If only our Government would follow suit

With the Name Suppression issue I have been thinking about New Zealander’s access to freedom of speech. I guess also that this follows on from my contribution to ridding us of the Electoral Finance Act.

It seems in actuality that our politicians and meritocracy of doctors, lawyers and judges are not for increased access to freedom of speech. They wish that our Name Suppression law were tighter, tougher, with greater penalties.

They make a mockery almost daily of our Bill of Rights Act. Even the author of the Act, Sir Geoffrey Palmer doesn’t even believe in Freedom of Speech because he was the author of the Law Commission report that recommended tougher penalties for name suppression breaches.

This is where I came to think about our democracy and started to compare it to other democracies around the world and thought to myself, did we really go to war against totalitarian regimes, regimes that controlled and monitored and regulated their people only to take a step closer to that which we fought against with enactment of a new law.

Surely as a democracy we should be trying to increase freedoms of the population not increasingly confine and restrict them under a morass of legislation.

Enter Iceland. It has just been announced that;

The Icelandic Government has been working alongside anonymous mass document leaking website Wikileaks to create a safe haven for offshore journalists and whistle-blowers.  Dubbed the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, the proposal aims to;

…task the government with finding ways to strengthen freedom of expression around world and in Iceland, as well as providing strong protections for sources and whistleblowers. To this end the legal environment should be explored in such a way that the goals can be defined, and changes to law or new law proposals can be prepared. The legal environments of other countries should be considered, with the purpose of assembling the best laws to make Iceland a leader of freedoms of expression and information. We also feel it is high time to establish the first Icelandic international prize: The Icelandic Freedom of Expression Award.

This is massive news and massive for the likes of Simon “FIGJAM” Power and the judiciary to consider as they pontificate about trying to control the internet. The reality that they and the meddling judiciary seem not to realise is that no matter what they do they can’t control it, and thus they may as well help to move our country closer to more openness rather than try to shut down freedom of speech and increasingly close our courts to all but elite when it comes to open justice.

Instead of carping that a certain blogger might take credit for a law change just get on and do it Simon, help become a truly great Justice Minister and actually increase our freedoms, remove barriers to openness in our judicial system. Only a true believer in democracy and a true liberal could do this, are you the man?

  • rongowaiata

    Yes, just see today’s news. Its not just the judicial system.
    Dr Mary English and her friends campaigning AGAINST doctor’s patients being able to access full information.
    I don’t care what the issue is [abortion is a red herring in this argument] but people have to have the ability to make their own decisions based on what information is reasonably available and doctors cannot play God for other people. That campaign is essentially for the right for doctors to withhold information or direct a person to where they can get it.
    Second – the school trustees Assoc sends out responsible advice to the trustees telling them what their duties and liabilities are as trustees [once again forget the issue] and the teachers representatives try to stop information saying this is bullying. Uh?!!?
    Both of these are frightened of what? information. In neither case above is the information anything other than reliable data which anyone should be able to access.
    Yes, openness has risks but the alternative is terrible -look at history. Its a question of power, who holds the knowledge holds power and WO of course it stirs up stuff when that “knowledge” gets out of those who use it for their own power games. Expect the cries of thwarted power.

  • John Boy

    Democracy? Not here.
    Removal of freedoms generally was delayed by the cold war – the west couldn’t openly do the bad stuff the bad commies did. Now the cold war is out of the way the control freaks are on the march again.

  • baxter

    Compare it with a doco I saw from the Land of The Free about Sarah Bridewell the ‘Black Widow’ she quite clearly murdered four husbands, after each one the free press ran front page articles accusing her, and a journalist has been chasing her for 20 years, never arrested, yet if she some day should be, I doubt her name or details will be suppressed.

  • baxter

    Compare it with a doco I saw from the Land of The Free about Sandra Bridewell the ‘Black Widow’ she quite clearly murdered four husbands, after each one the free press ran front page articles accusing her, and a journalist has been chasing her for 20 years, never arrested, yet if she some day should be, I doubt her name or details will be suppressed.

  • Rob

    It’s all about control. Control of the great unwashed, controlling the general population for their own good! The more totalitarian the regime the more control is required.
    Nobody in power wants transparency or accountability, why would they. There is no greater crime than speaking the truth.The best defence is to complicate everything so nobody can see the big picture.What part did secrecy play in Iceland’s economic meltdown?

  • Sinner

    You know the government is FUCKED with Public Address says:

    I reckon these guys will be remembered in the end not for what they did, but for what they failed to do.

  • Teflon Tom

    Talk about the land of the wrong white crowd, no wonder the airport departure lounges are full of fed up kiwis heading off to saner shores like 100+ other countries around the globe. I watch with interest and bated breath to see what “interested party/parties” may be responsible for any backing down or crumbling shown by FIGJAM, or, does he have the fortitude to hold out against all that is wrong with the judicial system?
    Nga Puhi

  • Excuse Me

    We won’t have anything like freedom of speech in this country until the right is enshrined in a written constitution, and both legislative provisions and official actions are able to be reviewed by the courts.

  • Sideoiler

    @ Excuse Me you Hit the nail on the head freedom of speech I dont think so.
    Some think that because we may vote every three years that we have a democracy. NOPE>

  • Sinner

    Who gives a “fuck” about “Freedom of speech”

    Should people be able to say “I miss Hellen”?
    Or argue in favour of unions, or leftism?
    Or post on blogs like the Standard, or Red Alert?

  • Mad Cow

    How long before Google has to threaten to pull out of NZ?

  • Sinner

    We won’t have any thing like freedom of speech in this country until the right is enshrined in a writ­ten constitution, and both legislative provisions and official actions are able to be reviewed by the courts.

    Absolutely!! We need to look at countries with real economic growth – like Singapore, Hong Kong, etc, – and enshrine the Right in our written constitution.

    Just think how much better of NZ would be if the parliament was only say 70 MPs – 60 National, 5 ACT, 5 Maori party. We could get this if the right was enshrined! (BTW did you know that until 1945 “country” seats were 30% smaller than urban seats under FPP? Just one way to implement this idea).

    On the other hand, given the way Hellen stacked the courts, I’m not sure they’re the people we would want to investigate this? Why not make it the productivity commission instead?

  • arfamo

    Lawyers and judges nowadays seem to hold the public in such contempt they seem to assume ever-increasing rights to dictate what the public should know and what is best for them. As far as I can see judges still largely ignore the wishes of the people and parliament when it comes to bail and truth in sentencing, preferring to have regard to the precendents and views of their legal colleagues alone.

    Appeals against sentences by offenders seem to reglarly result in reductions in sentences. Why? The public wants convicts to serve their full sentences. But the judiciary, unlike the government, is not accountable to the public. It knows this, so just ignores the “peasants”.

    In their ongoing competition to impress each other with their commitment to the perceived rights of offenders, the unassailability of the legal elite quite possibly now represents the biggest danger to the future of our society and our democracy. Maybe it always has?