Labour says law should not apply to them

July 26th, 2011 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

Damien O’Connor blogs at Red Alert:

I thought we lived in a free democracy. Since when did a sign become illegal when expressing an opinion or encouraging people to act? Does this ban all signs at marches that may in any way be linked to a movement or political party. The EC needs to pull their heads in. This is not the 1930s in Europe.

And chips in:

Hope the Electoral Commission is reading this. Is this what our democracy has come to?

I agree with you Damien

So equate being forced to obey the electoral laws, as akin to Nazi Germany.  The sad thing is that they have got so used to being above the law, that they really do think it appalling that an independent agency will not kowtow to them. In fact the post is a barely veiled threat against the Electoral Commission.

What is especially ironic is that Damien voted for the Electoral Finance Act which would had far more restrictive laws, than the current .

Also in case people think Labour is right, and you can no longer wave a sign at a march – this is not the case. The only requirement is that the sign have an authorisation statement on it, if it can be considered an election advertisment. And this has in fact been the law for the last 15 years or so.

So what Damien is really complaining about is transparency. Transparency is what he compares to Nazi Germany.

As if one needed another reason why Labour is unfit for office, this is it.

Tags: , , ,

24 Responses to “Labour says law should not apply to them”

  1. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    The ironies are practially bursting at the seams here – the fact that these clowns were party to the EFA rushed through under urgency one Christmas vacation, Mind you. the Electoral Commission criticised them at the time, so let’s face it their tendency to malign the EC is on record already.

    The fact that they are equating the EC with some kind of pressure group that should be discredited or ignored in the interests of their narrow political views, ironic given that it’s existence is an aspect of electoral law.

    Another irony is how when they are making electoral law regardless of the majority view, they love to quote ‘The Tyranny of the Majority’ as their justification for telling us, the voter, what to do, but when they are on the wrong end of it suddenly they become barricade-storming defenders of ‘Democracy’.

    But also this is ironic because because their appeals for ‘justice’ and ‘transparency’ are just the kind of ‘holier than thou’ kind of claptrap that would appeal to the masses and which would sit so well in the mouths of historical demogogues – amongst them, those who rose to prominence int the thirties in Europe.

    This reads like a Political Party sounding more like a snared rat chewing off its own foot so it might hobble away before the rat-trapper arrives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Nookin (3,266 comments) says:

    This puts paid to their defences that it was a mistake, the law was confusing or that the law changed without them realising the significance. As we have long suspected, the law does not apply to them even though they supported it at the time.

    Will MSM give this any oxygen? Not bleeding likely!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. alex Masterley (1,507 comments) says:

    Mr Parker needs to be asked if he believes in the rule of law.
    The answer would be interesting to hear.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Inventory2 (10,265 comments) says:

    Similar thoughts DPF, but mine were up earlier than yours!

    http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2011/07/is-damien-in-trouble.html

    But could O’Connor’s bleat mean that the Police have decided that this time, it IS in the public interest to prosecute the Labour Party?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Nookin (3,266 comments) says:

    Rule of law? Shit, where’s Penny?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. wreck1080 (3,866 comments) says:

    Labour started this huge crackdown on electoral financing.

    Yet, they are the ones who seem to break the rules, and complain the most.

    I suspect, labour mp’s tend to be less educated therefore unaware of the laws they kicked into action.

    Makes you wonder, do they need a central office to verify advertising activities? Due to their stupidity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Elaycee (4,353 comments) says:

    DPF Says: “The sad thing is that they have got so used to being above the law, that they really do think it appalling that an independent agency will not kowtow to them.”

    The entire matter in a nutshell.

    Based on this synchronised ‘outrage’ that the rules are being enforced, it appears they may have been given the message that there will be a Police prosecution. No longer can Labour claim that they didn’t know the rules etc – they have been made very clear to them on numerous occasions. But no doubt they’ll claim innocence and try to bluster their way past any prosecution and end up paying the fine from Party coffers…. oh oh, therein lies another problem.

    No sympathy from this direction. None at all. A prosecution couldn’t be made against a bigger bunch of hypocrites.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    I’m surprised to hear that Damien O’Connor can use a computer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. alex Masterley (1,507 comments) says:

    Nookin,
    The same question should be asked of Lianne Dalzeill and Charles Chauvell as well.
    They are aslo lawyers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. burt (8,199 comments) says:

    Scum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    I know O’Connor isn’t exactly the brightest fairy light on the political Christmas tree, but doesn’t Curran have some ambition for a ministerial warrant in the next Labour government? She’s not going to have a good time of it if she’s going to Godwin every civil servant who doesn’t toe the line.

    Still, I’m sure the Electoral Commission will happily organise a briefing on the Electoral Act for MPs who don’t bother reading the legislation they vote for. It’s also a short walk up the hill to Victoria University. I’m confident that someone in the School of History, Philosophy, Political Science and International Relations can explain in very small words the difference between electioneering in this nation and “the 1930s in Europe.” (Basically, Herr Hitler, Il Duce, Comrade Stalin and Generalísimo Franco didn’t believe in elections. Or opposition parties.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    Yes they are hypocrites. Yes they are scum. Yes they flout the law. Yes they [insert stupid, desperate action]. Meantime, Key’s government borrows more than Labour ever did much of it because reduced spending would lower their popularity. And isn’t your message and your popularity communicated via marketing? Having control of the treasury benches should be a marketing free pass, as so many here – including me – pointed out to the last Labour government

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    Craig said @8.31am “doesn’t Curran have some ambition for a ministerial warrant in the next Labour government?”

    If she can wait that long ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    But KrazyKiwi – as you rightly did (not) point out – National’s situation as sad as it is – this isn’t akin to ‘ Europe in the thirties’ nor a terrible indictment of ‘what our Democracy has come to’.

    What it does indicate is that even though you (and perhaps several of us) are consistent in our views. Sadly the likes of O’Connor and his chief cheerleader Curran appear to be political wind-socks blowing hard in whatever prevailing wind they happen to pick up.

    I just wish they had been so vociferous in their defence of ‘Democracy’ and against the ‘Godwin thing’ when the EFB was being rammed through Parliament. I can’t for the life of me imagine what Road to Damascus experience has caused them to review their principles –

    unless it’s called a ‘Being assured of a regular pay-check’.

    On the bright side at least prostitution is legal, so at least we can’t accuse them of breaking that particular law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Scott Chris (6,024 comments) says:

    Damien O’Connor walked into that one. Clare Curran would be well advised to moderate HIS future comments. With regard to labeling a political opponent ‘scum'; must we resort to cheap insults?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Muzza M (291 comments) says:

    The current Labour party really piss me off. New Zealand needs a good opposition party to keep the incumbent party honest. This current Labour lot should all just fuck off and make way for some fresh blood who have not been tainted with Klarkism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. MT_Tinman (3,094 comments) says:

    With regard to labeling a political opponent ‘scum’; must we resort to cheap insults?

    Yes.

    They’re not worthy of expensive ones.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. adze (2,089 comments) says:

    I’m beginning to think that the solution to these ridiculous Nazi comparisons is to utterly overuse the term and make it banal and meaningless.

    Paying a bit extra for your petrol? It’s Nazi Germany. Parking ticket? It’s those brownshirts I tells ya! Spot of cold weather? Keep warm with a brisk Nuremburg Rally!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Mick Mac (1,091 comments) says:

    Problem is Muzza all the present lot including the two Davids are of the same mould so we need a complete clear out for the good of the country and that is not going to happen so we’re stuffed for a good opposition who work on principle.

    We are between a rock and a hard place with shonkey and the risible ACT.
    Why is this?
    Because the majority of New Zealanders can’t stop putting their hands out for government money and continue to vote for people who will give it to them, with all the attendant strings attached.
    Until that stops we can’t go anywhere as a country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Muzza M (291 comments) says:

    Mick Mac – yep

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. MT_Tinman (3,094 comments) says:

    Mick Mac until NZ gets rid of this bloody silly democracy thing and only allows the productive (i.e. the taxpayer) to vote on how their taxes are distributed the something-for-nothing NZ mindset will not change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Paulus (2,598 comments) says:

    Curren appears to be becoming very frustrated in her comments. Her fall out with Oberfuhrer Mallard will not have humoured her.

    I would be amazed if she can wait that long, possibly 2018 or later for a ministerial warrant. She is not popular with her colleagues, but most of those will be long gone by then.

    Perhaps she will stamp her foot, and go back to Australia.

    Sadly she appears to have been a disapointment from what seemed to be a good beginning. Perhaps her tautology with getting the language right has not succeeded with her ignorant colleagues, who never understood what she was actually talking about anyway. Too far above their heads.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. RightNow (6,968 comments) says:

    That thread on Red Blert is delightfully entertaining. Idiot Savant made one of the best comments:

    What’s illegal is pubishing an electoral advertisement without a promoter statement. And that’s been illegal since 1977, and re-stated in every update of electoral law since.

    This is not a new law. What’s new is the insistence of one of our major parties that they do not have to obey it. And I really don’t think that’s acceptable.

    Ghostwhowanks said

    Whats new is the ability of farragoblog and oily cetacean to make lots of noise about labours signs.

    which really translates to “what’s new is the increased likelihood of getting caught”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. ThisReallyIsBobsOwnRhythm (1 comment) says:

    This is exactly why Labour can’t get any traction.

    Firstly, they piss the public off by being holier than thou and acting above the law.

    Secondly, they’re too afraid to take risks by sufficiently promoting the newer members of their caucus. They’re the Opposition for Chrissakes, what does it matter if one of them makes a rookies error? Can one fresh-faced MP’s faux pas bring worse doom and gloom than the current poll ratings?

    Goff is the sort of guy who would be keen to promote young talent. But he understands that in Labour politics loyalty is more important than competency. So those poor talented suckers under the surface in the caucus will endure the woes of Opposition while the presiding front bench of idiots and retreds lock Labour into oblivion long into the future.

    Finally, they do nasty things like try to borrow limelight from the Norway Attacks. With all due respect Labour hacks, the terrible acts committed many thousands of kilometres away are not actually about you!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.