Freedom of Speech

Good. Simon Power has had to capitulate over his attempts to remove the right to silence.

Justice Minister Simon Power has raised the white flag on his controversial criminal justice reforms, committing to preserving the right to silence and substantially watering down other aspects to pass the bill with cross-party support.

The concessions – which include compromises with the Labour Party on the rules around jury trials, having a trial proceed in the absence of the accused, and the ability of the court to impose fines – follow a week of intense and fast-moving negotiations with several parties.

The editor of the NBR has launched into Simon Power and National over his/their egregious betrayal of New Zealanders by stitching up a back-room deal with Labour to suppress our right to freedom of speech.

The worst fears that MMP has had a dampening effect on decision-making have been realised in the “consensus” on new electoral funding laws and the reported back bill on next year’s referendum.

On the former, the government has made a deal with Labour that retains some of the worst features of the notorious legislation that National successfully campaigned against.

This includes a $300,000 limit on campaign spending by so-called “promoters” or third parties. This is a little more than double that Labour’s law had imposed ($120,000).

National originally proposed no limit but this has been traded off for a higher level before party donations have to revealed. Disclosure would instead now apply only to donations above $15,000 (previously $10,000).

Other changes are equally mean-spirited and inhibiting of public debate, which suggests the writing of electoral legislation remains largely to further the self-serving needs of politicians rather than what’s in the public interest.

Most lobbyists from the Left, and their parties, see danger in any form of political funding (ecxept their own). Despite a lack of hard evidence, they associate large donations with political paybacks (for their wealthier opponents).

The public has never accepted this and it is disappointing to see the revamped law is only marginally better than the one that was a major contributor to Labour’s demise in the 2008 election.

Nevil Gibson blames the MMP environment for this, I think that is overly harsh. The real problem is liberal, wet, panty-waists like Simon Power who stand for nothing and fall for everything.

However one overlooked aspect is the spiking of any attempt to mount a campaign against MMP by Simon Power. He is of course a big proponent of the system that has ham-strung New Zealand ever since it was foisted upon us. The very system that was supposed to protect us from the excesses of politicians has been masterfully manipulated by them, both sides of the house to maintain their arrogant hegemony. Now because of Simon Power‘s treachery we can’t even mount a campaign against the system that so cripples our nation.

The money question also undermines the final form of the MMP referendum bill. The same $300,000 “third party” cap has been imposed, presumably to limit any campaign against MMP.

It is assumed, of course, that this would be mounted by a well-funded business-backed lobby, though signs of one are not yet apparent.

A review of MMP is said to be high on the agenda for some in the event it is retained in the first referendum. This review would attempt to reduce some of MMP’s worst features, such as weak electoral candidates still getting into Parliament through the list, and a party having more electoral seats than its proportional vote.

Also, it is likely some would favour a change in the threshold, which at the last election allowed Act to get four seats because it had an electoral seat, even though it polled below the 5% mark, while New Zealand First got no seats but received more votes.

Excluded from the review are other issues where public feeling runs counter to the political establishment – the future of the Maori seats, which effectively double the vote of those on that roll compared with the general roll, and the overall number of MPs.

Pro-MMP campaigners will be keen to highlight this review in defence of a system they say should be “improved” rather than discarded.

We are being systematically shut down and controlled by politicians who wish that people like me would just STFU. All Simon Power has now done is provide a mechanism for labour or any other anti-democratic politician in his mold to easily lower the threshold from the arbitrary $300,000 limit he has booby-trapped into the legislation.

At the time of John Boscawen’s EFB protest marches, John Key, as Leader of the Opposition at the time, did not attend a march, however he did send John a message to be read out to the protesters. In that message he said, with regard to the Electoral Finance Bill;

Labour is not listening. National is.
Today, I give you this assurance. If I have the privilege to be the next Prime Minister I will overturn this law. I will set about building a proper political consensus for fair changes to our election rules. I will listen to what people like you, and many thousands of others are saying.
You are fighting for a principle.
You are fighting for THE most important principle.
You are fighting for democracy.
I salute you
John Key

I was there when John Boscawen read out that message, and more importantly, I put it on Youtube.

Well John? What happened to your principles? Did you drop them along the way as you were fighting for democracy?

Why has John Key allowed Simon Power to sell out National and the thousands who marched for our freedom of speech and democracy?

Sure National repealed the law but they have effectively re-instated it. they have protected the hegemony of politician to pretend to speak for us and spend our money telling us what they think, yet prevent us telling them how we think.

What is even more ridiculous is the spending limits they have decided upon for standing for parliament. In the recent local body elections people were able to spend up to $40,000 to secure a ward councillor position. Yet Simon Power and his Labour party pals think that $25,000 should be the limit for an individual to spend trying to secure an electorate seat. Why the difference…are council seats more important that seats for members of parliament.

Yet another example of the paucity of Simon Power‘s intellectual abilities.

John Key - Enemy of Freedom of Speech

…John Key, I would be very worried about my caucus backlash tomorrow.

…John Key, I would be giving  FIGJAM a very public dressing down and instructing cabinet to overturn his The Electoral (Finance and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill.

…a National party caucus member, I would be very angry that my caucus never got a chance to discuss FIGJAM‘s stich up of the selecto committee, yet Labour’s caucus did.

…a National party caucus member I’d be wondering just which team FIGJAM is on, because it sure isn’t mine.

…Steven Joyce, I would be very annoyed that two popular and well read bloggers may very well run a third party campaign against National.

…Steven Joyce, i would be very annoyed that FIGJAM has once again tried to de-rail National’s election chances next year.

…a National party cabinet minister, I would be concerned that FIGJAM seems to have stuffed up everything he has touched.

…FIGJAM, I’d be worried what The Whale has planned next.

…Tau Henare, I would have a chat with FIGJAM about drinking a gumboot full of knuckles and sandwiches.

…FIGJAM, I’d start listening to people in my team and not pinko liberal handwringers like Jon Johansson.

…a National party member I would be asking my local MP whether or not they supported FIGJAM‘s position on freedom of speech.

Simon “FIGJAM” Power. The one and the only. This is a bloke who is well known for running around telling his childhood mates that he was going to be prime minister and the greatest leader of the National Party ever. He is a legend in his own mind.

FIGJAM, there is no way you are ever going to make the step up.

You have totally pissed off the VRWC and you have replaced Winston Peters as our main target. Treason is always a far greater crime than corruption.

Only insiders will know that the whole Electoral Reform select committee was a total farce. FIGJAM hung Amy Adams and the other National committee members out to dry, doing a shabby backroom deal with Labour to have a law that will go through without a fight.

He railroaded the whole process, with caucus not having a say on it, and those on the committee having to do as they were told by FIGJAM.

The only way to deal with this is for FIGJAM‘s cabinet colleagues to tell him to sort it out, and for caucus to give him the bash tomorrow morning. Then they need a swift change in the bill to stop the suppression of free speech.

Otherwise I will be looking for a donor to give $300,001 so I can run a third party campaign against Figjam in Rangitikei, and become New Zealand’s first political prisoner for demonstrating my right to free speech.

Meanwhile I understand that there is chaos in Wellington. Captain Panic Pants has his nickers in a serious twist about the thought of the PM seeing my billboards on Molesworth St every day on the way to work. Billboards like this one.

Kim il FIGJAM needs to be taken out, both of Rangitikei and also from the National Party, he is better suited to be a force within Labour, with all his pinko mates he prefers to scheme in back-rooms with.

Kim il FIGJAM?

I did it against Labour, NZ First,The Greens and Peter Dunne and I will do it against National. I will along with David Farrar run billboards against all those MPs that supported the reintroduction of the Electoral Finance Act. For that is what National has done. They have reintroduced the hated Electoral Finance Act and put a limit and a price on freedom of speech.

This country didn’t vote for a change in 2008 only to have more of the same under John Key.

National and John Key continues to betray its support base.

I can promise MPs out there that if they agree with this law change, or if they spoke in support of it at Caucus or in cabinet that The Whale will find out and I will mount a campaign to unseat them as enemies of democracy and free speech, including billboards. I encourage all members to contact their MP and ask them if they support this assault on freedom of speech.

I’ve done it before and I will do it again.

You know what I’d almost rather have Labour in government at least they were honest about their hypocrisy.

John Key - Enemy of Freedom of Speech

Time for a Compare and Contrast.

Judith Collins is perhaps the most popular Police Minister ever. My sources in the Police say her support is nigh on 100%.  Her working relationship with the coppers on the beat and the with the Police Association is at record highs, and her nobbling of PNHQ has met with wide-spread approval.

On almost every issue she has been in step with the thinking of the people in the street as well.

Her latest success is supporting the introduction something that is popular with 60% of New Zealanders.

All police should carry guns, almost 60 per cent of the public and more than 70 per cent of officers believe, a poll shows.

Police Minister Judith Collins said this week that she would support all patrol vehicles carrying pistols in lockboxes. Police Commissioner Howard Broad is preparing a report into arming police officers and will make recommendations at the end of the year. Both have said they don’t favour beat officers routinely being armed.

Last night the Police Association issued a poll it commissioned which said 72 per cent of all association members supported general arming. Asked if they supported it two years ago, 47 per cent were in favour.

The survey showed 58 per cent of the public also supported general arming. Association president Greg O’Connor said the results were no surprise.

The association, holding its 75th annual conference in Wellington this week, endorsed a motion “to support general arming of all sworn New Zealand police officers”.

Our police are increasingly coming up against armed and dangerous criminals. We can no longer delude ourselves that our police shouldn’t be armed.

Now contrast that with the high-handed and petulant attitude of Justice Minister Simon Power. FIGJAM has enraged the blogosphere with his bizarre tilt at trying to impose Hugo Chavez (that is now an alternate nickname) type controls on new media. He has ensured  a uniting of the blogosphere where we will go all out to explain how unpopular he is, no matter our loyalties. Right,Left and Centre are going to  make it their business to see this out of touch control freak of minister unseated.

Witness the attacks that have started;

Bomber at Tumeke - National Government shouldn’t empower BSA to gag bloggers

And I think there isn’t much issue with that, Cam got righteously nailed by the Courts recently as the Judiciary stamped its authority on-line, issues regarding trials and suppression orders aren’t controversial expansions of power, but it’s this next part that is the danger…

He said there should be one set of rules for all news media, and the review – by the Law Commission – would look at extending the powers of the Broadcasting Standards Authority and/or the Press Council to cover new media.

…which means Simon Power wants to force the same gag rules of ‘balance’ used in the mainstream onto the blogosphere. The BSA can go fuck itself if it wants to try and enforce it’s narrow view of what can be said and what can not be said because decisions by a political board as to what can be said on-line are not warranted or needed

MacDoctor - Go Fer Yer Guns, Power!

The central error that you make, Mr. Power, is contained in your second sentence. You call bloggers “news media”. News Media? Very few bloggers actually deliver much in the way of news. We do not have the resources for this. What we deliver is opinion. And I am afraid, Mr. Power, that if you don’t like my opinion, then tough bikkies…

There is a word for regulation of opinion: censorship. New Zealand is a free society precisely because I can call you an idiot, Mr Power, and not be shot at dawn by your goons. If I wish to call you stronger words than that, I may bump up against a law or two, and that is sufficient to maintain the distinction between free speech and decent speech. You do not need artificial standards except perhaps to cushion certain soft politician egos.

Talking about “professional and ethical standards” and bloggers in the same breath is laughable. Sure, we already follow a set of unwritten and un-enforcable rules, but these will never be “standards” in any bureaucratic, measurable way. And the outrageous, unethical behaviour of some bloggers is what makes them entertaining. Bit like Paul Henry, really – oh, wait…

The point being is that the blogosphere thrives because it is a “wild west”. All you will get with regulation is that the wilder ones will clash with your regulations or, much more likely, will go quite feral. By this, I mean that they will use software that hides their ID(easily obtainable from Warez sites) and move their sites to countries with less restriction. They will then proceed to snipe at you from inaccessible places with information that, at best, will be embarrassing and, at worst, horribly destructive.

Recall what happened to the US marshals that tried to tame the West, Mr. Power – they were shot down in large numbers. Recall that the West was not subdued by the application of law but by the maturation of the society. Be patient and wait. Bloggers come and go. The Fail Whale reigns supreme. Facebook seems to be sliding into a black hole of flash applications. Eventually this will all sort itself out into a new society. I doubt if it will be as polite as you wish, Mr Power, but at least there will be less cowboys…

Not PC – Cry “Power-Lust” and let rip the censorship of the blogosphere

While most eyes here and round the world were on the miner miracle in Chile, a speech in the House by Simon Power-Lust this afternoon signalled (if anyone were looking) that things ahead are looking ominous for bloggers.

Cameron Slater’s tilt against name suppression did eventually earn him a partial victory. But as I said when Cameron, akaWhale Oil, was given his lumps earlier by Justice Harvey, that decision was very much not a victory for free speech—becausein his bewailing the lack of official “oversight” of the blogosphere, Harvey was floating a trial balloon to which Power-Lust this afternoon gave motive power by asking Jeffrey Palmer’s inveterately lemon-sucking Law Commission “to review the adequacy of regulations around how the internet interacts with the justice system.”

In other words, to begin drawing up plans for full regulation of the blogosphere by bureaucrats like Jeffrey—who has never seen a committee, board or tribunal he hasn’t wanted to join.

We may continue to post what we like and what we think. For the moment.  But all that will stop when Jeffrey Palmer and Simon Power-Lust—men who look at the freedom of the blogosphere and see only a “Wild West” that needs manacles—men between them who have a face that needs punching and an ego that needs puncturing—bring in the very shackles on we bloggers that Justice Harvey’s 70-page decision presaged.

This is how easily censorship comes to a country.

Who now will rise up in protest?

It seems quite a few of us Peter. See above and now the links below.

Government looking at further regulation of speech on the Internet – Thomas Beagle, TECH LIBERTY
”These is no mention in the press release of the freedom of expression guaranteed to New Zealanders in the Bill of Rights Act. Nor is there any recognition that many forms of old media such as leaflets, posters and books are also unregulated…”
Eff Off, Power! – CRUSADER RABBIT
”…this, in a socialist country where the MSM are no more than lickspittles pushing government propaganda and recycling handouts!  No wonder this little statist creep wants blogs to conform to the same standards’.”
High Noon – ROAR PRAWN
”…who in tarnation advised him to set about making the bloggers and online community the enemy?”
From The Hood : Absolutist Simon Power Corrupts Absolutely – Lyndon Hood, WEREWOLF
”Simon is so powerful nobody’s allowed to argue with him..”
Internet no wild west – lawyer – NBR
“I don’t agree internet is the Wild West,” Rick Shera told NBR…

Idiot/Savant – No Right Turn – Against regulating the blogosphere

These are all things worth looking at, because the law needs to keep up with the technology (if it can). But Power is fundamentally mistaken about two things. First, he’s fundamentally mistaken in thinking bloggers should be treated as if they were professionals, because we simply aren’t. The typical blogger is a private individual mouthing off on the internet. Some of us know a little about what we are mouthing off about, some of us don’t – but fundamentally, its no different from people talking in a cafe. The government wouldn’t dream of trying to regulate and force “professional standards” on that, and rightly so. So why is it trying to regulate and force professional standards on the same conversations in the blogosphere? It smacks of another example of the old problem of things being suddenly scarier the moment you attach the word “internet” to them.

Secondly, the claim that we are not subject to any form of regulation is simply false. As a blogger, I’m subject to exactly the same laws as Power is in issuing his press releases. If I defame someone, I can be sued. If I publish objectionable material, I can be prosecuted. If I breach a court suppression order, I can be fined. Rather than showing that the blosophere is a “wild west”, the recent Whale Oil case showed that the law is perfectly capable of dealing with it.

The problem for the justice system isn’t the blogosphere, but the net’s combination of strong anonyminity and a free market in legal jurisdictions. The same technology that allows human rights activists to hide from the Iranian regime and circumvent the Great Firewall of China also allows people to read or post or host information which undermines our justice system. It could be used, for example, to set up a website whose sole function is to violate New Zealand suppression orders. If located in the right jurisdiction, such a site could never be taken down at source. It could never be effectively blocked – “the net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it” is an old saw, but its also true (in that such blocks are also fundamentally ineffective). And unless the authors were very, very stupid, they would never be caught.

But there’s nothing the government can do about that. Nothing. The collective minds of the world’s most powerful dictatorships can’t stop it, so I doubt New Zealand could. More importantly, adding new laws does nothing to help. The problem is not that such behaviour wouldn’t be illegal, its that we now have reliable technological means to not get caught.

But the blogosphere isn’t in that space. Its already subject to existing laws. And those laws seem to generally be up to the task. We don’t need new ones.

Pedobear Power on Q+A

You know you are in trouble with a political position when left, right and centre attack you. When Bomber, Idiot/Savant, MacDoctor, Peter Cresswell and Whaleoil all agree on something then you know that what they say is right and what the politician says is dead wrong. Simon Power is about to find out what a united blogosphere will do to his silly proposition to limit our freedoms.

One wonders what meds FIGJAM is taking, on a day when Bill English had some good news to release, Simon Power goes and takes his limelight. If he thinks the new media will lie down while he attempts to impose Chinese style limits on our freedom of opinion then he is sadly mistaken. We marched in the streets over the Electoral Finance Act, and DOF and I ran a bill board campaign against the law.

Simon Power is heading for a similar campaign that will be brought up close and personal in Rangitikei. If he thinks that won;t work then he should look very carefully at what happened to Andrew Williams. Because right now he is next on the list. When you add on his refusal to look at introducing  a NZ version of Megan’s Law, then you get the picture that Simon Power is a friend of criminals, pedophiles and other assorted scum.

We need politicians that will govern for the people not for the liberal elite and their cotton-wool view of the world.

Wallace Chapman nails the whole Paul Henry issue in a very good post on the back Benches Website.

Now before all you pinko bleaters get all angry about his post, think that Wallace is actually a kaiviti, from Fiji, like me.

On my Facebook page I have only one quote. There will always be just this one quote. For me it is the ‘Rosetta stone’ of thinking, the golden crucible of thought that dates back to 18th Century Enlightenment thinking. It is the DNA of a free society. And it’s a quote that I’ve lived my life according to, since I was in my early 20′s. It is penned by the one of the most quoted people, not just in our time, but in any time  – alongside Marx, Shakespeare and the Bible. The quote is by U.S. academic Noam Avram Chomsky, and here it goes:

“If freedom of speech doesn’t apply to those that we despise, than the term has no meaning at all.”

Freedom of speech means hate-speech, love-speech, speeches we adore and speeches that fill us with contempt. It applies to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s rants at the UN, as much as it applies to Bill O Reilly’s violent outbursts on Fox TV (The Dixie Chicks need to shut up and be slapped around). As Chomsky points out, even Himmler and Goebbels in Nazi Germany were in favour of “free speech”. As long as you agreed with them. Stalin was in favour of free speech that was inoffensive to the State.

Wallace is right on the money. It is a pity the left wing don’t believe in free speech like their hero Noam Chomsky.

Interestingly, Chomsky himself has been at the brunt end of much sustained verbal abuse and vicious personal attacks and open slander. And yet he has never, over 50 years, sued for libel, preferring to write letters in an open forum, refuting and rebutting the attacks. The Jewish-American professor even defended the right of a neo-Nazi to stand up in a community hall in Battersea and say his piece while the rest of the crowd booed.

The United States, according to Chomsky, has set an extremely high bar in regards to freedom of speech since the 1960′s. Violent acts are not protected, but the Supreme Court has even upheld the principle of freedom of speech for Ku Klux Klan members.  In a revealing paragraph Chomsky states:

“In the US, freedom of speech is protected to an extent that I think is unheard of in any other country. This is quite a recent change. Since the 1960s the Supreme Court has set very high standards for freedom of speech, in keeping with a basic principle established by the 18th century Enlightenment. The court upholds the principle of free speech, the only limitation being participation in a criminal act. If I walk into a shop to commit a robbery with an accomplice holding a gun and I say “Shoot”, my words are not protected by the constitution. Otherwise there has to be a really serious motive to call into question freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has even upheld this principle for the benefit of members of the Ku Klux Klan.”

And this is exactly where we are at with Paul Henry, there was no criminal act and yet he has been effectively sacked for little more than having thoughts that differ from a vocal rabid mob out to get him.

I thought about all this in light of Paul Henry’s general broadcasting style. Personally I don’t find Henry funny but I don’t hate it. I just don’t give enough of a shit to turn on morning television so I never watch. But doing live unedited television and making it entertaining is an absolute skill, which is why all the fill-ins have come up short. And Paul Henry is a star at it. It’s a fairly predictable show often with a dog whistle to bullies, but it can also be funny in the way that ‘Beavis and Butthead’ can be funny. Or in the way that someone will fart in a lecture and everyone will split their sides. But more often I grimace and pretend to crack up when a friend tells me about a little Breakfast moment. The ‘retard’ routine wasn’t funny, nor the fake fan email at the awards, nor the moustache routine. The Dikshit name-calling was so unfunny I just felt sad. I felt sad for him, sad for me watching it, and sad for the huge community of Indian and Fiji-Indians in our country.

Do I defend the right to say what comes out of Paul Henry’s mouth? Do I defend the ugly humourless little tirades of Michael Laws? Do I defend the right for David Garrett to suggest, with a straight face, the sterilisation of women on the DPB? Do I defend what comes out of Lindsay Perigo’s mouth or Leighton Smith’s mouth or Hone Harawira’s mouth? Absolutely. As vigorously as I’ll defend the right to say what comes out of mine.

The principle of free speech is very simple: we either defend opinions that we find hateful, or we do not defend them at all. Public broadcasting or private.

Wallace Chapman has provided us with the most significant commentary on the whole sad sorry Paul Henry affair so far. He clearly says he doesn’t like what paul Henry said, yet he clearly says that Paul Henry had the right to say it.

Our country is poorer for the way Paul Henry has been effectively sacked from television by a bunch of rowdies being offended on someone else’s behalf.

The Judge has said no;

From: Jacqueline Francis
Sent: Monday, 23 August 2010 3:48 p.m.
To: Gregory J. Thwaite
Subject: RE: Cameron Slater – Media Application

Dear Mr Thwaite

This is the e-mail I have sent out re media applications, Judge has said there is to be no live streaming of the proceedings.

I cannot see that there would be any objection to radio or TV being present.

The normal standard conditions (Schedule 2 for TV; Schedule 4 for Radio) contained in the Media Guide for Reporting the Courts to apply.

There is to be no live streaming of the proceedings – media are reminded of Schedule 2 clause 12 and schedule 4 clause 5)

Regards

Jacqui Francis
Deputy Registrar
Case Officer Defended Hearings
Auckland District Court

I wonder what would happen if vast legions of The Whale Army sat in court and they live tweeted proceedings?

This request is going to bend the prosecution right out of shape. Right now they are trying to have the whole case suppressed. The 3News request has kind of spiked that.

All such requests need the consent of the accused and I of course have consented. I want this trial about name suppression to be available to all, even those who can’t be in the physical courtroom.

I welcome this sort of openness, I seriously doubt whether the court will.

My Kiwibank account num­ber for dona­tions to support the defence is 38–9010-0764240–01, you can also use the online Chipin wid­get below or on the side bar.

Any sur­plus funds raised will be donated equally between the RSA Wel­fare Fund and the Ex-Vietnam Ser­vices Asso­ci­a­tion, in hon­our of those who fought for our rights to free­dom of speech.

3News applies to live stream Whaleoil trial