Comments on: Chilling

By: Guilty until proven innocent at The Standard

Guilty until proven innocent at The Standard — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:02:37 +0000

[...] are continuing our chilling progress towards a surveillance state. The Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 is another brick [...]

By: dave

dave — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:07:44 +0000

As an agent of the Crown their role is to enforce the law as passed by the legislature.

Unless parliament or the PM declares otherwise ie the smacking legislation.

Police do not have the role of determining if it is valid or not that is the role of the courts

The courts don’t determine whether a law is valid, either.

By: burt

burt — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 06:32:48 +0000

dave

I’m not sure that you are right here. I don’t think the Police are actually supposed to be assessing if the law is sensible or not. As an agent of the Crown their role is to enforce the law as passed by the legislature. The legislature is not expected to pass crap law and the Police do not have the role of determining if it is valid or not – that is the role of the courts and judicial reviews if required.

Of course without a written constitution this is all convention based and as we saw in 2006 rOb’s special friends (apparently heroic for their courageous corruption) bailed themselves out of court because the law was inconvenient for them and enforcing it threatened to impose democratic elections on NZ by restricting the amount of influence unlimited marketing budgets create.

By: burt

burt — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 06:10:13 +0000

oh George, it was a good bill when Labour introduced it – they always are when Labour introduces them.

By: r0b

r0b — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 03:30:51 +0000

Well there I agree with you. Labour needs to stand up and oppose this bill.

By: dave

dave — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 03:24:58 +0000

The same thing that happens when people break laws that should not be made in the first instance: It gets referred to the police. the police then say they are not going to prosecute because it is not in the public interest. No one else prosecutes either unless they are willing to spend loads of money to take out a private prosecution. Never mind the view that it is not in the best interest of the public to pass these laws in the first place…..

By: dave

dave — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 03:20:49 +0000

No I`m right because I said Labour did it. “It” refers to Labour. I`m not one to defend Brash, but, r0b, Brash has only apologised for his position on one part of the F&S, not everything IMHO he should have. Clark didn’t apologise – she wouldn’t know how. Isn’t Key a much better PM than Clark, of course he is.

By: dw

dw — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 03:10:41 +0000

One interesting question comes to mind, if this crap legislation breaches the BORA, what happens if someone’s rights are breached in the course of execution of some of the nasty elements in this bill? Does the person on the receiving end have to fight this out in court as a breach of the BORA?

By: George D

George D — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:53:41 +0000

Well, the media are pretty stupid, but when Labour aren’t opposing it you can hardly expect them to think it’s much of an issue.

By: George D

George D — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:52:43 +0000

You hate Labour, fine whatever, but don’t let it blind you to what is actually happening.

I have a very real reason for attacking Phil Goff and the New Zealand Labour Party here, rather than the Government. It is true that the Government has control of this bill, intends to pass it, and has the numbers to pass it in some form.

However, currently the only people in Parliament with a clear voice against it are the Green Party, and they are effectively marginal to this discourse, precisely because they are so regularly the only voices calling for bills to be dropped on the basis of human rights concerns.

Until Labour actually stands up for human rights, bills like this will receive only a fraction of the scrutiny they deserve. They will pass much more easily. They will contain worse clauses than would otherwise be the case. Labour will be seen to be endorsing them by the media and the public, even if their endorsements are sometimes half-hearted. Quite simply, we need Labour in order to achieve this.

By: Deemac

Deemac — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:43:18 +0000

Dave sounds as if he needs to lie down in a darkened room for a bit – hysteria isn’t very convincing pal. Your need to hate someone/something whatever the arguments or evidence is not a political problem but a psychological one

By: George D

George D — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:39:44 +0000

Anyone can write bad legislation, that isn’t a crime.

You’re making excuses again. Writing legislation with severe human rights implications was a common practice for the last Government not an accident. It brushed off human rights concerns, and continues to do so, this week, last week, and I daresay they’ll do it again next week.

By: George D

George D — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:37:49 +0000

See above @3:37

By: George D

George D — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:37:28 +0000

I can blame Phil Goff, and I will blame Phil Goff.

Phil Goff is the father of this bastard child of legislation.

By: r0b

r0b — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:36:09 +0000

See above @3:35