Victory in Court
Have just received the judgement of the High Court in the case regarding the Electoral Commission and the EPMU, and am pleased to report that the Court has ruled the Electoral Commission was wrong (and hence the Crown Law advice was also wrong) to decide that the ineligibity to be a third party criteria of “a person involved in the administration of the affairs of a party” only referred to natural persons and not legal persons including incorporated societies.
This means the Electoral Commission decision granting the EPMU application is over-turned and the Electoral Commission now has to decide whether the EPMU is involved in the administration of the affairs of the Labour Party.
The EPMU also lost its counter claim asking for the Electoral Commission not to allow objections to applications, before they had made their decision.
I will put the pdf of the decision up shortly.
May 21st, 2008 at 2:53 pm
And the champion of freedom of speech strikes another blow for liberty. Hurray for Farrar!
[DPF: Indeed. Discrediting a law helps get rid of it. Using an anti-democratic law against its supporters rather than rolling over and meekly accepting it is the only way to go]
May 21st, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Congratulations it is great to see the bias within Crown Law exposed.
May 21st, 2008 at 2:55 pm
This is a monumental finding! It will be interesting to now see the EC’s ruling on whether the EPMU is involved in the administrative affairs of the Labour Party. Judging by the analysis contained in your letter you sent them, I find it hard to think they could be considered not to be.
May 21st, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Congratulations David … clearly, the ‘law of common sense prevails’ (with apologies to Ms King).
May 21st, 2008 at 2:58 pm
sonic “won’t forget this”.
May 21st, 2008 at 3:00 pm
“And the champion of freedom of speech strikes another blow for liberty.”
If you’re suggesting that it is ironic that a law passed by Labour has come back to bite them in the arse, I couldn’t agree more! I don’t imagine you are suggesting that Nome but perhaps you might like to take the opportunity now (even though you supported the bill) to criticise Labour for promoting such faulty legislation. Or will you continue to blame others for enforcing stupid law?
May 21st, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Great work! The poor long suffering members of the EMUs union won’t have to stump up increased fees to pay for the political machinations of Little and his mates as the extra $120,000 won’t be needed now. Very important in these times of rapidly increasing unemployment under Liarbours wise economic management.
May 21st, 2008 at 3:03 pm
roger nome – piss off you noddy! This is nothing to do with DPF shutting down free speech. It is about whether the EPMU complied with the law enacted by the political party to which it is affiliated. The High Court has ruled that it did not. In the immortal words of Dr Michael Cullen – “We won, you lost, eat that!”
May 21st, 2008 at 3:06 pm
No Mike I was being serious. Don’t you see how Farrar’s succesful attempt at silencing tens of thousands of people involved in a democratic organisation is promoting freedom of speech? Silly man!
Once again, please join with me loyal kiwiblog readers……
Hurray for Farrar. Champion of free speech, and defender of our precious liberties!
[DPF: Diddums]
May 21st, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Great news! Looking forward to the final decision. This is the one big case that will hopefully really show the stupidity of this law. Well done taking it to court.
May 21st, 2008 at 3:12 pm
So you say it is Farrar’s fault that these tens of thousands have been silenced? Do you have any contempt (even a smidgen) for those who passed the bill in the first place?
Just like I say hurray to the Police for upholding the law, I congratulate DPF for ensuring that this law is upheld. I find it hilariously ironic though that an organisation that aligns itself with the Labour party is falling foul of the law they promoted. No sympathy here Nome.
May 21st, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Good work and well done!!!
May 21st, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Well done David. One nil to the good guys.
The tide is definitely ebbing for labour now.
May 21st, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Excellent result David.
Shows how well King’s laws of common sense are working. Any other interpretation would have been ridiculous.
And to reflect back one of Rogers previous themes, its not the EMPU’s free speech that is being restricted by labour’s flawed law, it is only their spending! Union members can still stand on street corners and proselytize eh?
May 21st, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Well done, David.
May I be the first to say…diddums.
May 21st, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Yes it is a victory for David Farrar. Congratulations David.
It is also a victory for the Human Rights Commission. Their submission to the Select Committee on 18 October last year was ignored.
Along with Garth Mc Vicar I was present when Rosslyn Noonan said ; ” The Commission’s preference is, and remains, that the proposed legislation, the bill, is withdrawn and redrafted to take into account the very substantial and indepth submisions of the over 600 submitters to the Select Committee. If it is not withdrawn, and rewritten, the Commision’s view is that it is essential that any changes be subject to the widest possible scrutiny to ensure the credibility and legitimacy of whatever electoral law reform emerges. ”
Two points.
Firstly the Commission called for the bill to be withdrawn and redrafted. It was ignored. Had the government listened to the HRC there is every chance the law would have been drafted in such a way as to protect the rights of the 50,000 members of the EPMU to speak out and be involved in the electoral process.
Secondly, given that it wasn’t redrawn, the Commission was calling for a second round of consultation on the redrafted bill. The government ignored the HRC again and there was no second round. Again had the bill been subject to greater scrutiny, rather than just rushed through, there is every chance the EPMU members may have been protected. By not allowing this second round of consulatation the Act lacks the “credibility and legitimacy” the HRC said it should have. An organisation such as a trade union should not be required by statute to go to court to defend its right to be involved in the political process. Nor should statute prevent it from participating as the EFA appears to do.
May 21st, 2008 at 3:28 pm
By the way – DPF and/or roger none – did roger nome provide the evidence he was `asked to the other day to justify one of his accusations – or will he be having a “holiday” soon?
May 21st, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Well done David. A nice victory and another embarrassment for Labour as to their woeful ability to draft law
May 21st, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Congratulations – this is turning out to be a great year with plenty more to come.
May 21st, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Petard……hoist!
May 21st, 2008 at 3:38 pm
DPF’s greatest victory since Diversion!! Seriously, well done. And may I endorse the hoisting/petard type comments.
May 21st, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Nome says: “Don’t you see how Farrar’s succesful attempt at silencing tens of thousands of people involved in a democratic organisation is promoting freedom of speech? Silly man!”
If he did do that Roger, what law did he use to do it with, and who forced said law through the house, and what fool who has posted over 3333 comments on this blog alone thought it was good legislation?
G
May 21st, 2008 at 3:43 pm
I like this. This is good fun. Not for the sneering, indoctrinated minions of the left with their shrill support for a bad piece of law, but for the rest of us there’s plenty to enjoy.
May 21st, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Jesus Nome you’re a drop kick. Nice work David well done. I to endorse the petard comment.
May 21st, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Clearly free speech is only defined by how Labour defines it. The courts verdict and Rogernome’s response only confirms how corrupt Labour has become in pursuit of power. Power corrupts, not only morals but brains too.
May 21st, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Again Labour attempts to rort the system, but this time they have been held to account before the fact. Roger can claim that free speech has been suppressed, but the fact of the matter is that they have not been muzzled, nor stopped from making any statement. It’s just that the cost of making such a statement must now be properly apportioned.
The biggest victory though has got to be the part where the crown law opinion has been tested and found to be incorrect.
Crown Law has a lot to answer for and it may well come to pass that the opinion about the EFB not breaching the human rights act is also found to be less than safe.
All in all, a very good result. All parties involved in bringing this matter before open court are to be congratulated!
May 21st, 2008 at 3:58 pm
John makes a very important point: An organisation such as a trade union should not be required by statute to go to court to defend its right to be involved in the political process.
And again it is proven that the left always end up silencing free speech. Even for their friends.
May 21st, 2008 at 3:59 pm
DPF:
“Discrediting a law helps get rid of it.”
I was thinking the same thing. The only thing is, the law, at its core is solid. It only needs some small technical adjustments for it to properly reflect its laudable intentions (i.e. transparency of the democratic process and a democratisaton of election spending). You want to throw the baby out with the bathwater – because you don’t like the intensions of the Act.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Small technical adjustments!
David in your hour of righteous victory, allow me this small mercy…
Roger you are a fucktard of the highest order. A complete waste of space who adds no value to anything ever.
Please do us all a favour.
Proceed to the nearest concrete wall and smash yourself against it repeatedly until you are a little less rubbish.
Failing that I have a wheelie bin with your name on it.
vive le revolution, a change is coming chaps.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Roger Nome spake thus:
It’s just a ’small technical’ matter of the EFA being a totally rooted piece of legislation……
May 21st, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Oh happy day!!!!
May 21st, 2008 at 4:24 pm
A small techincal adjustment can only mean repealing the EFT.
The NZLS said in it’s submission to the select committee the only way to deal with the EFT was to withdraw it from the order paper and start again. As with the HRC’s submission that was ignored.
The result is badly drafted legislation (a problem which has been often experienced in the past nine years) creating unintended and unanticipated problems that judges, who have better things to do are called upon to resolve.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:25 pm
BB -
heh – come down to dunedin old fella. I’m sure I can sort out a wheelie bin to get you to the nearest rest home
May 21st, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Roger
You assured us all that the EF Bill was all perfectly in order when it was first unveiled.
As more and more flaws were exposed, you claimed that a few minor adjustments by Select Committee were all that was needed.
When the Select Committee made sweeping changes, you assured us that the changes were all good and necessary, and EFA would not infringe on anyone’s freedom of speech.
So please excuse us for taking your latest claim about ‘technical adjustments’ with a grain or two of salt.
You have spent the past year talking up this law – stop whining and live with the consequences.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Nome don’t be a noddy. The mere fact that the law claims to have the intentions of transparency etc is meaningless when the actual law itself is nothing more than a shoddy attempt to limit free speech and favour the incumbent party.
Paying lip service to a laudable intention is all very well and good but actions (or in this case statute) speaks louder than words.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Nome that law does not need some `small technical adustments’ as you say.
It was a stupid law pushed through by a corrupt party supported by the idiots in NZ First and the Greens.
Justice has been done and if Labour wants to restore a modicum of credibility it will repeal this law post haste.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Roger,
The only thing is, the law, at its core is solid.
Probably true enough, but it is poor law.
Ultimately the layers of amorphous, ill-defined legal gobble-d-gook surrounding that core make it very hard to find – it ain’t transparent. Also to navigate the law requires a lot of skilled legal expertise – this ain’t democratising.
For the life of me I cannot see how David’s party, which has the deepest pockets and (as is often the case in such circumstances) very good lawyers, is ever going to be disadvantaged by this law.
Maybe National will let the law be kept with “some small technical adjustments” and henceforth the EPMU never gets to speak in an election year.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:35 pm
So EFA proponents decry the result. DPF copped a lot of flack when he argued that “a person involved in the administration of the affairs of a party” means any person – natural or legal. A post at The Standard comes to mind. It remains to be seen if the EPMU appeals the decision.
Inventory2:
Happy to oblige – you won’t be getting a straight answer from PhillipJohn on that!
His allegation is here. DPF gave him 24 hours “to find a source for his allegation or take demerits for blatant lying”. 15 hours later, PhillipJohn gave what can only be described as a wimpy statement.
And PhillipJohn’s opening contribution to this thread: “And the champion of freedom of speech strikes another blow for liberty. Hurray for Farrar!“.
Frankly, I don’t know why DPF doesn’t just ban him indefinitely for repeated (and unsubstantiated) smears.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:35 pm
unaha, smart point. Didn’t John Key promise not to change thing? Perhaps in the heat of the moment they might have uttered some unclear thoughts about the EFB, but another flip flop won’t matter. I think they shouldn’t repeal the law. It’s working as intended. It keeps the lefties out of the political process!
May 21st, 2008 at 4:43 pm
The only “technical adjustment” this legislation needs is a match.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:47 pm
roger nome said “The only thing is, the law, at its core is solid. It only needs some small technical adjustments for it to properly reflect its laudable intentions (i.e. transparency of the democratic process and a democratisaton of election spending). You want to throw the baby out with the bathwater – because you don’t like the intensions of the Act.”
roger, you’ve said some pretty bizarre things in your time, but that about takes the cake! The law in question, the EFA is an ass. A dog’s breakfast. A shambles. Its intention was to muzzle opponents of the government, but to date, the only people to breach the act are the Labour Party and Trevor Mallard! The Human Right Commission, under the stewardship of that life-long friend of the National Party (yeah, right!), Rosslyn Noonan could see how bad the legislation was when it called for the Bill to be withdrawn and redrafted. But no, the government knew best.
The best “technical amendment” this legislation will receive will be the repealing legislation introduced by the incoming National government!
May 21st, 2008 at 4:48 pm
David will never ban roger, or sonic for that matter.
Come the day that David decides to monetize this blog I imagine he will be honour bound to gift shares to the axis of stupid for driving his comments off the chart. Every time one of these two chumps vomits forth on here there is a massive rush to shout them down.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Shot.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Great work DPF, wonderfully well done!
May 21st, 2008 at 4:54 pm
berend said “Didn’t John Key promise not to change thing? Perhaps in the heat of the moment they might have uttered some unclear thoughts about the EFB, but another flip flop won’t matter. I think they shouldn’t repeal the law. It’s working as intended. It keeps the lefties out of the political process!”
From Key’s speech in the third reading debate:
“Let me say this to the people of New Zealand who are engaged in this debate and who are interested: National will repeal this legislation. We will go back to basics. We will go back to the way it was. We will ask independent people to go out there and come up with electoral law. You see, electoral law is not owned by the Labour Party for the benefit of the Labour Party. Electoral law is owned by the people of New Zealand so that we can have a democracy.
This is a sad day for New Zealand. It is the day the Labour Party admitted publicly, and through legislation, that it cannot win unless it changes the law. That is what happened today. National will repeal the law. We will go back to a bipartisan basis where independent people will come up with some recommendations. I say this, and this alone: history will mark this day. This is the day when Helen Clark arrogantly inflicted anti-democratic legislation upon the people of New Zealand, and when the collective voters of New Zealand know once and for all that it is time for a change.”
May 21st, 2008 at 5:26 pm
The following seems appropriate:
May 21st, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Barnsley Bill,
David will never ban roger, or sonic for that matter.
Hear, hear.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Labour must be wondering if the EFA has really been worth all the collatoral damage just to shut a few “chinless scarf-wearers” up.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:54 pm
This is all very well and good, but who’s going to sort out the pressing matter of the electoral balloons!?
May 21st, 2008 at 7:26 pm
well done in silencing the voice of the workers of NZ. With people like these the workers must be bloody worried what National will introduce to shaft them again.
PS those asking for folk to be banned, is that not censorship and cutting free speech. At least these guys don’t attack women or gays etc as has been the case by many on this blog. But by all means guys if you don’t want opposition free speech ban them, it’s a good tactic that totalitarian and right wing governments the world over have employed.
Just today the Italian govt muzzled a journalist from the left it didn’t like, good old Silvio Berlusconi and his control both economically and politically of the media makes for great free speech.
To all those who see this as a victory hang your heads. You have done the country a disservice.
May 21st, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Inventory the law is not an ass, at it’s core it is a very good idea.
If you wish to spend a lot of money on campaigning for a political party, you must be registered. It’s not hard, it’s transparent and surely we want transparency with political money?
May 21st, 2008 at 7:33 pm
You’re on the mark with totalitarian Paul, that’s why the vehement opposition to it.
May 21st, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Paul
You’re as stupid as Roger.
See the post at 3.41 pm for details.
Do you honestly believe that the first paragraph of your post reflects reality? If so get help.
G
May 21st, 2008 at 7:48 pm
so 1984, by vehemently opposing something with totalitarian methods of eliminating free speech you win?
1984, would this vehement opposition be the groundswell of 150 people at the last demonstration against it. The average kiwi on the street couldn’t give a toss. Further the average Kiwi (not this far right bastion of totalitarian oppression) thinks that stopping people from spending vast amounts of money at election time is a fundamentally wrong thing.
Is it not desirable to have a law that ultimately gives the people of NZ full transparency over whom is funding what election campaign. As a more than active follower of these things, I would like to know what disinformation campaign the EB will be running this time, and this bill allows this.
This law is not totalitarian. Please go back to 4th form Social Studies to brush up on such rubbish.
May 21st, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Agreed for once the unions are now put on the level playing field.
For years they have rorted the system as Labour’s media wing.
Hard luck Paul, laugh it up because we sure are.
At least you’ve got the rail back in house now so you can get all the workers who can’t get jobs in the real world back into NZ Rail. Looking forward to those strikes on public holidays again.
May 21st, 2008 at 7:54 pm
The only thing that’s been stopped here is the union taking their government funds and recycling it back to support the Labour party.
Can’t you quite get your head around the fact that its the quantum of their spending that is under threat.
Something that you personally seemed happy about up until it looks like it will apply to your side.
May 21st, 2008 at 7:57 pm
PauL “To all those who see this as a victory hang your heads. You have done the country a disservice.”
Anytime, anyday, brother. If you feel the country is serviced by politically partisan Laws, drafted in secret in an exclusive political alliance, rammed through with urgency despite the admonitions of the Law Society and Human Rights Council, so shonkily drawn up that they fall at the first challenge in the High Court, thus exposing their inadequacies and lack of regard for our democratic traditions, yes, even to the extent that a right to engage in the democratic process taht existed three years ago, has now been proven to be no longer legal, then, again, Anytime, anyday.
Bring it on.
Or do you still subscribe to Helen Clark’s fairy-tale justification from last September that the purpose of the EFB was ‘To stop people like the Exclusive Brethren and John Key from rorting the election process.’ ?
I guess if Helen Clark could get up in Parliament and talked about the Three Little Piggies and the Big Bad Wolf, the next day, you and your ilk would be on kiwiblog supporting a Labour Bill to outlaw houses made of of sticks and straw.
Such is the infantile low-grade calibre of the lies you have been fed, and have swallowed hook, line and sinker.
Wake up! you have a duty as a citizen, and to your society to stand up and be counted when power is abused like this.
You blame DPF and ‘the far-right kiwiblog’ for spoiling your party? Like a spoilt brat who has had his puppy taken from him, when it was apparent that you were being cruel to it, and that it was for everyones’ good to do so.
Funny though, it was ‘the far-right kiwiblog’ that was loudest in its warnings that something like this might happen. But oh no! You knew better…. Now it has happened, guess what, somehow, it is DPF’s fault.
Not Clarks, peters, Fitzsimons, or Dunne, but DPF’s I mean, listen to yourselves!
Cue tantrums. Stomping around blaming everyone but themselves for the terrible ‘injustice’ they have experienced… Time to get real, and join the big boys, Paul (Remebers Cullen’s advice?) Otherwise, if that level of knee-jerk loyalty to flagrant abuse of power, simply because it suits your political agenda, is all you have, your Party is going to spend the next nine years in the political wilderness, until a new generation with some cahones replaces you and your sort.
So. are you with us or against us?
May 21st, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Paul said:
The road to hell is paved with good intentions too.
Hey how about getting all your mates in the EPMU like Little to hold a press conference tomorrow and say how good they think the EFA really is. And they could perhaps tell us all about this law that is so full of ‘commonsense’. Finally you should give some tuition to Annette King because by her own admission she doesn’t have a clue what the EFA is about.
May 21st, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Southern Raider
“At least you’ve got the rail back” how come since the announcement there have been companies across the country excited about this prospect. How come for the first time since it was privatised the rail system is once again being talked about by private companies as a branch of infrastructure and tourism that can be exploited.
Your ideological opposition to govts owning stuff just doesn’t hold water here. Under Toll there was massive under investment in rolling stock, capital expenditure and the rail business. One week after the announcement there has been a frenzy of commercial interests all wanting a piece of this asset.
BTW big bollocks, there is nothing to stop strikes under private or public ownership, that is until National takes away one of the most fundamental rights any worker has. The right to withdraw one’s labour to fight perceived injustices is about as fundamental as you could get. To suggest otherwise is verging on totalitarianism, which seems to be the buzz of the right this evening. To ban strikes is to ban free speech, again something that the right seems keen on here.
Sorry sunshine, your comments just don’t hold true,.
May 21st, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Paul (1003)
May 21st, 2008 at 7:26 pm
“well done in silencing the voice of the workers of NZ. With people like these the workers must be bloody worried what National will introduce to shaft them again”
This was a decision of the High Court, which heard arguments from the concerned parties. The High
Court made the decision, not the National Party, nor the readers of this blog. The decision was made on the basis of what the legislation says. The legislation was drafted for and passed by the Labour Government.
So if any person (in a legal sense) has “silenced the voice of the workers” it is the present administration. Or are you now suggesting the High Court is anything other than legally correct and politically neutral?
Would you prefer in fact that citizens (including workers) did not have the right of redress to the courts as well? Perhaps the Labour Party can repeal the Bill of Rights next – surely its only in need of a “technical adjustment”?
BTW, nome, congratulations for what is by my reckoning the lowest karma score ever.
May 21st, 2008 at 8:12 pm
“you have a duty as a citizen, and to your society to stand up and be counted when power is abused like this”
which is the same as going on strike and something that is abhorrent to the right. A little of the tar brush to be applied to all arguments don’t you think?
To all of the extremists here who believe that free speech has been killed by this bill, it hasn’t. Is it not a fundamental right of the voter to know whom is putting money up for massive smear campaigns? You can not answer no to this.
If I want to spend more than 12K on election campaigning I must register, that is a good thing. I won’t be so I don’t have to, very bloody simple.
May 21st, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Paul said,
Like who?
May 21st, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Sean it was those who took the action to the high court who should hang their heads. They did this with the express intention of silencing a political voice they don’t want to hear.
“Would you prefer in fact that citizens (including workers) did not have the right of redress to the courts as well” Well it was pretty clear under National. They took away the fundamental right of the worker to withdraw their labour. You don’t get any more repression of free speech than that – full stop. Lets see if National goes down that path again and see you lot defend this action.
May 21st, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Paul the low standard is posting this
“Crown Law advice was that the EPMU was not a person and it’s clear as day that the EFA was never intended to exclude democratic organisations such as the EPMU from campaigning. This is a weak point of the law that has failed under heavy (and expensive) legal attack by National and it needs to be fixed.”
The left is spewing because they tried to screw the country by blocking everyone but their own supporters and they got caught by the same net.
Labour reminds me of the bumbling crooks on Home Alone. Yes Labour is crooked and evil, but just not very good at it.
May 21st, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Lindsay anyone here who has denigrated people because they are homosexual, female, poor etc etc. It’s an all too familiar ploy of the posters on this blog to have a go at the weakest and marginalised. Just over the last day I have been told that tax is theft, that homosexuals are bad, that the rise of females within the economic and political elite is a bad thing.
If these thoughts aren’t extremist then please tell me what is.
May 21st, 2008 at 8:21 pm
nobody has answered the question. How was Nationals removal of the right to strike any less a removal of freedom?
May 21st, 2008 at 8:44 pm
That’s right Paul we’re all rabid right wing extremists. Lock up your daughters.
May 21st, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Answer the question, is the view of the right that the Right to Strike is a bad thing as indicated here and as enacted by National, and if so how is that quashing of freedoms any less than the so called loss of freedoms here.
May 21st, 2008 at 9:07 pm
How about the freedom of letting families actually enjoy their Christmas holidays without your wanker bully boy mates holding up the Interislander?
How about the freedom of being able to go to work during a strike without being called a scab and assaulted by the union members?
How about the freedom of being able to sensibly discuss whether the Govt departments are operating efficiently without the PSA using scaremongering to make the feeble public think they are going to die on waiting room tables?
May 21st, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Paul, no one should “hang their heads”. As heirs to the English common law tradition all citizens have the right to seek redress in the courts. Their intention is irrelevant. The High Court has the power to dismiss any cause of action it finds is vexatious or without merit. The fact that the Court not only agreed to hear this case but entered a judgment shows there was a valid legal argument. It may not be politically acceptable to you but that is not the point.
As for the right of workers to withdraw labour, this has never been unqualified; if it was, it would be enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
May 21st, 2008 at 10:35 pm
I was going to ignore the diversion into trainsets but in looking back at those threads I found a relevant comment to Paul’s answer the question (very teacherish moment BTW). It’s from First Time Caller:
Strikes (or “withdrawing labour” if you like) for better wages and conditions are one thing. Strikes at the behest of a bunch of idealogical thugs who are calling them for political objectives are quite another.
May 22nd, 2008 at 5:34 am
“Sean it was those who took the action to the high court who should hang their heads. They did this with the express intention of silencing a political voice they don’t want to hear.”
So to your mind, the whole thing is a conspiracy cooked up by right-wing extremists.
My friend it is much simpler than that. Labour wrote a shit Law ‘…. to stop people like the Exclusive Brethren and John Key from rorting the election process.’ (Helen Clark Hansard, September 16th 2007)
She considered it a ‘Beltway issue’ – which is political shorthand for: ‘The thickoes won’t understand it so we can go ahead and do it’.
They did a cut and paste job of various other aspects of electoral legislation to cobble together an NZ version (including interestingly enough, refeence to the Canadian system, but completely ignoring the Canadian model when it discussed caps on union spending, BTW).
Then they got legal poodle Val Sims to judge it did not contravene the BORA, with sweeping statements which, where sound argument could not apply, essentially said,’We usually let Parliament decide what is right when it somes to Human Rights and Electoral Law’.
At Select Committee, they loaded the deck with sympathetic advocates who disregarded objections, then brought in Nicky Hager, who At teh committee came up with this classic: “I don’t have concrete evidence as such, but i am pretty sure that National had a hand in writing the EB’s pamphlets.’ and who essentially used teh committeee to plug the information he’s acquired illegally to make up his book the Hollow Men. It was essentially a state-sponsored book-plug to keep a fire lit under an extravagant conspiracy theory, which it was hoped could be applied to the new Leader of the Oppostition at some stage.
The Select Committee also made a great show of ignoring the concerns of the Law Society; ie:
“Withdrawing the bill and starting again would enable a Regulatory Impact Statement and a list of those consulted to be added to the Explanatory Note. Both are notably absent from this bill.
Accordingly the Society submits that the current Bill should be abandoned and a process embarked upon whereby:
the principles to which New Zealand aspires in terrns of its democratic process are identified (clause 3(a) to (e) may indeed identify these);
the areas where current law fails to embody and protect these principles are determined; and
fair and practical solutions to these problems are formulated.”
The Committee also failed to address this from those other rabid right-wing extremits, the HRC:
“A human rights approach to democratic government requires genuine participation. Genuine participation, in turn, requires an informed electorate. By limiting freedom of expression and creating a complex regulatory framework in the way it does, the Electoral Finance Bill unduly limits the rights of all New Zealanders to participate in the electoral process. The Commission therefore considers that the Bill is inherently flawed and should be withdrawn.”
you really need to get out more often, Paul
May 22nd, 2008 at 5:39 am
Nice reply Lee.
May 22nd, 2008 at 6:02 am
“Sean it was those who took the action to the high court who should hang their heads. They did this with the express intention of silencing a political voice they don’t want to hear.”
So to your mind, the whole thing is a conspiracy cooked up by right-wing extremists.
My friend it is much simpler than that. Labour wrote a shit Law; ‘…. to stop people like the Exclusive Brethren and John Key from rorting the election process.’
(Helen Clark Hansard, September 16th 2007)
She considered it a ‘Beltway issue’ – which is political shorthand for: ‘The thickoes won’t understand it so we can go ahead and do it’.
They, under the incompetent Burton, did a cut and paste job of various other aspects of electoral legislation to cobble together an NZ version (including interestingly enough, refeence to the Canadian system, but completely ignoring the Canadian model when it discussed caps on union spending, BTW).Then they got legal poodle Val Sims to judge it did not contravene the BORA, with sweeping statements which, where sound argument could not apply, essentially said,’We usually let Parliament decide what is right when it somes to Human Rights and Electoral Law’.
At Select Committee, they loaded the deck with sympathetic advocates who disregarded objections, then brought in Nicky Hager, who At the committee came up with this classic:
“I don’t have concrete evidence as such, but I am pretty sure that National had a hand in writing the EB’s pamphlets.’
and who essentially used the committeee to plug the information he’d acquired illegally to make up his book the Hollow Men. It was essentially a state-sponsored book-plug to keep a fire lit under an extravagant conspiracy theory, which it was hoped could be applied to the new Leader of the Oppostition at some stage.
The Select Committee also made a great show of ignoring the concerns of the Law Society; ie Withdrawing the bill and starting again would enable a Regulatory Impact Statement and a list of those consulted to be added to the Explanatory Note. Both are notably absent from this bill.Accordingly the Society submits that the current Bill should be abandoned and a process embarked upon whereby:the principles to which New Zealand aspires in terrns of its democratic process are identified (clause 3(a) to (e) may indeed identify these);the areas where current law fails to embody and protect these principles are determined; andfair and practical solutions to these problems are formulated.”
The Committee also failed to address this from those other rabid right-wing extremists, the HRC:
“A human rights approach to democratic government requires genuine participation. Genuine participation, in turn, requires an informed electorate. By limiting freedom of expression and creating a complex regulatory framework in the way it does, the Electoral Finance Bill unduly limits the rights of all New Zealanders to participate in the electoral process. The Commission therefore considers that the Bill is inherently flawed and should be withdrawn.”
But, in the face of all of this documented information, it all boils down to a National-Party -ed conspiracy to suppress freedom of expression. A funny thing though, isn’t it some on the left are the first to denigrate the ‘freedom of expression’ when concerned citizens go on marches often on the basisi that the numbers are too small to qualify as real politics. That too, is in the spirit of the EFA, wherin a bunch of bullies thought that ‘might-equals-right’ and used their numbers to ram through an undemocratic law.
However, if you are into conspiracies, how about this one? So now to why this happened. IMO.The last election was narrowly ‘won’ by Labour courtesy of the National-EB conspiracy. What better way to win the 2008 election than by introducing a contentious piece of legislation which, if challenged by National would be trotted out to assert that Key is merely ‘Brash 2′ and in cahoots with shadowy right-wing power-brokers. Labour strategists clearly thought they could ram this through, and the opposition, keen to wash its hands of anything which might suggest they are in bed with the EB or other ‘right-wing extremists’ would fold. National and Labour’s enemies would be limited in their expression (no more nasty nasty bill-boards, remember) and Labour could double-dip into the tax-dollars to fund an expensive multi-media dog-whistler campaign to persuade voters that they have never had it so good, while nasty National would do everything to sell the family silver to the highest bidder.
But bless his socks, Key out-thought them. At the eleventh hour, just as Labour were gearing up to link National to the far-right Christian anti s.59 amenders, he came out with a comprimise! F**k! so that screwed the Key and religious-nutter link, thus taking the fuel out of future Key-EB link conspiracies. Suddenly, the EFA, rather than being a stick with which to beat Key with was turning on its very designers.
It all went so terribly wrong! The plan was to design a law to advantage Labour, and embarrass National. It was going to be the flag-ship on which Labour would cruise to victory, while the opposition, gagged and impotent could only watch from the side-lines! But it became the Trojan Horse in Labour’s camp, highlighting not only Hlene’s dictatorial nature for all to see, but also (and this is her real crime) exposing her lack of political judgement in starkest relief, at a most crucial time. Result? A major Unions’ freedom of expression suppressed, where before it was not. All courtesy of a Party which clearly thought it was above the Law.
This is why the EFA will be Helen’s epitaph.
May 22nd, 2008 at 6:24 am
Apologies for double-posts – moderators (if yo are out there, can you please delet my second and third, more log-winded versions? thnx.