About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

August 3, 2007 11:50pm by David Farrar

Still here

Been over on Waiheke Island and there was no mobile Internet coverage. Blogging will resume tomorrow.

Share this:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
WhatsApp
More

Pinterest
Print
Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment12

Uncategorised
DPF

Comments (12)

Login to comment or vote

Castifiore

DPF
Excellent thread on Chinese Government but how about asking the legal beagles what they think of Section 55 re intent to commit a crime – this is truly unbelievable
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 4, 2007 12:06am
Graeme Edgeler

Happy to help Castifiore (I saw the comment in the other thread, but wanted to confirm something before responding).

You’re talking about cl 121 (and by extension cl 157), I think – search warrants available in cases of suspected intent to commit an illegal practice?

Search warrants have, since at least 1957 (and I suspect long before, but I don’t have a copy of the now defunct Crimes Act 1908 on me) been available to search in cases of suspected intent to break the law.

This is not an great extension of the law in relation to Election offences. This is already the law in respect of most other intended offences; arising from, no doubt, the long-standing obligation on police to prevent crime.

The reason it is in the bill is that search warrants, whilst already available in exactly these circumstances in relation to “corrupt practices” under the Electoral Act, weren’t available in respect of “illegal practices” (you can generally only get search warrants in relation to offences that carry prison terms).
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 4, 2007 12:46am
Selma Bouvier

Good information graeme.
The realities of the proposed laws are that they are based on existing restrictions .
All the hysteria about freedom of speech , which isn’t affected,
but the right for other groups to campaign without the existing restrictions that apply to political parties has been proposed to change.

We already have many restrictions on commercial speech, such as advertising.
Political parties are partly covered by commercial speech restrictions ( when they advertise) and partly by restrictions on broadcasting- which national broke –

In the old “rogernomics” days this would be called a level playing field.

By the way DPF do you still watch Fox news avidley like the old days.
or does their Pravda on the Hudson approach to distortion begin to pale on you
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 4, 2007 8:22am
Graeme Edgeler

Selma – unfortunately, large parts of the new law are substantial extensions.

Where the old law regulated “advertising”, the proposed law regulates “any form of words or graphics”. This is a vast extension – the old law didn’t ban political parties from putting out press releases criticising government policy in election year – as written, this one does (political parties can only issue press releases that ask for votes, or ask people not to vote for someone else).

It will be illegal for candidates to hold up placards at protest marches, etc. This is a major inroad on candidates’ free speech.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 4, 2007 9:09am
dad4justice

Dear Selma ,
Does that mean we won’t be getting another Auntie Helen Club pledge card in the mailbox this election ?

It is impossible to have a level playing field dear selma, as labour keep shifting the elevation by changing rules to suit themselves !
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 4, 2007 9:17am
Porcupine

Graeme, very useful information.

“This is a major inroad on candidates’ free speech.”

So answer me this – is the word “candidates’ ” the key to all the righteous indignation. I personlly dont give much of a toss about “candidates'” free speech but his seems to be an afront to my free speech also.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 4, 2007 10:23am
David Farrar

What a surprise – Selma is wrong on the facts yet again. Hey I think she is heading for ten wrong in a row.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 4, 2007 10:30am
Anon

Graeme says: “It will be illegal for candidates to hold up placards at protest marches, etc. This is a major inroad on candidates’ free speech.”

I can’t believe that is true, even with Clark involved in drafting the law. Can you double check?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 4, 2007 10:47am
Ben Wilson

Which mobile connection were you using? I ask because whether it works on Waiheke will be a big factor in my choice.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 4, 2007 10:50am
David Farrar

Vodafone. I could get GPRS but not 3G at the hotel I was at. In the village one had 3G.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 4, 2007 11:00am
Graeme Edgeler

Anon – I have checked. I’ve thought about it a lot – I can only imagine that it is entirely unintended, but that’s what the bill, as drafted says.

Porcupine – no, the word “candidate” isn’t the key to all the righteous indignation. There are grave concerns with some of the third party rules too. I used the candidate restriction as an example because it involves an actual ban – not a ban over $5000 or $60,000 but a total ban. Selma suggested that this bill doesn’t affect free speech – I thought the candidate example was a good one to use to rebut that assertion because it actually makes illegal some forms of (monetarily) free speech.

Concerns around third party spending generally (i.e. for people other than candidates, and political parties) include the $5000 limit for many groups. $60,000 might be justifiable (Crown Law thinks so) but most churches, and other unincorporated bodies like “Vote for the Environment” or “Campaign for Civil Unions” won’t meet the criteria to list as third parties (with a $60,000 limit) and will instead have a $5000 limit. If the law stays as it stands, the Salvation Army’s “we’re all in this together” won’t be able to run next year, for example.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 4, 2007 11:54am
Ben Wilson

Yeah I thought 3G wouldn’t work. Already got GPRS for those days when I absolutely must have the net, no matter how much of a rip. It was useful abroad.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 4, 2007 1:41pm

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Chinese Government Rules on Criticism

Alien attack »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Top Stories

General Debate 22 November 2024
General Debate 23 November 2024
The newest Green MP
Do the KCs believe in democracy
Can we afford such generous research leave?
Secret lawyers
A cunning plan?
Hot off the Press: Term 3 School Attendance Data
The $800,000 lotto draw for researchers
Who are the major emitters?

Recent Posts

RANZ Update 23 November 2024
Who are the major emitters? 23 November 2024
A whale on a prediction market 23 November 2024
General Debate 23 November 2024 23 November 2024
Can we afford such generous research leave? 23 November 2024
Secret lawyers 22 November 2024
Do the KCs believe in democracy 22 November 2024
The newest Green MP 22 November 2024
About time 22 November 2024
The $800,000 lotto draw for researchers 22 November 2024
General Debate 22 November 2024 22 November 2024
A cunning plan? 22 November 2024

Recent Comments

General Debate 23 November 2024
MCōs
Who are the major emitters?
Benedict Yu
Who are the major emitters?
judith8409121
Who are the major emitters?
judith8409121
RANZ Update
Grizz
Can we afford such generous research leave?
Nigel
Can we afford such generous research leave?
tas
General Debate 23 November 2024
NeverMindTheBollocks
Who are the major emitters?
LCI
General Debate 23 November 2024
Steve Otto(North Shore)
Who are the major emitters?
kowtow
General Debate 23 November 2024
Hugh Jarse
Can we afford such generous research leave?
artemisia
General Debate 23 November 2024
Ra Henare
General Debate 23 November 2024
Ra Henare

Links

Derek Mackie: For what it's worth
Breaking Views
Treaty Principles Debate
NZCPR
€ 500 Billion for Coal and Gas Seems Expensive
No Minister
Word of the day
Hompaddock
Much ado about cussing…
Point of Order
Attorney-General and Chief Justice reveal contrasting visions of judicial power
Utopia
A guide to making a submission on the Treaty Principles Bill
The Standard
You all understand these gang patch bans will get challenged in Court right?
The Daily Blog
Justice in Brazil
No Right Turn
"Seymour is only doing openly what M?ori nationalists and their Pakeha allies have been doing, quietly for the past 50 years."
Not PC
The transgender agenda sunk Kamala
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
What does “reciprocity” mean in New Zealand laws?
Croaking Cassandra
Media Link: “A View from Afar” on the US elections.
Kiwipolitico
This will not end well
Offsetting Behaviour
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

© 2003-2024 David Farrar

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d

%d