Current Events — Category

Many people thought it wouldn’t happen (even myself) but the blackout protest taken out across the New Zealand internet (and beyond), has come to a fantastic conclusion.

Earlier today Chris Finlayson of National had announced that the controversial law, Section 92A, will be delayed until March 27th. However, if the ISPs do not have a code ready by then, the law may be suspended.

Furthermore, if an agreement is made, then a review will be made six months afterwards to make sure the law is working as it was intended.

Of course, it isn’t completely over, the law is still there, but this is a huge outcome for a protest that started with many skeptics – let’s face it, how many of these online protest have had any positive outcome at all?

Congratulations to the Creative Freedom Foundation who set off the whole thing, and all those involved.

For the first time this week, the Blackout protest got 6 o’clock news attention, see the videos below.

Out of the two, TVNZ did the better report. 3 News seemed to have lost the point of what the protest, and the Creative Freedom Foundation, was about.

And well, action has been happening. Not only has the government had to front up about it during question time, but Labour’s Clare Curran has put forward a members bill to remove Section 92A (yes, from the party that brought Section 92A back from the dead). Judging by party support, it should just pass through with 64 supporting (Labour/Jim Anderton, United Future, Act, M?ori Party, Greens). However, this first needs to be brought before the House, and who knows when that would be.

The story also hit Digg earlier today.

Really, for a protest that was probably doomed to fail based on similar attempts made in the past, this has really hit back at everyone who doubted it. The blackout has crossed groups (seriously, I have non-geek/nerd friends who have blacked out their profile on Facebook), and made everyone talk about this section that slipped through quietly at the end. Now that’s the power of the internet.

You may have noticed my blog has taken on a slightly darker colour scheme — black. This is in protest against guilty upon accusation laws, also known as Section 92a, which requires ISPs to disconnect your internet connection based purely on accusations. No proof is required. These laws come into effect from the 28th of February.

• Find out how to blackout your sites
• Digg the story
• Follow the blackout on Twitter

No wai!

The point it is making can’t ever be true!

Whenever I say to people that breaks aren’t a law requirement, they think I’m lying and pulling their leg. But, err, I had to study employment law to get my Certificate in Management so, yes, it’s true, unless my teacher was lying to me, but I’m even looked it up myself, and there is no provisioning for your smoko breaks. The Department of Labour merely encourages them.

So it is good to hear that finally, they are putting it into law. I’m a bit unsure why it wasn’t there in the first place, considering it was Labour that put in the current law in 2001. It will require two paid 10 minute coffee breaks and a 30 minute unpaid lunch break for every eight hours someone works. It’ll also provide for breast feeding mothers to have breaks to breast feed or express milk and have adequate facilities to do so.

And it’s about time. Seems like a subtle attempt to get you to vote for them (but then so does everything proposed during election year), but good none-the-less. Now my friends will no longer be in disbelief that their breaks aren’t in law.

It appears we all love to free-load off other peoples religions. The current trend based on the census suggests that by the time the next one rolls around we will be a non-Christian nation. Which then leads on to the question, why have Easter and Christmas off in law if only a minority actually are Christian?

So here could be a solution. Count up the days we get off due to religious reasons in law (4), and then give that to everyone that they can use for whatever reason, the main one being for Religious Holidays. They can still use these for Easter and Christmas if they want even if they are Athiest. They should not roll over and have to be used between the 1st of January through to the 31st of December, otherwise you lose out. It should also be no-questions asked, and employers should be prepared that they may have to close on Easter and Christmas anyway, especially if there are too many staff taking the day off than there are to replace them.

So there, everyone can be happy that they still get a holiday and can possibly shop on those days.

Yesterday we had John Key give out his promises to act on youth crime. The policies were good, if they leave school early then give them (limited) free education at Polytech and other tertiary providers, or they can go off to work. Basically, encouraging them to do something with their lives rather than bum around at home bludgeoning off the DPB forever.

Helen Clark on the other hand this morning announced changing the education age. The school leaving age is currently 16, but she wants to change it so then you have to stay in education until you are 18. You can go to work, but you have to be in education as well. But then Clark hasn’t even said that they would subsidise going to Polytech for younger students, which Key has. Does she expect these people to get a student loan? Where is the incentive?

Did she forget that sometimes work provides decent qualifications. At least Key allows for education or work, unlike Clark’s education or education.

Key then went on to say what he would do to curb youth crime. A modern day boot-camp sounds good, but not sure about extending jail sentences. Look at our jails, they are a joke. All that it’ll teach them is that if you ever need accommodation, food and shelter for free you just commit some form of crime. Awesome. At least the boot-camp system isn’t a one off “go to boot camp” and then run off again to do more crime with your new found boot-camp abilities, but is followed up with support and mentors.

I think Clarks raised leaving age is supposed to have the intention to curb crime, but no, we already have people truant and disruptive under the age of 16, it would just make things worse if they were to stay in the education system for longer when they would probably be happier just getting a job.

If anything, whatever Clark says now will fall on many deaf ears. How long has she had in office, and how long were the warning signs there? This year we have already had 10 homicides, many of which were caused by youth. And she’s only addressing this now, after eight years?

The only legal means of having your view about politics on the internet is through a blog.

• Bill limiting election campaigning passed – NZ Herald
• Electoral Finance Bill passed into law – Stuff
• Electoral Finance Bill passes into law – TVNZ/One News
• Electoral Finance Act now law – Kiwiblog

From 1st of January 2008, the Electoral Finance Act will come into force. It already has people going out to be test cases for the new law, with Tim Shadbolt’s campaign against the funding cuts to Southern Institute of Technology being the gray area. This definitely will not be going away.

It wasn’t a great day for Labour at all anyway. Both TV3 and TV One’s latest polls have National governing alone. Now, One News/Colmar Brunton’s Poll tends to lean towards National while the 3 News/TNS poll tends to lean towards Labour – having both with National over 50% should have the Labour government worried. Especially as it’s friends the Greens are polling under the 5% threshold.

Today Michael Cullen announced $15 tax cuts, despite the One News/Colmar Brunton poll yesterday showing that it won’t be much of a benefit to anyone. Then there was the negative of Trevor Mallard pleading guilty to fighting in a public place, and subsequently apologising in parliament.

It could be a very long 2008 for Labour as it counts down to its eviction from the government seat.

I have been quiet about this. I’ve tried to write stuff but have found that I do not know enough about this bill for comment. But now I believe I know enough about what this bill does to free speech, something I’ve been particularly focusing on, possibly due to David Farrar et. al. cries that it is what this bill prohibits.

I noticed my friends have now joined the The NZ Herald’s blatant support for the National Party kind of irritates me group on Facebook, but I wonder just how much they know about the EFB. The group was based around the cut email from the Greens in the NZ Herald, which David breaks down and shows what is in fact mostly untrue.

So, onto the free speech thing, let’s consult the bill.

Section 5.1 says what an election advertisement is;

In this Act, election advertisement—
(a) means any form of words or graphics, or both, that can reasonably be regarded as doing 1 or more of the following:
(i) encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote, for 1 or more specified parties or for 1 or more candidates or for any combination of such parties and candidates:
(ii) encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote, for a type of party or for a type of candidate that is described or indicated by reference to views, positions, or policies that are or are not held, taken, or pursued (whether or not the name of a party or the name of a candidate is stated);

Notice how it says any form of words or graphics, or both? So that counts everything. Then it is to say anything that persuades voters to vote or not vote for a party or candidate or any combination, or a type of party or type of candidate. Type meaning what views, position or policy they may or may not have. So in general, anything to do with politics is an election advert.

Section 4 defines publishing;

publish, in relation to an advertisement, means to—
(a) print or insert in a newspaper or other periodical published or distributed in New Zealand; or
(b) issue, hand out, or display; or
(c) send to any member of the public by any means; or
(d) deliver to any member of the public, or leave at a place owned or occupied by a member of the public; or
(e) broadcast; or
(f) include in a film or video displayed to the public; or
(g) disseminate by means of the Internet or any other electronic medium; or
(h) store electronically in a way that is accessible to the public;

So that means almost everything (as everything, which was (i) on the list was taken out last week).

There are exemptions, but only one that really applies to you, me and the internet,

(g) the publication by an individual, on a non-commercial basis, on the Internet of his or her personal political views (being the kind of publication commonly known as a blog).

So that means that posting on a blog that is non-commerical without putting your name and address to the end of every politically focused post is the only legal avenue to post your political views online. Chris Finlayson of National had tried to take out the blog reference in the parenthesis (so everything non-commercial on the internet is exempt) but, unfortunately, my friends favourite party, the Greens, had helped shoot that clause down.

As mentioned earlier, you can freely do stuff that these don’t allow so long as you file a statutory declaration (put your name and address at the end of it), but if you spend more than $12,000 on a party, or $1,000 on an individual, you’ll have to register as a third party.

Now, my main issue with the blog exemption is that there is no definition for a blog. The bill says a “kind of publication commonly known as a blog,” but this is the government we are talking about – what do they know what the modern, common definition of a blog is? A blog can be in audio, video as well as the typical text (as my blog is). Not all stuff on YouTube is a video blog, so what counts as a video blog on that, or is a video blog something not on YouTube but in video, chronological format? What about Audio blogs (podcasts)?

Why doesn’t anything else get to be exempt from the internet, such as forums, IRC and email?

The bill is going for its third and final reading this week, at this stage it may pass. At which point I can’t see myself voting for any party that does vote for this bill. Some people think that this bill is just prohibiting anonymous donations, this is in fact wrong, it still allows for anonymous donations there is just a limit on how big the donation can be.

Oh dear, the Electoral Finance Bill is back and has been amended, but apparently not in a good way.

Go over and read David Farrar’s takes on the new bill, as he is actually backing up his claims with what the bill is saying. See his post on 19 problems still remaining (or appeared in the new version), and Discolsure Requirements.

Interestingly, non-commercial blogs (like mine) are exempt, but as Inventory2 pointed out on KiwiBlog,

Commercial blogs – does this refer to both the blog and the host site, the blog itself, or the host site?

It’s also a wonder if a commercial blog is considered so if it has something like Google AdSense to help fund website costs.

It’s also interesting that emails are classed as election advertising. I’d like to know how they plan to enforce this without stepping into the Privacy Act. I’d also like to know why non-commercial blogs get away scot-free, yet non-commercial emails don’t. And why do YouTube videos all get caught out as well despite people not really making money out of them?

David will be updating his blog (hopefully today) that will clarify these and a few other points. I don’t have time to read 150 pages of the bill. I do support the notion that it prevents people with huge wads of cash from getting in on the act (i.e. Exclusive Brethren), but why must the impinge on the rights of everyone else as well? There’s also a strange sense of inconsistency as to what entails election advertising that breaks the law.

On a more interesting note, people seem to be accusing David of being wrong about things like megaphone use, when the wording is so terribly broad. At least the Greens are going to help reword this to be a bit more specific (as in, people who go around in cars with giant megaphones, and not Joe on the side of the street-corner).