Politics tag

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.

It looks like Gordon Copeland has said “To hell with you” to Richard Lewis and Brian Tamaki.

Earlier this week Brian Tamaki, Bishop of the somewhat controversial Destiny Church, announced that the political wing - Destiny NZ - will be de-registered. But then he announced that there will be a new Christian political party and the leader of the now gone Destiny NZ, Richard Lewis, will be co-leader with yet to be named partner.

This took Gordon Copeland off guard, but he still announced that he was the “secret” co-leader (not long after).

The downfall (if you can call it that seeming the new political party doesn’t even have a name) continued, with Copeland saying that it was pretty bad, especially since now he has aligned himself with the worst Church to be aligned with. His supporters urged him not to be with them.

It’s funny how now anyone aligning themselves with Destiny Church is almost performing political suicide. It also concerned me how John Key (leader of National) kept handling the question about forming a coalition with the new Christian party. You could pretty much see he wanted to say “no,” so why didn’t he?

David Farrar the other day posted an interesting clip. The Daily Show, a satirical news program from the US, has discovered the satire ban on images captured in-house. See David’s site for the full video clip (now Whangarei is known as the cultural-backwater of New Zealand – and to you Americans, the a in “Whang” sounds like the a in “car”, not like the a in “fang”). The clip wasn’t that funny, but at least they know about it.

Now, the story has reached Slashdot.

One comment (out of the swathes of bad comments) stuck out:

By coincidence, there was a programme on TV yesterday about the origins of democracy (in Athens, 400BC). One point that came across strongly was that when democracy is strong, states are willing to put up with more criticism.

As democracy weakens, states clamp down on their critics and introduce more extreme punishments for transgressors.

This sounds like a good example of this kind of action - sadly it seems to be getting more common across the world, not just in NZ.

The only MP who’s in my good-books over this issue is Rodney Hide, as he was against it all along. Bad-books include all of Labour and all of National – especially by their flip-flopping over the issue.

TVNZ, TV3, Maori TV and Sky News have all agreed to go against parts of the new rules that were voted on in parliament which essentially banned use of images and videos of MPs for satirical use.

They accept that they will be held in contempt of parliament if they do, but they all agree that the new rules are undemocratic.

“This is not an issue of MPs versus the television media; it’s about New Zealanders being denied a particular viewpoint on New Zealand politics,” [TVNZ Head of News and Current Affairs, Anthony] Flannery says.

All these MPs seem to forget that anyone can see them anyway if they go to the debating chamber. I was thinking maybe someone should set up an open blog for anyone to post up what they saw of MPs that day. No images, of course, but at least people would still know if David Benson-Pope was sleeping on the job again!

It has just been announced that new rules that will make use of images and videos of MPs for satire illegal have passed by a large margin.

These rules not only affects TV programs like One News and 3 News, but it affects everyone, especially those creating independent media such as myself and other bloggers and those on YouTube. Penalties include fines and jail terms.

When you’re banning satire in the digital age, there are blogs out there and there are people out there, doing their own thing on the internet and they are not going to be able to use this footage either. It impinges not just on media freedom, it’s everyone’s freedom — Vernon Small

Why on earth politicians think they are so high-and-mighty is beyond me. It’s not our fault they sleep on the job, pull obscene gestures and yell insults to each other – all in the public eye. If it was a normal business they’d all be out of a job and nothing would stop other employees or people seeing the fault from satirising it. This is all a step too far.

(Image from KiwiBlog/Dave2)

Whoa, sorry for my small hiatus. Work was keeping me busy, and when I got home I didn’t really care for the blog.

A lot has happened since Don Brash resigned as leader of the Nats. So,

• John Key and Bill English replace what is Don and Gerry. I’m glad they also pushed away Gerry Brownley. But it seems that John has had a good first week, and has cleared up his position on more policies than what I think Don did. However, as discussed with one of my friends last night, he has said that he supports things like welfare and benefits, but it’s the details that we’ll have to wait for. Still, a good pair.
• Along with that, Don Brash resigned from politics altogether. He said that it was “on a high note.” It took me a couple of moments to think about what high note. It is true that National is now polling extremely well, and Don isn’t doing too badly on the preferred PM stakes, but this is all overshadowed by the e-mails, the Exclusive Brethren details, and his endless string of gaffs.
• The Waterfront stadium was gone for good. But then, uhhh, why are we getting another “two weeks your out” situation with Eden Park? I’m glad we aren’t getting a daily update on the funding for the Eden Park upgrade, which is the biggest concern. More than $200 million is needed. And if that isn’t found, then it’s off to North Shore.
• One thing that is frustrating me about this is how we have the people living near Eden Park complaining about how their lives are so tough that they live next to a stadium. Why doesn’t the media ask these silly people why they chose to live near a stadium in the first place?
• Fiji is sitting and waiting for the coup to take place. The deadline was noon last Friday (Fiji time). However, rugby took priority. Apparently the new time is 3am tonight. Though, isn’t this coup all over the fact that the government wanted to forgive those who started the 2000 coup?

I got back from work today to discover that Don Brash has resigned from National leadership. This comes as he has placed an injunction on leaked e-mails, which subsequently blocked a book that was announced the same day the injunction came into force.

It has turned into a not-if-but-when situation, however it is still a shock, and after a year of constant calls for new leadership. It has been a very long time coming.

So, where to next for the party? There are already talks about John Keys being the next leader; he has been climbing up the polls ever so graciously over the past year. However, the Nicky Hagar book, The Hollow Men, involves him as well. It doesn’t look very good for the National party right now, despite high pollings.

• The announcement on National Party’s website

Everyone has an opinion on the waterfront stadium proposed for Auckland. The idea is to build a national stadium to host the World Cup in 2011, as well as many other events. The alternative is Eden Park, and if not that, then Jade Stadium in Auckland.

There have been many, many polls on this. TV3 did one on 3 News and showed more people are against the waterfront stadium. NZ Herald had one released the next day showing the same thing.

One News has been holding a poll all week (they also keep stating that it is not scientific - well done on TVNZ for not making out it is) and have shown an interesting result. While overall more are in favour of Eden Park, there is a very clear split between the phone/text voters, and the online voters. The phone ones (which are 0900 numbers and xx cents per text) has about 35% in favour of the waterfront. The online one (which of course is free on TVNZ.co.nz) has 65% in favour. The final poll result will be shown on One News tonight at 6.

I guess the poll is showing exactly what an unscientific 0900/mail-in poll is like. Because you have to pay, only those with very strong opinions (which are usually those against things), would bother voting. I’d believe the online poll more, as while there is self-selection still present, the deterrent of having to pay is removed.

One more thing that some people are pointing out - not everyone knows the full picture. Russell Brown as summarised it pretty well:

But let’s look at what’s actually proposed: the wharf around the stadium will be a public concourse; there will be bars and restaurants lining the area. At the end of the wharf, I would think, you’d feel like you were actually out on the harbour. Viewed from Devonport, all lit up at night, I imagine the structure would look stunning. Like Eden Park, it would house function rooms and venues, its glass walls opening up a harbour vista. Unlike Eden Park, the facilities could be used as often as anyone wanted them.

Outside, Quay Street is wide enough to be closed off as a pedestrian boulevard for major events, and still have room for a dedicated bus and taxi lane. There are 20,000-odd carparks within walking distance, a bus depot and a railway station. Any transit investment made in the area will also work for the Vector Arena and the Viaduct.

I’m kind of for the waterfront option myself. It’ll be much better than the current ports. My only concern is how long is it going to take to build? After they make the choice, they have to rush legislation through parliament so it can be weaseled out of the Resource Management Act. And then what happens if it isn’t built on time? I think this should have all been discussed during the RWC2011 proposal.

Yesterday afternoon, the government announced that if the drinking age bill failed, then they would review how the underage kids are being supplied with alcohol.

So the bill failed.

What amuses me is how the government is doing the review after putting in measures that had no guarantee that it’ll work. Maybe next time they’ll make informed decisions. Not to mention, boost enforcement of the current act which is what should have been done the whole time - I’ve only seen it happen twice with premises closing en masse because of being duped into serving an underage kid by the police.

So, in general, some good news all round - not that I’m 19 anymore.

Well, it is official. The Democrats now hold both the House and Senate. Bush called it a “thumpin’.”

The last two seats to be decided were pretty close, having only a few thousand votes between the main contenders. There now seem to be talks of recounts and stuff, so it could all last a few days.

Oh well, my interest in US politics has basically ended now.