September 23, 2005 6:32am by David Farrar

Free speech in Helen’s way

The Dominion Post editorial strongly attacks Helen Clark’s request for Parliament to review third party advertising in campaigns.

They conclude that “She was implying, of course, that, because the religious sect had not backed Labour or the Greens, it should not be allowed to support anyone else. What about freedom of speech?”

The editorial also mentions the Bill of Rights, namely “Section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act

Share this:
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
WhatsApp
More
Pinterest
Print
Tumblr
Like this:
Like Loading...

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment47

Uncategorised

Comments (47)

Login to comment or vote

Logix

At the same time DPF you must be aware that the current rules around political party advertising have some great big loopholes regarding third parties. I would suspect neither Labour nor National have clean hands in this respect.

So the harm in a review of this matter is?

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 6:43am

Belt

…the harm is that it is one sided, logix.

And to me it confirms the major reason I believe Helen had to go: She’s no longer grounded.

Labour paid for part of their campaign with my money. Still haven’t seen that one come home to roost, and doubt it will.

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 7:22am

James Doherty

Do you think New Zealanders will care if Labour changes the law so that only the unions can support a particular party?

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 7:49am

tim barclay

I hope she winds this up. It is the Labour Party that gets masses of assistance from 3rd parties. The National Party gets very little. And then when she tries to get exemptions for the Unions how is that going to succeed. This is going to be fun.

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 8:03am

weizguy

The problem is not with third parties, the problem is with dishonest representation by third parties.

I see so many right wing pundits criticising the PM for allegedly deceiving the public about her marriage, but when the Brethren use false names and hide behind anonymity, they don’t have a problem.

When I read a brochure prepared by the PPTA, the PSA, or the EPMU, I know of their inherent biases, and I am able to judge the information with that in mind.

When I read a brochure by the “New Zealand Advocates for Timely Healthcare”, I do not know of the bias without being advised. I do not know that there is no NZATH, and that it was a convenient way to hide the pamphleteers’ true identity and agenda.

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 8:29am

PatMC

My money, your money, our money was spent producing massive election propaganda for the Labour party bearing the Parliamentary crest signifying that it was paid for by taxpayers. Pledge cards to every household with glossy airbrushed falsifications. Brochures aplenty and banners. Many untold thousands of dollars of funds earned by hard working New Zealanders forced to contribute to the Labour re-election campaign. Private citizens are legally entitled to communicate their opinions to the public and pay to do so.
Governments are not legally entitled to spend taxpayers money on self-interest and self promotion..
Arrogance of the left.
Arrogance of the left.
Arrogance of the left.

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 9:20am

RWDB

“but when the Brethren use false names and hide behind anonymity,”

When did this happen? All the pamphlets I’m aware of had contact information on them.

Provide an example or withdraw your statement and apologize.

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 9:54am

weizguy

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/484445/609020

I also recall that the press contacted the occupier of one of the other addresses, who had never heard of the person that claimed to live at the address.

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 10:10am

RWDB

Is English your third language weizguy? There is nothing in that article about false names or anonymous brochures.

Your false addresses claim is irrelevant. You specifically mentioned false NAMES, and anonymous brochures. Given your complete failure to cite evidence of either means we can assume you are just another lefty who makes things up.

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 10:30am

Russell Brown

RWDB: “When did this happen? All the pamphlets I’m aware of had contact information on them. Provide an example or withdraw your statement and apologize.”

The EB created a fake (ie: it existed only in name) health pressure group for two of its pamphlets. In at least one case, the authorising names was a variant not otherwise used by the man responsible (“Stephen Win”, who otherwise goes by the name Myles Win). Win subsequently posted two security guards outside his house rather than simply acknowledge his role when Jeanette Fitzsimons came around to ask.

When the Herald contacted the Brent Place, Christchurch address given in one of the first pamphlets, its reporter was told there was no one there by the name “J. Hawkins” (I’m actually still not clear on who J. Hawkins actually is).

EB leader Greg Mason claimed that the ‘Green Delusion’ pamphlet had been entirely devised and written “from scratch” in New Zealand – a claim revealed as a flat-out lie when the Greens sourced a near-identical pamphlet produced by the EB in Australia.

And, naturally, none of the pamphlets mentioned the EB as their source. They acted deceptively, frankly.

Cheers,
RB

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 10:33am

Craig Ranapia

Weizguy:

If Helen wants to ban “third party endorsements”, this should be a very interesting piece of legislation. Will that include a ban on newspapers/talkback radio/blogs containing any third-party support of one party’s policy over another during a campaign? Will Parliament seek to regulate anonymous bloggers and partisan websites like BloodyIdiot.com or KeepLeft?

As I said, Helen should put up or shut up.

As for the unions, I find it interesting that the union my partner belongs to claims to be ‘non-party political’ while using my partner’s union dues to pay for attack adverts on Don Brash and the National Party. Too cute for words, and every bit as dishonest as the EB ‘secret seven’.

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 10:54am

Scott

Oh goodness,

the EB issue again. EB is just a small fish. The biggest scandal is UNIONs involvement. EB ‘scandal’ involved $500,000 of private money. UNIONs one involved taxpayers money.

Sure people don’t like what EB has done, but the same people didn’t like EB in the first place. Nothing’s changed except for the added hoohaa.

UNIONS ARE USING TAXPAYERS MONEY…!!!! no? .. nobody interested?

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 10:59am

M'lud

Legislation over third-party endorsements would be unworkable, either because it would abolish in some respect the right to freedom of speech, or because it would swiftly become a massive tome, endlessly updated as new ways around it were found. Not even Labour has the gall to give unions a free pass on this one.

Mind you, abolishing free speech might not trouble Helen, look at what she did to that pilot.

Everyone repeat after me: We love the Glorious Leader, We love the Glorious Leader, We love…

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 11:29am

Russell Brown

This argument is going to go nowhere, as usual. But let’s put it this way: “trade unions back Labour” isn’t news, and hasn’t been news for about seven decades.

But “extreme religious sect that doesn’t believe in democracy secretly backs National” *is* news.

No one else seems to be saying it, but I think the Brethren business did hurt National’s urban vote, along with the blathering about the “mainstream” and the devil-may-care Treaty policy. I know twentysomething voters who were essentially in sympathy with National’s economic slate who went elsewhere because they got the creeps about the other stuff.

Given that National stands a very strong chance of leading a government in three years time, I really hope that it has rediscovered itself as a modern, mainstream party by then.

Cheers,
RB

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 11:29am

Craig Ranapia

RB:

If the authorisations are fake, the people involved should be prosecuted for breeching the Electoral Act. As far as I’m aware, no complaints have been laid alleging ANY illegal behaviour.

As for distasteful and deceptive behaviour, I think those adjectives apply just as well to unions that claim to be non-party political while paying for anti-National/anti-Brash attack ads. I support their right to free speech, but I don’t like being treated like a fool.

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 11:41am

TomS

I think such a review would be timely. The Exclusive Bretheren palaver is a foretaste of American style “Swift Boat Veterans” attacking a candidate or party in a way the efeectively circumvents the spending limits imposed on parties in the interests of democracy. We need to nip that sort of politics in the bud, before it reduces our VERY robust and healthy democracy to the moribund, oossified one party state (with two wings) that is the United States today.

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 12:00pm

Craig Ranapia

RB wrote:
No one else seems to be saying it, but I think the Brethren business did hurt National’s urban vote…

I reply:
You may well be right, but I also think there’s a lot of angst going on behind closed doors over Labour’s campaign. I’ve talked to more than a few basically sympathetic Labour voters who either fliped their party vote or ticked Labour with with the phrase ‘lesser of two evils’ upmost in their minds.

But “the secret seven” sure didn’t turn out to be the [insert own headline cliche here] folks were expecting did it?

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 12:02pm

Paul W

Craig, I think you’re wrong to argue that unions (and likewise some business organisations) are unclear about their leanings – they generally are not.

The issue is those organisations that provide less than full disclosure about who they are – the point about the swift boat Vets is well made. RB and weizguy have not, to my reading, argued that the NZBR are doing anything other than promoting policies to their members advantage, likewise EPMU. I think your attempt to defend or minimise the EB incident is mistaken. Whether it justifies a review is a moot point.

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 12:22pm

Adolf Fiinkensein

I’d like to see some reliable analysis on how much money Labour actually stole by way of the parliamentary crest rorts. Then I’d like to see some reliable analysis on how much money was funnelled through the unions by way of so called ‘contestable grants’ to find its way into pro Labour electioneering.

My uneducated guess is that, excluding the grossly partisan promotion of ‘Working For Families,’ which became labour’s major election promise, Labour will be found to have used somewhere in the region of $10 million of my money to buy its election campaign.

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 12:28pm

RWDB

Russell, thank you for confirming there’s no solid evidence of false names or anonymous pamphlets. Thank you for backing me up.

Come on weizguy, withdraw and say sorry, Russell demands it!

“But “extreme religious sect that doesn’t believe in democracy secretly backs National” *is* news.”

Why? Everyone is entitled to free speech, no matter their views. Of the 15 claims made in the anti-Greens brochure, 14 were totally accurate, so it wasn’t a smear campaign (as Judy Bailey claimed). I simply do not see how ANYONE putting out privately funded pamphlets (that complied with the electoral act and were factually accurate) is news, unless you are engaging in barrow-pushing for the ninth floor spin doctors.

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 12:40pm

weizguy

Are ad hominems your raison d’etre RWDB?

“When the Herald contacted the Brent Place, Christchurch address given in one of the first pamphlets, its reporter was told there was no one there by the name “J. Hawkins” (I’m actually still not clear on who J. Hawkins actually is).”

This is a false declaration. Are you saying that it is okay to say that your name is John Smith because a person by that name does exist, even if they don’t live at that address.

“Come on weizguy, withdraw and say sorry, Russell demands it!”

Rubbish – keep dreaming.

Craig – I don’t want the banning of third party endorsement any more than the PM does. What I would like is transparency. Why did the Brethren have to hide their identities?

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 1:48pm

Gary

Paul W said, “The issue is those organisations that provide less than full disclosure about who they are…”

When it comes to secret agendas, I have a lot more concern about the media in NZ which many people assume is neutral, but which consistently shows itself to be little more than a left-wing cheer squad! There was very little negative publicity of the government leading up to the election. In spite of strong evidence of Ministerial Assault Squads, MP’s Samoan Work Schemes, taxpayer-funded Labour Re-election Programs and more PM lies about telling lies, none of these chickens came home to roost for Labour. Unbelievable!

The media is so compliant, apart from a few noteable exceptions, that the public has been hoodwinked. “It was in the newspaper, so it must be true.” Unfortunately, too many people don’t understand how false this statement is now, and relied on the media to give them facts, when all they actually recieved was spin.

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 1:55pm

RWDB

Weizguy, this is from TVNZ: http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411749/609279

“And J Hawkins whose Christchurch address was printed on an anti-Labour pamphlet, has his home listed in the (EB) address book but at a different location.”

So it is a real name. It may be a false address, or he may have moved house or whoever answered the phone told porkies to the Herald, who knows. But it is a real name. You said “false names”. So you’re wrong. Say sorry. Or come up with some actual evidence.

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 2:02pm

weizguy

So you accept that I culd write down any name of a real person, claim that the person lived at premier house, and that would be a true representation?

The logical extension of your argument is that no name is false, so long as one person in the world has that name. I look forward to seeing pamphlets authorised by Osama Bin Laden, Main Street USA, Disneyland.

Now you’re accusing the occupier of the house of lying? Just so you can side with the Brethren? Bizarre.

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 2:12pm

Rational

I think any union member should be legally entitled to a rebate on their union fees equivalent to their share of the the cost of political advertising. If I belong to a union and do not agree with their political endorsements then I should not have to pay for it. I think any truly democratic review could would point to two acceptable outcomes:

1) Ban all such promotion including business groups and unions PPTA from undertaking such endorsements. I’m not sure this is practical

2) Allow any 3rd party endorsement campaign as long as it wadoes not promote outright inaccurate information.

Any attempt to regulate some form of middle ground is prone to causing an unfair advantage to one group or another. I beleive trying to make such a distinction is too suubtle to fairly unhold a democracy. Either ban Bretheren and union type endorsements or allow both. It is scary that some people who say they advocate democracy but are willing to restrict only one type of endorsement. Even America allows both sides to present an argument however ridiculos they may be. As much as I disliked the Bretheren actions, making a regulatory distinction between a union type endorsement and the Bretheren campain is a dangerous precendent.

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 2:56pm

Paul W

Yawn, Gary haven’t we done the media bias already – you’re entitled to your opinion but you might want to present an argument to support it (all the apparent issues you’ve noted were covered by the media by the way). In my experience, most journos are pretty much neutral.

My view is that National problem with the media is a function of average talent – Brash is boring, Brownlie is pedestrian, Key is the only one who’s got any damn personality and he fared very well I thought.

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 3:08pm

RWDB

“So you accept that I culd write down any name of a real person, claim that the person lived at premier house, and that would be a true representation?”

No, but you could write down your OWN REAL NAME, and claim you lived at premier house, and it would still be your OWN REAL NAME.

The pamphlet had the man’s OWN REAL NAME on it. You claimed the EB used false names. Provide an example, or say sorry.

Provide an example, or say sorry.

Provide an example, or say sorry.

“Now you’re accusing the occupier of the house of lying?”

You really do get very confused, don’t you? No, I’m saying quite the opposite: we don’t know enough to accuse anyone of anything related to the address discrepancy. It’s not the issue anyway: You accused the brethren of using false names. They haven’t.

Provide an example, or say sorry.

PS I’m not siding with the brethren, I think they are a group of wierdos, to put it mildly. What I am siding with is the facts, and the right of any group to exercise free speech.

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 3:10pm

dim

Gary wrote: ‘There was very little negative publicity of the government leading up to the election.’

Oh yeah. Except for massive media coverage of the NCEA debacle, the 111 scandal, the motorcade, dodgy Student Loans Costings, Taito-Field, Clark at Canterbury, Pilot-gate, the Wananga, the boring budget, Doonegate and Cullens mysterious windfall the media basically gave Labour a free pass.

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 3:14pm

weizguy

Sorry dude – repeating an order won’t make me obey you – especially since I disagree with you.

“or whoever answered the phone told porkies to the Herald”

You introduced the suggestion that the occupier of the house had been dishonest. We know that the Brethren in question gave an incorrect address. I’m not confused at all.

What is the NZATH exactly?

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 3:19pm

Paul W

RWDB: if you’ve got a weak point: shout (or repeat it over and over again).

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 3:20pm

johnie

The poor old righties have to blame someone for them not winning the election…I maean, it can’t be the fault of their policies, or the personalities they chose to present them, can it?

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 3:22pm

dim

Well, Myles Win listed himself as Stephen Win on his pamphlet (Stephen is his middle name). Debateable as to whether that’s giving a false name, but it certainly involves an element of subterfuge.

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 3:24pm

Scott

There is a nickname weizguy in smilecity.co.nz forum, as I recall, he is a socialist and a very strong supporter of Labour.

If this weizguy is the same one, ofcourse he will keep attacking Nats over EB issue.

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 3:44pm

Paul W

Scott: it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that you’ve effectively conceded you can’t win this argument on the strength of your own views.

The points made by weizguy and others about the EBs are directly relevant to DPF’s criticisms of Helen’s desire to see the rules for third-party campaigning tightened up.

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 3:52pm

Scott

johnie, go and play with aunty Helen.

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 3:53pm

dim

Don’t mess with Scott – if you make him cry he’ll get his Dad to beat you up . . .

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 4:06pm

RWDB

Paul W: weizguy claimed the Brethren used false names. I am simply asking him to front up with evidence or admit he is a liar. He won’t do either because he is a liar, a coward and a weasel. I repeated the request, and used capitals because his reading skills are not good.

Weizguy: “You introduced the suggestion that the occupier of the house had been dishonest.”

Wrong. I said it was POSSIBLE that the occupier had been dishonest. It is POSSIBLE that you are a member of the Brethren yourself. I’m not suggesting either statement is true, or even likely, just that they are possible.

“We know that the Brethren in question gave an incorrect address.”

No we don’t. Maybe it was his correct address, but he lied to the Herald when they called. Maybe the address in the Brethren directory was old. Maybe he has two houses. We do not know.

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 4:33pm

Paul W

RWDB, most on this blog attempt an argument, you’re comments are the blog equivalent of “I know you are but what am I”. I think it’s generally understood that the EBs were anything but upfront about who they were or what they were doing, even Brash was confused and he met with them!

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 4:46pm

anon

“What I would like is transparency. Why did the Brethren have to hide their identities?”

Well gee, do you think that they may have just anticipated the oh-so-nuetral media coming out with hysterical adjectives like secretive, shadowy, reclusive, extremist……?

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 5:20pm

RWDB

Paul, weizguy made a claim. I am asking if he has any evidence to back up that claim. How this equates to “I know you are but what am I” I do not know.

The pamphlets were fact-based, complied with the Electoral Act (they haven’t been prosecuted), and paid for privately. Beyond that it isn’t anybody else’s business. Those who think it is have no respect for free speech.

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 5:49pm

Paul W

RWDB: “I am asking if he has any evidence to back up that claim.”

And he did. You then quibbled about whether or not using your middle name and putting down another address was misleading – I think it’s clear that it is (though perhaps you and Brash miss this point).

The fact that their material complied with the Electoral Act is precisely why Labour is suggesting a review – was that not where we started?

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 6:12pm

Craig Ranapia

Rational wrote:
I think any truly democratic review could would point to two acceptable outcomes:

[…] 2) Allow any 3rd party endorsement campaign as long as it wadoes not promote outright inaccurate information

I reply:
Humm… and who’s going to decide what constitutes “outright inaccuracy” as opposed to a strong difference of opinion, or hyperbolic campaign rhetoric? I think Labour was running misleading, if not outright deceptive, ads on iwi radio stations concerning Tariana Turia’s voting record intended to imply “a vote for the MP is a vote for National”.

Having said that, I don’t know if I want some kind of Ministry of Truth deciding what’s permissible political speech. After all, Mrs. Turia was all over the iwi and mainstream media denouncing them as dishonest. And, IMO, if anyone was fooled into voting Labour by them they’ve gotten exactly the representation they deserve.

As far as this silly cat-fight above goes, providing false particulars in an authorisation is a breech of the Electoral Act. Party X. deciding they don’t like what Group Y. says about them isn’t. I certainly hope disliking someone’s politics or religious beliefs will never be considered prima facae evidence of criminal wrongdoing in this country.

As far as I’m aware, the Greens haven’t laid any complaints alleging specific breeches of electoral law. If they do, I’m sure the allegations will be rigourously investigated and prosecuted. Yet again, perhaps the blogisphere shouldn’t set itself up as jusge, jury and executioner.

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 6:15pm

Paul W

Cat fight, why I never… actually, fair cop.

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 6:23pm

RWDB

No Paul, you’re missing the point. Weizguy said the EB used “false names”. This is wrong. The names one the pamphlets were the actual producers.

It was one small error, I simply wanted weizguy to acknowledge it. That he would not is another demonstration that leftism is a visceral, irrational, close-minded ideology and that its more devoted disciples are immune to reason. Pity.

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 7:14pm

Paul W

RWDB: I’m going to take a lead from Craig here and just let this one go through to the keeper!

0 0
Report
September 23, 2005 11:04pm

tim barclay

This will open the door for National to ban Unions using members money to help the Labour Party unless they have INDIVIDUAL written premission (and have that witnessed by a JP – yeah lets make it really hard) from that member. Bring this on Labour please. The National Party has been wanting to deal to this for some time and now Helen is going to open this can of worms. Yippeeeeee. Yes and we will entrench the legislation as well. Cannot wait to stick this right up Labour’s arse.

0 0
Report
September 24, 2005 7:53am

Chancey Gardiner

Free speech for organisations during elections is limited. The US Supreme court has consistently ruled this way. Its extended restrictions on commercial speech, and as such is not totally unrestricted ( by the government) as ‘personal ‘ speech is.
The commercial speech approach was indroduced since advertisers said we can say what we like , but the SCOTUS has said that the constitution doesnt apply to commercial speech, and can be regulated.
The laws about fund raising for elections, and its restrictions on what organistations can say during election periods have mostly survived court challenge.
One item that will happen is that the authorisation and WHO PAID have to be told to voters.
So the EB would have to be upfront and not hide behind individuals with incomplete names and unused addresses. The same with political parties and other organisations like unions. They would have to have regulated fundraising, with full disclosure. This could cover tax payer funded election material which Rodney Hide has used in Epsom, as has Richard Worth in Epsom and Labour, nationally has done as well.

The days of any organisation who isnt running for office piping up there say without saying who thay are and where the money comes from are over. Even unions will have to set up a separate organistation with voluntary donations to cover election time promotions.

0 0
Report
September 24, 2005 10:00am