A growing authoritarianism
I have a real concern about the growing authoritarianism of this Government in regards to law and order. Now don’t get me wrong – I am hard line on catching and punishing criminals – I think parole and bail laws should be much tighter, and support trialling a “broken windows” approach such as Christchurch is doing. But taking away more and more rights in the name of “law and order” is something the Government (and not just the Government but they are the ones in Government) is doing.
Let us look at the recent issues:
- A Labour MP proposes taking away the right to silence.
- The Government is considering legislating to force telcos to intercept and store *all* text messages in case they need them at some stage for law enforcement purposes
- The PM is directly discussing operational issues with the Police Commissioner.
- No Right Turn covers the Government’s latest proposals to give Police the power to make people remove clothing or leave a public area, which he describes as allowing the Police to make the law up as they go.
- The PM is advocating to allow people to be re-tried for the same crime, after being found not guilty, if new evidence is manufactured discovered.
Now we do have a law and order problem in NZ. We have made it easier for repeat offenders to get bail. Parole has been a right not a privilege. Probation is almost a sick joke. Gangs run their operations out of prisons etc.
But rather than target the core problems of bail, parole, probation and Corrections, we are seeing moves towards what I call authoritarianism.
Yes we would have less crime if the Police can access every text message and e-mail any citizen has ever sent. Yes we would have more convictions if the Police can keep retrying you until they get a guilty verdict. Yes we would have less crime if the Police are given the authority to ban people from public places on whim. But you know, that isn’t the NZ I want to live in.
May 27th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Like the rules that see those acquitted like Chris Kahui not have to spend two years in prison without conviction?
Complaining about parole I can understand. But what could be more authoritarian than locking people up not because they’ve been convicted of something, or even been sent to trial, but merely because the Police have arrested them?
[DPF: For repeat offenders, bail has been made easier. For first time offenders bail should and is granted for almost all cases except murder.]
May 27th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
I agree with much of what you say David, it is going to be interesting however to watch all the National Party supporters who were arging against the right of silence last week doing a U-turn to defend it this week.
May 27th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
The PM’s involvement with Police matters really worries me.
Also worrying is a trend towards laws which allow discretion to be applied (or just as readily, unreasonably withheld). Discretion allows the state to use our law in pursuit of subjective, self-serving outcomes. Hardly the pinnacle of democracy.
May 27th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
I assume that boot camps aren’t part of the NZ you want to live in either, DPF?
[DPF: Go read the policy instead of recite a slogan, and note that many experts in this area (including the Principal Youth Court Judge) have praised it is not being kneejerk and giving the extra options needed for young offenders]
May 27th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
An apolitical NZ Police force (independant from the NZ Labour Party) would be a good start.
May 27th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
I think your tags say it all:
“authoritarianismm, Helen Clark, Police”.
^sums up her administration.
May 27th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
3-coil suggests:
An apolitical police force is a fundamental, yes. But wait till National is in power. Should anyone in their ranks decide that George Orwell was a policy analyst rather than a novelist (and Simon Power has pretty much demonstrated he’s in this camp, I submit) then watch the Police simper and prance round him as they presently do the PM.
In fact the Police are about as purely apolitical as you can get – they don’t care who’s in power as long as those people are stupid enough to think that handing totalitarian powers to tghe kind of people who love strutting round in uniforms is a way to win votes.
We all know the quotes about power… given that she’s held it for so long it’s a natural progression for the PM to start seeing the NZ Police as just another instrument of policy. Sadly, I doubt many politicians in her position would be able to restrain similar urges.
It is the duty of the Police, through the Commissioner, to stand firm and insist on independence. But do they? Not if it means their being given greater power to look into, interfere with, and make arbitrary judgment upon our lives; and to harass, charge and imprison us if they feel the urge.
May 27th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
DPF,
to be fair, aren’t we mixing up the idea of taking away the right to silence with the idea of giving juries extra powers to consider the implications of an accused’s silence?
Stephen Franks has an excellent post on this topic, and as he says, if removing the right to silence is taken literally, that means compelling people to talk through the application of force – torture to put it bluntly. I think there are few people who would genuinely advocate for torture to become a feature of our criminal justice system.
May 27th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Much as I agree, on this as on a few other questions it’s unfortunately worth considering the alternative. I understand Key has basically endorsed Clark’s latest. I note your post on the right to silence includes Power’s response.
On the bright side, National might be less inclined to overkill because they feel like they have less to prove, but it’s not like they’ve gone out of their way to position themselves as the good guys here.
May 27th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
DPF: “The PM is advocating to allow people to be re-tried for the same crime, after being found not guilty, if new evidence is manufactured discovered”
From recollection, this is provided for in the Criminal Procedure Bill – will National oppose the system proposed by the government that permits the police to seek permission of the Solicitor General to retry a matter where new evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the original trial is subsequently discovered?
This is of course a whittling down of the rule against double jeopardy.
Will the Nats be opposing this? My recollection was that they sought a concession on the depositions in person with lawyers issue on the basis of speeding resolution of criminal trials – which seems to me to be of lesser constitutional significance.
May 27th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
The PM’s involvement with Police matters really worries me.
Me too. A while back there was the assertion that those accused in the highly dodgy ‘Te Qaeda’ exercise were actually guilty.
This latest unwarranted mouthing off reinforces a disturbing pattern.
May 27th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
he says, if removing the right to silence is taken literally, that means compelling people to talk through the application of force
Which supports my theory that Franks is a sophist.
May 27th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Sean: On the right of silence, it is not much of a right if using it means you can be found guilty. It is a bit like saying there is a right to speed, because you physically can speed – which is different to having legal consequences for doing so.
Lyndon: As you noted I was critical of National’s response on that issue. However I note that today the PM is complaining National has not yet agreed to change the law to allow people to be recharged with the same crime.
Also, while not making excuses, one tends to expect an opposition party to beat the law and order drum. Labour did it in the 1990s a lot. But that is a lesser sin than actually being in Government and advancing such policies.
And as I said I support tougher law and order policies – but tougher on convicted criminals not tougher on the rights of all NZers.
May 27th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Lyndon – doesn’t Franks have a point though? How do you literally take away the right to silence?
May 27th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
You convict people on the basis that they did not speak Sean.
May 27th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Rex,
“It is the duty of the Police, through the Commissioner, to stand firm and insist on independence. But do they? Not if it means their being given greater power to look into, interfere with, and make arbitrary judgment upon our lives; and to harass, charge and imprison us if they feel the urge.”
That’s where Lord Montrose of Graham was good. I can hear him now saying it would be “quite wrong” etc for political interference. Perhaps, more important, the media would naturally have made a beeline for him if Bolger had done something like this.. and that’s the difference with this Govt. as it doesn’t have someone like that.
JC
May 27th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
DPF, Sonic – is anyone suggesting that refusing to speak will autoamatically result in a finding of guilty? Why shouldn’t a jury have the power to consider whether or not an accused’s silence has any bearing on his or her innocence or guilt?
May 27th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Most of these policies are good, its just a shame its taken 8 friggin years and bad polls to take a hard line
May 27th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
The closeness between this Prime Minister and the Police is truly disturbing when you consider how many times she has been formally interviewed…yet strangely enough never charged or prosecuted despite prima facie cases existing…
May 27th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
There is a good discussion about this on public address at http://publicaddress.net/system/topic,1133,island_life_ice-cold_rabble_rousing.sm?i=0#forum-replies
Klark has pissed off both right and left with her attack on police and judicial independence.
May 27th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Well Sean the right to silence has been a principle for hundreds of years, the aim is to stop the police harrasing or beating statements out of people and then using them against them
It is up to the Crown to prove guilt, not up to the defendent to prove innocence. If they have the evidence they can use it, there is no compulsion on the defendent to help them.
May 27th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Have to agree with most of your points here DPF. Unfortunately this is somewhat of a trend in the Anglo-saxon countries – particularly in the US and UK.
In the US, the police are now able to search your home without “probable cause” – meaning the police, FBI etc don’t need to provide evidence of a wrong doing. The judge just signs on the dotted line, and away they go.
May 27th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
I agree with Sonic here. IMHO the potential for a blood hungry state to abuse their powers of investigation is greater than the risk of misjustice caused by silence on the part of material witnesses.
May 27th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Why not triple jeopardy? Under the Proceeds of Crime Bill, which the Nats are supporting, one doesn’t even have to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt to be punished.
May 27th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
I’d suggest that there are indeed times where a right to silence could be penalised in some way, even by some form of coercion, where there is a clear and present public danger. However, run of the mill killings of children don’t come anywhere near this level of coercion or penalty.
What Clark is really doing is her Muliaga defence of deflecting fallout away from her and the Govt. without regard to consequences.
JC
May 27th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
JC: Whoa that comment made me stop and think… from Doug Graham to Simon Power in one “generation” of politicians. I hadn’t thought of it like that but you’re right, of course – Graham wouldn’t have stood for it, let alone rubbed his hands with glee as Power seems to be doing. Is it any wonder that people are finding it hard to support National on anything other than a “not Labour” basis?!
sonic says:
Complete agreement twice in one day. I think I need to go to the VRWC reprogramming centre
That’s a simple and eloquently put summation of the reason behind the right to silence – that no one is under any obligation to incriminate themselves. The Police and prosecutors have more than enough resources to
manufacturediscover (to quote DPF) evidence against us without being able to draw unwarranted implications from our silence.Zippy Gonzales says:
Proceeds of Crime Acts are common in most states of Australia. They were initially introduced to allow the Crown to seize the mansions and yachts of drug dealers – the actual proceeds of their crimes. Fair enough.
But once they had their feet in that particular door, the governments have extended their powers under the Act so that, for instance, when a small time pot dealer stuffed a bag of marijuana in his parents’ roof, the elderly couple lost their home. And the latest proposal is to extend it to include the family homes of sex offenders – ignoring the fact that their families are also victims of their offending.
And finally, Chris Diack asks:
Yes DPF, will Mr Power’s enthusiasm for the use of telephone books as a Police interview tool and the “let’s keep trying him till his money runs out” school of jurisprudence be tempered by the caucus? Frankly, if Key and Co are going to allow the Police even more lattitude, they can stick their tax cuts… it’s rather hard to decide what to spend them on in the prison canteen.
May 27th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Double jepordy. UK has gone down this track. There are two circumstances:
– where there was jury or witness tampering or intimidation
- the ‘new evidence’ situation – the most likely source of new evidence is DNA evidence
There is some philosophical objection to the former, but since such ‘interference’ makes the trial a nullity, it does seem fair enough.
The latter case is worrisome. There was a UK case where an accused openly bragged about his guilt after an acquittal which raised the ire of many people which led to the British government whittling down jeopardy. The problem is, it is unlikely that any enduring safeguards (eg must be ‘new and compelling’ evidence which could not reasonably have been available at the original trial) can be included in legislation. There is serious danger that successive court decisions will whittle these safeguards down to about nothing. Hence a view that it is better to leave things alone even at the risk that the odd criminal cannot be retried.
The Kahui case would be a particularly worrisome one. The probability of new earth-shattering evidence (eg DNA evidence) is not likely. Any new evidence is hardly likely to be ‘compelling’ but there would be enormous temptation to allow a re-trial to appease public opinion. And this raises the other matter of concern. If the second trial falls over, then further new evidence comes to light, there could be yet another re-trial, etc, etc.
On a more general basis, as DPF has indicated, the PM’s comments are of a most dangerous nature. This is especially as her musings can be implied as direct instructions by those in Government (as is the cae of all those who are excessive swelled headed with power). If she did or saw a proper policy analysis on this (hang it all, her degree is supposed to show that she has knowledge and skills in this area) she would realise that what she is saying is utterly illogical. In particular I doubt she really wanted to drag the moher into this, but this is what she has implied (“Mr Commissioner – you know your duty – put her in the dock – the AG will soon smooth any impediments”).
She is playing to the peanut gallery. And she knows it.
May 27th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
I blogged about the PM’s “intervention” in the Kahui case last night. I believe that Clark is playing a very dangerous game here, and her comments could easily be interpreted as a direction to the Police to prosecute someone. The longstanding convention of politicians not becoming involved in Police operational matters appears to have gone out the window under this government.
May 27th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Add the BZP ban to your list …Supported By National
Ending Right To Silence – Supported by some National MPs/Potential MPs
May 27th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
The issue is that Labours only answer to everything is to pass another law.
It doesn’t mean a damn thing if the laws are not enforced and the only laws that are enforced and the only time they are enforced is when Helen wants it that way.
Taking little steps to totalitarianism is still moving in the wrong direction.
May 27th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
doesn’t Franks have a point though? How do you literally take away the right to silence?
How do you literally take away freedom of thought?
Firstly, the essence of a legal right is not just the ability to do something but the ability to do so without being punished by the system. Which is more to the point.
Second I imagine most people seriously participating in the argument have some idea what they mean removing the right to silence means in a jurisprundence (or a police investigation) context. While I admit I still haven’t followed your link, the particular point from Franks seems basically irrelevant.
May 27th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Agree with you totally, DPF. Hey, this could even be a frogblog post! First prostitution, then this – see, there are some things we agree on.
Where are the “ban everything” boys like d4j? Seem to be notably absent on this thread?
May 27th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Where are the “ban everything” boys like d4j? Seem to be notably absent on this thread?
Nice dig, but are you really trying to say that Greenies dont want to ban anything are you?
May 27th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
toad asks:
Actually, D4J has been busy posting a reasoned and reasonable rebuttal to those who are yelling for blood and guts (literally, in some cases) to be a regular part of our justice system on this thread.
An interesting conjunction of news, this. I wonder how the people shrieking for capital punishment (given they’re mostly right wing, and thus enemies of the (present) state) would feel if the law was introduced and these kinds of protections stripped away, leaving us facing the possibility that interference by both politicians and corrupt police could not only result in our incarceration, but also our execution?!
May 27th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
The right to silence is antiquated and rediculous it dates back to times of yore when country yokels could not understand the questions they were asked. While other nations have weakened this right New Zealand has strengthened it. There may have been some half pie argument to continue it in the days of magistrates courts where legal aid was restricted to only indictable offences where perpetrators were indigent,not these days where you have instant legal aid and duty solicitors.
………….The proposal to compel the telcos to continue their longstanding practice of preserving phonecalls is also essential…It is especially relevant to National Security and to extremely important crimes such as Kidnapping, extortion, and matters of a similar ilk that are becoming increasingly manifest in our multi cultural society………………………
………….The Political direction of the Police is now an abomination just as it is with Crown Law and the Law Commission. The whole Justice System needs to change from the English adversarial system to the French Inquisitorial system.
May 27th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
The PM is directly discussing operational issues with the Police Commissioner.
Marie Dyhrberg needs to get over herself. The legal process has been and gone and politicians are allowed to comment. I think she’s just making a fuss in order to draw public attention to the fact that she’s now Macsyne’s lawyer. Which makes me feel some sympathy for an otherwise despicable person.
May 27th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
baxter says:
Clearly you’ve never had your fate left in the hands of a legal aid lawyer, baxter, much less a duty solicitor. Or even sat at the back of the court and watched them perform. I have an acquaintance who’s currently incarcerated and whose legal aid lawyer stood up and pled her guilty to charges which could potentially have seen her imprisoned for over a decade. I’d anticipated this and thankfully she took my advice and leapt up to instead seek a remand. We’re now trying to scratch together funds for a ‘proper’ lawyer even though she is mildly brain damaged from a motor accident, has been on a benefit for years and clearly meets the criteria for aid – it’s just that it’s as good as useless to her.
In her case the Police obtained a ‘confession’ by telling her that she could go home after 36 hours in a holding cell or interview room if she’s just turn to the camera and say she did it. So she did.
Then there was the case before her, where the duty lawyer managed to helpfully get his client imprisoned for 12 months for nicking $40 out of a cash box by being completely unaware that this would constitute a “third strike”, despite the first two also being for petty matters. Or the guy who followed him, who began defending his client against 21 immigration charges only to be informed by the Police prosecutor that actually most had been withdrawn ages ago and there were only seven.
Not all legal aid lawyers are hopeless but the good ones are overwhelmed by the caseload (as are the dwindling number of prosecutors, I might add) so the courts are increasingly becoming a lottery. In that environment, to suggest reducing an accused’s rights is reckless and ill thought out.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Inventory2: Show me just where Government Ministers haven’t directed Police. That is why we have a Police State.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Perhaps Frank you should do a little more research on what constitutes a Police State?
Just a thought.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
I have pointed out in other threads that the number of legal aid lawyers as a percentage of the legal profession is declining rapidly, despite the Legal Services Agency’s denials of this. Right now only 8% of the profession are active in any way in doing criminal legal aid. Even worse, only 3% of the profession are doing about 70% of the work nationwide.
This is a huge decrease from even 20 years ago, which means that the case Rex points out is not isolated. Auckland in particular is especially problematic in this area, with around 4000 lawyers (!) and only around 240 active legal aid lawyers. Of those 240 or so, about 100 do most of the work, which in the 06/07 year was over 18,000 legal aid cases. Those criminal lawyers who can continue a criminal defence practice without doing legal aid are quick to do so, which means a lot of experience is taken out of the pool for the juniors (who are few and far between) to learn off.
Duty Solicitor is in an even worse state. A lot of them are only part time criminal lawyers who do duty solicitor to get some court time. The amount of knowledge needed to be an effective criminal lawyer is huge, and those who ‘dabble’ in it usually end up costing their client in more ways than one.
By the way, Baxter, Legal Aid is generally only granted if there is a chance that a person might go to prison for 6 months or more. If you are going to prison for less than that, then they view that as not ’serious’ enough. I dunno, but if I went to prison even for a week I would view that as serious! Legal Aid turns down a lot of applications, I assure you.
Rex, I wasn’t aware that prosecutors are dwindling in number- where I work they are increasing quite rapidly! Is there somewhere you can point to so I can have a look at that? I take the view that the Crown is now NZ’s largest provider of criminal lawyers, something that is a shame to the profession.
Our system of law has been built up over 800 years of usually shocking practice that meant many innocent people have lost their lives to a corrrupt system. Whether you believe it or not, the protections we have now are the minimum that have developed over that time to ensure justice is done as much as possible. Otherwise the system becomes a farce and we may as well simply convict any person charged, regardless of guilt or innocence. The overall crime rate has been reducing now for around 10 years. Some individual types of crime remain comparitively high, and any crime is unacceptable, but to give up your freedoms in the hope that the police will overlook you presumes a lot. Interestingly enough, in the USA one of the first things that happens when they ‘get tough on crime’ is reduce the budget for legal aid type organisations. You see, if you have less defence lawyers then you have more people going to prison. Guilt or innocence ceases to be a factor.
But, give up your rights if you want. Just don’t complain when, if one of you should have some issue with the police, nobody believes you, nobody cares, and there are no longer any lawyers willing to assist you.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
FE Smith:
Damn, sorry it’s my bi-national imprecision clouding my writing again. Prosecutors are declining in number in most states of Australia, at both Commonwealth and state levels. Not sure of the situation in NZ but it doesn’t surprise me to hear that the government is eagerly funding legions of prosecutors.
Thanks for the interesting statistics and the comment overall. Indeed Legal Aid here in Australia have turned down recent applications (and these are only ones I’ve had a hand in personally) for careless driving, stealing and ‘using a document’ prosecutions, saying these “weren’t serious enough” even though all potentially could have incurred a prison term. So goo point – some people aren’t even “lucky” enough to get an incompetent lawyer paid for!
(By the way I read a biography of the ‘first’ FE Smith last year. I’d realised he was a brilliant bloke but I hadn’t realised quite how witty he could be. He’d make a great character in a TV series, but alas the ABC get all their period stuff from the Beeb and TVNZ would want to make him a gay Polynesian Community Law Centre worker who happened to live in a house full of supermodels).
May 27th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
may I say what a pleasure it has been to read this thread – arguement (mostly reasoned) without the normal vitriol – could this set a new standard?
On topic, we are seeing a steady decline in rights in NZ (as with other countries) and a lack of political independence from the police – I can see no argument to support this. All we need now is the armed forces to get involved and we are on the slippery slope to disaster.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Rex: ah, an Australian perspective. I looked at the Commonwealth Prosecutions Office website the other day but sadly they require an employee to be an Australian citizen, so that rules me out! Interesting to hear of the decline in prosecutors over there- in my view they are definately increasing here as the Govt pours more money into cutting crime. Plus the Crown Solicitors are the most powerful bloc of lawyers in the country, bar none.
And ‘outed’ on the name! A brilliant lawyer and a very good judge. Plus he and Michael Collins negotiated the Irish peace treaty of 1921, so that has to go in his favour as well. Now, if I could get away with some of his courtroom wit then I will be perfectly content in my practice!
May 27th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
FE: Most Commonwealth jobs demand citizenship regardless of whether there’s a good reason for it. Now if it was immigration I could understand… the number of Kiwis flooding through most major airports here would mean the customs and immigration people would be stopping to catch up with old mates (and letting jars of Marmite through in return for a lick of the lid).
Try any state DPP’s office – I’m pretty sure they’d be glad to have you and the salaries are fairly generous. Better yet, come work set up as a criminal defence lawyer – you’ll be on the right side of the argument and I can ensure that the people I’m trying to help get a decent brief. Don’t worry about the money – there’s so many squabbles over mining rights and dodgy politicians suing to get reinstated to caucus (and winning!) your private client base would subsidise the virtually-pro-bono legal aid work.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Hey David what about your mate Franks’ little penchat of authoritarianism?
May 28th, 2008 at 1:55 am
“I have a real concern”? No David, it seems you don’t have any concern. You look to be simply regurgitating what your bosses have been telling you to regurgitate. Too bad we can’t do that over at NewZBlog (we have standards!) – would make our job a heck of a lot simpler.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:13 am
Illuminated Tiger – you are an idiot. No seriously you are. Have you even read what I posted? Are you not aware that I criticised the National Spokesperson on one of the issues above?
I know you like to invent crap, but really you just embarrass yourself if you think National “bosses” want me saying the Government is going too far on law and order, when their meme is they do not go far enough. I mean seriously a first year politics student could tell you that.
Have a look at who has agreed with me on this issue – Sonic, Toad and Roger Nome. Yes the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy at work.
May 28th, 2008 at 7:37 am
“But rather than target the core problems of bail, parole, probation and Corrections, we are seeing moves toward what I call authoritarianism.”
Sorry Mr. Farrar, but the items you list are not the core problems. They may be the core administrative problems, but the real “core problem” is the incremental destruction of such concepts as morality, right to own private property, and personal responsibility and accountability for one’s actions, mixed in with family breakdown, poor parenting skills and parent’s wrong headed abdication of their responsibilities to the government.
PS- you’re dead on the mark tho with that “Illuminated Tiger”. What an unbelievable dickwad. (with a sappy pretentious posting handle) Crippled comprehension skills seem to be the most common factor amongst all leftist extremists.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
No DPF. I’m more inclined to throw that label right back at you. I say this respectfully because there was once a time when you really did run a Kiwi blog – something that I and many others referred to for good and well thought out political comment.
[DPF: And you're the one who made a stupid totally unsubstantiated comment. The reality is I criticise my own party probably ten times as often as any other major blogger does. So your suggestion of me writing under orders from some unknown master is puerile and insulting.
In fact I have often had senior Nat staffers very vigorously disagree with my take on an issue.
I have never ignored a major issue which is damaging to National. While on The Standard a search on the name "Mary-Anne Thompson" finds not a single post on that issue.]