Kill the Bill

[Finn]

You still have 30 hours left until end of Friday to have your say on the Electoral Finance Bill.

The bill in its current form will regulate almost all political discourse next year. Participation in the political process will be something you have to jump through hoops, not a given right. Labour, Greens, NZ First are showing little signs of accepting how flawed the Bill is. In fact the Government is blatantly lying about its effects.

So please please take 30 minutes out of your day or evening to make a submission. It does not have to be long and you can do it online. They should be in by the end of Friday. Here is how:

1. Go to http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/SC/SubmCalled/b/c/3/48SCJEelectoralfinance200709071-Electoral-Finance-Bill.htm
2. Click on “Make an online submission”
3. Select Yes or no as to whether you wish to appear before the Select Committee to speak to your submission. Unless the thought of doing so freaks you out I encourage people to say yes. Your submission will have more relevance if they hear from you directly on why you do not want your rights interfered with. It also makes it harder for them to rush it into law.
4. Enter in your name, and contact details. Also if you are appearing, list your name and number as a witness.
5. Then click next page
6. Now you can either import a word document with your submission in it, or type in your submission in the box provided. Then click Submit. It is as easy as that. Just be aware the page times out after 20 minutes so write your submission first and then follow through the process.

Now comes the question - what do you say. Well first of all you need to say what do you want them to do with the Bill. There are broadly three choices. To pass it unamended. To pass it with amendment. Or to reject it by recommending to the House it does not proceed. I think people should say something like:

“I ask the Justice and Electoral Select Committee to reject the Electoral Finance Bill and recommend to the House it does not proceed because it seeks to impose draconian restrictions on political advocacy and speech for which there is no electoral or public mandate”

I would then expand on the point that there is no mandate for these third party restrictions in the Bill. Point out that there has been no public policy process around the Bill. Point out that it has not been possible to even debate it until a few weeks ago and that one would expect sweeping changes of this nature to come at the end of a lengthy public debate, not at the beginning.

Also point out that why you don’t want the bill merely amended is because you will then have no chance to have meaningful input into the revised bill. State that your preference is for a public policy process to be used to explore issues and develop options around electoral reform, and then for legislation to be advanced.

Then you may want to highlight some features you find undesirable. Below I give some examples you can incorporate. But at the end do it in your own words. Here’s a short list of undesirable features:

* It extends the period of “regulated speech from 90 days to around 11 months, meaning New Zealanders will spend one third of their lives restricted as to their advocacy.

* It defines as an election advertisement taking a position on any proposition that a party or candidate is associated with, which will elevate parties and MPs to first class citizens, as the moment they take a position on an issue, it becomes a restricted topic for all other New Zealanders

* It covers not just traditional advertising, but is worded so that every e-mail and every website (except non commercial blogs) fall under the regulated speech regime

* It has an almost unworkable bureaucratic system of sworn statutory declarations for any person or organisation spending even $1 expressing a view for or against a party in election year

* It bans any unincorprated society with even one member under the age of 17 from spending more than $100 a week on political issues

* It bans political parties from being able to run issue advertisements

* It requires every organisation that spends more than $100 a week or $5,00 a year on “taking a position on any proposition that a party or candidate is associated with” as having to register with the Government and reveal all non trivial sources of income. This will affect hundreds if not thousands of organisations

* It requires third parties ot hand over anonymous donations over $500 to the Government yet allows political parties to accept anonymous donations of no limit at all.

* It restricts an organisation to $60,000 expenditure in a year on so called election advertising, which barely covers two full page newspapers ads in our largest newspaper, over 11 months. This is a ridiculously low limit to apply for such a long period of time.

* It will legalise Labour’s illegal pledge card over-spending in 2005

* It does not provide for significantly greater penalties for parties that deliberately breach the Electoral Act as happened in 2005

* It prevents a wronged party, attacked by a politician, from defending itself during an election campaign by requiring third parties to register prior to the issuing of the election writs

* It does not crack down on anonymous and trust donations to political parties despite there being a clear public consensus that it should.

* The definition of advertising and publication is so wide that e-mailing a press release, stating your views on a website (other than a non commercial blog), or even making a placard for a protest march will be regulated by the Bill

* That both third parties and political parties are greatly restricted for all of election year which will prevent them from being able to effectively respond to Government initiatives such as the Budget

That probably gives people some stuff to go on. You can also mention that the Governments are set up to serve the people, not to take away their rights to criticise the Government. That any restrictions on these rights should not be rushed into law but only be legislated into law after there has been significant public consultation and input, and widespread consensus. Point out the only consensus amongst the public is that the Bill is anti-democratic.

So get to work people. It sounds melodramatic to say if you don’t have your say on this law, you will lose your say on other laws. But in fact sending in a submission to a Select Committee will actually be defined as a publication and an election advertisement and be illegal next year unless you sign a statutory declaration that you will not spend more than $5,000 on “advertising”.

Also next year if there is a proposed bill, and you are a registered third party and you have already spent your $60,000 on other activities, then you will be banned from spending even $1 on publishing your submission on a law.

Do not trust that Labour, Greens and NZ First will magically make this Bill less draconian. The Government is blatantly lying about what this Bill does. The Greens will agree to almost anything so long as it stops the Brethren and National. Winston I hope will show some sense on this, but I don’t want to rely on that.

Thank you

[Virago]

You had me worried there - I thought this was another cop-bashing thread...:crazy:

[jrandom]

Well done, sir.

Take heed, people. You don't have to be able to write a Churchillian speech to lend your weight to this debate.

All those of you who moan and whinge about this country going to the dogs, here's your chance to make a difference to something that matters. Can you be arsed devoting a few hours to reading the Bill and writing a response?

[Ocean1]

Already done, FWIW.

[Indiana_Jones]

I hope this bill doesn't get through.

Aunty Helen is getting scared

-Indy

[NighthawkNZ]

You had me worried there - I thought this was another cop-bashing thread...:crazy:

I thought it was Kill Bill 3... :crazy:

[paturoa]

Or to reject it

REJECT REJECT REJECT !!!

Somehow this has changed from a straight forward disclosure issue (Bretheren) to all of this fascist garbage.

Me thinks that this is the standard lefty 4 step ....

Step 1) The "Oh Shit" moment as they realise that the public will never accept this (aka vote for someone else)
Step 2) Lets propose something that is so far over the top, that everyone gets upset with it.
Step 3) ...and then wind back the OTT garbage at last minute, so that the public goes "phew", and leave in exactly what was desired in step 1.
Step 4) Chuckle to ourselves at just how stupid the prols are.

Cullen (chief thief) was setting this up this afternoon. Did anyone hear his radio interview comments about "...wait for what is actually in the bill", when the interviewer starting asking him some valid questions???

Fucking liar.

[Timber020]

Wow, this is enough for me to dislike labour more than I dislike national. If they try to put this through under urgency I hope they dont get in for another 30 years. Pure bullshit.

[Hitcher]

Any Government that can pass the Terrorism Suppression Bill will have no problems with the Electoral Finance Bill, even though it has nothing to do with electoral finance. We're fucked. Run for the hills!

[Skyryder]

Yea great movie. All that sword play and blood. Can't wait for the real thing.

Lots of blood on the floor whoever wins.

Skyryder

[Finn]

Wow, this is enough for me to dislike labour more than I dislike national. If they try to put this through under urgency I hope they dont get in for another 30 years. Pure bullshit.

Wouldn't it be funny if Labour get this through and STILL lose the next election? They would never get in again. However, John Key said that even if they win, they will scrap it. I wouldn't if I was him.

Also, it appears that the IP address for the PC responsible for all the online poll tampering in the NZ Herald comes from someone withing Labour. Doesn't surprise me at all. Helen vill do anyzing to to keep zin power.

[oldrider]

Yea great movie. All that sword play and blood. Can't wait for the real thing.

Lots of blood on the floor whoever wins.

Skyryder

"Can't wait for the real thing"

I don't think you really mean that as a serious comment.

It may be sooner than you think!

There is some serious shit going down in this country at the moment.

In fact it is not only here, it is all around the South Pacific!

Pawns in the game! :doh: John.

[Skyryder]

"Can't wait for the real thing"

I don't think you really mean that as a serious comment.

It may be sooner than you think!

There is some serious shit going down in this country at the moment.

In fact it is not only here, it is all around the South Pacific!

Pawns in the game! :doh: John.



I think you misunderstood me. I mean the real thing as in the election. Not all this Tuhoe shit. I agree with the seriouse shit going down. Fuckers have even got the nerve to march on parliment and then cry that their freedoms are in jepody. Maoris dressed as Arabs what a 'fucking joke." Bloody hell they are the first to cry culture insensitivety when someone use their culture.

I'm thinking of starting a thread of masterbation and if anyone objects I'll cry culture insensitivety. Wahtcha all think??:girlfight:

Good to see ya back.

Skyryder

[avgas]

Nah lets just plan for chaos.
Is i just me or do people not need money to show a political opinion........mabey i'm misreading the bill. feel free to correct me

[Skyryder]

Nah lets just plan for chaos.
Is i just me or do people not need money to show a political opinion........mabey i'm misreading the bill. feel free to correct me

The opposition to the Electoral Finance Bill is being driven by the same people that opposed Bradfords 'Smacking Bill.' They are on a fast learning curve and have not come out openly as they did with their opposition to Bradford's bill. The essence of the bill is that the political parties formulate policy on the basis that the people can choose which party they think is the best to govern in their interests without any undue influence from outsiders due to political donations.

I know many don't like Nicky Hagar but a read of the Hollow Men will give some understanding of how the far right influence National Party politics.

Skyryder

[devnull]

The opposition to the Electoral Finance Bill is being driven by the same people that opposed Bradfords 'Smacking Bill.' They are on a fast learning curve and have not come out openly as they did with their opposition to Bradford's bill. The essence of the bill is that the political parties formulate policy on the basis that the people can choose which party they think is the best to govern in their interests without any undue influence from outsiders due to political donations.

I know many don't like Nicky Hagar but a read of the Hollow Men will give some understanding of how the far right influence National Party politics.

Skyryder

You're kidding right?

80% of people opposed Bradford's bill. Over the last 12 months, a record number of people have voted with their feet and left NZ.

This current bill is gagging free speech, which is why people are getting pissed off. We want to live in a democracy - not just use a democratic electoral process once every 3 years.

The whole left-wing bullshit spin on everything is getting ridiculous, from crime rates spiraling out of control, skilled workers queuing up to leave, to exploding welfare dependency... there always seems to be some form of "aren't we doing well, the arguments against us are all wrong" message.

[Skyryder]

You're kidding right?

80% of people opposed Bradford's bill. Over the last 12 months, a record number of people have voted with their feet and left NZ.

This current bill is gagging free speech, which is why people are getting pissed off. We want to live in a democracy - not just use a democratic electoral process once every 3 years.

The whole left-wing bullshit spin on everything is getting ridiculous, from crime rates spiraling out of control, skilled workers queuing up to leave, to exploding welfare dependency... there always seems to be some form of "aren't we doing well, the arguments against us are all wrong" message.

Yep and those that opposed Bradford's Bill had no idea what it was about. That misconception was driven by the new right. The current bill does not gag free speech as you say. This is another misconception that is being promoted. There are some 'valid' concerns I admit that but it has nothing to do with free speech and those that promote this idea are politicly driven in their opposition to the bill or have no idea what the bill is about.

You bring other arguments into your post that are not relevent to the Bill.

Either start a new topic or bone up on what you are about.

Skyyrder

[Finn]

I know many don't like Nicky Hagar but a read of the Hollow Men will give some understanding of how the far right influence National Party politics.

Skyryder

Well of course they do. Just like all the losers and deadbeats that influence Labour's.

It's nothing new Skyryder, it's just that the right are generally successful and have money to spend to support their ideas whereas Labour and their supporters have to break the law and steal.

However, this bill won't be the reason Labour lose the next election. I think that finally, the indoctrinated masses have had enough.

[Skyryder]

Well of course they do. Just like all the losers and deadbeats that influence Labour's.

It's nothing new Skyryder, it's just that the right are generally successful and have money to spend to support their ideas whereas Labour and their supporters have to break the law and steal.

However, this bill won't be the reason Labour lose the next election. I think that finally, the indoctrinated masses have had enough.

Well I suppose by your reference to breaking the law and stealing you are referring to the election spending on the last election. This is typical of the selective references that those that espouse your views take when denigrating Labour. The only Party that did not break the law on this issue was the Progressives. In other words National was as guilty as Labour on this and to suggest otherwise as you have done does your credibility no service at all. It's just that the amount was different. But as your rightly say stealing is stealing. Of course indoctrination only applies to the left. Lies and bullshit is the province of the right. They just need to spend the money to make it all more sophisticated and look like the truth.

Skyrder

[devnull]

Yep and those that opposed Bradford's Bill had no idea what it was about. That misconception was driven by the new right. The current bill does not gag free speech as you say. This is another misconception that is being promoted. There are some 'valid' concerns I admit that but it has nothing to do with free speech and those that promote this idea are politicly driven in their opposition to the bill or have no idea what the bill is about.

You bring other arguments into your post that are not relevent to the Bill.

Either start a new topic or bone up on what you are about.

Skyyrder

What misconception? It was, and still is, a crap bill. Have you read it? I have, and so did many others.

Lets look at the Electoral Finance Bill and how the Labour pledge card would be treated.....

It would be a lawful use of parliamentary funds, and not allowed to be scrutinised by the Chief Electoral Officer or the Electoral Commission.

It expressly exempts "any publications that relate to a member of Parliament in his or her capacity as a member of Parliament" from being counted as an election expense.

Sitting MPs will have a huge advantage over non-parliamentary parties and candidates. The immunity on their spending runs for the entire three years of an election cycle. Their opponents have restrictions placed on their advertising from January 1 of election year.

[Mr Merde]

As with all political discussions on this site I have been following this one and have once again come to the same conclussion.

Does it really matter what we think, say or do?

When it comes down to it we are, once every 3 years or so, thrown a bone that allows us the illusion that we have some sort of say in how we are governed. Once that period is over, and no matter who finishes up "in Power", the ruling party goes on to do exactly what it feels it should so as to enable them to retain the control they have just grabbed.

We can protest, petition, criticise and harangue our "elected" (what a joke) representatives as much as we like and they will only play lip service to us unless it serves their purpose, their personal objectives.

The government has been taking monies from its populace for decades as it likes and there is no accountability to us for it. They lie, cheat, mislead and generally defraud the said populace and then if caught they use the same monies to defend themselves.

Our civil service is a law unto itself and again not answerable to the populace in any way. Most of it is a self perpetuating mass of seething corruption and jealously guards any semblence of control it thinks it has.

If i sound bitter it is because I am. I am tired of being lied to, tired of having over half of my earnings ripped off by a corrupt system and receiving no benifit back for that which has been appropriated. I am tired of being treated as a child and incapable of making a decision and to my lifestyle, belief system and welbeing. I am tired of constantly being told i am wrong because someone else has decided they know whats best for me. I am tired of supporting an oligraphy that only just hides its contempt for me. I am tired of feeling like a criminal everytime I venture out of the confines of my own home. I am tired of the invasion that local governments have made into my affairs.

I am tired. I am angry and I have just about had enough.

When I came back to NZ 4 years ago I was supprised to hear a lot of people talk about "come the revolution". Now I understand it and feel that it has been a long time comming. Not a violent revolution but one in the wayt we allow people to dominate us and subdue us.

It is a pipe dream really because from what I have relearned since comming home is that the average New Zealander is about as dominant and outgoing as those sheep they are so veryu proud of raising.


Rant over.


Merde

[devnull]

Well said Merde.... so true

[SPman]

Perhaps they should all read this

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4272851a1861.html

The idea to make all donations above board and open is good, but, as usual, the people who write the legislation up, couldn't write the recipe for a glass of water in coherent english, so, as usual, it's a total cockup!
I agree with Mr Merde. All governments want a docile populace, so they can do what they will, and NZ is one of the more docile around!

[Mr Merde]

Perhaps they should all read this

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4272851a1861.html

A more polite way of what I have been trying to say.

It would be wonderful if more people thought this way and actually behaved like this.

Endless debate, with no resolution or even an expectation of a resolution in sight, becomes very mind numbing. maybe this is the overall plan. Make us so apathetic and catatonic that we dont notice the gradual removal of everything that makes life interesting and rewarding then those who have fostered this can do as they please.

I have an inherant mistrust of anyone who professes to know whats best for me and mine.

Merde

[avgas]

Exactly, only chaos can clean the land now ;)

[Phil W]

Can someone please tell me what policies make Labor a left wing party? There is no left wing party in NZ. Mostly center right with a smattering of far right. The only difference is the branding.

Best outcome for a Marxist,
Republican victory in next US elections.
Conservative win UK
Howard re elected across the ditch
National take NZ
All adds up to late period capitalism, watch the dogs eating the dogs.

Think you've seen limitation of personal freedoms yet? Restriction of choice? Outsourcing of jobs and opportunities to the lowest bidder in the far east. Final destruction of any accessible health/education system.
NZ PLC here we come.

[Skyryder]

What misconception? It was, and still is, a crap bill. Have you read it? I have, and so did many others.

Lets look at the Electoral Finance Bill and how the Labour pledge card would be treated.....

It would be a lawful use of parliamentary funds, and not allowed to be scrutinised by the Chief Electoral Officer or the Electoral Commission.

It expressly exempts "any publications that relate to a member of Parliament in his or her capacity as a member of Parliament" from being counted as an election expense.

Sitting MPs will have a huge advantage over non-parliamentary parties and candidates. The immunity on their spending runs for the entire three years of an election cycle. Their opponents have restrictions placed on their advertising from January 1 of election year.

So how does that impede the freedom of speech which so many believe?

There are many publications put out by government that are there to inform the electorate. I will agree that some can be construed as 'advertising' the success of a particular policy. Politicians of the House have a duty to inform the public of what is happening with Government. Personaly I think there is too much of 'in the dark" But having said that these same pollies have earned the right that you are refering to by getting themselves and their party elected to Parliment Correct me if I am wrong but you seem to imply that the same taxpayers money should be made avaliable to non elected members of the public.

Skyrdyer

[Grahameeboy]

Well done, sir.

Take heed, people. You don't have to be able to write a Churchillian speech to lend your weight to this debate.

All those of you who moan and whinge about this country going to the dogs, here's your chance to make a difference to something that matters. Can you be arsed devoting a few hours to reading the Bill and writing a response?

I don't moan about this Country so not registered.

[Grahameeboy]

You're kidding right?

80% of people opposed Bradford's bill. Over the last 12 months, a record number of people have voted with their feet and left NZ.

This current bill is gagging free speech, which is why people are getting pissed off. We want to live in a democracy - not just use a democratic electoral process once every 3 years.

The whole left-wing bullshit spin on everything is getting ridiculous, from crime rates spiraling out of control, skilled workers queuing up to leave, to exploding welfare dependency... there always seems to be some form of "aren't we doing well, the arguments against us are all wrong" message.

Come on now did they really leave because of one Bill...........??

Crime rates spiralling...........??

[Grahameeboy]

So how does that impede the freedom of speech which so many believe?

There are many publications put out by government that are there to inform the electorate. I will agree that some can be construed as 'advertising' the success of a particular policy. Politicians of the House have a duty to inform the public of what is happening with Government. Personaly I think there is too much of 'in the dark" But having said that these same pollies have earned the right that you are refering to by getting themselves and their party elected to Parliment Correct me if I am wrong but you seem to imply that the same taxpayers money should be made avaliable to non elected members of the public.

Skyrdyer

I have not read the Bill as I think it just creates more paranoia.......but your take on things makes sense to me and as usual the knee tremblers stumble out whoeing about how the Country is going to the dogs, I have no freedom blah blah....

[Grahameeboy]

You're kidding right?

80% of people opposed Bradford's bill. Over the last 12 months, a record number of people have voted with their feet and left NZ.

This current bill is gagging free speech, which is why people are getting pissed off. We want to live in a democracy - not just use a democratic electoral process once every 3 years.

The whole left-wing bullshit spin on everything is getting ridiculous, from crime rates spiraling out of control, skilled workers queuing up to leave, to exploding welfare dependency... there always seems to be some form of "aren't we doing well, the arguments against us are all wrong" message.

And does 80% make the Bill wrong? Maybe the 20% are the more intelligent ones who understand the reality not just the fantasy and don't allow the media drive the paranoia.

[MisterD]

Yep and those that opposed Bradford's Bill had no idea what it was about. That misconception was driven by the new right.


Bullshit. The opponents of that bill claimed that it would criminalise ordinary parents. SB and HC both refuted that....but then after CYFS were called because a school kid told her teacher that she had been smacked SB says "This shows the bill is working".

Who was deliberately misleading the voting public?

[MisterD]

This is typical of the selective references that those that espouse your views take when denigrating Labour. The only Party that did not break the law on this issue was the Progressives. In other words National was as guilty as Labour on this and to suggest otherwise as you have done does your credibility no service at all.

That is the typical selective pro-Labour response...National were only found to have broken the rules at a couple of individual constituencies. There was no problem with their central campaign. Is that a systematic rort of the public purse as was the Labour campaign?

[Skyryder]

That is the typical selective pro-Labour response...National were only found to have broken the rules at a couple of individual constituencies. There was no problem with their central campaign. Is that a systematic rort of the public purse as was the Labour campaign?

Stealing is stealing. The amount or how often in this case is irrelevent. National have taken the moral high ground on this when they have no right to be there..........period.

Think of it this way.........if some one stole your bike would you feel any different if yours was their first or the last of many thefts??:scooter:

Skyryder

[Indiana_Jones]

And does 80% make the Bill wrong? Maybe the 20% are the more intelligent ones who understand the reality not just the fantasy and don't allow the media drive the paranoia.

But we live in a 'democracy', if most of the people agree or disagree on something, then one would go with that.

-Indy

[Hitcher]

But we live in a 'democracy', if most of the people agree or disagree on something, then one would go with that.

That could be true if the proposition in question had been put to the electorate i.e. us voters, rather than being something that the Gummint decided off its own bat to be a good idea.

Remember that nobody voted for this Government and it therefore has no mandate to do this sort of constitutionally important stuff without consultation or a vote from New Zealand's voters.

[Indiana_Jones]

That could be true if the proposition in question had been put to the electorate i.e. us voters, rather than being something that the Gummint decided off its own bat to be a good idea.

Remember that nobody voted for this Government and it therefore has no mandate to do this sort of constitutionally important stuff without consultation or a vote from New Zealand's voters.

This is true.

-Indy

[Hitcher]

This is true.

Goodness me, that was easy.

[Indiana_Jones]

Goodness me, that was easy.

lol, I didn't disagree in the first place :laugh:

-Indy

[The Pastor]

I dont know much about the bill, but it have the hearlad the shits a couple days back.

[Grahameeboy]

But we live in a 'democracy', if most of the people agree or disagree on something, then one would go with that.

-Indy

I know but would you want things run by the 80% who are ill informed and democracy is at election times when we chose the Govt.

[Grahameeboy]

That could be true if the proposition in question had been put to the electorate i.e. us voters, rather than being something that the Gummint decided off its own bat to be a good idea.

Remember that nobody voted for this Government and it therefore has no mandate to do this sort of constitutionally important stuff without consultation or a vote from New Zealand's voters.

I know what you mean, however, there is a danger if the Govt asks us first.

The Govt is voted (and okay there is some debate) to make decisions for us.

Take the Anti-Smacking Bill. If the voters had a poll, of course they would not vote for it because they are worried about the implications even though in reality it may only affect 10% of the population and more importantly protect our kids.

Since the Bill was passed how much of an impact has it had on NZ. Not a lot.

If a Bill was passed that meant we had to be in bed by 10 then that would be different.

This Election Bill doesn't really only seems to have an impact in our minds and that in reality it will not have a huge impact in practice.

Now I don't vote. That is my choice. Even if a Bill was passed that made it illegal not to vote, I would still have a choice, unlikely I would be prosecuted and if I had to vote it would not be the end of the world.

Sometimes I think we need to chill a bit.

[devnull]

I know but would you want things run by the 80% who are ill informed and democracy is at election times when we chose the Govt.

Ill informed? Thats bullshit.

Many who spoke out had done their homework... and cited the problems in Sweden (Bradford's poster child), the ridiculous assumptions she made (including the quoting of erroneous figures directly from Joan Durrant's paper, which had already been widely discredited in the scientific community), mountains of psych research that showed the opposite of what the govt preached....

What you seem to be supporting is a Marxist-type view that democracy is a thing to be feared, and that an elite few should dictate all aspects of life to the masses. And the people should just shut up and do as they're told because "we know best"

That particular bill had nothing to do with protecting kids, and everything to do with controlling the population through their kids. It's an effective control mechanism that's been used in both Russia and Germany in the past...

Chester Barrows submission was a superb piece of legislation that really did address the issue, but it didn't suit the agenda that certain people had...

[Grahameeboy]

Ill informed? Thats bullshit.

Many who spoke out had done their homework... and cited the problems in Sweden (Bradford's poster child), the ridiculous assumptions she made (including the quoting of erroneous figures directly from Joan Durrant's paper, which had already been widely discredited in the scientific community), mountains of psych research that showed the opposite of what the govt preached....

What you seem to be supporting is a Marxist-type view that democracy is a thing to be feared, and that an elite few should dictate all aspects of life to the masses. And the people should just shut up and do as they're told because "we know best"

That particular bill had nothing to do with protecting kids, and everything to do with controlling the population through their kids. It's an effective control mechanism that's been used in both Russia and Germany in the past...

Chester Barrows submission was a superb piece of legislation that really did address the issue, but it didn't suit the agenda that certain people had...

Bullshit to you perhaps.

I do not fear democracy so no idea why you think I support a Marxist view. I think we get paranoid and the fear comes from within.

We can compare with other Nations, however, we have our own identity and specific problems......do Sweden have Maori issues for eg.

I find it strange that a Nation like NZ with a population of 4million in a country marginally bigger that the UK with almost 60million people spends so much time moaning about that we are controlled and that the Anti-Smacking Bill was not about the kids but is about controlling us....geeze you guys need to chill.........maybe I am the only one who doesn't feel controlled eh.

And I thought POMs were the whingers.

Regardless of your view of religion, I am glad I have my Faith......so much easier ya know and I can enjoy life.

[Finn]

We can compare with other Nations, however, we have our own identity and specific problems......do Sweden have Maori issues for eg.

Actually they do. When I lived in Stockholm there was this Maori we called Geoff the Maori. He was married to a Swedish girl who hated him but he was the sperm donor of her children. He was on welfare and was always drunk. The Australian pub across the road from my apartment banned him. He was a real problem.

However, Scandinavia does have its own indigenous people - the Sami's. They are whities and don't cause a lot of problems. Traditionally, the Sami had a variety of livelihoods; fishing on the coast and in the inland, trapping animals for fur, sheep herding, etc - this all sounds familiar... The best known livelihood is reindeer herding, but only a small percentage of the Sami have been mainly reindeer herders over the last centuries. Today, many Sami lead modern lives in the cities inside and outside the traditional Sami area, with modern jobs. Some 10% still practice reindeer herding, which for traditional and cultural reasons is reserved for Sami people in some parts of Nordic countries.

Now what Sweden do have a problem with is Somalians. Much like NZ, Sweden feels that they must take it upon themselves to fix all the problems with corrupt Governments by moving the entire race of a troubled country to their own. It is no surprise that crime has skyrocketed 500% in some areas of Stockholm.

It is also no surprise that Labour model their policies on Sweden. But I wonder if they've noticed that Socialism, like a nasty cancer has eaten away at what was once a great country, much like NZ. Healthcare, education, policing and other core social services are useless. I also wonder if they've noticed that a right wing party won the last election. It was a landslide.

[devnull]

Regarding Marxist philosophy, I was referring to this comment of yours Grahameeboy:



And does 80% make the Bill wrong? Maybe the 20% are the more intelligent ones who understand the reality not just the fantasy and don't allow the media drive the paranoia.


Sweden has a large amount of internal issues and civil unrest.
It's a socialist stronghold that's been used repeatedly as THE model for child protection laws. What's been left out of the propaganda is the number of time that they've been hauled up before the EU courts over those laws, and the high rate of children seized by the state (the funding model is based on number of kids placed into state care)

We may have a population of 4 million, but approx 25% of that population no longer chooses to live here, and in excess of 600 per week are heading to Oz. Pretty damning statistics really.

I don't know why you're getting hung up on religion - nowhere did I mention it.

[Finn]

I don't know why you're getting hung up on religion - nowhere did I mention it.

Oh no, you just did.

[devnull]

Oh no, you just did.

Oops :bleh:

[Finn]

There is no limit to the extent that Labour will go to write electoral laws to suit itself. We’ve heard that the revised bill will have some limits on anonymous donations.

But instead of abolishing them (over the reporting limit), which I would support, the Dom Post reports that one will be allowed $240,000 of anonymous donations over three years.

Now how much money did Labour get in the last election from anon donations? $315,000

Now $65,000 of their anonymous donations could be done non-anoymously if they had people give $10k a year. So taking that away from the $315,000 and you get $250,000 - almost a perfect match.

This is fucking outrageous. We the public have had no chance to have input into that limit. I want a zero limit for anonymous donations (above the reporting threshold). Instead we have a limit hand picked by Labour as allowing them to retain basically all of their anonymous donations.

The public have been totally excluded from any input into what level of anonymous donations, if any, should be allowed. Instead Labour and allies cook up a sweetheart deal designed to do just one thing - preserve Labour’s funding.

Labour have a democracy deficit in their thinking. The Herald nailed them - they think democracy is only useful as a tool to get them elected.

Here’s what National should do. They should move an amendment at the committee of the whole stage to outlaw all anonymous donations (over the reporting limit) and see if the Greens and NZ First have the balls to vote on principle or vote for their cosy deal with Labour to protect Labour’s funding sources.

[Grahameeboy]

Regarding Marxist philosophy, I was referring to this comment of yours Grahameeboy:



Sweden has a large amount of internal issues and civil unrest.
It's a socialist stronghold that's been used repeatedly as THE model for child protection laws. What's been left out of the propaganda is the number of time that they've been hauled up before the EU courts over those laws, and the high rate of children seized by the state (the funding model is based on number of kids placed into state care)

We may have a population of 4 million, but approx 25% of that population no longer chooses to live here, and in excess of 600 per week are heading to Oz. Pretty damning statistics really.

I don't know why you're getting hung up on religion - nowhere did I mention it.


Read that bit again........I did not say you raised religion, was just saying that I am glad I have my faith and don't get hung up on all this paranoia.

600 per week = 31,200 pa / 25% of $4million = 1million....see what I mean about paranoia. I think you will find that those leaving is the same as those arriving

Read This

In the year to mid-2006, there were an estimated 574,000 people migrating to the UK for a year or more. This was 25,000 lower than in the previous mid-year period. Long term migration from the UK increased by 49,000 to 385,000. As a result, net international in-migration decreased to 189,000 from 262,000 in the previous year.

Now we are no way worse than the UK by a long stretch with terriorism and high immigration etc so maybe it is paranoia causing emigrating not policies

[Finn]

600 per week = 31,200 pa / 25% of $4million = 1million....see what I mean about paranoia. I think you will find that those leaving is the same as those arriving

Grahameeboy, that's just to Australia and it's been happening for many years now. Believe me, it's a real problem.

[Grahameeboy]

Grahameeboy, that's just to Australia and it's been happening for many years now. Believe me, it's a real problem.

So 1 million people a year are leaving NZ then even though the 2006 stats say that it is even stevens.......righto....lets hope they are the moaners then so we can have some peace and quite

[Finn]

So 1 million people a year are leaving NZ then even though the 2006 stats say that it is even stevens.......righto....lets hope they are the moaners then so we can have some peace and quite

I never said 1 million a year. It's the brain drain that's the problem and if you were an employer, you'd know what I mean. Labour have this figured out though... they'll replace educated kiwi's with refugees and poms.

[Grahameeboy]

I never said 1 million a year. It's the brain drain that's the problem and if you were an employer, you'd know what I mean. Labour have this figured out though... they'll replace educated kiwi's with refugees and poms.

So refugees and poms are not educated? At least they will not moan I guess.

Many educated immigrants come here but NZ has this closed shop and even a Doctor from the UK has to set extra papers to be NZ complaint.

My friend was a Lawyer in UK. Decided to do Real Estate instead as he would have to do more papers to be a Lawyer in NZ and he has a family now......you would think that an educated UK Lawyer would be easily able to do Law here eh............so much for wanting educated people

[jrandom]

... if you were an employer, you'd know what I mean.

Having spent most of the last seven years trying to hire guys into my various teams on behalf of various large companies, I'm with you on that one.

I definitely plan to flog my business before it gets to the stage where I have to hire anyone other than my own well-proven ex-colleagues.

[Finn]

Many educated immigrants come here but NZ has this closed shop and even a Doctor from the UK has to set extra papers to be NZ complaint.

My friend was a Lawyer in UK. Decided to do Real Estate instead as he would have to do more papers to be a Lawyer in NZ and he has a family now......you would think that an educated UK Lawyer would be easily able to do Law here eh............so much for wanting educated people

Yes, another example of the inadequacies of Labour policy. I'm glad that you raised this GB and that you'll be voting with your head and not ideals next year.

[Grahameeboy]

Yes, another example of the inadequacies of Labour policy. I'm glad that you raised this GB and that you'll be voting with your head and not ideals next year.

I don't vote.............never did in UK either. Just not me.

There is more to life in my book.

[Finn]

There is more to life in my book.

I thought the bible was all about choice...

[Grahameeboy]

I thought the bible was all about choice...

I was not specifically referring to the Bible, however you are right the Bible is about choices.....although to be honest, if I was not a Christian, I would have posted the same comment as that is me.

[jrandom]

you would think that an educated UK Lawyer would be easily able to do Law here eh...

The last thing NZ needs is more lawyers.

:sick:

[Grahameeboy]

The last thing NZ needs is more lawyers.

:sick:

or probably Real Estate Agents eh?

[Grahameeboy]

There is no limit to the extent that Labour will go to write electoral laws to suit itself. We’ve heard that the revised bill will have some limits on anonymous donations.

But instead of abolishing them (over the reporting limit), which I would support, the Dom Post reports that one will be allowed $240,000 of anonymous donations over three years.

Now how much money did Labour get in the last election from anon donations? $315,000

Now $65,000 of their anonymous donations could be done non-anoymously if they had people give $10k a year. So taking that away from the $315,000 and you get $250,000 - almost a perfect match.

This is fucking outrageous. We the public have had no chance to have input into that limit. I want a zero limit for anonymous donations (above the reporting threshold). Instead we have a limit hand picked by Labour as allowing them to retain basically all of their anonymous donations.

The public have been totally excluded from any input into what level of anonymous donations, if any, should be allowed. Instead Labour and allies cook up a sweetheart deal designed to do just one thing - preserve Labour’s funding.

Labour have a democracy deficit in their thinking. The Herald nailed them - they think democracy is only useful as a tool to get them elected.

Here’s what National should do. They should move an amendment at the committee of the whole stage to outlaw all anonymous donations (over the reporting limit) and see if the Greens and NZ First have the balls to vote on principle or vote for their cosy deal with Labour to protect Labour’s funding sources.

Explain, why do the public need input about the donation limits??

[jrandom]

or probably Real Estate Agents eh?

Yes, indeed. He sounds like the sort that, were I involved in issuing work visas, I would delay for as long as possible...

[Grahameeboy]

Yes, indeed. He sounds like the sort that, were I involved in issuing work visas, I would delay for as long as possible...

No he is cool, came here for a life style change and did not moan about the lawyer thing cause he knew that.....first year he struggled as it was a low in housing market so he stuck at it and is now the top sales person for Harcourts so makes a bob or two.............

[Finn]

Explain, why do the public need input about the donation limits??

No amount of hyperbolic rhetoric from you can change the fact that this bill is a corrupt rort and there is more to this than meets the eye . As the legal profession and even our leftist press is highly disgusted in the governments’ reconstituted corruption I suggest you stop and think about this for a moment.

[Grahameeboy]

No amount of hyperbolic rhetoric from you can change the fact that this bill is a corrupt rort and there is more to this than meets the eye . As the legal profession and even our leftist press is highly disgusted in the governments’ reconstituted corruption I suggest you stop and think about this for a moment.

I was asking a serious question and you have not answered it so I can stop and think.

You are right I don't want to change the bill.

[Mr Merde]

The last thing NZ needs is more lawyers.

:sick:

Only time I ever got red repped was in a thread where I took the opposite view (tongue in cheek). Treading on thin ground here

[Finn]

I was asking a serious question and you have not answered it so I can stop and think.

You're an immigrant, you don't vote (and they was something else but I can't remember it) so you have no right commenting in this thread.

[Grahameeboy]

You're an immigrant, you don't vote (and they was something else but I can't remember it) so you have no right commenting in this thread.

No I am a NZ Citizen and the fact that I don't vote does not mean I cannot comment on this thread.

You sound like a Politician b) tells people what they can and cannot do and b) don't answer questions.

[devnull]

I guess those of us that objectively judge laws on their merits are becoming a minority...

Here's a copy of the letter from the mother that was directly affected by Bradford's bill. Parents are right to be wary of this govt



Dear Sir,

I would like to inform families of the potential repercussions of Sue Bradford's bill. I wish to do this by sharing with you our own family's traumatic experience, since this bill has been approved.

During recent school holidays, I arrived home around 5.30pm after a fun filled day with my children to notice a card left by Child Youth and Family, asking me to get in contact with them ASAP. There was no detail as to the reason. We received no official letter from CYF. After leaving six messages, over a period of four days, I was finally able to contact the Care and Protection officer.

The Care and Protection officer informed me that they had received a complaint from the school, and that under new policy they were obligated to follow it up. My child (hereinafter also referred to as X) had shown aggressive behavior towards another student. When questioned by the teacher as to why, X answered that they had been smacked that morning.
The Care and Protection officer also explained that under new policy, teachers were required to report all smacking incidences directly to Child Youth and Family Services and that this was now just standard procedure.

The Care and Protection officer went on to ask me questions relating to X's behaviour, and whether they needed help in any way, eg medication, special needs etc. I replied, not that I was aware of - just a normal every day child having a bad day.

She also enquired about my family and when she was satisfied, she assured me that she would not take this any further and could I please ask the school to contact me directly if this sort of thing happened again.

Later when my husband and I questioned our child, X explained that they had thrown a ball and that it bounced and accidentally hit a class mate.
X had woken up in a bad mood that particular day and was very reluctant and unhelpful at getting ready for school. I told X to hurry up - X was refusing and throwing a wobbly, so I ended up smacking X on the hand. I also gave X a bit of a push into the room to get my child moving (done in the heat of the moment). X responded by more yelling and giving me an evil look. It wasn't a good morning. (This sort of thing doesn't happen very often, but it does happen.)

I usually never let my children go to school angry with me, but that morning we were in a hurry.The teacher seemed to ask questions about X's behaviour and why X was behaving like this. The teacher seemed to ask leading questions like, how was it at home etc. X never told her what the issue was - only that they had been smacked that morning. Apparently the teacher said to X, I will see to that and then asked if there were any marks. X said no.

X is worried that they will be taken away, and it is really hard to get X to talk about it. X can also be a bit of a drama queen, and could have exaggerated to the teacher at the time (especially in X's frame of
mind.) My husband did contact the school, to inquire why we weren't called earlier by the school and that this was just not good enough. He also communicated what the Care and Protection officer had said to us.
The school responded that it was new procedure and were sympathetic, but offered us no apology.

This is the first incident of this kind we have had with the school. In the second incident (over 2 months later), I invited another family around for lunch one weekend. After lunch the fathers decided to take the children for a walk to the dairy and park. After they were gone about five minutes, two of my children came back and explained to me that they were goofing around, and that Dad had sent them home.

They continued to goof around outside on the trampoline. X got hurt in the rough and tumble, came inside in a huff. When asked what the matter was by our guest, X rudely replied, I don't want to talk to you. I kindly asked X to apologise and X walked outside. I followed and asked X to come back inside and apologise. X walked to the furthest side of the tramp, so that I could not reach X and refused to come back inside. My older child who was already on the tramp tried to wrestle X to the other side. There was a lot of yelling, laughing and screaming going on by everyone, as it had turned into a bit of a game. I tried to take control of X and pull the child off the tramp, while the child was shouting and resisting. I smacked X on the backside with the palm of my hand (X was lying on their stomach), pulled X towards me and asked X to control themselves. Finally X came inside and went to the bedroom. I told X to stay there until they apologised.

Within 20mins, there were three police officers at my door and they asked me to step outside. (had arrived with lights flashing). They had received a complaint from a neighbour about an incident concerning one of my children. They then asked to question X and at the same time questioned me separately about what had happened.

It dawned on me as I was relaying the events that I might be arrested, and asked the officer if that was indeed the case. She said possibly, but needed to speak with the other officer before she could tell me.

After questioning X, and getting the details of my guest, to my relief, they decided not to arrest me this time. The officer kindly informed me that since this bill that Sue Bradford had pushed through, that the police have to respond to all complaints concerning families with children. This was new policy and they have to cross their T's and dot their I's.

I wanted to get a good understanding of what she was saying, so I asked the officer, if this was the second visit here and the events were the same, except this time I didn't smack the backside but simply pulled the child off the tramp, would I still be arrested? She replied yes, because I still used physical force and that under the new law no parent is allowed to use any physical force, unless you are protecting your child.
The police officers were very kind, but warned me of a possible arrest if this sort of thing happened again. And they left.

These events have traumatised my children, not to mention my husband and myself.

I understand the Police and Child Youth and Family Services were doing their jobs, and I commend them for it. But come on...this is going a bit far don't you think? My children have always had a healthy respect for the police, now sadly that has been altered. I am concerned for the welfare of this country if this sort of thing keeps happening to our families. Our children need security in our system, and shouldn't be fearful of being pulled away from their families.

We have since received a letter from a Foster Care agency contracted to CYF. They had been made aware of the police visiting us and have offered us their services. Their letter informed us that a social worker would call us in the near future. This was very nice of them, only I feel we would only be wasting their time. I am grateful it was this organisation, rather than CYF.

I really am grieved about where our country is heading. We as a family have been made only too aware, that if we tick anyone off for whatever reason, whether a neighbor, a shop keeper or teacher and they call the police, it is their word against ours. Now that we are in the system, it doesn't matter whether we are guilty or not. If the police officer doesn't like us for any reason, they have the power to separate our family. This is a horrible reality!

Again I would like to stress that we are an average NZ family. We have four children - sons and daughters, both teens and younger. We are all law abiding citizens, we don't drink, smoke or do drugs. We have always encouraged our children to respect authority and after this experience, have all been very traumatized.

An assault charge is no small matter. I have been involved in children's work for the last ten years, not to mention all the community work I have done with under privileged children over the years. (the real victims of child abuse.)

If I were to receive an "assault on a child" charge, I couldn't do these things, and I haven't even mentioned paid employment. This is an awful thought.

This new law seems to me, only to be creating insecurity for families that are genuinely trying their best to raise healthy, secure children, that are good law abiding citizens, and a lot of extra work for the organisations that are already over worked and under staffed.

We as parents need to be encouraged and supported by the government, not undermined and stripped of all authority.

Yours sincerely

[Skyryder]

Here’s what National should do. They should move an amendment at the committee of the whole stage to outlaw all anonymous donations (over the reporting limit) and see if the Greens and NZ First have the balls to vote on principle or vote for their cosy deal with Labour to protect Labour’s funding sources.


This I agree with.


Skyyrder

[Skyryder]

I guess those of us that objectively judge laws on their merits are becoming a minority...

Here's a copy of the letter from the mother that was directly affected by Bradford's bill. Parents are right to be wary of this govt

Wrong thread. This was not Labours Bill and National voted for it as well. But the best advice I can give is to get a copy of the bill quote section 59 next time they come back and tell the agents piss off. If they come back lay a complaint against CYP's or what ever they call themselves with the Ombudsman. Usually fixes things that does.

Skyyrder

[Grahameeboy]

I guess those of us that objectively judge laws on their merits are becoming a minority...

Here's a copy of the letter from the mother that was directly affected by Bradford's bill. Parents are right to be wary of this govt

Well this is one incident and I would question whether the kids have suffered any long term trauma........it could have happened anyway before the Bill, who knows..not saying the incident was unfortunate, however, surely in the bigger picture, we have these safeguards and at the end of the day the right decision was made, but it could so easily have been a valid complaint and I think this gets overlooked by the paranoid.

[devnull]

Wrong thread. This was not Labours Bill and National voted for it as well. But the best advice I can give is to get a copy of the bill quote section 59 next time they come back and tell the agents piss off. If they come back lay a complaint against CYP's or what ever they call themselves with the Ombudsman. Usually fixes things that does.

Skyyrder

There isn't actually provision for complaints - best you could do would be to complain to CYF's itself....

That particular section of the Crimes Act is very poorly worded - ANY use of force for the purpose of correction is expressly forbidden.

I'd suggest quoting S.48 instead....

And as for the Electoral Finance Bill (back on topic), perhaps we need to see a cap placed on using union fees to fund political parties. That'd be a worthwhile amendment

[avgas]

Blah blah blah.......all talk.
This is exactly why the bill will go through and exactly why no one is going to riot.
I'm happy to let the house of cards build up and fall

[devnull]

Well this is one incident and I would question whether the kids have suffered any long term trauma........it could have happened anyway before the Bill, who knows..not saying the incident was unfortunate, however, surely in the bigger picture, we have these safeguards and at the end of the day the right decision was made, but it could so easily have been a valid complaint and I think this gets overlooked by the paranoid.

Lets just agree to disagree...

I object to my tax dollars being used to fund failed social experiments that will eventually harm my children. I also think that turning around 10+ years of social decline will take a long time, so my first priority is to find somewhere overseas that's going to be safer and offor more opportunities for the kids...

[Grahameeboy]

Lets just agree to disagree...

I object to my tax dollars being used to fund failed social experiments that will eventually harm my children. I also think that turning around 10+ years of social decline will take a long time, so my first priority is to find somewhere overseas that's going to be safer and offor more opportunities for the kids...

No problem.

Have to say that having travelled a wee bit that NZ is one of the safest places for kids.

[Sanx]

I thought the bible was all about choice...

You need to read the old testament some time, mate. There's bugger-all choice allowed in there, especially when it comes to choosing which god to worship or which rules to follow.

But all thsi really is another thread...

[Ocean1]

No problem.

Have to say that having travelled a wee bit that NZ is one of the safest places for kids.

Care to back that up with some genuine un-spun numbers?

WRT social policy in general it's worth noting that legislation does not ever change social behaviour, and no amount of "education" will make it so. What does change social behaviour is allowing a natural alignment between cause and effect, action and consequence. Labour seems hell bent on perverting such, and that more than anything else, I believe, is a large contributing factor to poor social behaviour.

[Usarka]

Have to say that having travelled a wee bit that NZ is one of the safest places for kids.

didn't NZ recently get reported as having one of the highest rates of child abuse in the world?

Your rose coloured glasses may make your life easier, but it doesn't help the tens of thousands of kids being abused, bullied and traumatised each year......

Earl grey?

[Grahameeboy]

didn't NZ recently get reported as having one of the highest rates of child abuse in the world?

At Schools??

Your rose coloured glasses may make your life easier, but it doesn't help the tens of thousands of kids being abused, bullied and traumatised each year......

No rose tinted glasses and my life not easy which is perhaps why I see things from a different perspective.

Earl grey? Urrr!!



.......................

[Usarka]

Earl grey? Urrr!!Finally one thing i agree with!

[Grahameeboy]

Finally one thing i agree with!

:jerry::jerry::jerry::banana::banana::banana::bana na:

[Finn]

Even our leftist newspaper has attacked the bill yet again today. Quite a good editorial too. Read it and weep.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10480130

Anybody that supports this bill is clearly a Labour loving, communist simpleton.

[Usarka]

It says a lot when our Minister of Justice favours ambiguous "common sense" approach to lawmaking instead of implementing robust and non-ambiguous legislation.

Or is that helens hand up her arse making her mouth move.....?

[The Pastor]

sorry guys, i dont quite understand what so wrong about the bill? can somone dumb it down for me?

[Finn]

can somone dumb it down for me?

I'm not sure I can write that stupid.

[Big Dave]

I'm not sure I can write that stupid.

Txt it.......

[Usarka]

Try reading the link that finn posted. If Herald articles are over your head then youre the perfect labour voter.....

Put it this way, next year the moderators on this site will be busy removing any political discussions to save spank being fined $120,000.

[The Stranger]

can somone dumb it down for me?

Did you read the first post?
If that isn't dumbed down enough for you, then no, it's not possible.

[Badjelly]

Anybody that supports this bill is clearly a Labour loving, communist simpleton.

That argument convinces me! Though maybe not of what it's intended to.

[The Stranger]

That argument convinces me! Though maybe not of what it's intended to.

Well, speak up. What does it convince you of?

[Usarka]

Update from our leaders - The public don't care about this bill.....


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10481830


arrogant cocks..... though maybe they are right and their strategy to dumb down the country is working.....

:crazy:

[davereid]

Labour may come to hate this bill.

It massively quashes debate about he performance of government in the year before and election, making it virtually impossible to effectively critisise the incumbent party.

(Unless you are in one of the few special interest groups allowed to comment)

Of course the Nats have said they will dump it if they get in.

If I was a Nat, I'd say, nope, we will keep it.

We will tweak it a bit though.

We won't give Unions the dispensation the current bill gives them.

We'll make it just as illegal for a Union to lobby and fund in election year as it is for Joe public.

Then the Bill would make it a VERY level playing field !

[Ocean1]

We'll make it just as illegal for a Union to lobby and fund in election year as it is for Joe public.

Then the Bill would make it a VERY level playing field !

Don't be too hasty dude. Help me out here, what's it take to get a union registered? :shifty:

[Usarka]

Don't be too hasty dude. Help me out here, what's it take to get a union registered? :shifty:

I like your thinking.....

http://newzealand.govt.nz/record?tid=1&treeid=249&recordid=1147


To register as a union, a group of employees must first be an incorporated society and have at least 15 members. It must also be independent of employers and have a set of rules complying with the requirements of the Employment Relations Act 2000.

I'll join....:devil2:

[Ocean1]

I like your thinking.....

http://newzealand.govt.nz/record?tid=1&treeid=249&recordid=1147



I'll join....:devil2:

Applications for membership of the Amalgamated Union of Motorcyclists, Ferret jugglers, Insomniac Alcoholics, Disaffected Sheep Botherers and General Dog’s bodies are now open.

[Hitcher]

Applications for membership of the Amalgamated Union of Motorcyclists, Ferret jugglers, Insomniac Alcoholics, Disaffected Sheep Botherers and General Dog’s bodies are now open.

My cheque is in the post.

[Ocean1]

My cheque is in the post.

Excellent. Just a small matter of the indoc... er, educational seminar required to meet the stringent membership criteria.

Details to follow.

[Storm]

Sign me up, quick smart please

[ManDownUnder]

I've never liked unions... but this appeals...!

Are we allowed to open membership to the general masses (either of KB or the country at large?)

[MSTRS]

I've never liked unions... but this appeals...!

Are we allowed to open membership to the general masses (either of KB or the country at large?)

What's this 'we', paleface?

[MisterD]

Cool - pick me! Pick me!

Can we be like the teamsters? I'd like to bury Comrade Clarke in the foundations of the new Mangere bridge...

[Ocean1]

Hard to credit they could be so blindly suicidal...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4328392a10.html


Mr Moore, and other opponents of the bill, are predicting individuals and organisations will deliberately flout its provisions to create controversy.

Ya think?

[Swoop]

Applications for membership of the Amalgamated Union of Motorcyclists, Ferret jugglers, Insomniac Alcoholics, Disaffected Sheep Botherers and General Dog’s bodies are now open.
Wonderful, Brother! The subscription is in the mail.

Excellent. Just a small matter of the indoc... er, educational seminar required to meet the stringent membership criteria.
Details to follow.
Shit. Not another frontal lobottamy!


Affiliation with other unions will allow a larger voice. Having the "Amalgamated Scooterists and Hairdressers union" riding alongside....
Hang on a second...!

[MSTRS]

Affiliation with other unions will allow a larger voice. Having the "Amalgamated Scooterists and Hairdressers union" riding alongside....
Hang on a second...!

You'll be fine, as long as they are alongside. It's when they slip in behind and out of sight that the problems start....mind you, your voice could get quite loud in that event:devil2:

[Hitcher]

We're going to hell in one of these.

http://www.xmission.com/~nelsonb/hcart2.jpg

Enjoy the ride...

[Skyryder]

Applications for membership of the Amalgamated Union of Motorcyclists, Ferret jugglers, Insomniac Alcoholics, Disaffected Sheep Botherers and General Dog’s bodies are now open.


John Key is getting desperate. :Oops: No telling who he'll let in to join the Nats.:bash:

Skyryder

[Ocean1]

John Key is getting desperate. :Oops: No telling who he'll let in to join the Nats.:bash:

Skyryder

Yup, unless he signs up the majority of union membership he's fucked. <_<

[Usarka]

The bill is passed. RIP New Zealand.

[Jantar]

... RIP New Zealand.

That should be
The Peoples Republic of New Zealand.

[Hitcher]

What's next? Legislation banning parties other than those of the loopy and lazy left, or making the Rt Hon the Prime Minister president for life? Embracing Robert Mugabe when he retires as President of Zimbabwe? Whatever happened to freedom of expression and other basic human rights?

[Skyryder]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10483101


Hear hear


Skyryder

[paturoa]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10483101


Hear hear


Skyryder


So do not get on your high horse in here about democracy, until you have clean hands.

Jimbo should go buy some industrial strength hand cleaner!

SR, are saying is that this law promotes democracy?

What happended to all of the rethoric about disclosure? Wasn't that the key issue, if the EB had put their name to it, would you have been happy?

[oldrider]

While the champions of freedom were pulling down the Iron curtain and the Berlin wall, the socialists were sliding in and preparing our new legislation.

So, the pen "is" mightier than the sword! :doh:

Good old universities they can sure mass produce collective thinkers, all tuned to perfection and singing the same old socialist party line! :banana::banana::banana::banana:

That leaves the rest of us humming, bye bye freedom, it's been good to know you. :weep: John.

[The Stranger]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10483101


Hear hear


Skyryder


Of course he has a good handle on hypocracy, he's the guy whom introduced the party hopping law then hops party and avoids his own law, introduced to defeat the like of himself.
Good on ya IIIryder, Jim's good solid example.

[Skyryder]

The bottomline on this is that the Progressives were the only party that did not rip off the taxpayer. Might just be too much for some to stomach but love him or hate him he's blameless on this issue.

Skyryder

[Magua]

Don't worry, if the tv polls are correct, it will be gone in little over a year. (over, under? When's the election? :S)

[Skyryder]

What happended to all of the rethoric about disclosure? Wasn't that the key issue, if the EB had put their name to it, would you have been happy?

But they didn't because they did not have too. So much for their integrity and Christians too..............what fucken bullshit. As the law stood you could say anything you wanted too and remain 'hidden.' Yep that's the way the Nats want it. They see us plebians as suckers and going by the bullshit that has come forth from the National Party in recent years I can't help but think they have got some of you right.

Skyyrder

[oldrider]

Don't worry, if the tv polls are correct, it will be gone in little over a year. (over, under? When's the election? :S)

Look back, historically the media swing the polls back toward the party of their preference and sway the majority in that direction.

These polls are a bit like the All Black performance between world cups, they count for nothing at the end of the day.

Will a change to National really mean any significant change, other than personalities? John.

[Finn]

The Free Speech Coalition, set up to campaign against the Electoral Finance Bill, is sad that MPs from Labour, NZ First, and the Greens have ignored the massive public sentiment against the bill.

The Act discourages individuals and groups from participating in the electoral process and spending their own money, while at the same time allows MPs and parliamentary parties to far more easily use taxpayer funds on their election campaigns and not even have it count towards their spending limits. It is the ultimate act in hypocrisy.

The MPs have

• Ignored the Law Society’s advice that the Bill should be scrapped
• Ignored the Human Rights Commission opposition to the regulated period, and their request to allow the public to submit on the amended Bill
• Ignored the NZ Institute of Charted Accountant’s advice that the Bill is unworkable
• Ignored the Electoral Commission’s advice on spending limits
• Failed to provide legislative certainty around the exemptions for MPs
• Protected anonymous donations with massive loopholes which may result in less, not more, disclosure
• Continually misrepresented key clauses of the Bill

“New Zealand has no written constitution. At the end of the day 61 MPs in Parliament can pass any law they like, no matter how repugnant. Previously constitutional conventions have protected Acts like the Electoral Act, but the passage of the Electoral Finance Bill sees the demise of that convention.” said spokesperson David Farrar.

“We hoped the parties supporting this Bill would listen to the near universal opposition from the media, from the legal profession, and from the public and do the right thing. Sadly they have chosen not to.

“We do not believe there should be no consequences for those parties which passed the Electoral Finance Act into law. The NZ Herald correctly labeled it as an “Attack on Democracy” and we believe it is time for Democracy to attack back.

“The Free Speech Coalition will commence an advertising campaign tomorrow against parties and MPs which voted for the Electoral Finance Act. This campaign will continue into 2008. A media advisory with details of the campaign will be released tomorrow."

[Skyryder]

Of course he has a good handle on hypocracy, he's the guy whom introduced the party hopping law then hops party and avoids his own law, introduced to defeat the like of himself.
Good on ya IIIryder, Jim's good solid example.

Like most things written here with a political flavour this one has the wrong ingrediants. The party hopping legislation was passed under MMP. If memory serves me correctly Anderton left Labour under FPP and formed New Labour. He retained his electorat seat the following election. The Progressives launched themselves after the debacle of the Alliance and now Anderton is the only elected MP from that alliance. Not too sure if your criticism is really valid if looked at from an unbiased view.

Skyryder

[oldrider]

Not too sure if your criticism is really valid if looked at from an unbiased view.

Skyryder

Pot calling the kettle black.................surely not! :lol: John.

[The Stranger]

Like most things written here with a political flavour this one has the wrong ingrediants. The party hopping legislation was passed under MMP. If memory serves me correctly Anderton left Labour under FPP and formed New Labour. He retained his electorat seat the following election. The Progressives launched themselves after the debacle of the Alliance and now Anderton is the only elected MP from that alliance. Not too sure if your criticism is really valid if looked at from an unbiased view.

Skyryder

Your memory fails you.

Oh and do you honestly think you could actually look at it from an unbiased view?

[emaN]

Still can't believe they've had the audacity to insult me/us in this way.

Finn, i saw that too - am glad you found it and posted it here.
Look forward to the FSC's campaign.

[Hitcher]

So how long will it be until somebody gets arrested for breaching this new legislation? And will the public be allowed to know?

[Grahameeboy]

So how long will it be until somebody gets arrested for breaching this new legislation? And will the public be allowed to know?

Mmmm.....probably about as many people who have been arrested following the Anti-smacking Bill................"Not a lot"

[Hitcher]

Mmmm.....probably about as many people who have been arrested following the Anti-smacking Bill................"Not a lot"

But the anti-smacking bill isn't based on a desire to suppress the public expression of "political" sentiment.

How long will it be before our government follows the lead of the enlightened US of A and legalises waterboarding? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

[Usarka]

I'm conceptually opposed to the Maori party, a party based on race. But every now and then one of there members says something which rings of logic and sense and I can't help but be impressed.....

NZ Herald Blog: Best of the Electoral Finance Bill awards (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501118&objectid=10483207)



The Maori Party will not be a party to a bill which is clearly aimed at restricting freedom of speech.

We will not be party to this desperate attempt by Labour to stay in power at the expense of the fundamental human rights of the citizens of this country.

We will not be party to a bill designed to put fear into those who would speak their mind, by forcing them to run the gauntlet of registration, audit, notification, financial agency, monitoring, reporting, scrutiny and penalty.

And we will not be a party to a bill that slams the door on opposition spending, while allowing Government to continue to spend millions on its own policies and programmes.

The Maori Party was borne out of Maoridom's absolute rejection of the Labour Government's arrogant denial of our basic human rights to the foreshore and seabed.

And we will reject this bill to rewrite the law to allow that same Government to stay in power - with the same vigour and determination.

Money is not what drives people to vote, it is truth.

I sincerely hope and pray that those who have sacrificed the truth for the delusion of power that overwhelms this decadent and depraved piece of legislation will come to see the folly of their ways when the people reject this sham, come Election 2008.

[Grahameeboy]

But the anti-smacking bill isn't based on a desire to suppress the public expression of "political" sentiment.

How long will it be before our government follows the lead of the enlightened US of A and legalises waterboarding? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

True, but there was public uproar over the 'moral' sentiment and how it was suppressing us blah blah....not a huge difference...

Now where is my Paranoia thread?

Sorry I am being flippant, however, what is the worse that will happen. In reality how many people will it suppress..........not a lot as Kenny Everett used to say

[Hitcher]

what is the worse that will happen.

Well, apart from the Bloody Labour Government getting re-elected "unopposed", the principle of freedom of expression that some of our ancestors spilled blood to win surely must be worth something?

[Usarka]

the principle of freedom of expression that some of our ancestors spilled blood to win surely must be worth something?

People are forgetting already.

Lest we forget.

[Grahameeboy]

Well, apart from the Bloody Labour Government getting re-elected "unopposed", the principle of freedom of expression that some of our ancestors spilled blood to win surely must be worth something?

You mean Maori blood as well? Those ancestors who invaded a land and installed their rules..........not a lot has changed then...........just the only thing that is spilt these days is tears...........sorry I meant beers...

If having your say about politics is freedom of expression then that is shame...lot more important things to express about....but like I indicated the Law will only affect the few....but if as it seems the majority think it takes away their freedom then I would question who has removed that freedom, the Govt or those majority.....??

[Skyryder]

The Free Speech Coalition, set up to campaign against the Electoral Finance Bill, is sad that MPs from Labour, NZ First, and the Greens have ignored the massive public sentiment against the bill.

The Act discourages individuals and groups from participating in the electoral process and spending their own money, while at the same time allows MPs and parliamentary parties to far more easily use taxpayer funds on their election campaigns and not even have it count towards their spending limits. It is the ultimate act in hypocrisy.

The MPs have

• Ignored the Law Society’s advice that the Bill should be scrapped
• Ignored the Human Rights Commission opposition to the regulated period, and their request to allow the public to submit on the amended Bill
• Ignored the NZ Institute of Charted Accountant’s advice that the Bill is unworkable
• Ignored the Electoral Commission’s advice on spending limits
• Failed to provide legislative certainty around the exemptions for MPs
• Protected anonymous donations with massive loopholes which may result in less, not more, disclosure
• Continually misrepresented key clauses of the Bill

“New Zealand has no written constitution. At the end of the day 61 MPs in Parliament can pass any law they like, no matter how repugnant. Previously constitutional conventions have protected Acts like the Electoral Act, but the passage of the Electoral Finance Bill sees the demise of that convention.” said spokesperson David Farrar.

“We hoped the parties supporting this Bill would listen to the near universal opposition from the media, from the legal profession, and from the public and do the right thing. Sadly they have chosen not to.

“We do not believe there should be no consequences for those parties which passed the Electoral Finance Act into law. The NZ Herald correctly labeled it as an “Attack on Democracy” and we believe it is time for Democracy to attack back.

“The Free Speech Coalition will commence an advertising campaign tomorrow against parties and MPs which voted for the Electoral Finance Act. This campaign will continue into 2008. A media advisory with details of the campaign will be released tomorrow."



There's a lot I could have commented on but this caught my eye. You are correct in that NZ does not have a written Constitution as has the United States and incedently requires a vote of two thirds majoity to change it. That's one of the pitfalls of the US political system is that it can not evolve but that's another issue.

NZ has what is known as an unwriten constitution embodied in 'case' law. No legislation becomes law unless sihned by the Govenor General who as you know is the Queens representitive to 'safe guard' democracy. To date there has been no conceerns from this quarter that democracy or freedom of speech is under threat.

The Justice or Judiciary is independent from Parliment. I' m sure there will come a time when this law will be tested in the Courts.

I have no idea who David Farr is but he seem intent on finding out if the Legislation is indeed unworkable and a threat to our democrate system.

I have no doubt that you have little faith in the comments in the Hollow Men and to date there has be no serious rebuff from any quarter as far as that book goes but to me a more seriouse threat to our democratic system comes from offshore money and the influences of think tanks in the likes of the Maxim Institute who are more interested in the rapin of NZ for benifit of off shore investors.

The 'right' has never come to terms with MMP and these sorts of issues that get promoted is sysematic of this. Personaly I find it encourgaing that New Zealanders are becoming more involved in politics it's just a pity that not many seem to know how our system works. i woul dhave thought the the NZ Law Society might have lead the way but on second thoughts the Legal Profession has a history of looking after its own so in that respect any one who has a smattering of history as far this proffession goes would not be surprised with their opposition.


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

The Free Speech Coalition, set up to campaign against the Electoral Finance Bill, is sad that MPs from Labour, NZ First, and the Greens have ignored the massive public sentiment against the bill.



The Free Speech Coalition is a trade association of the pornography and adult entertainment industry in the United States. Founded in 1991, it opposes the passage and enforcement of censorship and obscenity laws.

Finn is there anyone on your coalition that has connections or interests associated with this American namesake?


Skyryder

[The Stranger]

There's a lot I could have commented on but this caught my eye. You are correct in that NZ does not have a written Constitution as has the United States and incedently requires a vote of two thirds majoity to change it. That's one of the pitfalls of the US political system is that it can not evolve but that's another issue.

NZ has what is known as an unwriten constitution embodied in 'case' law. No legislation becomes law unless sihned by the Govenor General who as you know is the Queens representitive to 'safe guard' democracy. To date there has been no conceerns from this quarter that democracy or freedom of speech is under threat.

The Justice or Judiciary is independent from Parliment. I' m sure there will come a time when this law will be tested in the Courts.

I have no idea who David Farr is but he seem intent on finding out if the Legislation is indeed unworkable and a threat to our democrate system.

I have no doubt that you have little faith in the comments in the Hollow Men and to date there has be no serious rebuff from any quarter as far as that book goes but to me a more seriouse threat to our democratic system comes from offshore money and the influences of think tanks in the likes of the Maxim Institute who are more interested in the rapin of NZ for benifit of off shore investors.

The 'right' has never come to terms with MMP and these sorts of issues that get promoted is sysematic of this. Personaly I find it encourgaing that New Zealanders are becoming more involved in politics it's just a pity that not many seem to know how our system works. i woul dhave thought the the NZ Law Society might have lead the way but on second thoughts the Legal Profession has a history of looking after its own so in that respect any one who has a smattering of history as far this proffession goes would not be surprised with their opposition.


Skyryder

IIIryder, FFS, put the bottle down and move slowly away from the computer!
It makes your dribble even harder to comprehend when you are pissed.

[Storm]

The MPs have

• Ignored the Law Society’s advice that the Bill should be scrapped
• Ignored the Human Rights Commission opposition to the regulated period, and their request to allow the public to submit on the amended Bill
• Ignored the NZ Institute of Charted Accountant’s advice that the Bill is unworkable
• Ignored the Electoral Commission’s advice on spending limits
• Failed to provide legislative certainty around the exemptions for MPs
• Protected anonymous donations with massive loopholes which may result in less, not more, disclosure
• Continually misrepresented key clauses of the Bill


“We hoped the parties supporting this Bill would listen to the near universal opposition from the media, from the legal profession, and from the public and do the right thing. Sadly they have chosen not to.



Where have we heard these phrases used before?
Ah yes, takes me back to the anti smacking bill. So thats twice in one year Joe Public has been told to fuck off, we will tell you whats good for you, and (but wait, theres more) you should be happy to be told it too.

If we are not having it that bad as many imports say, fuck me, the rest of the world must be in a shit state.

So much for the right of the people to have a say in their government.
Nice to see all those soldiers (of whatever colour) fought to stay free, so we could fuck ourselves over.

[Skyryder]

Where have we heard these phrases used before?
Ah yes, takes me back to the anti smacking bill. So thats twice in one year Joe Public has been told to fuck off, we will tell you whats good for you, and (but wait, theres more) you should be happy to be told it too.

If we are not having it that bad as many imports say, fuck me, the rest of the world must be in a shit state.

So much for the right of the people to have a say in their government.
Nice to see all those soldiers (of whatever colour) fought to stay free, so we could fuck ourselves over.

Nope nothing to do with Sue Bradford. Try David Farrar's blog. Finn trys to sound intelligent but allhe has done is plagurised someone elses work from the 'porn' industry and put his name to it. And you accuse me of talking dribble.



Skyryder

:nono:

[Skyryder]

IIIryder, FFS, put the bottle down and move slowly away from the computer!
It makes your dribble even harder to comprehend when you are pissed.



:sleep::sleep:


Skyryder

[Hitcher]

The Exclusive Brethren's efforts at the last general election clearly put the shits up the Liberal-leaning Loony Left. Even though that campaign was unsuccessful. If there was any evidence that could be tabled that showed that a political party with the biggest budget was the one that successfully contested elections, this Bill may have some merit. Working classes, unionised workers and beneficiaries always vote Labour. So too do large numbers of the chattering classes. I think it's genetic, like colour-blindness. Outlawing freedom of expression will have other perverse ramifications -- for instance the Government is already setting up a Ministry of Thought Control to enforce its new legislation.

And the only response the new Act's supporters have is to attack big business and the rich. That says it all for me.

[Finn]

Nope nothing to do with Sue Bradford. Try David Farrar's blog. Finn trys to sound intelligent but allhe has done is plagurised someone elses work from the 'porn' industry and put his name to it. And you accuse me of talking dribble.



Skyryder

:nono:

I didn't plagiarise it, I copied it verbatim.

You better get your life sorted quick smartly before National get in next year. They'll be no more living off the state for you buddy.

P.S. You'll be the first person I PM when they win. I'm going to rub it in your face so hard, you'll be scared for life.

[Finn]

The Free Speech Coalition is a trade association of the pornography and adult entertainment industry in the United States. Founded in 1991, it opposes the passage and enforcement of censorship and obscenity laws.

Finn is there anyone on your coalition that has connections or interests associated with this American namesake?


Skyryder

Typical lefty. The Free Speech Coalition is a NZ association formed to try and save NZ from morons like yourself. Why would you suggest it has anything to do with the porn industry, or the US for that matter? Scraping the bottom of the barrel there old chat, but I guess it's what can be expected from someone in your predicament.

Has your Crisco's hamper arrived yet or is there a problem with WINZ paying the invoice?

[oldrider]

I think this cartoon explains Helen and her cronies approach to the bill!

Large cuddly pet dog, eats anything, very fond of free thinkers! :blip:

Kinda reflects their stupid dog laws too doesn't it! :yes: Cheers John.

[Finn]

Or this one...

[Skyryder]

Typical lefty. The Free Speech Coalition is a NZ association formed to try and save NZ from morons like yourself. Why would you suggest it has anything to do with the porn industry, or the US for that matter? Scraping the bottom of the barrel there old chat, but I guess it's what can be expected from someone in your predicament.

Has your Crisco's hamper arrived yet or is there a problem with WINZ paying the invoice?

You may have copied it verbatim but once you put your forum name to the passage in question then it becomes a plagiarized document. Correct me if I am wrong but I seem to remember you criticizing Clarke for something similar to do with her name and some art that was auctioned for charity. Oh the ignominy of the hypocrite.
.
The ‘Free Speech Coalition’ is a trade association of the ‘pornography and adult entertainment industry that was founded in 1991 in the United Sates of America. It opposes both the passage and enforcement of ‘censorship’ and ‘obscenity’ laws. I am unaware of any disassociation of the New Zealand Free Speech Coalition from the American body of the same name. If there is any can you show where this can be found.

I find it difficult to believe that New Zealand association that you quote is ‘not’ unaware of the American body or it’s aims. I cannot help but come to the conclusion that this is the reason that the Christian Right have been ‘so’ absent from the electoral campaign. They want noting to do with any organization that represents pornography or pedophilia.

To sum up: New Zealanders who may or may not be affiliated with an American pornographic organization have taken upon themselves to protect our freedom of speech. I’m rarely lost for words……….but this….............is one of the few times that I am.

As for being top of your list………………are rare honor indeed if you shall permit me to call it that, considering that the election is some twelve months away, but the same honour, is one that I can never extend to your self.……you get 30 seconds into the future………….. tops. Ahhh but that’s the cross you have to bear.

Rejection is such a bummer. Word is that 'rejection' is not unusual for you. Perhaps a new year’s resolution might be the way to go. Something about being nice………….that’s a start, whatcha think Finny.

Skyryder

[The Stranger]

You may have copied it verbatim but once you put your forum name to the passage in question then it becomes a plagiarized document. Correct me if I am wrong but I seem to remember you criticizing Clarke for something similar to do with her name and some art that was auctioned for charity. Oh the ignominy of the hypocrite.
.


For future reference the "quotation marks" are a dead giveaway.
They aren't called quotation marks for nothing.
He didn't try and pass it off as his own, unlike your beloved leader.

[The Stranger]

The ‘Free Speech Coalition’ is a trade association of the ‘pornography and adult entertainment industry that was founded in 1991 in the United Sates of America. It opposes both the passage and enforcement of ‘censorship’ and ‘obscenity’ laws. I am unaware of any disassociation of the New Zealand Free Speech Coalition from the American body of the same name. If there is any can you show where this can be found.


So let me get this right, you level an unsubstantiated accusation then you are ask for proof of a non existent link?
You are as desperate as your hero Helen Klark.

[Finn]

You may have copied it verbatim but once you put your forum name to the passage in question then it becomes a plagiarized document. Correct me if I am wrong but I seem to remember you criticizing Clarke for something similar to do with her name and some art that was auctioned for charity. Oh the ignominy of the hypocrite.
.
The ‘Free Speech Coalition’ is a trade association of the ‘pornography and adult entertainment industry that was founded in 1991 in the United Sates of America. It opposes both the passage and enforcement of ‘censorship’ and ‘obscenity’ laws. I am unaware of any disassociation of the New Zealand Free Speech Coalition from the American body of the same name. If there is any can you show where this can be found.

I find it difficult to believe that New Zealand association that you quote is ‘not’ unaware of the American body or it’s aims. I cannot help but come to the conclusion that this is the reason that the Christian Right have been ‘so’ absent from the electoral campaign. They want noting to do with any organization that represents pornography or pedophilia.

To sum up: New Zealanders who may or may not be affiliated with an American pornographic organization have taken upon themselves to protect our freedom of speech. I’m rarely lost for words……….but this….............is one of the few times that I am.

As for being top of your list………………are rare honor indeed if you shall permit me to call it that, considering that the election is some twelve months away, but the same honour, is one that I can never extend to your self.……you get 30 seconds into the future………….. tops. Ahhh but that’s the cross you have to bear.

Rejection is such a bummer. Word is that 'rejection' is not unusual for you. Perhaps a new year’s resolution might be the way to go. Something about being nice………….that’s a start, whatcha think Finny.

Skyryder

The Free Speech Coalition in NZ has NOTHING to do with the Pornographic industry you fool. However your tactic of trying to destroy any common sense initiative from sensible people or organisations by making up complete bullshit is a common Labour tactic. The lies, deceit, corruption and pitiful governing is why Labour will lose the next election.

Onto another serious matter, I normally wouldn't raise this up in a public forum, but since this site is open to vulnerable, young children, I would like to confront you with a very direct question as a result of a recent investigation. So, WITHOUT PREJUSTICE, do you, Skyryder, deny being a pedophile?

[Skyryder]

Onto another serious matter, I normally wouldn't raise this up in a public forum, but since this site is open to vulnerable, young children, I would like to confront you with a very direct question as a result of a recent investigation. So, WITHOUT PREJUSTICE, do you, Skyryder, deny being a pedophile?

I have just emailed this to a solicitor friend of mine

His initial response from our phone conversation leaves little doubt that 'both' Finn and the Kiwi Biker are in breach of defamatory laws. There is a clear association that the 'recent investigation' that Finn has quoted and the question asking Skyryder to deny any pedophile tendencies are linked. The purpose of this link is to suggest that the ‘investigation’ has been on criminal activities of pedophilia nature and can only be to defame 'my client.'


I'm not going to take this too seriously at this stage but KB is on notice. I expect Finns post to be removed and I do not expect to see Finn posting on here in the near future.

Bottom line on this mods........cover your arses




Skyryder

[The Stranger]

I have just emailed this to a solicitor friend of mine

His initial response from our phone conversation leaves little doubt that 'both' Finn and the Kiwi Biker are in breach of defamatory laws. There is a clear association that the 'recent investigation' that Finn has quoted and the question asking Skyryder to deny any pedophile tendencies are linked. The purpose of this link is to suggest that the ‘investigation’ has been on criminal activities of pedophilia nature and can only be to defame 'my client.'


I'm not going to take this too seriously at this stage but KB is on notice. I expect Finns post to be removed and I do not expect to see Finn posting on here in the near future.

Bottom line on this mods........cover your arses

Skyryder

Or yet another very plausable purpose could be to succinctly highlight the absurdity of expecting someone to defend a baseless claim from which there is no evidence - the very thing you did to Finn in your post to which Finn was repying.

Although, looking at your post containing baseless accusations about Finn's association with porn and pedophilia it is hard to imagine any other purpose but to defame him.

Oh, and I am sure everyone covers their arse when you are around anyway Skyryder.

[Sanx]

I have just emailed this to a solicitor friend of mine

His initial response from our phone conversation leaves little doubt that 'both' Finn and the Kiwi Biker are in breach of defamatory laws. There is a clear association that the 'recent investigation' that Finn has quoted and the question asking Skyryder to deny any pedophile tendencies are linked. The purpose of this link is to suggest that the ‘investigation’ has been on criminal activities of pedophilia nature and can only be to defame 'my client.'


I'm not going to take this too seriously at this stage but KB is on notice. I expect Finns post to be removed and I do not expect to see Finn posting on here in the near future.

Bottom line on this mods........cover your arses

Then your lawyer's even more of a fuckwit than you are.

[Skyryder]

Then your lawyer's even more of a fuckwit than you are.

Realy then what's the 'recent' investigtion that has been mentioned? That was in direct reference to a question that was asked to myself. It is not difficult to see the implications that was raised.

Now I don't mind playing hard ball and I can throw a curve ball on the odd occasions but there is a line and that has been crossed.


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Although, looking at your post containing baseless accusations about Finn's association with porn and pedophilia it is hard to imagine any other purpose but to defame him.



Try as I might can see no reference to any suggestion of the above. Nowhere in any of Finns posts that I am aware of has he stated any kind of association, other than to down load material in support of his opposition to changes in the electoral act.

Skyryder

[Grahameeboy]

HAPPY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE............cause the end of the world seems to be cometh upon us very soon.................yes another Briscoe's Sale.............live long and prosper

[Skyryder]

In 2002, FSC views were upheld in the US Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the so-called VIRTUAL CHILD PORN case, which has been described by no less than the ACLU as "the most important victory for the First Amendment in decades."

Now I don't mind anyone having a go at me but all I ask is that your read my posts correctly.


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

HAPPY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE............cause the end of the world seems to be cometh upon us very soon.................yes another Briscoe's Sale.............live long and prosper


You too Grahamboy and to all those that post on here.


Skyryder

[Finn]

I have just emailed this to a solicitor friend of mine

His initial response from our phone conversation leaves little doubt that 'both' Finn and the Kiwi Biker are in breach of defamatory laws. There is a clear association that the 'recent investigation' that Finn has quoted and the question asking Skyryder to deny any pedophile tendencies are linked. The purpose of this link is to suggest that the ‘investigation’ has been on criminal activities of pedophilia nature and can only be to defame 'my client.'


I'm not going to take this too seriously at this stage but KB is on notice. I expect Finns post to be removed and I do not expect to see Finn posting on here in the near future.

Bottom line on this mods........cover your arses




Skyryder

:violin:

My login still works. Maybe the mods slept in a bit this morning old chum.

Typical lefty, you can throw accusations around based on absolute bullshit but when it comes right back at you, you cry like a baby.

[Finn]

In 2002, FSC views were upheld in the US Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the so-called VIRTUAL CHILD PORN case, which has been described by no less than the ACLU as "the most important victory for the First Amendment in decades."

Now I don't mind anyone having a go at me but all I ask is that your read my posts correctly.


Skyryder

So are you saying that the Free Speech Coalition of NZ are a bunch of pedophiles?

[Grahameeboy]

:violin:

My login still works. Maybe the mods slept in a bit this morning old chum.

Typical lefty, you can throw accusations around based on absolute bullshit but when it comes right back at you, you cry like a baby.

Terrible when no one listens eh

[davereid]

....I'm not going to take this too seriously at this stage but KB is on notice. I expect Finns post to be removed and I do not expect to see Finn posting on here in the near future.....
Skyryder

Ahh, I get the idea. Use the law to shut up your vocal critics.

Just that Finn had to say something dumb to get the bash. Helen is passing a law so saying anythings enough.

[Joni]

Bottom line on this mods........cover your arses Skyryder, I just happened to come across this post by accident, you cant expect mods to read and see all... as always said, if you have a complaint, pm a Senior Mod....

Just a reminder ==>


All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of Kiwi Biker forums, nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.

[Hitcher]

Then your lawyer's even more of a fuckwit than you are.

Let's just say he has an "interesting" view of what comprises defamation.

[Finn]

Lets go easy on Skyryder folks. He's very upset that Labour are way down in the polls and John Key is the preferred PM.

His absurd posts about The Free Speech Coalition in NZ being part of of a child porn ring was just to try to discredit them. A low blow from a desperate person, but we've come to expect this from staunch left wingers.

While I obviously gave Skyryder more credit where it was due, I didn't realise that he wasn't able to see through my post at the point I was trying to make. So to clarify things for the good folk of KB and Skyryder... I have absolutely no proof or evidence to even suggest that Skyryder is a pedophile. While this doesn't say that he's not, I am just not in a position to know. The crazy thing about these type of accusations from Skyryder, Labour and even my own is that even if they are untrue, it gets people thinking. For example, Skyryder hires his solicitor friend to try and have a go at me. My friend (QC) says fine, go for gold. We'll even publicise the case if you like. Now you don't have to be too clever to realise that even if the accusation was a joke, the damage will be done.... "There's that guy who denied being a pedophile!"

So Skyryder, think next time you make up stories. Particularly when it involves people and organisations such as The Free Speech Coalition who are doing a fine job trying to protect our rights of free speech.

[Skyryder]

So are you saying that the Free Speech Coalition of NZ are a bunch of pedophiles?

No. And I have never implied that at all. Read my post 'carefully' to your response as I have read yours.

Skyryder

[Finn]

No. And I have never implied that at all. Read my post 'carefully' to your response as I have read yours.

Skyryder

Here's just one... you said, "Finn trys to sound intelligent but allhe has done is plagurised someone elses work from the 'porn' industry and put his name to it. And you accuse me of talking dribble."

That's pretty clear to me Skyryder.

On a more serious note, are you okay? Your writing is very strange of late. Have you bumped your head or something?

[Skyryder]

While I obviously gave Skyryder more credit where it was due, I didn't realise that he wasn't able to see through my post at the point I was trying to make. So to clarify things for the good folk of KB and Skyryder... I have absolutely no proof or evidence to even suggest that Skyryder is a pedophile.


I'll take that as an apolgy of sorts. Have Merry Xcmas


Skyryder

[oldrider]

OK, that's sorted. Now back to "Kill the Bill" so much to do, so little time.

The important thing is "Get rid of this government"...:argh:...John.

[Finn]

Rejection is such a bummer. Word is that 'rejection' is not unusual for you. Perhaps a new year’s resolution might be the way to go. Something about being nice………….that’s a start, whatcha think Finny.

Not sure what you're on about here old chap. I've had a very good year, full of prosperity, success and 2008 looks to be even better. I don't believe in New Years resolutions as I think you should be setting goals throughout the year.

[Swoop]

UN-be-fucking-lievable (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10484810)!

Earning a shit-load of money = fine.
Donating some of it to others = fine.
Labourite looneys and their corrupt law = not fine!
The sooner they are out, the better!

Wealthy expatriate Owen Glenn, who gave $500,000 to the Labour Party before the 2005 election, has been made an officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit.

Mr Glenn, the multimillionaire founder and chairman of the OTS Logistics Group, which operates in 177 countries, was honoured for his services to business and the community.

In 2005, he made the single largest private donation to education when he gave $7.5 million to the University of Auckland's new business school.

Labour Party president Mike Williams rejected any suggestion that Labour had rewarded the man who was also its largest donor at the last elections.

"I know it will be interpreted in that fashion, but I think he richly deserves it. He is a generous man who supports a country he hasn't lived in for many, many years."

Mr Glenn had not made any donations to Labour since 2005, but he would certainly be approached before next year's elections.

In June 2005, Mr Glenn said he did not expect anything in return from Labour. His gift had been a "spontaneous gesture".

Under the Electoral Finance Act, Mr Glenn, as an expatriate New Zealander, will be able to continue making political donations.

But wealthy foreigners, such as American billionaire Julian Robertson, who contributed to National last election, are now banned from giving money to political parties.

Mr Williams said Mr Glenn told him he supported several political parties in New Zealand.

The National Party had no comment on Mr Glenn's honour, a spokesman said yesterday.

But it drew a derisive response from Act leader Rodney Hide.

"I think it's great," he said. "We've often wondered what you had to do to get the big gong, and we now know it's $500,000 to the Labour Party."

Told that Mr Glenn had said he supported several political parties, Mr Hide said he was confident Act was not one of them.

Mr Glenn left Mt Roskill Grammar at 15, and has not lived in New Zealand since 1966. He commutes between Monaco, England and a house in Sydney's Double Bay.

He supports many international and New Zealand charities and non-profit organisations, including the Millennium Institute of Sport, the Sir Edmund Hillary Foundation, the Breast Cancer Foundation and the Manaakitanga Aotearoa Charitable Trust

[The Pastor]

Under the Electoral Finance Act, Mr Glenn, as an expatriate New Zealander, will be able to continue making political donations.

But wealthy foreigners, such as American billionaire Julian Robertson, who contributed to National last election, are now banned from giving money to political parties.

[MisterD]

Why so surprised? Our Labour party copies everything the UK version does - why not cash-for-honours too?

[Bikernereid]

I am not from NZ but having spent many years working in politics I can quite honestly say this Bill is insane. Freedom of speech ring any bells. I really hope that you guys dont take this lying down, it is your democratic right to voice your opinion and challenge the views of others.

And at the end of the day politicians work for the electorate and they should be reminded that they can be removed from office very easily if they do not listen to the will of the people.

Good luck and make yourselves heard. Protests do work, look at the French and not the sit on your ass and winge Brits (yes I am one so can comment).

[jrandom]

Protests do work, look at the French...

You're suggesting that NZ turn itself into a country full of arrogant wankers with over 10% unemployment and a government held in a deathgrip by corrupt trade unions?

Oh, yes, and perhaps we should also pass laws forbidding the display of religious insignia in public.

Alles verboten!

:crazy:

No, France and the French are no model for any sane society to follow.

[Ocean1]

You're suggesting that NZ turn itself into a country full of arrogant wankers with over 10% unemployment and a government held in a deathgrip by corrupt trade unions?

Difficult to imagine how the direct attentions of corrupt trade unions could do significantly more damage than a corrupt socialist government they own by proxy anyway.

But perhaps you concern yourself unnecessarily, it won’t last. In the absence of a suitably benign and less rapacious alternative, it's time, (apparently) for a corrupt capitalist regime to redress the balance.

Seems like a cyclic positive feedback loop don’t it? We need a constitution which sets limits on the size and power of gumint. Unfortunately such a document not only looks unlikely, but any attempt based on the public perceptions and attitudes that can support either current political option would simply cement in place a crippling disincentive to succeed.

Much as I’d love to be proven wrong, I’m afraid that, as individuals we’re destined to be denied any real ability to generate actual revenue. And with the exponential growth in petty legislation we’ll all be criminals by lunchtime.

Think I’ll go and eat worms…

[slowpoke]

I've only been back in the country for coming up to two years and half of that I spend at work out of NZ, so I'm not exactly au fait with the minutae of years old grievances. With this in mind feel free to "correct" me but here are a few impressions of recent events that get dragged up ad nauseum:

1) That fuckin' smacking bill - while it has good intent, it seems to be an extremely clumsy attempt to combat our inarguably sad child abuse stats. It seems to me that the government should be putting other programs/measures in place without resorting to legislation. There is no arguing that they have a fine goal, it's just a shitty way of going about it.

2) The bill - anything that reduces the power of big spending individuals/groups can't be all bad. Technically it limits free speech but at the moment the little guy already seems muzzled because his voice cannot be heard over the $$ch-ching$$ of the cashed up lobbyists. Who on this forum can afford to spend $100/week on political advertising/endorsements/lobbying? So how does it affect us again? If someone does choose to front up with some cash to push an issue I'd certainly like to have their name available so I can assess their motivation and perspective. My fear is that this is turning into another clumsy attempt to do the right thing the wrong way.

As I said I don't know (or care really) about age old grievances but I'd be interested in hearing informed opinions regarding the issue without the lefty/righty "your a commie pinko/big buisiness sycophant" bullshit.

[Ocean1]

I've only been back in the country for coming up to two years and half of that I spend at work out of NZ, so I'm not exactly au fait with the minutae of years old grievances. With this in mind feel free to "correct" me but here are a few impressions of recent events that get dragged up ad nauseum:

1) That fuckin' smacking bill - while it has good intent, it seems to be an extremely clumsy attempt to combat our inarguably sad child abuse stats. It seems to me that the government should be putting other programs/measures in place without resorting to legislation. There is no arguing that they have a fine goal, it's just a shitty way of going about it.


The STATED intent to combat child abuse stat’s is at odds with a more or less universal acceptance of the fact that it’ll make not a jot of difference to the number of children seriously hurt or killed by the supposed targets of that fuckin’ smacking bill. The ACTUAL effect is to turn what most would argue, (and a clear majority have done so) are, at worst minor ethical transgressions into serious crimes.


2) The bill - anything that reduces the power of big spending individuals/groups can't be all bad. Technically it limits free speech but at the moment the little guy already seems muzzled because his voice cannot be heard over the $$ch-ching$$ of the cashed up lobbyists..

Depends on who you define as “the little guy”. If you mean those not contributing to the economy then I, for one don’t see they’ve got much of value to contribute to policy, (fiscal in particular) anyway. A significant percentage of those earning an hourly wage are represented, (often against their wishes) by unions, who openly support socialist policies, most generously, and will continue to do so with as much freedom under the new rules. Those not so represented have little voice or none at all, surely they, then, are the little guys, the self employed, the small businessmen etc. Y’know, the ones that actually generate the fuckin’ income in the first place?


So how does it affect us again? If someone does choose to front up with some cash to push an issue I'd certainly like to have their name available so I can assess their motivation and perspective. My fear is that this is turning into another clumsy attempt to do the right thing the wrong way.

It’s certainly clumsy, but it’s sure as hell not an attempt to do the right thing in any way, shape or form. It’s a cynically, self-serving and transparent attempt to deny resources to the opposition, any opposition, while retaining all of the “rights” to exactly those traditional resources for themselves. It’s a crock of shit, one that does indeed impinge upon free speech, and more specifically, the right to comment on exactly issues such as these, at a time such comments are most relevant.


As I said I don't know (or care really) about age old grievances but I'd be interested in hearing informed opinions regarding the issue without the lefty/righty "your a commie pinko/big buisiness sycophant" bullshit.

Make no mistake, what we have here has no part in a just political system, this bill is a work based in martial ethics, and battlefield tactics have never, ever had any relation to justice. A “fair” allocation of resource availability is never going to be achieved unless the sources of that support are treated equally across all political divides. Like it or not you’re talking about the battle for power between exactly those groups you claim not to be worthy of comment. Those who define “fair” as guaranteed equity of income regardless of contribution, and those who define it as equity of opportunity without prejudice.

Piss, or get off the pot.

[Hitcher]

It's your last day of free speech, brothers and sisters. Get off your chest now any political gripes and grizzles you may have, because from tomorrow you will have to register with the Electoral Commission prior to doing that publicly.

[terbang]

Run for the hills!
Allready done...

[Grahameeboy]

It's your last day of free speech, brothers and sisters. Get off your chest now any political gripes and grizzles you may have, because from tomorrow you will have to register with the Electoral Commission prior to doing that publicly.

I don't have any gripes so

HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE

[Grahameeboy]

Allready done...

Isn't that what that guy on the Hysong whatsit try and do?

[Swoop]

The STATED intent to combat child abuse stat’s is at odds with a more or less universal acceptance of the fact that it’ll make not a jot of difference to the number of children seriously hurt or killed by the supposed targets of that fuckin’ smacking bill.
Very similar to the Looney Labour "dog chipping" law that has now stopped ALL vicious dog attacks. Now, if any dog bites anything, it "did not happen"!
Anyone voting labour needs to be sent to a mental asylum, shot then asked to leave the country.
Hippy new year everyone.
F*ck the green party too!

[Storm]

Allow me to be the first to say
Labour are pack of lying thieveing hypocritcal communist bastards.

So garn get fucked politicians

[Storm]

I await the sound of jackbooted feet heading down my hallway.
If they get me, carry on the fight!!

[davereid]

Ahh, so THATS who tossed a brick through Helens window.

[Jantar]

Welcome to The People's Republic of New Chinaland :sweatdrop

[Hitcher]

Ahh, so THAT'S who tossed a brick through Helen's window.

It's 1 January. We'll now never know who did that, particularly if it was politically motivated. Unless, of course, the thrower had the presence of mind to first register their intention with the Electoral Commission.

[Pixie]

It's 1 January. We'll now never know who did that, particularly if it was politically motivated. Unless, of course, the thrower had the presence of mind to first register their intention with the Electoral Commission.

An anti Bill group has claimed responsibility - with more action to come :rockon:

On another tack,another baby has died from abuse.
Thank god for bitch Bradford's bill - they now die after days in ICU,rather than before the get taken to the hospital.
I guess that's an improvement?

[Usarka]

Hahahaha trevor duckman mallard has been pwnd for his van breaching the electoral finance bill

dumbarse you & your mates created the law try abiding by it. use some common sense.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10509964

http://media.apn.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/mallard-230.jpg

[Marmoot]

Welcome to The People's Republic of New Chinaland :sweatdrop

How's that possible?
In China they allow smacking your child. Hell, they even shoot criminals!

In here it might be illegal to learn kungfu soon, I'm afraid. You'd get sued for self-defense.