Is this New Zealand?
February 19th, 2008 at 9:44 pm by David FarrarThe SST reports on the new law for the Rugby World Cup:
Officials will be allowed to enter private land and buildings if they are clearly visible from a clean zone.
Government enforcement officers can obtain search warrants to enter private property during clean periods and seize or cover up offending advertising. Police or enforcement officers accompanied by police officers can use any force that is “reasonable in the circumstances” to gain entry or break open any article.
Individuals wearing a rival company’s logo or slogan on clothes or shoes would not be prosecuted if they acted alone, although they could be if they acted in co-ordination with other people and intended to get the attention of event-goers.
An Economic Development Ministry spokesperson said it was likely groups wearing clothes advertising a rival company would be asked to leave a clean zone although they could be told to remove their clothing if they refused.
Good God, and I think both National and Labour voted for this law. So if you are sitting in your balcony on your Tui couch with your DB shirt or hat on, government officials will be able to break into your house, forcibly undress you and seize your clothes and probably your couch also.
I think a degree of overkill has happened.
No tag for this post.
February 19th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
more dumb law.
but notwithstanding that, it seems to compound the dullifying, saturating and arrogant nature of rugby today. sheesh. and I’m a followerish of it.
i find that quite unbelievable. i wish the government would make laws to help my business in such a way. it actually makes me shake my head. the power of a private enterprise over a man’s home.
Vote:February 19th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
and woman’s home etc
Vote:February 19th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Imagine if Muldoon had passed a law like that at prior to the Springbok tour?
You would have heard the wailing from the likes of The Standard if they had even been alive then from the top of Mt Eden…..incidentally Eden Park is in a dip so almost every house within a 3km radius is visible from the “Clean Area” which I take it would be the tops of the stands.
Vote:February 19th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Police State anyone?
Smith’s Dream
Vote:February 19th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
wtf is a “government enforcement officer”? do they wear brown shirts? shorts probably
Vote:February 19th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
A government enforcement officer will be whatever unemployable losers still don’t have jobs so that ministerial disgrace Ruth Dyson can bellow “under this Labour-led Government…etc”
Vote:February 19th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
The Major Events Management Act 2007 is an appalling infringement of civil liberties and freedom of expression. It was supported by all of Labour, National, NZ First, United Future, , Maori Party, ACT and Progressive.
To their credit, the Green Party opposed it, but were the only Party to do so.
How come this one slipped by, without a murmer from all the National and ACT supporters who are usually the first to complain about legislation that infringes upon individual rights?
Vote:February 19th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
It isn’t as bad as that.
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2007/0035/latest/DLM411987.html
Some bits:
“Exceptions to sections 18 to 20
Sections 18 to 20 do not apply to advertising=3F
(a)if, in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial
matters, the advertising is done by an existing organisation continuing
to carry out its ordinary activities; or
(b)on articles of clothing (including shoes) or other personal items
being worn, carried, or used by=3F
(i)a member of the public, unless that item is being worn,
carried, or used in co-ordination with other persons with the intention
that the advertising intrude on a major event activity or the attention
of the associated audience; or
(ii) a person who is a participant in, or who is officiating at, a
major event activity; or
(iii) a volunteer engaged in the management or conduct of a major
event activity; or
(c) in a newspaper or magazine, or on a television, radio, or electronic
device, being used for personal use, unless it is being used with the
intention that the advertising intrude on a major event activity or the
attention of the associated audience; or
(d) on a train, boat, or vehicle, provided that that train, boat, or
vehicle is being used to carry out its ordinary activities in its usual
manner; or
(e) on an aircraft that is used for an emergency that involves a danger
to life or property necessitating the urgent transportation of persons
or medical or other supplies for the protection of life or property.
Compare: 1981 No 47 s 20A(3); 1990 No 98 s 13A(3); 2002 No 49 s 95;
London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 Schedule 4 cl 1(2)(b)
(UK)
Examples
These examples refer to the clean zone and the clean period, as well as
the clean transport routes and the associated clean periods, set out in
the examples in section 16.
Example 1
Existing Business A carries on its business from a private building
situated on private land on Stevens Street. Although the land is located
within the overall parameters of the clean zone, because it is private
land it has not been declared to be part of the clean zone. Existing
Business A has a large billboard on the roof of its building advertising
Existing Business A’s services. This billboard has been there for many
years. The advertising on the billboard is clearly visible from within
the clean zone.
Existing Business A does not have the written authorisation of the major
event organiser for this advertising.
This is not a breach of section 19 because of the exception in section
22(a).
Example 2
Two years before the final game of the Football World Cup is held,
Company A pays Company B for the right to place advertisements
advertising Company A’s services on a number of billboards on the grass
verge alongside State Highway 73. The billboards are all owned by
Company B and are all located within the area that will be a clean
transport route during the associated clean period. These billboards are
maintained in this area throughout the 24 months leading up to the final
game of the Football World Cup, throughout the clean period, and for a
period after the final game.
Neither Company A nor Company B has the written authorisation of the
major event organiser for this advertising.
This is not a breach of section 20 because of the exception in section
22(a).
Example 3
Amy attends the final game of the Football World Cup. She wears her
favourite T-shirt and hat, which have advertising brands clearly visible
upon them. She is also carrying a newspaper that has many advertisements
within it. In order to get to the game, Amy catches a bus that travels
along a clean transport route.
Amy does not have the written authorisation of the major event organiser
for this advertising.
This is not a breach of section 18, 19, or 20 because of the exceptions
Vote:in section 22(b)(i) and (c).”
February 19th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
JC
Yeah right
This law’s scope is excessive and invasive.
Who is running the country, the IRB?
In my view the whole RWC is a classic case of bread and circuses for the masses,
We will spend mega millions on this nonsense and get little if any return.
we should pull out and let the Japanese have it, especially as we will not win.
Vote:February 19th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Nothing for it, give the Rugby World Cup to Aussie. They will do a much better job and then you idiots will have one less thing to moan about.
DPF. Man have you got you Lemmings well trained. Give them a task and there off screaming like Banchies.
P.S. Forgive the spelling of Banchies if incorrect, i can’t be bothered looking up its correct spelling.
Vote:February 19th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Somebody please tell me this is not true.
Vote:February 19th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Was reported days ago. Yes this is pure shit. I’d never let the cunts in my house.
Vote:February 19th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
I keep telling you. New Zealand is in the hands of barbarians. This is the legacy of a socialist education system producing the ignorant of history savages who write this legislation.
Vote:February 19th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Its actually a law based on commercial property rights and is meant to be a matter between official sponsors and black market or event hijacking sponsorship. But whatever be paranoid, that its about a threat to the rights of individuals – it’s just scaremongering. It’s surprising that the right is taking the SST and it’s paranoia about business owning things so seriously. You right wingers claim to understand business, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Say Denny Crane and grow up.
Vote:February 19th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Damn you Farrar. I’d been planning to blog about this yesterday morning and only got around to it tonight, only to come hear and see that you beat me by about 20 mins!
http://peteremcc.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/major-events/
Vote:February 19th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
So have we got this correct.
The left wing workers rights party has enacted legislation to protect the brand image of Rugby sponsors allowing Police to remove offending branded material from private peoples houses.
Now this I understand why Labour wanted a new Stadium. This wouldn’t be a drama if the International TV footage wasn’t scooping up houses visible in nearby backdrops. I guess we are now seeing a hidden cost of not building a stadium.
However the main issue here is that the govt have enacted laws to suit the best interest of the big business backers of NZ Rugby.
There is of course one other explanation, these are requirements of the “World Cup” and as host nation the govt have already agreed to all of this and now it’s just being put into place.
Vote:February 20th, 2008 at 1:12 am
Sorry, can’t get excited. The legislation seems reasonably tight, and is clear in intent. I hate agreeing with SPC, but it just isn’t scary.
Vote:February 20th, 2008 at 1:27 am
Paul,
you’re missing the point.
my house, or my land, should be mine – as should my t-shirt that advertises Adidas or anyone else.
sponsors buy the exclusive rights to advertise at the event, not the exclusive rights to advertise in the whole city hosting the event.
the government could sell exclusive rights to advertise on public roads, but they should be charging even more for that.
Vote:February 20th, 2008 at 5:21 am
Oh great, now we got rugby logo police, as well as smacking police and the twisted politicians who are all tarred with the same bullshit brush of corruption just sit on their spotty behinds pulling absurd law from black’s book of psychosis.
This country is a run by lunatics and giving the keystone cops another opportunity to come crashing through the front door is just what the doctor ordered.The destruction of the poor couch potato – Part 1 .
Our politicians are away with the fairies, but then again so are the Pink Blacks that reinstate another loser coach. Talk about suckers for punishment.
Would a real leader please stand up, please stand up?
Vote:February 20th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Adam,
There have been 6 RWC.. NZ (as it was), England, South Africa, Eng/Wales, Australia, France.
There are two obvious things about this.. the first is that these places agreed to the requirements of the IRB so that it could maximise the dollars, and the second is that these were *nations*, ie, places that could pull together a major international event and make a lot of money from it, pull in 40,000 visitors, use the occasion to build new facilities, brush up old ones and provide a spectacle that would be viewed by over a billion people.
Back in 2003, a place called NZ had won co hosting rights to the event, but didn’t have the will to meet the conditions to run the event.. so it was given solely to Australia, and a good thing too.
The reason why NZ lost its rights is it was no longer a nation able to work for a common cause. It had degenerated into something like one of the better known Arab hellholes where govt is determined by “What’s in it for me?”
A place with a corrupt system of Govt called MMP (it’s no accident that the RWC has only been run by non MMP nations), a place where the increasingly corrupt Govt had split the people up into warring factions in order to maintain power (think Saddam) and where, like the Maori negotiations each individual family had to be bribed to enable any larger event to take place.
The *nations* that have run the RWC have been able to meet the requirements of the IRB because they have believed in pulling together for a greater good, indeed, they’ve used many such events to show a desire to showcase their nationhood, and apart from the old nation of NZ rugby was a truly minor sport.. but the people pulled together with good spirit to showcase themselves, make a few dollars and use the occasion to make millions happy and proud.
Unfortunately, only nations can do this, not tribes that have no notion of the greater good.
JC
Vote:February 20th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Very old news but only being cottoned onto by the rabid right now.
Vote:Slow backward yobs.
Some of you need to watch the frothing from the mouth, it’s called rabies and there is only one cure, death by lethal injection.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Don’t worry about “death by lethal injection” John Dilley, as a visit to the hospital is all you need to leave the planet. I mean with all the medication mistakes, serious medical errors and clinical management problems it’s more than enough to send you down the hole .
Vote:Well done Liarbour freaks.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:27 am
john dalley, of statements that are never backed up and boring abuse, i see your cred still languishes
Vote:February 20th, 2008 at 10:02 am
JC
I am very well aware of what the RWC is and the ‘arrangements’ the IRB insists on. Indeed as an Eden Park ticket holder who would have been deprived of my rights in 2003 more than aware.
However, the economics do not stack up. We the people, through the Government, make a huge investment in new stadia, none of which is economically justifiable. We underwrite the expenses of staging the RWC. We have a government ministry for the RWC. The IRB owns the broadcasting rights and imposes restrictions around who can show what and when. The IRB takes the advertising dollars as well.
NZ gets the visitor dollars, the ticket revenues and the illusion of good publicity.
Now if we assume that visitors in 2011 for the RWC generate say $500 million in revenue and say a further $500 million over the next 3 years we have $1 billion in total revenues. Now GST will account for around $100 million leaving say $900 million. Of that let us assume a generous 10% taxable profit overall, some will make money, some will lose. At say an effective tax rate of say 15% allowing for relief etc we get a further $15 million of tax.
Therefore, on what basis is this a good investment. It is not. The numbers make no sense.
Please do not moan on about creating nationhood and all pulling together. We are not at war, this is not Dunkirk. The IRB are running a business venture where they are guaranteed to make a mint and we are guaranteed to lose a mint.
We have been played for suckers by experts, what is more we are rolling over and begging to have it done to us some more.
Truly to NZ, Rugby really is the opiate of the masses and we are in thrall to the rugby cartel as much as if we were a ‘crack addict’ on the streets of Harlem.
In addition, many of the tourists, if they come given concerns over climate change, will go home amazed at how grubby this country is:
- giardia
- didymo
- sub-standard tourist attractions
- bad roads
- appalling public toilets
- expensive and inferior hotels
- rude hospitality staff
– tacky shops
Clean, Green and Friendly. I do not think.
Vote:February 20th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Yes, this is New Zealand (est.1999) Limited more and more every day.
Vote:February 20th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Search and seizure on a “commercial” warrant?
Poor sad NZ.
Vote:February 20th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Meet NZ’s answer to the Taleban. ANYTHING goes in the name of our national religion: Rugby.
Vote:February 20th, 2008 at 11:17 am
The RWC organisers could ask and get Helen to ride naked down Queen St if it ensured a RWC in NZ. A second cancellation will be an election losing certainty for Labour.
The Olympics, next America’s Cup, Soccer WC etc mayl get similiar treatment if they ask. We will be hearing much more about the synergy of Socialism and the Corporate state in the next 20 years.
Vote:February 20th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Adam, by your own reckoning, this is a good deal because there is still an extra billion dollars into the country. Doesn’t matter who’s pockets it goes into. In fact, it’s the incessant whining about who’s pockets it goes into that hampers our productivity.
And some of your comments reinforce what I’ve already said. Your list of “grubby” NZ things is a classic of the isolationism that we’ve drifted into as a country. We are no longer proud enough to clean the place up.
JC
Vote:February 20th, 2008 at 11:41 am
The problem with legislation like this is that it becomes a wedge in the door that slowly but surely gets pushed open even further.
And those who shrug shoulders now may find in the future that an supposed innocent amendment catches them in ways they were least expecting.
Once an established good governance principle has been breached no matter how reasonable it might appear at the time then the genie is out of the bottle and cant be put back in.
Students of history are well aware of this. Thats why some of us are very weary when we see long established principles being breached.
You cannot always guarantee that the other side will out the matter right at a later date. Some things suit governments of all colours And usually it things that dont suit most of the citizens.
Vote:February 20th, 2008 at 11:56 am
JC
A billion dollars of revenue over a 4 year period does not equal the surplus necessary to pay for the investment, most of the revenue will flow out again in expenses. There is no real economic rational for this spend up other than it makes the pollies, both Left and Right, feel they are doing something for the masses, whilst pandering to the Rugby God, it’s representatives on earth the IRB and NZRU and their handmaidens the media
Regarding a drift into isolationism. This country is full of and has for many years been full of,
-xenophobes
-racists, especially where Asians and Africans are concerned
-those with their head in the sand who consider this to be “Godzone”
NZ is a country where isolationism is an art form combined with a belief system that the world owes NZ a living and a degree of cultural immaturity that beggars belief.
Vote:February 20th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
A peteremcc, I blogged it *yesterday* but I don’t archive my non-tech blogs so it’s now gone forever, although the discussion continues in the Aardvark Forums.
It’s a foul example of a (supposedly) socialist party bending over for financial gain.
Vote:February 20th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
All hail the Rugby World Cup.
And DAMN those socialists. Even though National voted for it too, DAMN the socialist “liarbore” “Helengrad” etc etc mob…
Vote:February 20th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
RRM
I think National made a big mistake supporting RWC, though given the attitude towards Rugby in NZ it is understandable.
Government, business, media all bow down before rugby in NZ.
Vote:February 20th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Which companies are not sponsoring the RWC?
Vote:I can order their Tshirts ahead of time and make a killing…
February 20th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
There’s a lot of self hate of New Zealand and New Zealanders from some on the right – but nothing some serious bondage and discipline to the rule of the global markets won’t expiate I suppose.
Vote: