Kill the Electoral Finance Bill
|
 |
Sunday, 14 October 07 - 01:31 PM (GMT +12:00) By John Dierckx in Opinion |
| ||
Here I was worried about Burma and China and the restrictions of free speech in those countries. All that time I did not see what was happening on my own doorstep.
Check out the bill yourself, full text available here
Or read this press release below
The New Zealand Law Society issued the following press release on 27 September this year.
For immediate use 27 September 2007
From the President of the New Zealand Law Society, John Marshall QC
Electoral Finance Bill
The New Zealand Law Society makes submissions on most new legislation from an independent perspective and in the public interest. It is very rare for the Society to come to the view that a bill is bad and should not proceed further. However, it has done so in the case of the Electoral Finance Bill and called for it to be withdrawn, describing it as a backward step and irredeemable.
While endorsing the purposes of the bill, the Society has submitted that it has serious defects that mean it will not achieve those purposes.
“The rules regarding registration, disclosure, spending limits and related offences are so complex, vague and uncertain as to make participation in our parliamentary democracy an arduous and perhaps even legally dangerous undertaking for ordinary New Zealanders,” the Society said in its written submission.
“These considerations are additional to the fact that an overly long restricted period, unduly low spending limits and unfair third party regime, all place an unacceptable restriction on free speech,” it submitted.
NZLS President John Marshall QC reiterated these points when the Society made an oral presentation to the Justice & Electoral Committee today (27 September).
He said people could easily find themselves breaking the law unwittingly simply by participating in debates on election issues.
By way of example, he cited clause 5(1)(iii), which essentially provides that a statement by any person, which takes a position on an election issue, is an ‘election advertisement’.
“By taking a position on an issue, a party or candidate ensures that any person wishing to take the opposite view publicly, and wanting to spend more than $5,000, will have to go through the strict process of registering as a third party and will be limited to spending $60,000. The effect will be to stifle debate on important issues at election time, which is precisely when debate should be encouraged.”
In its written submission, the Society noted that the bill seemed to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 in that it limited freedom of expression in a way that could not be justified in a free and democratic society.
The Society submitted that the committee should recommend that the bill not proceed and that the issue should be approached afresh.
“The Society is of the view that the bill should be withdrawn,” John Marshall said. “It is not capable of being patched up. The policy-makers should start again, with clear objectives, and with better regard for the right of free speech and the right to participate freely and openly in the democratic process, both of which rights are basic to our democratic ideals.
“Legislation such as this, which goes to the heart of our democratic system of government, should be broadly accepted both within Parliament and in the wider community. The controversy surrounding this bill shows that it does not have that broad acceptance.
“The Society does not want to be seen as entirely negative. It endorses the objectives in the bill. We accept that internationally there are precedents for restrictions on electoral advertising. There should be transparency as far as donations and third party activity are concerned. However, this bill does not achieve the right balance between these restrictions and requirements, and the objective of the promotion of participation by the public in parliamentary democracy,” John Marshall told the committee.
ENDS
The submissions of the Law Society can be downloaded here
Killthebill.org.nz ( David Farrar of Kiwiblog)
Or write an email ( source http://www.investigatemagazine.com)
TO SEND A PROTEST MESSAGE TO NZ FIRST AND UNITED FUTURE OVER THE ELECTORAL FINANCE BILL, CLICK HERE
TO SEND A PROTEST MESSAGE TO THE GREENS OVER THE EFB, CLICK HERE
1984 in 2007: Big Sister is Watching You!!!
|
|
|
Tuesday, 11 September 07 - 10:43 AM (GMT +12:00) By John Dierckx in Opinion |
| ||
I AM DISGUSTED.
I remember reading Eve's Bite (Ian Wishart), especially Chapter 12, Track And Trace (pages 168-171). With disbelief I read the plans of Children's Commissioner Kiro, to set up an agency that would monitor every child in New Zealand. Referring to Kiro's speech at Barnardos New Zealand’s Annual General Meeting on 26 October 2006, Wishart laid out a vision that was just too ridiculous to even take serious.
Reading the full story at the Scoop website, I smiled and thought who's going to ever, ever, ever take such a load of bull serious. Some quotes here:
“My vision is that every child in New Zealand is safe, nurtured, educated, healthy, and has hope for the future...
Ensuring that children are safe and nurtured, have the resources to develop to their full potential, and have their views considered in matters that affect them, is a fundamental responsibility of governments and communities (Emphasis by me)...
The best results occur when we intervene early in the child’s life before problems become endemic, and also when the likelihood of success is greater."
I don't know about you, the reader, but I can't stop wondering what happened to the responsibilities of parents and of families? The message is nicely packed so far in words that appear to make sense, where it comes to the interests of children. But what worries me is how the responsibilities are being taken away from the parents and heaved over to the government and community.
And for those that wonder where this is supposed to be heading. Here is the real catch.
“My proposal is ... is a 10-year long-term vision for the wellbeing of children in New Zealand. It calls for the establishment of an integrated framework for children and their families. This would provide a systematic approach to monitoring the development of every child and young person in New Zealand through co-ordinated planned assessment at key life stages and supporting families to make sure children have the opportunity to reach their full potential. The assessments would take into account the whole child: their physical, social, educational, emotional, and psychological development.
This adopts a life cycle approach, recognising that as children grow there are some key transition times where there is an opportunity to ensure that they have the skills and resources to manage the transition well. Assessment would be at these key life stages. These would include: early childhood focusing on attachment between infant and caregivers and on physical growth and development; primary and secondary school entry focusing on general health, personal identity, school engagement and social wellbeing; and moving to tertiary education or employment and training opportunities and the transition associated with this.
The framework would build on current universal health, education and social development services provided to all children and young people in New Zealand and co-ordination between these agencies. Individual plans, owned by the child and held by the family, will be developed in partnership with children and families and each child would have a named primary professional responsible for ensuring the child and family have access to services and advice as needed.
The anonymous aggregated data information gathered will also be very useful for educators, health service providers, community planners and child protection services so that they can prepare and plan appropriately for current and future needs.”
It all sounded so ridiculous to me I never even considered it seriously. I mean this is like 1984 in real time. I should have known better seeing what happened with the "anti-smacking bill". In any event I forgot about the whole "Fantasy Island" episode of Kiro until, almost a year later I saw this article in the Dominion Post.
From Parent to State Servant, From Child to Mindless PuppetChild home-screening plan 'insult'
DAVE BURGESS - The Dominion Post | Monday, 10 September 2007
Source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/print/4195976a6479.htmlA proposal by Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro to have mandatory screening of every baby's home life is the ultimate insult, Family First NZ says.
The estimated $5-million-a-year scheme would make it compulsory for every newborn's caregiver to nominate an authorised provider to assess their family's progress through home visits. Those who refused to take part would be referred to welfare authorities.
The suggestion has outraged Bob McCoskrie, the national director of Christian-based lobby group Family First. "To threaten to refer the overwhelming majority of well-functioning parents and families - who will quite rightly resist this intrusion - to social welfare agencies is the ultimate insult."
Briefing papers are being written for presentation to the Government's task force for action on family violence, which began a $14 million campaign last week to fight domestic violence.
The proposal is in response to shocking child abuse statistics. Regular Unicef report cards, updated this year, consider New Zealand the most dangerous place for children, in terms of health and safety, out of 24 developed countries.
The Paediatric Society estimates 15 to 20 children are killed through child abuse each year.
Mr McCoskrie said the children's commissioner should concentrate on the problems that lead to child abuse, such as gang violence, methamphetamine use, violence in schools and the breakdown in families.
"But she wants to treat all parents as potential child abusers rather than affording them the respect, support and encouragement they deserve - while failing to target the real abusers."
National Party leader John Key said mandatory investigation of all children should be a last resort.
"A targeted approach would allow for more resources to be put in to those with greatest need."
The proposal calls for a database to track the development of New Zealand children, which Mr Key would not oppose. "You have to balance the intrusion of privacy over the need to try to get a resolution to an issue that is of quite great concern. In this case the issue warrants that."
But Mr Key doubted that the scheme could be run for $5 million a year. At-risk families would have to receive concentrated support from agencies such as Plunket.
Child, Youth and Family Services Minister Ruth Dyson welcomed the early intervention programme and said she would discuss the proposal with agencies.
With the introduction of the anti-smacking bill, a sell out in which parents rights were traded in for political interests and in which the outraged voice of the New Zealand population was conveniently ignored, parents rights were substantially diminished and traditional parenting methods were pulled into the criminal arena.
What we will have left by the time this plan is made reality is a situation where we as parents are diminished from caregivers to executors of a government policy. If you don't pass your yearly appraisal or performance review will we get fired, so that government agencies can step in and make sure that the government agenda is clearly imprinted in our youth, ensuring stability for the future. And please rest assured that with stability I mean a future of people that have lost the ability to think for themselves because the have been indoctrinated in the most vulnerable stages of their lives.
I have expressed my concerns on other occasions about the issue based education approach in New Zealand. For those who'd like to read about it from someone else, I would suggest reading page 146-201 of Eve's Bite by Ian Wishart, and see for yourself how ideology is penetrating our educational system, dumbing down and setting children up against parents that do not agree with government viewpoints and ideologies. I spend loads of time with my children to talk about other view points to ensure that they will be able to make their own choices. If there is anything parents nowadays in New Zealand will need to put high on their agenda as a parent it is learning your children to think independently and for their selves.
Should we be worried? YES. Recent history has shown that policy agendas and even laws can be pushed through regardless of what people think and want.
What the hell is this all? In the past years the government agenda has been aimed at hollowing out the family and parenthood. We are now facing the first serious steps towards a completely state dominated family live in which there is no longer room for individuality and privacy of the home.
Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees us:
I do not deny that there are issues that need to be addressed. It is shocking to see the bad scores of New Zealand in Unicef Reports. But those same reports and others also refer to for instance socio-economic issues (poverty) and a related array of problems such as health, alcohol and drugs abuse and gambling. What is the next step? Preventative Custody, where parents are put in jail, government takes over the parenting because based on the statistics there is an enhanced chance that you will smack or abuse your children, will pass on the wrong ideas (like freedom) or are educating them in non-government compliant and therefore subversive ideas?No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
This plan shoves parents all on one big pile as presumed to be incompetent until proven competent. What worries me even more, is the question: who is to decide what is competent and what not?
Who is to decide whether I am a good parent or not? You guessed it: performance measurement will lie in the hands of government officials that are bound by political agendas.
How long before there will no longer be room for teaching your children values that you as a Catholic, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish parent feel are important to pass on to the next generation. How long before cultural awareness will be hollowed out to government approved culture. How long before our children stop thinking for themselves and are nothing more than mindless puppets of the National Dictatorship of New Zealand, afraid to think for themselves because of the potential consequences? How long before parents with specific views will be banned from further parenthood because they pose a danger to compliance to the government agenda by the children they are trying to raise as free people that can think for themselves. How long before parenthood is over all together, and parents are reduced to production units to produce puppets for the state. How long before freedom of thought and speech is redefined as subversiveness that needs to be addressed by sanctions and taking away your child?
And what is the ultimate next step: A government plan to ensure that only those deemed competent to be a parent will be allowed to have a baby at all? A new nation of members of the Kiwi super race of mindless government puppets.
Kiro's plan is an insult to all those parents that do already do great job, to every loving and caring parent in New Zealand. This new scheme must be stopped at all cost. The government has not before showed its hand so clearly. What is Helen and her mob of pigs (Animal Farm) telling us actually? That democracy and freedom have failed in New Zealand? Or is this just another ploy to take our attention away from the fact that as a nation we are failing miserably in addressing the underlying real issues?
I do know one thing:
AN AUTOCRATIC DICTATORSHIP CAN AND MAY NEVER BE THE ANSWER.
I see 1984 enfold in 2007 and I am disgusted.
If this post seems somewhat unstructured and emotional, that is because I am: completely blown away in disbelief.
Helen's Fingers in My Kid's Pie: The Price of a Welfare State
|
|
|
Friday, 22 June 07 - 09:29 PM (GMT +12:00) By John Dierckx in Opinion |
| ||
11 June, The NZ Herald covers a new ban, introduced by our government: this time it is a ban on schools to sell healthy food (or reduce availability substantially) and replace it with healthy alternatives.
See the story here.
Now of course we cannot deny that in New Zealand there is, like in many western countries an obesity problem. And no one will deny that it needs to be addressed. But what are we really seeing here?
What is the main theme here: is it really the genuine concern of the government, of Helen for our children? Helen, the childless mother of all of us here in New Zealand?
Are we seeing a pattern here?
What struck me most is the remark that instead of guidelines this ban has now become a government directive. For this unaware what the difference is: in the latter case compliance to this ban, regardless of its contents will turn into a compliance issue. So what can we expect here? The tuck shop Police? I can just hear Helen repeat that famous words again in the not so far away future:
"I am fully confident that the police will use their discretionary powers wisely"Please not again. And seeing what has happened with the anti-smacking bill what is next? A bill making it an offence for parents to provide children unhealthy food in their lunch boxes?
"I am fully confident that the police will use their discretionary powers wisely"
The Price of the Welfare State
Taken away from the spotlight is what motivates the government to think they can and will interfere with for now schools, and you bet ya, within the near future parental interference in what we give our kids to eat: it has nothing to do with genuine care. It has to do with tax money and government spending.
When being asked questions, Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR replies on 26 July 2005, when this issue was discussed:
We are not in the position where we can tell schools what they should or should not sell in their tuck-shops. One thing I would say, though, is that if the National Party and its “Tax Cuts-Education Cuts” policy ever comes to bear, schools will be forced to sell high-return, high-sugar products in their tuck-shops.
Unhealthy food - Obesity - Medical Problems - Health Care - Spending Tax Money
I am not here to deny that getting people to eat healthy is not important, especially our children. But does that allow for a government to intermingle with the already overfull and compulsory extra curricular and curricular agendas of schools?
These freedoms are all making place for an ever expanding government body required to ensure that compliance with the authoritarian and absolutist government agenda is ensured.
Does this remind you of something?
Probably not, cause when facts based education was being replaced by issue based education and a monitored mainstream media:references to anything that might make our children and us as grown ups think or doubt are either taken out completely or dumbed down to useless or even false information. I get the feeling that we are seeing the recreation of a Marxist dream here.
To extreme for your taste? Than at least keep in mind that this welfare state or as some call it Nanni state has a price: the price of losing our rights and freedoms, and let's be honest: we are not just spending tax payers money on "welfare". More and more is required to have all those government workers that are paid from these same tax payers monies to ensure compliance with the ever growing red tape and directions of the government.
Has anyone ever checked how much the size government related organisations have grown over the past periods? I didn't but I bet my bottom dollar that it has been substantially in the past years. And what a great illusion: these expanding government agencies need to be occupied by government workers that will need to be recruited and thus the repression helps to promote the idea of a healthy economy with ever decreasing unemployment rates. In that sense your dear earned tax money is spent on creating a myth. Besides that and what's even worse we are now actually paying money to have our freedoms cut down and to ensure deeper and deeper government interference in our daily lives. So when we talk about a welfare state: who is actually faring well from it? Are we not actually paying for being repressed?
I would like to close of with a free translation of a quote from the well acclaimed Dutch Professor G. Peter Hoefnagels in his book People, fraud and the state, Ambo Baarn 1987 ( People, fraud and the state):
It does not get more symptomatic (blogger adds: of wrong state intervention in our daily and economic life) The emotional need for repressive reactions arises when the power feels the need to affirm itself. The ruler serves two needs by that: it leads the attention away from the real problems by focusing on the incidents and it exemplary demonstrates its power via an individual (blogger adds: offender, non compliant/deviant individual or party).Have a great weekend and enjoy that fish and chips while you still can.
A State Religion or a Secular New Zealand
|
|
|
Thursday, 31 May 07 - 09:32 PM (GMT +12:00) By John Dierckx in Opinion |
| ||
The newspapers and television have been overloaded with this question after the discussions on whether, for the sake of "religious tolerance" we should formalise the position that New Zealand has no state religion.
The argument is that by now New Zealand is a country that harbors people from a wide range of religions and beliefs and therefore we should for the sake of "tolerance" declare ourselves a state without a state religion.
Quite honestly I find this a strange position and the arguments brought forward have thus far not convinced me.
New Zealand is a constitutional monarchy, with the head of state still being the Queen of England. At the same time Elizabeth, as the Monarch of the United Kingdom, is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and sworn protector of the Church of Scotland.
I can not help but feeling that the debate opened up by secularising New Zealand has nothing to do with religious tolerance but with intolerance for Christianity in all its shapes and forms.
So if do not have a state religion and if Christianity is not recognised as an underlying set of values of New Zealand society, what is it the common ground on the basis of which our society is shaped and will be shaped in the future. The religion of state dominance in all its unattractive shapes and forms?
Look at your society, look at what the underlying values and norms are and one will see that Christianity, like in most if not all western societies, is the underlying current that has shaped our society and will keep on shaping our society.
Other countries like for instance the US do not have people of different religions stand up and shout we feel not tolerated because you are a Christian nation. Dutch coins still have "God be with us" on the side: I have yet to see the first Buddhist or Muslim that feels insulted by this.
Isn't Christianity not also about acceptance, something Helen and her bunch has such difficulty with when it comes to Christianity.
And that is what this is all about, even if there is a Christian prayer before Parliament gets to "work" does it at any stage say "and by the way if you are not a Christian, you don't count"?
I am not a member of any church yet even I am appalled by this act of "religious intolerance" forwarded by the atheist church (read government) of New Zealand. I can't wait for the 2008 elections, they are needed for many reasons, but most of all to protect our identity, our family, our personal privacy and for the sake of reason and democracy.
For those that do polling and inquiries: don't bother and spend your money wisely, the anti-smacking bill has already shown that the voice of New Zealanders is not taken into any consideration when it comes to that. It is just a mater of pushing through and after that: "education of the people" so hey learn to understand that Helen knows what's best for all of us.
Some thoughts from the Renaissance Man in the Marxist Banana Republic.
Hall of Shame: the anti-smacking bill passed
|
|
|
Thursday, 17 May 07 - 10:59 AM (GMT +12:00) By John Dierckx in Opinion |
| ||
On this sunny morning there is a dark cloud in the sky waiting to interfere with the sunshine. The anti-smacking bill cloud that has kept New Zealand occupied in the past period passed last night with 113 votes for and 8 votes against. Copeland resigned for it. I feel sad for New Zealand.
Why does the "House" feel that it is in any position to send any "powerful message" that is representing maybe the result of a political deal but is a far cry from what the public wanted. And isn't this what it is all about? Members of Parliament are representing the people that elected them. So why would parliament need to send a strong message if that message wasn't already clear for those they are representing there. The 80% plus against this ust be wondering why the heck they are still voting?"The signal that this house is sending today is that violence against our children is unacceptable. Having a sizeable majority of votes in favour of this bill ensures that a powerful and loud message is sent to our communities, loud and clear."
In no way issues raised against the bill have been addressed appropriately:
- Do you now know why the poll results 80% plus against could be ignored?
- Do you now understand where the difference is between a correctional tap on the bottom and "violence"? Of course not cause under this law it's all an offence! But we'll leave it to the Police discretion to decide whether or not to prosecute.
Regardless of the overwhelming majority vote I can but feel appalled. A country where a house of representatives can completely ignore those whom they are representing can no longer call itself a democracy. This law is demonstrating clearly that governent is taking over as an absolute ruler rolling out their own agendas regardless of what the public thinks and wants. Where this happens in other countries we speak of dictatorships.
And look what is happening, the bad taste of the passing of this bill has barely gone and I read that:
"Sue Bradford's two-year battle to convince her fellow MPs to pass the anti-smacking bill came to an end last night but the Green MP said the work to persuade parents of the virtues of the law change was just beginning.See what I mean? If this bill was carried by public support, why do we need convincing? And what the heck do I have to think of "an intensive eduction process for parents"?
The law change will not come into force for a month. Ms Bradford said those four weeks and the period after the bill's enactment should see an intensive education process for parents.
"This is very much the end of the beginning. There are a whole lot of things that need to happen in terms of public education in what this bill actually means. We also need to be monitoring what this legislation means for Child, Youth and Family and for the police."
And that education process just started today with this almost propganda like news coverage in the New Zealand Herald, which we can now conveniently rebrand as the "Voice of the House":
"The High Court in Auckland heard how a boy of 3 years old was subjected to regular beatings using a baseball bat, a vacuum cleaner pipe, rods and a wooden spoon, and punched repeatedly in the face," Mrs Turia said.
"The couple convicted of manslaughter used section 59 of the Crimes Act as their defence, claiming that they only ever used reasonable force. As long as we have people who are prepared to administer beatings so savage that a child's blood splatters on to the ceiling and who are then able to defend that callous brutality as a reasonable punishment, then this nation is in deep trouble."
Yes this nation is in deep trouble where it comes to child abuse but this is the typical propaganda that hasd accompanied the introduction and whole process of this law passing. No one will denie that cases like the above are horrible examples that should not be allowed. But they already were an offence. The bill is not doing anything extra for cases like that, except for taking away the defence of reasonable force. Judges and juries are not silly, for extremes like this no one will think of reasonable force.
But through this bill we have brought every parent in the scope of criminal law, regardless of whether you give a correctional tap on the bottom or use baseball bats, vacuum cleaner pipes, wooden spoons. And let's not leave judgement to independent judges and juries, no no no, that is too much insecurity for a state controlled apparatus: we 'll leave it to the new Parental KGB cause that's what our Police force now will be as a reward for all those abuses of power that have been exposed lately.
And here we are to trust that they will use their discretion wisely?
This is a sad day for New Zealand, we stopped being a democratic society, said goodbye to our rule of law and our autonomy as a parent to raise our children has been eroded one more step further. Marx would have been proud of good old Helen and her mob.
"She'll not be right" if we don't start thinking for ourselves again.
Applause for those who did not give in: Rodney Hide, Heather Roy, Taito Phillip Field, Gordon Copeland, Winston Peters, Ron Mark, Pita Paraone, Judy Turner.
... More items are available in my News Archive
