back? What was it called?
Oh yes… Parliament.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Good on you Chuck
December 19th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
No anger Tane, just ridicule for the left.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
John Ansell – question, did you design these billboards?
December 19th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
And I’m not a “bro” … you might address others like that but I don’t appreciate it.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Agreed Danyl.
This sort of campaign has no real upside but a lot of potential to backfire, as much as I hate to say it.
BTW Danyl, your post stands out like a beacon among the dross from Tane, phil u etc. They are the ones doing their side no good.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
pdq – Bro chill out
December 19th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
James, if I did, does that make a jot difference?
December 19th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
James, I don’t need a teenager telling me to chill out thanks.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
pdq – Maybe you do sport
December 19th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
No I don’t now go to bed little boy and leave the grown ups to talk
December 19th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
pdq – Come on pal, lets not talk about the age.
Being young means I have a lot more energy than older people – meaning I do not need the sleep as much as what you may need it.
I have had enough Sleep – I grew up with it (excuse the pun)
December 19th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
ok, as we all have to register under the AFA how would you feel if I disclosed where you live? 84 …….
December 19th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
pdq – if thats how you get your thrills no doubt do that.
What creeps me out is you spent the time finding out.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
And as the implications go, thats where the Government can find its foes?
December 19th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Was easy. Now, under the EFA we must provide that same “creepy” information to the Government if we want to speak out. that must bepretty creepy too?
December 19th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
No, no – I was meaning you personally took the time to find out where I lived.
If your really that obsessed – then why don’t you come around for a cuppa bro.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Leave him alone pdq.
Theres something very wong with you if you are prepared to harraas a 16 year old.
On top of that who do you think would care where he lives.
Take Tanes advice and have a beer mate.
Chill out
December 19th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
I’m not obsessed, I’m just illustrating how “creepy” to use you words the EFA is.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Jeff, no, he has been an advocate of the EFA so lets give its advocates a taste of what they wish to do to all of us.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Want any more published James?
December 19th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
pdq – its not creepy if personally tell people where I live.
What is creepy is that a man/woman has spent the time to find out where I live
I give out my address all the time – why would that be creepy?
December 19th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
James, I`ll pop around for a cuppa. Whats your address? 84..
December 19th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
pdq – I don’t care, go ahead. It will not kill me.
I might get some stalkers, but hey – they will only be the Exclusive Brethren.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
“pdq – its not creepy if personally tell people where I live.”
James under the EFA you will have no choice if you want to support a particular party or cause, so it’s not like you are doing it volinterily.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Hey Dave – I might drop in on you. Do you work out of the press gallery?
I was down ‘the corridor’ a week or so ago – I could have popped in.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
So you are OK with having to register with the Government if you want to say something for or against it and have to tell them where you live? I just have to get this on record.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Nick C – HTFU
December 19th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
James may I ask you a question?
Do you really hate the Exclusive Bretheran or do you only attack them all the time on the blogs because its what your Labour masters do in public?
December 19th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Yes – I am. Why not. The govt already know where you live. WTF are they going to do pdq?
Send the SIS in?
God, get real.
We live in New Zealand here – not Zimbabwe
December 19th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Nick C – I do not hate anyone.
I am fundamentally against what they did at the last election. That was lying to the public and be so deceitful and creepy.
They stalked Helen Clark FFS – anyone that does that really has got issues.
They couldn’t even come clean about why they did that.
What were their intentions?
I do not hate the EB – the Wairarapa is full of them, nice and handy for National MP John Hayes.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
“We live in New Zealand here – not Zimbabwe”
Classic
And WTF is HTFU?
December 19th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Oh, the teens are having a debate. It might be more appropriate on my blog
December 19th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
do’nt belittle the good people of Zimbabwe James
They live in a country whose dictator rigs elections, beats up opposition and burns down newspapers. labour here are just a slicker version.
By the way, is the God you refer to above the same one that the EB’s worship?
December 19th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
mmm, some nice jobs in aussie atm. Might have to join them shortly.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
and be so deceitful and creepy. – it should be – AND BEING
I eat humble pie
December 19th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
So you have no problem with me saying that James Sleep lives at 84 Cameron Crescent Masterton then? The Government has no idea who I am or where I live so why suggest it does? Now, if someone in a political context said that about me I’d be feeling pretty scared, not being a Labour flunky and knowing what union thugs are capable of, I’d be moving out and probably expediting our move to Australia.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
What the fuck is Harden the fuck up – exactly that sport
December 19th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
I’ll come over for a cuppa too James – Whats your address again?
December 19th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
“So you have no problem with me saying that James Sleep lives at 84 Cameron Crescent Masterton then?”
Clap clap PDQ, you sound like a stalker.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
duncan_bayne
Because you just said it in your words, he
has earned the right to march as a veteran.
What have political junkys from both sides done to use the history of our military ?
Do you speak for all veterans, if so why?
Are you proud of the fact that 28 Bat. veterans were not allowed to go for rehab
farms under a Nat govt?
Be careful of trying to use the military veterans and politics, it can bite.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
pdq – No I do not find it creepy if the govt tells me I live at 84 Cameron Crescent, Masterton, Wairarapa, North Island, New Zealand, Southern Hemisphere, Earth
December 19th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
jaz, no, just giving the left a taste of what we must endure after 1 January.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
pdq – would you like to tell the world where you live?
December 19th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
“the govt tells me I live at 84 Cameron Crescent, Masterton, Wairarapa,”
Does Helen tell you where to live too?
December 19th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
“pdq – would you like to tell the world where you live?’
No why the hell should I? … this is my objection to the EFA.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Yes they do – I got a letter from IRD the other day it said the following,
James Sleep
84 Cameron Crescent,
Masterton,
New Zealand
Dear Mr. Sleep
So, um, yea they kinda told me where I live.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
So the government are spying on me and i need to harden up James? Tell that to the people of all the historians:
Well really the millions who lived in East Germany and all of Communist of Europe for that matter needed to harden up, the KGB never did anything bad.
And Jaz cut the shameless self promotion, or you might get on your blog what sleep got on his.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
James, why would I volunteer my address to the Government to have a pink star put over my door?
December 19th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Nick C – The govt will never spy on you. WTF (Who) do you think you are?
Unless your a terrorist, I doubt they have any need to.
I never said its ok for the govt to spy on people – if they know your address, yea sure they REEEAALLY will spy on you.
FFS
December 19th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
#James Sleep Says:
December 19th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
# James Sleep Says:
September 18th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/09/what_will_archbishop_tamaki_say.html#comment-341051
December 19th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
pdq – I dunno, maybe because they want to wish you a happy Christmas by giving you a traditional star to put on your door….
December 19th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
James Sleep:
You’re caught out again. Can I have a “cry me a river” from you please?
December 19th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
POC – I’m sorry, another John Key moment.
I have decided to flip flop – So i say now, I do not hate anyone….
Be fair
December 19th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Lovely POC, I was actually looking for something like that but gave up pretty quickly, good work
Why else would the government want people to put their name and address on signs at a protest march James. The IRD need your address for obvious reasons but why for people at a protest march? Similar reasons to east berlin?
December 19th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Fair enough – I’m just saying
Anyway, I’m kind of hoping people will drop this “outing” business – posting residential addresses is really going a step too far.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
What about putting a billboard in that prick Blandertons seat?
December 19th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
No James, its about the right of individuals to live their lives with out Government interference, like the EFA. Its about our rights to call them for the poor policies they promote, its about the freedom to speak out without being labelled “chinless scarf-wearers” or being “cancerous and corrosive” and being free do do so without the need to register with the Government to be so. But I do look forward to you pinning a star to my door and you might just get a reaction depending upon whether its yellow or pink.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
POC, I asked him if he was OK with it and he said he was. Was a test for how he liked the EFA and good on him, he was. I’m not though.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
“Being young means I have a lot more energy than older people – meaning I do not need the sleep as much as what you may need it.”
Ah! but does it mean you understand James? Come work in my business for one week – and then tell my the govt isnt trying to screw us.
But thats the point isnt it – the govt is screwing us, yet if we want to complain, if we want to have OUR say, the government denies it.
What the hell gives Helen Clark the right to think she can have more of a say than the rest of us?
December 19th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Nicholas Cross, 15, Scots college.
Whats wrong with Jaz coming onto here and promoting his blog.
I must say, it was a subtle promotion. But hey, if you want to call it promotion then go for it.
I also must add – Jaz has a lot of balls to start a blog. Why would he get negative comments for coming on here and harmlessly promoting it?
Wheres yours?
December 19th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
“I didn’t find it humorous at all. I think you people have gone way too far in this and you’re playing a very dangerous game.”
Tane – that sounded like a threat. Typical of bully boys. What will you do? Send an indignant letter to the editor?
December 19th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
“Be fair”
Yes POC be fair. A young socialist like James cant possibly be expected to have a consistant view between threads.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
“I also must add – Jaz has a lot of balls to start a blog.”
WTF, its as easy as going to blogspot and blatherring on. No balls required James.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Oh, and on the subject of hypocrisy, come on down Phillip John/Roger Nome:
What do you have to say about this:
In favour – Labour, NZ First, Green 6, Progressive 1
Against – National, Maori, United Future, Act 2, Field 1
That’s 4 parties in favour, 5 against (treating Field as independent) – or 4 against if you discount Field.
As DPF said at the time:
December 19th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Nicholas Cross, come on mate – your own idol John KEY (Problem) flip flops all the time.
But you dear say nothing.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
James – this isnt Labour v National – Im not a national voter, i am in the ‘undecided’ category. This is about freedom. It is that fundamental.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Oh come on, when have I ever defended Key? In our wonderful MMP parliment not supporting Labour doesnt nessesarily imply supporting National.
And I prefer Nick
December 19th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Ok Nick.
So your were in 4th form this year?
December 19th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
nope
December 19th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
James, you actually do seem like an intelligent kind of guy, if you would like an intelligent discussion, I would be prepared to have one with you. I just don’t find blogs a great place for that.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
5th?
December 19th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
I wasn’t promoting, I was merely suggesting that the Nick vs James would be more suited to mine. Kiwiblog seems to be running slow with excess traffic, after all.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
pdq, sure.
Add me (If you have MSN) – james.sleep@gmail.com
December 19th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Great effort from the Free Speech Coalition.
Bravo to you all!!
December 19th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Armoured Passionfruit – Well done you found the correct web-site.
As you already know, you can post the same thing on the National Party website.
Remembering Kiwiblog.co.nz, National.org.nz and killthebill,co.nz are all run out of National Party HQ by National Partyl staffers David Farrar and Cameron Slater and co.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
James get your facts right, Kill the Bill is run from my living room in Auckland, the National Party has not ever donated so much as one cent.
I pay for the domain and the hosting.
I think you will find that is exactly the same for Kiwiblog.
You clearly haven’t done your homework, do you remeber it, I said for you to go off and discover the truth for youself rather than reading Tane’s and Helen’s talking points.
December 19th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Cameron, you are the son of former National Party president John Slater.
David is an employee of the National party.
you cannot tell me that you and David have nothing to do with the National party.
Because you know you do and so do I.
December 19th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Oh for God’s sake James, this could well get you in trouble one day.
DFF and CS could be as affiliated as anyone but still not be a ‘staffer.’ I may well be wrong but I was under the impression DPF no longer was on the National payroll (I don’t know about Slater)
December 19th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Sorry that’s DPF, my bad.
December 19th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
James Sleep:
Proof please. Chop chop.
December 19th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Sorry, Tane, in all honesty you run a lefty hit-blog and have displayed a pretty freaky obsession with DPF (which he’s silly enough to indulge). Which you’re perfectly entitled to do, but excuse me if I take your ‘honest’ opinion where National, or DPF in particular, is concerned with the proverbial grain of seasoning.
From my perspective (which you can dismiss as partisan hackery if you like) I did find those billboards absurdly hyperbolic, but wasn’t awfully impressed with Clark playing the victim or King chuntering on like a loon about what a sad day this is for our democracy etc.
Folks, why don’t you all shut the fuck up, go sit on a beach for a while with a good book and plenty of sunblock, and avoid excessive consumption of caffeine or sugar until around mid-February. Might do everyone a world of good – including you, Tane.
December 19th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Oh Craig – let me give you some of your own advice,
shut the fuck up!
December 19th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Please excuse my awful language.
I really had to say that.
My turrets is bad tonight.
shu shu shu shut the fuck up. Dam anothet tick
December 19th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Christ – how did I miss this beauty from Tutae’s mum?
‘At 5.38pm Jeff says…Tane – normally a balanced opinion but you started the ball rolling today.’
Balanced? You must be a lawyer.
December 19th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Sleepy, your olds are going to notice there’s sherry missing one of these days.
December 19th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Actually, I’ll have you believe they trust that I won’t touch their alcohol cabinet, which sits right outside my bedroom door.
December 19th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Doesn’t anyone find it odd that half this (massive) thread consists of descriptions of the location/layout of Sleep’s house? I believe it was originally about the EFA…
December 19th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
HAHA – Yes
December 19th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
James Sleep
and
So what’s it gonna be James… 16 year old boy or forget the age thing – your call – choose an option and stick with it at least in a single thread, alternate from thread to thread if you like but do try and decide who you are.
December 19th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
James Sleep:
30 minutes and I’m still waiting for proof… you haven’t been making up shit again?
December 19th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Hmmmm thats a HARD one burt – I’ll SLEEP on it. Again – excuse the pun
December 19th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
This conspiracy theory bullshit is silly. Is it really so hard to believe private citizens with no political connections might get sufficiently upset about a partisan attack on democracy to put some of their money up and set up a web site and then three billboards? Its not huge money and in any case its besides the point.
James Sleep you could actually try addressing the issues.
You could also stop pretending Labour has no secret backers and isn’t making deals behind closed doors. We know they do, we know at least one is a wealthy foreigner. So let he who is without sin…
December 19th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Yes – but they are open about it
December 19th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Ha ha ha ha…. Yes so open that they retrospectively validated 14 years of electoral spending and moved on. Ha ha ha. James you have a gift for singing the party lines in the face of overwhelming logic and reason, you will go far.
December 19th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
James Sleep:
I’m still waiting for a response to my 11:07 post. Where’s your proof?
December 19th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Thank you. You will too
LOL
December 19th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Burt, priceless. How about some prospective law-breaking?
December 19th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
I dont have any,
nothing credible.
December 19th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
But hey, I can admit it. I know that there is something there. I will need to find out won’t I
December 19th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
James, google does not get you to all of the answers.
December 19th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
James Sleep:
Ok, so you don’t have proof that “David is an employee of the National party”? Or – hang on – do you “know” that there’s something there? Or – hang on – did you just make it up?
Which is it to be?
December 19th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
You right it doesnt
December 19th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
POC – I believe he is working on behalf of the National Party.
I am yet to find CREDIBLE proof to back that up.
December 19th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
James, extrapolating the inference in this statement has allowed me to conclude that your father is Kim Jong-il
December 19th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
How dear you, take that back!
December 19th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
So still no proof – just a belief?
December 19th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Yes, just a belief.
I correct myself.
December 19th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Jaz my boy, do not waste your youth on politics, wine ,women and song are a damn
sight more fun when young.
Oh, never worry about meeting a cheap
woman, there are none.
December 19th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
pdq
A law like the EFB is asking to be tested in a most public and humiliating way for Labour.
December 19th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
grumpyoldhori – Interesting you assume Jaz is straight.
Interesting you assume anyone is straight.
December 19th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
james, flag the CREDIBLE proof. humour us with some inCREDIBLE proof. you know… like the cat told you. you were abducted by aliens and they shows you evidence. etc.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:02 am
Krazykiwi – take some of Craigs advice. Shut the fuck up.
ok those turrets – they are taking over my life.
My ticks are bad arrhhh
December 20th, 2007 at 12:03 am
Simple really.
No EFB … no billboards.
No gagging free speech … no exercising free speech with billboards.
Who’s fault the billboards?
Liarbore … shot down with a ball of their own shit.
Amazing … with the EFB, National don’t need any policies bar one … repeal the bill.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:03 am
Yes – fair call.
Kim Jong-il: I unreservedly apologise for the hateful smear in suggesting that James Sleep was your son. I deeply regret any pain caused to you or your family.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:07 am
Krazykiwi:
I thought we would start off with a simple proposition – DPF either is, or is not an employee of the National Party.
James has apparently said is not for now, and will no doubt get back to us with his credible proof.
So having got that out of the way, can we now progress to href=”http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/12/the_electoral_suicide_bill.html#comment-383712″>more substantial matters?
What do you say, James?
December 20th, 2007 at 12:08 am
Ah well… the HTML formatting went haywire… but you’ll get the gist of it.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:09 am
Fuck you
December 20th, 2007 at 12:11 am
Gee, James, I guess you’re not up for that rational debate then.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:16 am
James said:
Right little potty mouth!
If you cant win an argument , shout the other person down….. with profanity.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:18 am
I think calling somebody the son of Kim Jong-il has gone to far.
Retract and apoligise
December 20th, 2007 at 12:24 am
James Sleep:
Do you think an “Auntie Helen”-style apology would suffice:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3351302
December 20th, 2007 at 6:48 am
For fuck’s sake. Why since Beehive Barbie (James Sleep) arrived has this thread degenerated so much? It used to be a discussion thread. Now it is simply people swearing at one another.
As to DPF’s employment. It is listed in his disclosure statement. I quote:
From August 2007 to the end of 2007 I am a temporary contractor to their Party HQ while are they fill a vacancy.
You can find that off the main page. It’s open. Clear. Transparent. James’ allegations are foul lies, he does not have proof of that. Get it through your skull, people – not National Party staff – people oppose what this vile government has done.
December 20th, 2007 at 7:08 am
So… isn’t the key question whether these billboards are “issue” or “election” adverts, ie whether they “can reasonably be regarded as encouraging or persuading a person to … not vote for another [candidate or party]“?
I’m thinking that the Electoral Commission will find they’re issue adverts and therefore not subject to the new regulation they are protesting about? There’s no explicit encouragement to vote, and the principal point is about a particular issue.
The only arguable encouragement to vote against the leaders / parties arises from the mere fact that they contain content which encourages us to view the leaders dimly – I think the Electoral Commission will rule that that’s not enough to make it an election advert.
December 20th, 2007 at 7:14 am
James
Who is responsible for taking Ruth’s car keys from her at the office Xmas party?
Who is responsible for making sure that Dover knows where the loos are?
Who is the minder for DBP?
December 20th, 2007 at 7:28 am
Wow a big thread. Rebelheart as usual has crossed the lines and will get 50 demerits for them collectively. I’ve only seen around 10% of the comments and don’t plan to go through.
No one high up at National even knew what the FSC was doing. Not a single MP, not a single member of the Board, – they were all just as surpised as everyone else to see me on the news last night. And they have not donated a single cent to it.
As I said several times yesterday the blessed Libertarianz are in fact the only political party that has donated to us. They’ve donated a four figure sum which for them is a huge amount of money, and we’re very grateful.
December 20th, 2007 at 7:39 am
You only need to go through the bottom 150 comments or so DPF. That’s where all the ‘fun’ started
December 20th, 2007 at 7:39 am
Sleepy, I intend to – have a shitload of housework and grocery shopping to do today, as well as cooking enough finger food and dessert from scratch for eighteen. Taking a bit of pressure off my neice who graciously invited us to Christmas Day lunch is more constructive than this waste of time and energy. So would getting through of few more pages of Proust’s In Search of Lost Time — who knows, I might even finish it before before my time on this planet comes to an end.
Have a splendid holiday season, James. I hope everyone does, because there’s sure a few spleens and bile ducts around that need all the R&R they can get.
December 20th, 2007 at 9:14 am
deanknight – your interpretation of 5(1)(ii) is a little odd in my mind. Below is the wording from the Act:
In this Act, Election Advertisement means any form of words or graphics, or both, that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote, for a party or a type of candidate that is described or indicated by reference to views, positions, or policies that are or are not held, taken, or pursued (whether or not the name of a party or the name of a candidate is stated).
This does not exempt issues based advocacy, and in my view, specifically includes it. A public education campaign around any election year topic/policy can reasonably be regarded as persuading/encouraging voters to vote one way or the other, and of course parties or candidates are going to have positions on it. I can’t reconcile how anyone could read the above paragraph and say otherwise.
Your interpretation is selective: >>“can reasonably be regarded as encouraging or persuading a person to … not vote for another [candidate or party]”?”> that is described or indicated by reference to views, positions, or policies that are or are not held, taken, or pursued”
December 20th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Uh – somehow this posted incompletely!?
Please disregard my previous final paragraph, and follow on with this…
Your interpretation is selective: >>“can reasonably be regarded as encouraging or persuading a person to … not vote for another [candidate or party]”?”>that is described or indicated by reference to views, positions, or policies that are or are not held, taken, or pursued”
December 20th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Sleepy-are you sure you’re not Dopey or Grumpy, tyour brain has been dwarfed.
And it’s “dare” not dear
December 20th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Weird – it’s done the same thing again – must be the odd punctuation? please disregard the last post and I’ll try again.
Your interpretation is selective:
“can reasonably be regarded as encouraging or persuading a person to … not vote for another [candidate or party]”
Your editorialising ellipsis cut out the crucial part of the clause that brings this campaign within the scope of the Act:
…”that is described or indicated by reference to views, positions, or policies that are or are not held, taken, or pursued”
Here are some questions for you.
Do you think that such a campaign should be illegal (or restrictive insofar that you should have to register with the state that you are criticising in order to exercise your right to freedom of speech)? Is this good for democracy, and where could such an arrangement forseeable lead?
How do you see this campaign escaping the Act given the full scope of the clause, and that it explicitly refers to “views, positions, or policies that are or are not held, taken, or pursued”?
Can you provide an honest, objective, and thoughtful judgment of the quality of this legislation and its effects (intended or otherwise) on freedom of speech during election year?
December 20th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Sam:
I am predicting how the Electoral Commission might interpret it.
I wasn’t attempting to be selective about the text – it seems to me that the words you refer to cases where the identify of the party being promoted or discouraged is not stated byt instead referred to as a party with certain views, ie “Support parties who oppose tax cuts”, rather than “Support Party X”. That doesn’t arise here because parties / candidates are referred to in the billboard.
My point is about “encouraging or persuading” to vote for or against them. I’m not convinced the EC will take the view that the billboards do so. On their face, they relate to an issue and are not enouraging people to vote one way or other in relation to the people mentioned (other than, as I mentioned, generally impugning their credibility).
In the light of the purpose of the Bill, general principles of interpreting text, and the Bill of Rights, I’m not convinced the EC will regard it as an election advert. Notably, I understand the EC is taking the view that adverts are assessed on their face, absent of surrounding context (which I personally think is wrong). But that means you ignore the associated discourse and campaign about bringing down the govt for this move.
December 20th, 2007 at 9:31 am
Sam:
My point wasn’t about those broader questions. Just the implementation. Although some of those concerns influence the interpretative questions, that is, courts and administrators will, as far as possible, actively avoid interpretations that might lead to those concerns.
December 20th, 2007 at 9:42 am
So do you really think that direct criticism of a political party can reasonably be regarded as not encouraging or persuading a person to vote for that party? Really?
…and you might need to consider the last line of the paragraph as well: (whether or not the name of a party or the name of a candidate is stated).
Finally, if the implementation of this Act is that unclear, my last question still stands:
Can you provide an honest, objective, and thoughtful judgment of the quality of this legislation and its effects (intended or otherwise) on freedom of speech during election year?
December 20th, 2007 at 9:54 am
heh DPF Is this the longest thread What the record we have to beat and do you know if its an NZ record. Might as well keep it going WE might even get a Guiness Book record.
December 20th, 2007 at 9:59 am
I’m still waiting to see James proof that the evil baby eating party (National) are funding the FSC assisted by DPF and his billionaire backers.
I guess I shouldn’t hold my breath. BTW where has Tane cried off to?
December 20th, 2007 at 10:01 am
I also suggest the Hearld Editor might want to run a series explaining each clause of the Act one at a time each day. This would keep the matter front of centre and also allow for Joe and Joess get a grip on the absurdity.
The editor could invite the like of DPF Graham E and others to give their intrepretation on each clause to show how unintelligible the bloody thing is and how many diffferent opinions there are.
They could invite the electoral commissioner to comment.
It would be difficult for ther socailists to rule this was advertising although no doubt the sad bastards will try but this will only add to the perception of how desparate they are.
December 20th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Last election the Exclusive Brethren attacked the Green Party and the Labour Party for their flawed environmental policies. The government reacted with the EFB. The purpose of this legislation is to shut down such attacks.
These billboards attack the Labour Party, the Green Party and New Zealand first. Is it a stretch to imagine that it might be used to shut the billboards down?
December 20th, 2007 at 10:19 am
The Government has forgot what their job is. It is to Govern, not to dictate.
December 20th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Pascal – what’s more, the NZ Herald ran a picture of the billboards this morning. Will it also be shut down?
December 20th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Simeon
That quote would make for a good billboard.
December 20th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Doug,
Thanks
December 20th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Sam:
1. Yes.
2. Makes no difference. See my earlier post.
3. I think complaints of uncertainty and lack of clearness are overstated. There will always be some settling down period as officials and courts implement new wording in legislation. But I suggest that those interpretations will be a lot clearer than many are presently speculating; and, for the reasons I’ve previously stated, won’t gravely undermine people’s freedom of speech. By early-ish in the new year, it will be largely plain what will be caught and what won’t!
December 20th, 2007 at 11:18 am
dean – this is the same EC which considered the IMVDA’s “Crazy Car” advertisements were almost certainly covered?
December 20th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Oh good a lawyer bitch fight…
December 20th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Dean, my view is that the current wording of the Act gives the EC little option but to interpret campaigns such as this as being illegal (or subject to regulation).
The EC can only interpret what has been written – they can not go and change the wording – which is what would be necessary to ‘allow’ these billboards.
To me the definition of an election advert is the nub of the whole matter, and thus I would have expected the Bill to have made this definition very very clear -anything else is really just plain incompetent legislative drafting. The fact that you and I have such vastly different interpretations means that complaints of uncertainty and lack of clearness are certainly not overstated.
If the interpretation is that open, you are effectively suggesting that it is up to the EC to write the definition that this wole Act is working around. I don’t think that such delegation is the way that electoral law should be handled.
December 20th, 2007 at 11:44 am
heh We are getting close to the 500 mark Dont stop now Chocloate fish for the 500th poster.
December 20th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Graeme
My understanding of her public comment over a month ago was, “We’d need to have a close look at it.” Since then, I understand they got advice and taken the view that surrounding context and timing must be ignored (btw, neither of points I agree with). The indications seem to be that they will adopt a less nuanced and more permissive interpretation.
December 20th, 2007 at 11:50 am
I see that Mike Williams has said that anyone who compares our PM with Robert Mugabe must be from another planet. I agree entirely.
Imagine being compared to someone who hated property rights, rorted elections, bribed officials and sought to close down free speech.
If I was Mugabe, I’d be appalled.
December 20th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Sam:
Legal interpretation is a little more complex than that (some of which I’ve alluded to earlier). Yes, the text does present some limits in the interpretation but, realistically, there is still discretion in most interpretative exercises, largely guided by a series of interpretative principles.
Yes, attempt could have been made to codify this more extensively (but might have thrown up other potential anomolies), but that’s not to say it’s won’t be certain or clear. The interpretative function of officals and the courts will help give meaning to the definition.
It’s no unusual. Parliament basically left the meaning of “de facto” relationship up to officials and the courts, defining it only as a “relationship in the nature of marriage or civil union”. But no-one seems to seriously suggest that the application of the term lacks clarity?
December 20th, 2007 at 11:52 am
post (how many now?)
December 20th, 2007 at 11:53 am
I guess if you are correct about a more permissive view, then the outcome will be less horrible, but the drafting (and the process) still remain fundamentally flawed (itself a little embarrassing for an administration of this ‘maturity’ I would have thought).
But if such direct criticisms are not subject to this definition, how exactly does the Act deal with the EB problem (which is cited for its reason for being after all)?
December 20th, 2007 at 11:58 am
I’m not sure that ‘de facto’ and ‘election advert’ are comparable in terms of the conventional meanings associated? And one issue has far more constitutional significance than the other, so we’re really not deling with the same fruit here…
December 20th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Sam:
1. Fair point about the process.
2. Easy. The EB’s pamphlet’s explicitly encouraged people to change the government.
3. Yes, different contexts, but the interpretative principle and methodology is the same (and, in the constitutional situations, more careful and less likely to breach rights!)
December 20th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
So, you mean the legislators (including the Green Party) would be completely happy with the very same brochures, as long as the words “vote for National to prevent policies such as these” (or whatever the phrasing was)??
You are saying that the EC WILL interpret:
“…reasonably be regarded as encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote…”
as
“…be regarded to directly encourage or persuade voters to vote or not to vote…”
To me that is too significant an amount of legislative clout for the EC to have (especially as they are not a publicly elected body) – but I hope that you are right in the expected outcome. Would you stake your professional indemnity on it though
December 20th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Wow a big thread. Rebelheart as usual has crossed the lines and will get 50 demerits for them collectively. I’ve only seen around 10% of the comments and don’t plan to go through.
You Nazi! There is no freedom of speech here!
You know, one day Muslim bloggers are gonna be surfing their daily porn, and just out of nostalgia look back at their old Sharia ideals, and be saddened at how foolish they were to demerit [or beheading] people for suggesting that wimmin’ should be free to walk around the streets naked.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
My reply was nowhere near as borderline as Tane’s original comment which I was responding to.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Woohooo 500
December 20th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Bugger, too slow.
December 20th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Wow – 502 comments.
DPF – Would this be a record?
[DPF: Yes]
December 20th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
How many views has this page had?
December 20th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
“How many views has this page had?”
one more.
and your views are space wasters
December 20th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Hey James,
What happened to your blog??
December 20th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
My, what entertainment this thread has been.
Congratulations, David on your new venture. But expect similar reprisals, of course. Way to go.
December 20th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Simeon – I deleted it.
I fact I had a crowd of 5 people watch me delete it. We filmed it.
December 20th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
One last question for Dean (or anyone else who has a grasp of the legislative interpretation process) does the EC publish their interpretation of the Law in an explicit form, or are we, the punters, expected to follow each and every case that tests the legislation?
…and thanks Dean for a reasoned, informed, and hyperbole-free discussion. It is a rarity here (although, as per usual, with greater enlightenment comes weaker faith – in this case in the democracy of legislative process).
December 20th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Sam is your last name Hannigan?
December 20th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
POC you simpering moron, David admits that he works for the National party in a link that appears on the front page of this blog.
“From August 2007 to the end of 2007 I am a temporary contractor to their Party HQ while are they fill a vacancy.”
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/disclosure_statement
Otherwise, may I suggest you get some sun/ have a little fun? It is the holiday season after all.
Here’s a little good old fashioned silliness to get you started.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocCRTJGMVJY
December 20th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Um David, you still haven’t answered the questions about the cost of these things (and I notice your post still claims $7000). So once more: why are you telling us these cost $7000 here when the market price is far higher than that and even the ktb site is claiming $5000 for site lease per board? And when the FSC has donations adding up to less than $7000 who’s put up the extra $11k ($18k is what TVNZ reported)? C’mon David this is starting to look like astroturfing and you guys are all about transparency – let’s see some, eh?
December 20th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome
Once again Phillip John comes to the rescue with his impressive collection of idiots, twats, morons etc. You know, Phillip John, you really shouldn’t judge others’ intellectual ability before you’ve checked your own. Do you suppose I hadn’t checked DPF’s disclosure page before?
I won’t debate the finer shades of independent contractor and employee with you, Phillip John, as you probably wouldn’t appreciate the legal distinction.
And while I’ve got your attention, Phillip John, do you have anything to say about this?
December 20th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
DPF referred [20/12/07 at 7:28 am] to the “blessed Libertarianz” . This is clearly a religious image, and reveals the links between the Libertarianz, the Exclusive Brethren, and the Knights Templar. In fact, the Knights Templar [using their front, the Business Round Table] have secretly been manipulating New Zealand politics for years, using GCSB Waihopai as a camouflage for their orbital mind control lasers.
And before anyone says that doesn’t make sense, I submit that my drivel is more coherent than the Electoral Finance Bill.
December 20th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Sorry to get you all wound up like that POC – I admit it wasn’t very nice, not really in the Christmas spirit. Anyway, you wanted proof the David does work for the National Party, and now you have it. Even if he didn’t do work for the National Party it would be going a bit far to call him ‘independent’ from the National Party, and we all know that he desperately wants to see the National Party in government come 2008. This is why so many view David’s various and often comical anti-EFB PR stunts as obvious partisan hackery – it’s more anti-Labour than Anti-EFB.
December 20th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Tane
I suspect that David has about as much obligation to justify himself to you than you do to publish the minutes and voting records of the Special or Annual General Meeting of the EPMU where the decision to support Labour with manpower and money prior to the 2006 election was debated and made.
Over to you
December 20th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Oh Roger, do we really have to get back into the debate about professionalism and the ability of employees to be seen as not necessarily an integral part of the establishment’s decisions and policy-making? It raises again the issue of independance of the public service and all that stuff I thought we had traverssed several times in the last 6 months.
Obviously not much of it sunk in and you are just mindlessly repeating talking points
December 20th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Philip John: Even if he didn’t do work for the National Party it would be going a bit far to call him ‘independent’ from the National Party, and we all know that he desperately wants to see the National Party in government come 2008.
There we go, the mindset that has politicized the public service. All rolled into one.
December 20th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome
*Sigh*
I’ll say it again: I wanted proof that DPF is a National Party employee. Again, there really is a difference. No one has provided proof.
Your other point about independence is slighly unfair. Personally, I credit DPF with not having a National good, Labour bad mindset. Yes, he’s a party member, so of course politically he’s more aligned with National than Labour. But he’s not so partisan that he won’t criticise them on occasion. I’ve yet to see conclusive proof that DPF is nothing more than a mouthpiece parroting National talking points (as some conspiracy theories would have it).
Also, in the spirit of Christmas, are you giving DPF the title of “the David” – in the same way that Donald Trump is “the Don”?
December 20th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Pity we dont have the old knighthoods After new years election we could have looking forward to addressing DPF as Sir David Farrar KBE.
December 20th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
wow 520 posts is this a record.
Sorry, 521 posts.
December 20th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
“Absolute fucking filth. You should be ashamed of yourself David.”
classic.
December 20th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
“I’ll say it again: I wanted proof that DPF is a National Party employee. Again, there really is a difference. No one has provided proof.”
Granted there’s a legalistic or technical difference, but given that DPF has already been an employee of the National party for around a decade in prior times it’s no stretch to see his current work for the National Party as a continuation of that work. So while I know you’re a lawyer, and prone to getting hung up on technical details that don’t actually mean a lot in the context of the discussion, remember, this is a blog. Not a court of law. We’re not trying to prove that DPF is technically “guilty” of working for the National Party, only that his affiliations run, to this day, very deep. This means that his work will often appear to be cheap politicking rather than “independent commentary”. TV3 acknowledged this point last night. You don’t like it, too bad.
December 20th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
“Pity we dont have the old knighthoods After new years election we could have looking forward to addressing DPF as Sir David Farrar KBE.”
GD – what’s that brown stain on the end of your tongue?
December 20th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
A carefully expressed sentence. So let’s flush you out: you don’t think DPF’s capable of thinking for himself then? Because I do. It’s just like Jordan Carter has a coincidental alignment of political views with Labour – but I’d hope he’s capable of expressing public disagreement on occasion (although no such occasion immediately springs to mind). And I’m quite capable of reading Jordan’s blog in that context.
Oh, and your comment about technical/legal niceties is slightly unhelpful. The allegation James Sleep made was serious, and he should be able to substantiate it. As it happens, he couldn’t.
December 20th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
“Oh, and your comment about technical/legal niceties is slightly unhelpful. The allegation James Sleep made was serious, and he should be able to substantiate it. As it happens, he couldn’t.”
Your pedantry makes you look a tad pathetic I’m afraid POC.
“you don’t think DPF’s capable of thinking for himself then?”
Sure – however because of his affiliations, past and present, I will be taking whatever he says with wheelbarrow of salt is all, as would any sensible person.
December 20th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
DPF is obviously making a number of people insecure – you simply have to collate the tone and angle of the comments directed against him – some subtle, some faux-sincere, some short, some long, some abusive, some just plain disingenous – it all adds up to one thing – there are those who would like to discredit DPF, and therefore discredit his messages.
BUt for me, Tane’s opening shot was simply, a classic.
December 20th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
This is the latest addition to your ephithets of idiots, twats, morons etc? I’ll take your claim of pedantry as an admission that you (or more to the point, James Sleep) can’t prove the original allegation.
December 20th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
James Sleep – no…
December 20th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
POC – the legalistic and technical accuracy of Sleep’s original claim is irrelevant to this debate – that’s why you look …. well sorry to say … pathetic. It’s just comes across as being a bit … “ahaaa, I was right and you were technically wrong. Eat that Mr 16 year old” ……
December 20th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
If one is arguing technicalities I have only once been an employee of the National Party – for three months in 1999. But my relationship is much more extensive than that.
As for Tane – the costs are of course accurate. As I said on the PR the sites costs $7,000 a month. If the media booking agency we used managed to get us below rack rate then I am delighted. And the school forcing us to move meant we got a way way better site for the same cost. The one off cost of designing and producing the billboard are additional.
We’ve been so busy (this is a hobby, not a job), that we have not updated the donors list in last 48 hours. But the Libz were giving us several thousand dollars. We’ve actually spent more money than we’ve had in – I’ve underwritten the difference from my personal account. This campaign has cost me personally a significant amount of money – but that is because it is an issue worth fighting. And I am a million million miles away from any rich list.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome
I hope Santa brings you a reading comprehension upgrade, as you’re either incapable of following my point or deliberately obfuscating. You desperately want it to be irrelevant. I’ll remember that next time you require someone to prove a claim – Phillip John doesn’t require legalistic or technical accuracy. Any Wikipedia reference will do.
I’ve consistently said that James Sleep made an allegation. That he’s 16 is neither here nor there. James Sleep can’t substantiate that allegation. And neither can you. The best you can do is point to a short-term role as independent contractor. That’s not proof that DPF is told what to write on his blog. End of story.
But keep trying to deflect with accusations of pedanty and patheticness. It really helps your argument.
I also note you’ve said nothing about the EFB being passed on a party vote of 4 in favour, 5 against – or 4 against if you discount Field. That pretty much deals to your claim that the EFB had the support of a majority of parties in Parliament. We live in interesting times.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
POC, perhaps what was meant was that the EFB had the support of a majority of the parties in Parliament that represent “the People” as opposed to Rich Pricks.
btw, did Katherine Rich say anything about the Rich Prick quote?
December 20th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Yeah Roger Philip John Mason Nome! Tell that POC to shut up! It’s so fricken childish when people feel they always have to get the last word in an argument, and I know that you would never ever do shit like that.
I just like to see you sticking up for little Hemi Sleep, and Phil Ure, and I adore the way you three help each other out, it’s like the little guys in the socialist brains trust really look out for each other and it’s so…so… christmasy I reckon.
Whaddaya doing for christmas anyway Philip Rogernome Mason?
December 20th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
“I hope Santa brings you a reading comprehension upgrade, as you’re either incapable of following my point or deliberately obfuscating.”
Actually neither, but you’re clearly guilty of one of those two things. This is getting a little boring actually. I feel that I’ve made my argument, and all you’ve got is your disingenuous lawyer’s arguments.
I’m going to Wanaka with some of my hot friends to party for the next week, so I have to get ready for that now anyway. I sincerely hope you get some fun time in over the festive season POC – boy do you need it.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Helmet:
I’m really hoping Phillip John has a restful festive season.
Things are looking up for him as Christmas Day doesn’t fall on a Sunday this year. Otherwise Phillip John might wake up freaking out about the fact that we are on the cusp of global recession yet no one in New Zealand’s blogsphere seems to have a clue about it.
So the most important and urgent economic issue that this country, and indeed the world, currently faces can wait until 2008 at least.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
FIVE HUNDRED AND THIRTY SIX COMMENTS! And still going.
This bill was the worst and most fatal mistake ever made by the Clarkists. Say “uncle”, Roger Nome, Tane, et al.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Bib-bib-bib-bib-bib-bib-bib-bib-bib-bib……………
December 20th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
…baaaaaaahhhhhhhhh!
December 20th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
As for Tane – the costs are of course accurate. As I said on the PR the sites costs $7,000 a month. If the media booking agency we used managed to get us below rack rate then I am delighted.
So you’re telling me it cost $11,000 to design, produce and install these billboards? That’s simply not credible David.
It’s pretty clear that Whale designed them for free, and market rates for the production and installation of three billboards would not be more than about $3,000-3,500.
Something doesn’t add up Dave.
December 20th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Tane: You really need to calm down. The FSC is the most open lobby group in NZ. Not only do the trustees, through our blogs, allow you to rant on here about what we do, not only do we list all our donors (name one other group that does this), we have also said we will list all our expenses. Now we have no staff – we don’t do this in real time – but we are still 10000% more transparent than everyone else.
You of all people should also know about copyright. Getty Images charges $1,600 for using a photo for a month on a billboard for example.
December 20th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
DPF Tanes real issue with the FSC is (strangely) that you are using your own money. Tane will never get over that and just the though fills his head with all sorts of mad conspiricy theories.
December 20th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
“casual watcher Its not just the PM that can be called There are also the advisers who under oath have to give evidence of what they advised….”
Just had an idea, why don’t we take this to the UN? There must be some committee on some rights inquiry body to appeal to. As they don’t play fair why should we give them any quarter. Their stupidity speaks for their intelligence so outsmarting them should be a good sport.
December 20th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Quite agree Nick C.
Now Mr Tane Wilton is trying to nail the ‘BRT-backed’ Free Speech Coalition for the crime of spending too little.
You just can’t win.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:24 am
This is beautiful. We have an organization that is fully transparent, publishes their donors and are upfront with their costs. They say it cost a certain sum of money.
On the other hand we have Tane, who takes a thumbsuck number that some joker called Irishbill thinks it should cost and he believes that is the correct sum.
Do these people actually ever engage their brains?
December 21st, 2007 at 10:01 am
Wow !! 545 comments
December 21st, 2007 at 10:34 am
David, even if you paid $1600 per image per billboard (which is a ridiculous waste of money considering there are cheaper options) it still doesn’t add up to $18,000.
$7000 for billboards space, plus
$3000 for production and installation, plus
$4800 of wasted money on Getty images copyright
…still only adds up to $15,000, if you’re telling the truth about all your expenses.
I mean, I don’t care how much of your front group’s money you spend on billboards, I’m just interested to see whether it adds up.
Pascal, it’s not a “thumbsuck number”, it’s all linked to the actual market rates of billboards. DPF’s got himself a 40% discount. Irish Bill’s never managed to get a 40% discount on a billboard campaign. It just doesn’t add up.
December 21st, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Heh Tane, that should alert you to William’s ability (or lack of) rather than David’s numbers!
December 21st, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Ha I’ve just made the connection: Irishbill = William = Mike Williams. Doesn’t surprise me he can’t negotiate a discount, he walks in the door and everyone sees big public money coming. Why would you ever discount to that if you could avoid it.
December 21st, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Face it Tane the business world just don’t like your lot. You’re nothing more than a pack of whiners. Whaaa David got a better deal than us. Grow the fuck up.
December 21st, 2007 at 3:57 pm
this all illustrates one undeniable fact about the so-called ‘left’. They haven’t a clue when it comes to money and how it works. And that stems from a complete lack of brains and understanding of people and how they function in the world.
the problems they ‘try to resolve’ are always problems other people supposedly have. They never have these problems themselves.
They are truly a nosey, bossy, brainless bunch.
Go away and leave everyone alone. Go boss yourselves around.
December 21st, 2007 at 4:02 pm
vto:
I think it say more that Tane is a rather disingenuous partisan hack, and perhaps its time we all stopped rewarding his trolling with attention. (I know, should take my own advice more often.)
December 21st, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Craig, what’s the threshold on disingenuous partisan hackery? How will you or I know when we’ve breached it? I think Tane’s far more considered in his/her commentary than most here for instance.
December 21st, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Paul W said “I think Tane’s far more considered in his/her commentary than most here for instance.”
Tane said “Absolute fucking filth. You should be ashamed of yourself David.”
you judge !
December 21st, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Yeah ok, that’s not one of the most erudite posts I’ll concede but with the exception of the expletive, I pretty much agree with that statement.
David’s Coalition lacks a bit of judgment IMHO; too many student politics-type tactics have almost certainly burned off the more sensible potential support who’ll not want to be associated with silly name calling.