Anti-EFB crusader calls for armed revolution

290 comments on “Anti-EFB crusader calls for armed revolution ”

• Comments are now closed

1. principessa 1

   4 December 2007 at 3:36 pm

   I’ve also heard from a few people that there was some sort of electronic device ringing households inviting them to the march last weekend. Who’s money was behind that little trick?
2. slightlyrighty 2

   4 December 2007 at 3:48 pm

   Hey guys, if your vaunted EFB is so good, then why are there 150 last second amendments to be debated in the house??

   150 LAST SECOND AMENDMENTS to a bill which is meant to be enacted into law by THE END OF THIS MONTH!!

   What a joke.
3. Lampie 3

   4 December 2007 at 3:50 pm

   Wasn’t he some deadbeat from TV?
4. Robinsod 4

   4 December 2007 at 3:53 pm

   I think he sold mattresses…
5. Tane 5

   4 December 2007 at 3:54 pm

   That was after he quit TVNZ because commercialism had made it braindead. His answer? More commercialism. Excuse me if I don’t take this guy seriously…
6. Robinsod 6

   4 December 2007 at 3:56 pm

   because commercialism had made it braindead

   I’m sure that’s why he *cough* left.
7. Outofbed 7

   4 December 2007 at 3:58 pm

   Electoral Finance Bill concerns taken on board
   http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0712/S00043.htm
   “¢ Narrowing the definition of ‘publish’, particularly by removing the part of the definition that would have encompassed advertisements that were brought ‘to the notice of the public in any other manner.’

   “¢ Allowing the Electoral Commission and the Chief Electoral Office to decide that an alleged breach of the legislation is so inconsequential that there is no public interest in reporting it to the Police.

   “¢ Shortening the period prior to an election during which third parties cannot register with the Electoral Commission. This was a recommendation made by the Human Rights Commission and Electoral Commission.

   “¢ New clauses that create greater transparency around the disclosure of the contributors to ‘secret trusts’.

   “¢ Clarifying that the requirement to place a name and address on an advertisement relates only to promoters, and not the general public.

   “All these amendments are aimed at clarifying the intention of the Bill, which does not set out to prevent free speech as misinformation has suggested, but rather, it is intended to fetter the undue influence of people who can afford to buy elections.,
   Doesn’t sound very fascist to me
8. Lampie 8

   4 December 2007 at 4:02 pm

   Hmmm I’ll wait and see

   They have done a shabby job. Not one of Labour’s proudest moments. History will soon tell us.
9. the sprout 9

   4 December 2007 at 4:09 pm

   “why are there 150 last second amendments”

   umm, slightlylighty, it’s called fillibustering – it’s what National do when they want to look relevant and not just impotent or incompetent.
10. Lee C 10

    4 December 2007 at 4:15 pm

    At last – a thread about the EFB Thank you thank you thank you.
11. Lee C 11

    4 December 2007 at 4:19 pm

    “Excuse me if I don’t take this guy seriously.”

    You need to get out more….
12. Robinsod 12

    4 December 2007 at 4:20 pm

    But Lee – I thought every thread was about the EFB? Oh no, that’s right it’s that you comment on every thread about the EFB. And yet you couldn’t be arsed marching against it the first or the second time (or taking the time to do a decent submission against it). It must be a true threat to democracy for you to fight so hard against it.
13. Gruela 13

    4 December 2007 at 4:20 pm

    What’s this EFB thing?
14. gobsmacked 14

    4 December 2007 at 4:25 pm

    Just for you, Lee C:

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0712/S00048.htm

    So it’s our old friends the Business Round Table standing up for the downtrodden little guy. Bless.
15. the sprout 15

    4 December 2007 at 4:35 pm

    nice spotting gobsmacked.
    who’d have ever thought National were really just standing up for the rights of the wealthy to manipulate elections?
16. Lampie 16

    4 December 2007 at 4:37 pm

    not exactly new news guys

    http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=78741&cat=976&fm=newsarticle,nur
17. Robinsod 17

    4 December 2007 at 4:40 pm

    Lampie – I think you’ve confuse Act with the BRT (don’t worry it’s very easy to do)
18. Sam Dixon 18

    4 December 2007 at 4:41 pm

    Cheers OutofBed, those amendments actually weaken the spending retrictions. – makes DPF look kind of stupid for getting all up in arms about them.

    Does the 150 include amendments from other parties? If it does, I suppose most of the 150 are actually National amendments.
19. gobsmacked 19

    4 December 2007 at 4:43 pm

    Exactly, Robinsod.

    One represents 1% of the voters, the other is nothing like as popular.
20. Lampie 20

    4 December 2007 at 4:44 pm

    Nah, just talking about the laywer behind the protests, wasn’t like he was trying to hide himself. Yeah I know what you mean about ACT and BRT.

    My article dated 17/11 🙂
21. the sprout 21

    4 December 2007 at 4:44 pm

    “confuse Act with the BRT”

    another false dichotomy, like what gruela wears to parties.

    “150 are actually National amendments”

    yes it’s just National’s predictable fillibustering.
22. Robinsod 22

    4 December 2007 at 4:49 pm

    C’mon sprout you can tell Act from the BRT by the fact that one want’s to privatise the fire service and… no hold on, ah yes – one wants to sell off… no that’s no good either… um… one is a front group for corporate… no… Ah I’ve got it! Dancing with the stars!
23. Billy 23

    4 December 2007 at 4:49 pm

    Non-exhaustive list of people or organisations who have come out against the Bill: The Human Rights Commission, Nicky Hagar, the Law Society, the electoral commission, every newspaper in New Zealand, Chris Trotter, Institute of Chatered Accountants, Matt McCarten, the Listener.

    Can’t think why the Standard chooses to focus on Lindsay Perigo?
24. gobsmacked 24

    4 December 2007 at 4:52 pm

    Boscawen has been highly visible, and his ACT links are open, no argument there.

    But try finding any reference at all to his membership of the Business Round Table in media coverage. Just like the EBs, it’s left to the Greens to point this out.

    Free speech – yay! Transparency? Not so much.
25. Gruela 25

    4 December 2007 at 4:55 pm

    Billy

    Most of those you cited have come out for modifications or a re-wording of the EFB, rather than being against the intent of the Bill.
26. the sprout 26

    4 December 2007 at 4:57 pm

    gruela… you and your pesky truthiness
27. Lampie 27

    4 December 2007 at 4:57 pm

    Ah gobsmacked, I see what you mean, wasn’t exactly public knowledge that he belongs to the BRT.
28. Billy 28

    4 December 2007 at 4:58 pm

    Oh well, that’s all right then Gruela. Doesn’t matter how much of an abortion it is, so long as it is a well-intentioned abortion.
29. Sam Dixon 29

    4 December 2007 at 4:58 pm

    Is it jsut me or do Lindsay Perigo, David Farrar, and Cameron Slater all have something in common? A certain – fat, rich, paheka (oops, ‘white’, sorry), male quality?
30. Billy 30

    4 December 2007 at 5:00 pm

    Sam, you old anti-semite. By golly, you’re right. That makes their view utterly invalid, obviously. Game, set and match.
31. Lee C 31

    4 December 2007 at 5:04 pm

    You all seem to be missing the point. I am not opposed to electoral reform. I am not a National Party supporter, unless they are going to abolish the EFB. I am not so deluded as to think that the opposition to the EFB is not politically driven by some who have an agenda of their own ie the National Party – you only have to see how ‘badly’ they have opposed it to realise that.
    However, I am opposed to this reform, because it is a retrograde step in our democracy. I am not so staunch a defender of the Government that I delude myself that they do not have a political agenda either.
    The Sunday Star Times and Dom Post have both expressed a desire to see this Bill scrapped.
    Are they National Party supporters too?
    I will, however vote National if they promise to repeal this Bill set up a proper Royal Commission into electoral reform, adopt proper cross-party consultation, speak to interested parties and engage in a public consultation process.
    If this is unpalatable to you guys then tough shit.
    Yes Robinsod as far as I am concerned every post is about the EFB.
    The tendency of the ‘left’ to shoot the messanger, frankly is a pathetic abnegation of your democratic responsibilities. The fact that I am prepared to express what I believe, is a point of pride for me. Why do you think there are so many ‘nazi’ accusations bandied about?
    You guys villify, belittle, bully, bluster, and generally make idiots of yourselves at every turn because you all believe in a fairy-tale, which is every bit as seductive as ‘The Hollow Men’.

    That fairy tale being that the Labour Government are here for ‘the people’. Give me a break.
    Alos if National did not repeal this piece of work, I would be up there, advocating civil disobedience too. And funnily enough, when this pathetic law comes back to bite the Unions at the hands of an unscrupulous right-wing government, suddenly all you will you unbelievable suckers will wake up and realise why thei Bill is a turd.
32. Pascal's bookie 32

    4 December 2007 at 5:04 pm

    Is Perigo still wearing his Politically Incorrect T-Shirt?

    jeebus wept.

    I also think that his magazine has to take much of the blame for all the KKKlark, feminazi, liarbore stuff that everyone loves so much. Which is pretty weird when you think that Objectivism is supposed to put a moral premium on originality, sincerity and intellectual elitism.
33. the sprout 33

    4 December 2007 at 5:05 pm

    not utterly invalid Billy, don’t be so sensitive. more just similarly out-of-touch is all.
34. Robinsod 34

    4 December 2007 at 5:08 pm

    Lee – All I was saying was for something that’s so important to you, you seem to be doing very little about it. That makes me question your sincerity and that makes me less inclined to bother reading your posts. Sorry love, just calling the way I see it.
35. Matthew Pilott 35

    4 December 2007 at 5:09 pm

    Lee I was expecting a reasoned discussion of the merits (or lack thereof) of the bill.

    All you did was say, “I don’t like it, and other’s don’t like it, so it should go, and fuck you guys for disagreeing with me” in slightly more palatable terms.

    Please tell me what in that post I can criticise, that is of substance.

    It’s not attacking the messenger when he doesn’t have a message Lee.
36. Tane 36

    4 December 2007 at 5:09 pm

    Lee, you haven’t even taken the time to read the Hollow Men. I’m sorry, but I can’t take your obsession with the EFB and your insistence on parroting National Party lines seriously until you do so.
37. Matthew Pilott 37

    4 December 2007 at 5:13 pm

    I’d like to apologise unreservedly misusing an apostrophe.

    My shame for writing that last post is extreme.

    Robonsod – please don’t hate me 🙁

    The rest of it stands.
38. gobsmacked 38

    4 December 2007 at 5:14 pm

    Lee C

    OK, if you want to discuss substance, here is a genuine, clear question:

    Which of the world’s democracies have the best (most free, most fair) election systems? If what is proposed for NZ is so bad, can you tell us where it is good? Which countries should NZ be trying to emulate?
39. Eddie 39

    4 December 2007 at 5:50 pm

    “why are there 150 last second amendments”

    Um, ‘cos the first couple of drafts were a mess, frankly. But that doesn’t change, for me, the essential rightness (no pun intended) of the need for this legislation. Ie it’s not ok to buy elections. I’m not prepared to chuck the government or this bill just because Labour caucus and 9th floor spin is crap.
40. PhilBest 40

    4 December 2007 at 5:59 pm

    We could imitate the TRANSPARENCY of the US system, AND THE FREEDOM. With George Soros, Ted Turner, The Rockefeller Foundation, and the like funding the Left in the US, they don’t lack for the ability to match the Right in this area. Actually I see no major problem with disparity in funding in NZ either. The Clark Govt is actually trying very hard to tip the playing field way up their way.

    Another thing about the US system: when the president gets inside information on his political opponents by criminal means, its him that loses his job, not his political opponents, no matter how damning the inside information was.

    Hager’s book, “The hollow men” is firstly, a blatant political espionage job. Secondly, his bias is just incredible. Anyone to the right of Joe Stalin is referred to by him as a “right-winger” or an “extreme right-winger”.

    I did read this book cover to cover, and it was most readable. Here’s one hypothesis it allowed me to make. Hager had such DETAILED information on what Don Brash was doing every minute of the day, that the absence of information on “links” with the Exclusive Brethren beyond one e-mail, tends to make one believe that Brash was telling the truth about this. If he’d even replied to that E-mail, Hager would have had that reply. This is the weakest part of the book’s whole argument, where Hager crosses over from evidence to speculation. The whole Exclusive Brethren beat-up was the most ugly thing yet to occur in NZ politics, and shows as nothing else does, the depth of the loyalty of the MSM to the Clark regime.

    What do you guys on the Left think should be done with guys like Lindsay Perigo advocating armed revolution? And should the same standards be applied to those on the left who employ revolutionary rhetoric? Or are they automatically morally right no matter what?

    Gruela and her “truthiness” represents a rare and valuable commodity on the left wing.
41. Outofbed 41

    4 December 2007 at 6:00 pm

    150 amendments are from the committee
    http://www.parliament.nz/LiveBroadcast/house-384.asx
    Good debate at the mo
42. illuminatedtiger 42

    4 December 2007 at 6:06 pm

    Poor little rich boys. Can’t buy the election anymore.
43. the bean 43

    4 December 2007 at 6:09 pm

    “the depth of the loyalty of the MSM to the Clark regime.”

    i hate that crappy blog geek speakie stuff so i am going to write it in full.

    rolling around on the floor laughing my arse off
44. Gruela 44

    4 December 2007 at 6:21 pm

    Personally, I’ve never understood how the Libertarian rhetoric of guys like Perigo differs from anarchism. They’re both dog eat dog systems, wherein those unable to keep up are left behind. Libertarians show no compassion or empathy for others, being only interested in what they can get for themselves.
45. Insolent Prick 45

    4 December 2007 at 6:22 pm

    This is hilarious! Somebody points out that there are 150 amendments to the Bill, and the left-wing commenters say: “Yes, that’s National’s fillibustering!”

    Except it isn’t. Those are amendments that the GOVERNMENT has proposed to its own Bill.

    This is after the Labour Government has spent two years formulating it, and been through the select committee process.

    If the Labour Party had just had an honest approach on the Bill to begin with, we wouldn’t be facing this shambles now.

    Electoral law is the bedrock of our constitutional framework. Labour should have set up a royal commission, consulted with the public on the policy framework, sent some MPs overseas for a comparison of electoral financing regimes, got the Law Commission to give its input, put together a committee of experts, made Justice Ministry policy advice available for public comment and consultation, consulted with the Human Rights Commission, and then got onto legislative drafting, before presenting the Bill to the house for introduction and followed the select committee process. Then we would have robust legislation that the public could have faith in.

    Instead, Labour and New Zealand First refused a royal commission, consulted only with each other, didn’t investigate international regimes, ignored large tracts of Ministry of Justice advice, refused to release that advice to the public, didn’t commission the Law Commission to do a report, didn’t consult with the public on the policy framework, and introduced a Bill to the House without any public consultation, or, for that matter, any public mandate to so dramatically change the electoral system.

    Labour refused to consult with other parties, and rammed through a process in select committee that overwhelmingly ignored the sentiments expressed in this Committee. As a consequence, the Select Committee was so bogged down with the policy issues that what has emerged is a flawed, poorly drafted, ambiguous travesty of legislation.

    This is a shameful day for Labour supporters.
46. lyndon 46

    4 December 2007 at 6:26 pm

    Oh, here it is:

    http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2007/11/showtime.html
47. Gruela 47

    4 December 2007 at 6:27 pm

    Insolent

    “Those are amendments that the GOVERNMENT has proposed to its own Bill.”

    Please, when you have good stuff like that could you supply links so others can share the information?
48. Lee C 48

    4 December 2007 at 6:40 pm

    tane as yo insist on repeating yourself allow me to do the same:
    I am not so ready to jump to a conclusion based on one ‘quick read’ Tane.

    ‘Little Red Riding Hood’ is a quick read, too. By your logic should we exterminate wolves on that basis? If the Labour Party needed the fur, would yu go out hunting tonight? Don’t like to think for yourself? Or are you nothing more than a spin parrot?
    Tane. Which part of the EFB will erradicate the abuses that were perpetrated by ‘The Holow Men’?

    Which part of it will hold the Unions accountable for similar practices?

    How many of the other four million kiwis have read the ‘Hollow Men’?

    Do they all therefore deserve the EFB to limit their freedoms?

    I can’t believe that you can buy so fully into the EFB when the Herald, Dominion Post, Sunday Star Times, Espiner, Hager, Law Society, Human Rights Commission, Grey Power, SST, yes National and the Electoral Commission all appear to be in opposition to it.

    So, what gem of insight into New Zealand’s constitutional democracy does Labour have which gives you special dispensation to completely disregard every shred of evidence to the contrary, and still support the EFB?

    And why have you done such an apalling job of sharing this gem if wisdom with us?

    Just for clarity: Let us summarise the Labour Party line;

    ‘It [The EFB] will stop peole like the Exclusive Brethren and John Key rorting the electoral process.” (Helen Clark – Hansard, September 16th 2007)

    Bullshit!

    My attitude towards the EFB is based the evidence, rather than blindly following ANY Party line.

    Val Sim’s advice to the Government, Hager’s the Law Society and Human Rights Submissions to the SC, Espiner SST, Dominion, Herald, Hansard, Burton, King, English, Key, Electoral Commission, excerpts from the Hollow Men and reviews of the above.

    You, on the other hand have ‘The Hollow Men’ and One or two spurious sound-bites on your side of the argument.

    DO you really think you can you defend your one-eyed views by suggesting that any opposition to the EFB is based on a National Party conspiracy?

    That is Hollow.

    It is you that needs to do a bit more reading, Tane. Spin parrots like you – Tane – are responsible for the present major rift within the Labour Party. They are keeping it quiet, but even Stevie Wonder can see it.
49. Insolent Prick 49

    4 December 2007 at 6:44 pm

    You can download the main SOP at http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/D1B0B7D4-5145-4AEF-BEB1-519CF3B5E17C/70041/DBHOH_SOP_1062_5628.pdf

    Most of the amendments are of a very minor, technical nature. But they are exactly the sort of amendments which should take place in Select Committee.

    In addition, Annette King has tabled a motion to divide the Bill, along with several other SOPs.

    It is very, very dangerous for a governing party to ram through major constitutional change like this. The Prime Minister assured New Zealanders that the Bill, as reported back from the Select Committee, would satisfy everybody’s concerns. If it had done so, we wouldn’t be seeing 150 amendments released just two hours before the Committee Stage.
50. Gruela 50

    4 December 2007 at 6:49 pm

    Lee C

    Which aspects of the EFB are you actually against? Because, you know, Labour have actually said they will amend it to take consideration of some complaints. (150 amendments, apparently.)
51. Santi 51

    4 December 2007 at 7:03 pm

    Paraphrasing the peerless Tane: Sam Dixon, are you a racist?
52. Outofbed 52

    4 December 2007 at 7:12 pm

    Did you listen to the debate earlier?
    Metiria Turei was great I’ll see if I can get a link
    The opposition to this bill is the sort of big money right wing campaign that the bill is designed to stop
    John Bescowen Got 1300 -5000 people at the march precisly because he had the money to throw at it.
    Only one side of the argument is therefore being presented

    The HRC broadly support the Bill’s purpose, most of their concerns have been addressed
    Nicky Hager ? this is what he says
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10477286

    The bill is about transparency of groups not individuals. It affects individuals not one jot
53. Insolent Prick 53

    4 December 2007 at 7:26 pm

    Gruela,

    The issue isn’t actually what Lee’s views on what electoral law should or should not include.

    I personally believe that parties and third parties should be able to spend as much money as they like, should accept money from whomever they like, and associate with whomever they like. I’m a firm believer in the maxim that dodgy activity doesn’t survive public scrutiny: that New Zealand is small enough for no political secret to remain unexposed for long, and that the biggest sanction for activity that the electorate doesn’t agree with is the ballot box.

    Why didn’t the Exclusive Brethren buy the election for National? Because the media became suspicious about who these people were, having acted naively and secretly, and the story became how unusual (and, apparently, secretive) they were, rather than focusing in any way on the substance of their message. Sure, the Greens claimed they were spreading lies, but the issues that the EB raised were all viable debating points. The EB’s didn’t get their message across because they went about it in such an amateur fashion. It was a massive failure of big money to buy an election.

    Now, that’s my general view, Gruela, and I don’t expect you to agree with it. The issue isn’t about whether your view of electoral law, or my view of electoral law, should champion over the other. Electoral law is the bedrock of our constitutional framework. It is a consensus of the different views in society as to what is appropriate. It should have the broadest possible input from society. It should follow proper consultation processes. The most chilling irony of the Bill is that its core principal is to enhance and improve public participation in democracy. Yet the entire process that the Government has followed has been to deny public participation in the formulation of our electoral system.

    If a political party unilaterally sets the rules to suit itself, as Labour has, then it isn’t hyperbole to say that democracy itself is under attack.
54. Gruela 54

    4 December 2007 at 7:39 pm

    Oh Insolent One

    The fact is that money CAN buy you an election.

    The fact is that the EB got caught, through luck or stupidity, THIS time. Who’s to say that next time won’t be different.

    The fact is the Labour is setting the rules to attempt to make the process more open and balanced. It is only those particular groups who have, up until now, become used to being able to deafen any arguments against their own point of view by spending more money than anyone else who have a problem with this.

    The fact is, there has been a lot of ridiculous and hysterical hyperbole thrown at the EFB.
55. Insolent Prick 55

    4 December 2007 at 7:48 pm

    That is your view, Gruela. But that wasn’t the point of my comment.

    The point is that the Government is ramming through massive changes to the bedrock of our constitutional framework without using any of the normal consultation channels.

    I would have no problem if, following the proper consultation channels, a royal commission reported back advising a strict electoral finance regime, and the Government implemented it. But that isn’t what we’ve got. What we’ve got is one team on the field setting the rules, and acting as referee. That team is saying: “If you don’t like my rules, then don’t play.”

    That is not an acceptable way to run a democracy. It doesn’t enhance participation. If you create a precedent whereby the governing party changes electoral law to suit itself, then nobody can have any faith in the system.
56. The Double Standard 56

    4 December 2007 at 7:50 pm

    Double Standard Alert

    “I think the fate of Fiji now is very much in the hands of the Fiji people.

    “The military commander’s whole strategy is based on people just accepting this passively and letting life go on, but I think there are signs across Fiji society, from the Grand Council of Chiefs to the church leaders, the NGOs, the head of the Public Service Commission, the incredibly brave statement of the acting commissioner of police yesterday, people do not like what they see.”

    Quiz – who said this, and is it worse than what Perigo is reported to have posted?
57. Lee C 57

    4 December 2007 at 7:50 pm

    gruela – interestingly enough, It was the National Party insiders that exposed brash and the EB. I ‘ll see if I can find the link for you. aha;
    see page 202 second column second paragraph which indicates that National assassinated Brash:
    http://www.pjreview.info/issues/docs/13_1/PJR13_1_7_hagerpp197-204.pdf”

    gobsmacked i like the Canadian system, not the cherry-picked bits, but the whole thing;
    In particular;
    http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/prbpubs/bp437-e.htm#advertisingtxt

    The bill, which received Royal Assent on 19 June 2003, has several general components or themes:
    · A ban (with minor exceptions) on political donations by corporations and unions: Bill C-24 introduced a requirement that only individuals (citizens and permanent residents) may make financial contributions to registered parties, candidates, constituency associations, and leadership and nomination contestants. Corporations, trade unions and associations are prohibited from making such contributions, although they may contribute small amounts & a maximum or total of $1,000 collectively & to a party’s candidates, nomination contestants and electoral district associations, and to a candidate for an election who is not the candidate for a registered party.
    I can’t imagine why Helen and co left that bit out though.
    ps thanks to sprout for the first link
58. Lee C 58

    4 December 2007 at 7:55 pm

    also here is a quote from Burton’s letter to one David Baigent about the EFB;

    ‘The proposals contained in teh Bill are just that: proposals. it is my hope that they can be further improved throught the committee proceedings as interested members of the public willmake constructive suggestions as part of the committee process. We want the best possible outcome that will restore and indeed build new Zealanders’ confidence in our democratic process.”

    That was of course, it was slated in the Select Committee. The hte shutters came down.
59. Gruela 59

    4 December 2007 at 7:58 pm

    Insolent

    Labour aren’t changing the rules to suit themselves. They’re changing them to provide a more open and democratic election. That suits everyone.

    Can you provide a link to the legislation which says that any change to the electoral act must first be sent to a Royal Commission?
60. Draco TB 60

    4 December 2007 at 7:58 pm

    Gruela said:
    “Personally, I’ve never understood how the Libertarian rhetoric of guys like Perigo differs from anarchism. They’re both dog eat dog systems, wherein those unable to keep up are left behind.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

    Please read – it’s so irritating watching people spouting off the standard misinformation about anarchism. Most variants tend to peace, love and harmony. I would also suggest reading anything from Noam Chomsky about anarchism. A good interview is “Noam Chomsky on Anarchism, Marxism & Hope for the Future” by Kevin Doyle for Red & Black Revolution.
61. Gruela 61

    4 December 2007 at 8:14 pm

    Draco TB

    I apologise.

    How about: “Personally, I’ve never understood how the Libertarian rhetoric of guys like Perigo differs from the underlying principle that drives animals: The Survival of the Fittest.”
62. Outofbed 62

    4 December 2007 at 8:17 pm

    Is this the 5 min argument or the full half hour?
63. milo 63

    4 December 2007 at 8:19 pm

    WE ARE FACING 150 LAST MINUTE AMENDMENTS TO OUR CONSTITUTION. AND I CAN’T LOAD KIWIBLOG … I WONDER WHY NOT

    MEANWHILE, THE 150 NEW AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL INCLUDE A PROVISION THAT ***EXTENDS*** RESTRICTIONS ON THIRD PARTIES ***BEYOND*** THE REGULATED PERIOD.

    WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON ?
64. Gruela 64

    4 December 2007 at 8:21 pm

    I wouldn’t want to misrepresent anyone’s political philosophy simply due to my own ignorance of it. (Unless it was funny.)
65. Paul 65

    4 December 2007 at 8:29 pm

    Lidsnay is one of the most objectionable people in NZ (for want of not using violent and vehement abusive language).

    His radio show used to start with the most abusive, repugnant and insulting deliberate mispronunciations of Kia Ora. Why because he wants to be an abusive bugger? Because he’s better than Maori? Because he doesn’t like Maori. Because he’s an arrogant tosser who’s trying to be deliberately provocative?

    Either way, he’s a tosser and anything that comes from his mouth should be equally dismissed and taken with caution.

    Nice to see that he’s all for a revolution on this issue that has a few righties all worked up, yet the more constitutionally damaging Foreshore and Seabed bill wasn’t in his sights.
66. Insolent Prick 66

    4 December 2007 at 8:30 pm

    Gruela,

    If the Government is so confident that its proposed regime suits everyone, or even, for that matter, the vast majority, then why has the Labour Party done everything within its power to reject public participation in the formulation of its regime?

    It isn’t mandatory to set up a royal commission in formulating electoral law. But it is the norm. In fact, it’s unprecedented for a major social or constitutional change to not follow a report by a commission of inquiry of some sort. MMP followed the 1986 Royal Commission. Genetic Modification followed a royal commission. The ACC system followed the 1967 Royal Commission. The Royal Commission on the Courts saw a major reformation of courts in 1980. The Royal Commission on Social Policy was held in 1988. Even this year, Labour announced a royal commission on Auckland’s governance structure.

    I’m not saying there had to be a royal commission. But there should have been a structure composed of independent parties, commissioned with the task of soliciting public and expert opinion and reporting back impartially. If you are so certain that the proposals that the Government put forward are in the public interests, then why not allow proper consultation processes, which are the norm in any major constitutional change, to follow their natural course?
67. Paul 67

    4 December 2007 at 8:36 pm

    IP.

    wasn’t there a open and free select committee process with public submissions, open and free hearings?

    BTW is DPF off line or has the tin can to Canada broken it’s line somewhere?
68. r0b 68

    4 December 2007 at 8:39 pm

    “WE ARE FACING 150 LAST MINUTE AMENDMENTS TO OUR CONSTITUTION. AND I CAN’T LOAD KIWIBLOG . I WONDER WHY NOT”

    Ahh – that would be me Milo. I have H4X0R3D the interwebs to wipe out Kiwiblog forever. I used my super secret leftie evil conspiracy decoder ring to accomplish this amazing feat. Hurrah!
69. Gruela 69

    4 December 2007 at 8:43 pm

    Insolent

    Can’t argue that there shouldn’t have been a more open and thorough process undertaken over this change. I don’t know why there wasn’t. It seems a very un-Helen Clark like development. But there was still considerable consultation and many recommendations made during this time have been, or are signalled to be, taken on board.

    However, I would argue that all of the examples you cited were much more fundamental changes to existing laws than is the EFB.

    The anti-EFB lobby can claim that this Bill signals the end of democracy in NZ, but this is patently absurd. All it will do is create more transparency and a more level playing field.
70. Paul 70

    4 December 2007 at 8:52 pm

    Folk, how much more open and democratic do we want than parliamentary submissions and the select committee process?

    I don’t like the bill for reasons other than the claims of the right. I don’t however think it will kill democracy at 12:00am 1 jan 2008.
71. the sprout 71

    4 December 2007 at 8:54 pm

    “I don’t know why there wasn’t”

    yes it’s like you’d almost think that if the msm were really a watchdog they’d be warning the public about this terrible threat to democracy way back when people could’ve been actively involved in the Select Cmte stages and before. but better, as with this, Terrorist Suprression Act, Seabed and Foreshore, Age of Criminal Liability and countless other issues, to do nothing until the 11th hour and then accuse the gummint of “arogantly ramming through legislation by attempted stealth”. makes the msm look better that way and it’s much easier. also helps elect a more corporate-friendly gummint next time.
72. Billy 72

    4 December 2007 at 8:56 pm

    Gruela, don’t be so naive. There was no proper process because the Labour Party were seeking to stack the deck. I do not say that National’s motives in opposing the Bill are any more honourable. But the fact is that Labour thought they could play fast and loose to suit themselves because they had the numbers. And I think they will end up regretting turning the electoral system into another thing to play polits with.
73. r0b 73

    4 December 2007 at 8:56 pm

    “WE ARE FACING 150 LAST MINUTE AMENDMENTS TO OUR CONSTITUTION. AND I CAN’T LOAD KIWIBLOG . I WONDER WHY NOT”

    Sorry Milo – seriously – I shouldn’t tease. But – is the world that you live in really that paranoid? For real?
74. Billy 74

    4 December 2007 at 8:57 pm

    polis = politics obv.
75. Billy 75

    4 December 2007 at 8:58 pm

    Fuck, “polits”. Too much Banrock Station.
76. the sprout 76

    4 December 2007 at 9:01 pm

    too much shit in head, more like
77. Insolent Prick 77

    4 December 2007 at 9:02 pm

    Paul,

    Nice try, but no cigar. What I wrote above was:

    Electoral law is the bedrock of our constitutional framework. Labour should have set up a royal commission, consulted with the public on the policy framework, sent some MPs overseas for a comparison of electoral financing regimes, got the Law Commission to give its input, put together a committee of experts, made Justice Ministry policy advice available for public comment and consultation, consulted with the Human Rights Commission, and then got onto legislative drafting, before presenting the Bill to the house for introduction and followed the select committee process. Then we would have robust legislation that the public could have faith in.

    Instead, Labour and New Zealand First refused a royal commission, consulted only with each other, didn’t investigate international regimes, ignored large tracts of Ministry of Justice advice, refused to release that advice to the public, didn’t commission the Law Commission to do a report, didn’t consult with the public on the policy framework, and introduced a Bill to the House without any public consultation, or, for that matter, any public mandate to so dramatically change the electoral system.

    Labour refused to consult with other parties, and rammed through a process in select committee that overwhelmingly ignored the sentiments expressed in this Committee. As a consequence, the Select Committee was so bogged down with the policy issues that what has emerged is a flawed, poorly drafted, ambiguous travesty of legislation.

    There has never been any opportunity for the public to be involved in the policy framework. That is a disgrace.
78. Gruela 78

    4 December 2007 at 9:05 pm

    Bah, you’re all retarded. Labour didn’t have the numbers. They needed Winton, Peter, Jim and the Green Gobblies to get this through. National and Act are a bunch of cry-babies because their toys are being taken away. Lindsey Perigo is Satan and Saddam Hussein’s lovechild. rOb: Shuddup about the super secret decoder rings, man. Insolent: you worry too much. Where the fuck is my bottle of schnapps? Oh, there it is…..
79. Draco TB 79

    4 December 2007 at 9:05 pm

    Insolent Prick said:
    “MMP followed the 1986 Royal Commission.”

    Such a commission has already been done and it said that electoral reform bringing third party electoral spending into line with party political electioneering and eliminating anonymous donations was needed. Why to do something that’s already been done?
80. Billy 80

    4 December 2007 at 9:07 pm

    Sprout, you consistently win the prize for most banal commenter. I have a little tip. If it sounds funny or clever in your head, read it out loud. If it still sounds clever or funny, ask someone else (not that equally untalented bean person, obviously). Then, refrain from pressing submit anyway because you just have nothing interesting to say. Nothing at all.
81. Gruela 81

    4 December 2007 at 9:09 pm

    Draco TB

    You’re my new hero.
82. Outofbed 82

    4 December 2007 at 9:10 pm

    Clause 14 (3) To omit “non contesting party” line 31 on page 20
    and substitute “non contesting party”
    WTF
83. the bean 83

    4 December 2007 at 9:12 pm

    just moving past billy and her really sad ‘look at me’ style cry for a flame war…i have been entertaining myself by reading kiwiblog and found this cracker:

    slightlyrighty Says:

    December 4th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
    Personally I am sick to death of a government that says “you can’t”. You can’t speak against the government, you can’t smack, you can’t eat bad food, you can’t let off fireworks.

    I’ve just realised why John Keys’ DVD resonated with me. He actually says “you can!”

    prize for the best thing jonnie boy said you CAN do
    hmmm rip off dvd, end war in iraq by just saying so, use religious cult cos your party has no volunteers
84. Insolent Prick 84

    4 December 2007 at 9:15 pm

    Except, Draco, the Electoral Finance Bill doesn’t eliminate anonymous donations, and doesn’t bring third party spending in line with political parties electioneering. Third parties are only allowed to spend $120,000 under the Bill. Political parties are permitted to spend twenty times that amount.
85. the sprout 85

    4 December 2007 at 9:18 pm

    hehe, lose your temper easily when you’re on the turps eh Billy? what an enormous surprise.
86. Insolent Prick 86

    4 December 2007 at 9:27 pm

    This is astonishing. For the first time in New Zealand’s history, the Electoral Commission can’t interpret the electoral act for candidates, because it doesn’t understand the law itself. They have to go and consult a lawyer.

    That’s like the IRD not being able to advice taxpayers on their tax obligations.
87. Billy 87

    4 December 2007 at 9:35 pm

    See Sprout, that would have been a perfect opportunity to try putting my advice into action. What I expect you imagine is urbane and cutting is simply childish.
88. Gruela 88

    4 December 2007 at 9:44 pm

    Insolent

    Do you have a link for the Electoral Commission statement?
89. Outofbed 89

    4 December 2007 at 9:45 pm

    Sprout I think you are really funny and clever
    Don’t listen to them
90. the bean 90

    4 December 2007 at 9:49 pm

    see that is the thing with expectations billy, they let you down in the end. sprout doesn’t imagine he is urbane and cutting, he likes being a childish fucktard. especially if it is directed at you
91. Outofbed 91

    4 December 2007 at 9:52 pm

    You too ?
92. Insolent Prick 92

    4 December 2007 at 9:54 pm

    Gruela,

    I do note that you have taken all of the EFB-supporting views at face value, without asking for sources and attribution. Every time you have asked me to justify a claim, I have provided it.

    I’m therefore quite happy to direct you to http://www.stuff.co.nz/4282976a6160.html . I don’t have the actual advice at hand, but I hope this NZPA story is sufficient for you. Among a range of advice that the Electoral Commission made to the Committee, is this gem:

    “The advisers’ reports also showed the committee’s $120,000 election year spending limit for interest and advocacy groups was well below the Electoral Commission recommendation of between $250,000 and $300,000.”
93. Gruela 93

    4 December 2007 at 9:56 pm

    Billy

    I think you’re missing the point. Sprout is targeting his act to suit the audience.
94. the sprout 94

    4 December 2007 at 10:00 pm

    understood at last. thanks g and oob.
    i do like being a fucktard but, hope Billy hasn’t passed out yet
95. Gruela 95

    4 December 2007 at 10:02 pm

    Insolent

    Come on, I don’t take everything at face value. I am able to think critically.

    The link you’ve given was interesting, (although somewhat dated and third hand,) but it failed to substantiate your claim that “the Electoral Commission can’t interpret the electoral act for candidates”.
96. Insolent Prick 96

    4 December 2007 at 10:07 pm

    Oh, and Gruela, you might want to look at this, as well: http://www.dominion.co.nz/4283213a10.html

    Dr Catt said she would be “eternally grateful” if flaws could be ironed out through amendments.

    “Dr Catt said her “No 1″ concern with the bill & which was reported back with wide ranging amendments on Monday & was around what activities MPs could engage in and what they couldn’t.”

    Then further on:

    Dr Catt said it was crucial her organisation understood the law.

    Then later in the text:

    “We’re the organisation people will want to lay complaints with, we are the ones tasked with the duty to report to police if we think the components of the law are breached,” she said.

    “We also the ones that are expected to provide guidance on what the bill means along with the Chief Electoral Office.”

    And the clincher:

    Dr Catt said she would be “eternally grateful” if flaws could be ironed out through amendments.

    Then we have an undertaking from Michael Cullen to iron out those issues before the law is passed.

    Now, all of this discussion took place after the select committee reported back. This is the Electoral Commission–the delegated judge, or at least prosecutor of electoral law–stating that they don’t know what the law means.

    Now, Annette King’s supplementary order paper makes no change to Clause 80. It remains as ambiguous as it was when Helena Catt first expressed her concerns. Instead, Annette King says the “law of common sense” will apply. Whatever that means. Helena Catt doesn’t understand what it means.

    Then Annette King says it’s up to MPs during the parliamentary debate on the Bill to give judges guidance on interpreting the Bill. Yes, Gruela. You read that right. Judges will have to revert to Hansard to interpret what the law means.

    This is what happens when a government is so hellbent on writing electoral law to suit itself, at the expense of proper procedure, rather than follow proper law-making processes.
97. nih 97

    4 December 2007 at 10:08 pm

    I am in no way opposed to armed revolution. If people feel the need to take up arms to repair the government, so be it!

    Of course, if it just so happens that the people taking up arms are part of a very small minority, they should also face the consequences and their lives ended as per their decision to roll the dice and act like thugs. If not by gunfire, then by hanging. This sounds like a supremely fair deal to me.

    If you don’t like the sound of that, don’t contemplate taking away my vote so that you might do your talking with guns. Democracy never waived its right to defend itself.
98. Insolent Prick 98

    4 December 2007 at 10:13 pm

    That link isn’t dated. It is after the Select Committee report-back. This is all advice that the Select Committee received from the Electoral Commission, and rejected.

    Now, none of Annette King’s amendments in her supplementary order paper include the Electoral Commission recommendations. Chris Finlayson’s amendments this evening proposed many of the EC’s recommendations. Labour voted those amendments down.

    Labour didn’t allow public input in the policy-formation process, rejected expert advice in select committee, and now Parliament as a whole, lead by Labour, has rejected the EC’s expert advice.
99. the bean 99

    4 December 2007 at 10:13 pm

    do you like how i actually got to be mean to sprout whilst seemingly defending him? i have small vegetable complex and it is only exacerbated when people attribute my posts to him

    http://kiwiblogblog.wordpress.com/2007/12/04/graciousness-as-spin/

    *sigh*

    such a tender wee ego us legumes
100. the sprout 100

     4 December 2007 at 10:15 pm

     well said nih
101. the sprout 101

     4 December 2007 at 10:17 pm

     oh beany you are such a tender wee thing
102. the sprout 102

     4 December 2007 at 10:19 pm

     IP, a bit rich you complaining about undated references considering more than half of what you attribute to Helena Catt is from before the last amendments
103. nih 103

     4 December 2007 at 10:21 pm

     do you like how i actually got to be mean to sprout whilst seemingly defending him?

     It’s a real forum art to develop an online persona to the point where it is recognised for intelligence and insight then cash it in by abusing fucktards without actually reducing your overall goodwill budget. The Sprout and The Bean have mastered this.
104. Lampie 104

     4 December 2007 at 10:22 pm

     Think I’ll wait for the DVD version, make sure the music is legal would ya
105. r0b 105

     4 December 2007 at 10:30 pm

     There has been a lot of focus recently on criticising the process of formulating the EFB. “We should have had a full Royal Commission type process”. It’s a good attack line, but let’s see…

     New Zealand does not have a formal constitution, but is has a collection of documents that are generally held to be the sources of “constitutional” law. Wikipedia lists the following sources:

     Cabinet Manual
     Constitution Act
     Electoral Act
     Imperial Laws Application Act
     Judicature Act
     Legislative Council Abolition Act
     Letters Patent constituting the office of Governor-General of New Zealand
     New Zealand Bill of Rights Act
     Supreme Court Act
     Statute of Westminster Adoption Act
     Treaty of Waitangi

     Many of these documents get updated, so constitutional changes are not infrequent, and they happen without a full Royal Commission. Nor is it necessary to have “widespread agreement” on constitutional change. The shift to MMP, arguably one of our biggest ever constitutional changes, was decided by a referendum majority of 54% to 46%. Hardly widespread agreement. The following source gives a timeline for some of our main constitutional changes: http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/node/5040 Only one (as far as I know) involved a Royal Commission.

     Now the EFB. If it was bill that introduced a radical new version of our constitutional arrangements then I would agree that a Royal Commission type process would be appropriate. But it doesn’t. It takes an existing set of laws governing campaign spending, and tightens them up. It brings them in to line with common practice in other similar democracies. It’s not a fundamental constitutional change (like the introduction of MMP). It’s not an assault on free speech. It doesn’t selectively persecute any minority. It just tidies up existing rules that define the level playing field that is required for democracy.

     National oppose the EFB because it will limit the power of their clandestine money to buy elections. For obvious reasons they can’t say that, so they dress this fight up in the ill fitting clothes of “defending free speech”. They have a strong second line of defence in criticising the process (no Royal Commission). But that’s all it is. Attack lines by a political party defending its vested political interests.

     Was the EFB process perfect? Obviously it was not. But as Bismarck said (quoted in various forms) – making laws is like making sausages: the less one knows about the process, the more respect one has for the outcome.
106. Gruela 106

     4 December 2007 at 10:30 pm

     insolent

     I’m still not convinced, sorry. Helena Catt’s complaints seem more about the complexity of the Bill, rather than anything about it’s unworkability. Isn’t it her job to interpret complex legislation?

     Also:
     “Labour didn’t allow public input in the policy-formation process”
     but
     “rejected expert advice in select committee”

     Isn’t a select committee part of the policy-formation process? And Labour didn’t reject ALL of the expert advice made during the select committee process, but rather incorporated a lot of it into their amendments.

     I’m sorry, insolent, but I’m yet to be convinced that the EFB will do anything other than strengthen our democracy.
107. the bean 107

     4 December 2007 at 10:31 pm

     ooooo there is a goodwill budget? can i make a dvd with mine? i will call it “ambitious for vegetables and other sniffable products”. what would be a good sound track for it?

     where you been nih? we missed you. i was calling for back up. back up, back up! (anyone else sad enough to love that friends episode where phoebe calls for back up?)
108. Insolent Prick 108

     4 December 2007 at 10:32 pm

     I don’t know what you mean, “before the last amendments”, or “undated”, Sprout. That NZPA article is dated 21 November. It was after the Select Committee reported back to the House.

     Helena Catt’s comments were in direct response to the Select Committee report. Her primary issue relates to Clause 80. Clause 80 isn’t clarified, amended, or even included in Annette King’s supplementary order paper.

     Helena Catt’s concerns about the interpretation of parliamentary expenditure were not addressed in the SOP.

     The EC’s expert advice to the Select Committee on limits for anonymous donations, and spending limits for third parties, and the disclosure regime for third parties, were all rejected by the Select Committee. Annette King’s SOP does not restore the EC’s recommendations. Chris Finlayson moved amendments this evening, to restore the limits as recommended by the Electoral Commission, and the Labour Party, along with the Greens, New Zealand First, and United Future voted down those amendments.

     What was the point in having a select committee process at all, if you’re going to ignore expert advice, and then do what you were always going to do anyway?
109. Lampie 109

     4 December 2007 at 10:32 pm

     I heard this DPF (sounds like a benefit) talking one eyed Larry Williams (I get the KKK on as experts about civil rights) on 1zb.
     This is a serious question. Is he retarded? Sounds a bit… well…. umm…. retarded. DPF i’m talking about.
110. Lampie 110

     4 December 2007 at 10:35 pm

     what would be a good sound track for it?

     The theme song from the hit TV series, The Munch Bunch
111. nih 111

     4 December 2007 at 10:39 pm

     Sorry Beany, I’ve been a busy chap preparing the yard for summer. You and Sprout seem to be doing a fine job of pruning the other crap in here though.
112. nih 112

     4 December 2007 at 10:40 pm

     This is a serious question. Is he retarded? Sounds a bit. well.. umm.. retarded. DPF i’m talking about.

     One could argue that all conservative mindsets represent a form of retardation.
113. Gruela 113

     4 December 2007 at 10:41 pm

     insolent one

     “The EC’s expert advice to the Select Committee on limits for anonymous donations, and spending limits for third parties, and the disclosure regime for third parties, were all rejected by the Select Committee”

     So now you’re arguing about the limits set by the EFB?
114. Lampie 114

     4 December 2007 at 10:43 pm

     HAhaha, but I’m serious!!!
115. Insolent Prick 115

     4 December 2007 at 10:44 pm

     No, Gruela. A select committee is demonstrably not part of the policy formation process. The purpose of a select committee is to take draft legislation from the House, hear submissions, and ensure that the policy objectives as represented in the legislation are transmitted into robust law. It is a legislative drafting process.

     The Select Committee didn’t even get that right. It was so bogged down with the policy issues–because the public didn’t have any input into the policy formation process–that it overlooked its core responsibility of creating robust legislation. That’s why we need 150 amendments from the Minister in a supplementary order paper. Because the Select Committee didn’t do its job.

     Yes, it is Helena Catt’s job to interpret the law, and recommend for prosecution parties and individuals that she believes are in breach of the law. But it is the job of Parliament to create robust law that can be interpreted. It is frankly a disgrace for Parliament to create what is knowingly an ambiguous law. Saying: “We don’t want to make the hard calls about what this law means: we’ll let the Courts sort it out”, is downright cowardly.

     If you are a taxpayer, and you have a tax question, you can call the IRD and ask them about their interpretation of your tax liabilities. You can challenge the IRD’s position in Court, but you’re not likely to win. Parliament takes a lot of care in formulating tax law–which is as complex as it gets in terms of its scope and interpretation–that can be interpreted by the IRD. The IRD doesn’t say: “We don’t understand this bit of tax law. How about you, as a taxpayer, get your own legal advice on it, then we can prosecute you, and we’ll let a judge decide what the law is.”

     It’s the same with electoral law. Parliament should create robust electoral law. It is only because the Government has followed such a thoroughly flawed process that we won’t have it.
116. Dean 116

     4 December 2007 at 10:46 pm

     Nih said: “One could argue that all conservative mindsets represent a form of retardation.”

     One could also argue that accusing someone of using multiple logins, or being a member of the National party just because someone doesn’t agree with you also represents a form of retardation.
117. the sprout 117

     4 December 2007 at 10:52 pm

     gosh IP you really are loquacious tonight, in a rather formal english kind of way. been copying and pasting from your other work?
118. Dean 118

     4 December 2007 at 10:55 pm

     thesprout said: “gosh IP you really are loquacious tonight, in a rather formal english kind of way. been copying and pasting from your other work?”

     If you can’t debate his point and instead try to make fun of him, why are you bothering?
119. Billy 119

     4 December 2007 at 10:58 pm

     Gruela: “I think you’re missing the point. Sprout is targeting his act to suit the audience.”

     Nice try at finding an explanation for the banal, shallow, smug, self-congraulatory pointlessness. It has a certain logic: Nih is around.
120. Billy 120

     4 December 2007 at 11:01 pm

     Dean, Sprout is a one trick pony. The trick is not really that clever. It is simply to accuse anyone who doesn’t agree with him of being stupid. This trick requires one never to say anything meaningful or to use more than 20 words or proper punctuation.
121. the sprout 121

     4 December 2007 at 11:01 pm

     umm dean, i think it’s because it’s all been said before upthread and done to death on various other threads. IP is good at sounding convincing while blending a lot of obfuscatory half-truths and feints in with his information, most of which is just relitigating various arguments long since debunked elsewhere but ressurrected by IP for the unwitting who have just tuned in.
     it’s tiresome and i’m not being paid for this so i can’t be bothered.
122. the sprout 122

     4 December 2007 at 11:04 pm

     oh Billy, does this mean we’re through? you used to like my pony. i guess no man is a hero to his valet.
123. roger nome 123

     4 December 2007 at 11:05 pm

     “What was the point in having a select committee process at all, if you’re going to ignore expert advice, and then do what you were always going to do anyway?”

     That’s ridiculous IP – the role of the SC is not to roll over to every “expert’s opinion”, but to make sure the intentions of the legislation are implemented, and that the public has a chance to air their concerns. I believe it has been successful in achieving these things.

     “It’s the same with electoral law. Parliament should create robust electoral law. It is only because the Government has followed such a thoroughly flawed process that we won’t have it.”

     I think you’re concerns are valid, if a little over-played here IP. Though it remains to be seen that the confusion over section 80 won’t be solved – and that seems to be the only real problem that’s left. And if it does cause some problems next year it will be fixed after the next government is formed.

     Overall the opposition to the EFB is looking ever more like a large storm in a rather miniscule tea cup.
124. Dean 124

     4 December 2007 at 11:07 pm

     the sprout, that may very well be the case. however, what do you say about his statement regrading national and the broadcasting act vs the electoral act?
125. Outofbed 125

     4 December 2007 at 11:07 pm

     IP is dpf 🙂
126. Gruela 126

     4 December 2007 at 11:08 pm

     insolent

     I give up

     You say the EFB is unworkable legislation which will constrain genuine political debate and end our elections in litigation and confusion.

     Fair enough.

     I say it will allow a more open dialogue during elections and sideline vested interests.

     I call truce.

     What say we wait a couple of weeks until this mess has sorted itself out a bit more, then continue our debate?
127. the sprout 127

     4 December 2007 at 11:13 pm

     oh g, the fog of war will have lifted by then and they’ll be on to a new imaginary “threat against democracy/rights of the wealthy to manipulate elections” outrage.

     Dean – kind of you to ask but i’m too vacuous to think about IP’s monologues.
128. Insolent Prick 128

     4 December 2007 at 11:16 pm

     No, Gruela, I’m not arguing about the limits in the EFB. I’m saying they emerged from a flawed process, with no justification. You have said that you agree with the EFB, and that it fairly represents what it is needed to create a fair electoral system.

     But what is your justification for that? The Government rejected the opportunity to open up the electoral finance and expenditure regime for public consultation during the policy formation process. We didn’t have a Royal Commission, or a citizen’s jury. We didn’t have the Law Commission write a report on the issue. We didn’t have the Ministry of Justice policy consultation process. We didn’t have a committee of expert advisers assess international jurisdictions. We didn’t have any attempt by Labour to generate cross-party consensus for its proposals. We didn’t even have a political party seek public mandate on its proposed reforms at the last election.

     Instead, we had a Bill whose policy objectives were stitched up in secret between the Labour, New Zealand First, and United Future parties. We had a deeply flawed Bill referred to a Select Committee, which subsequently rejected the views of the overwhelming majority of submitters. The Select Committee rejected recommendations on some fairly core issues by expert advisers. The Government refused to release the advice it received from officials. All of this prompted both the Law Society, and the Human Rights Commission, to call on the Government to reject the Bill in its entirety, and start again. The Law Commission was so outraged with the process that it refused to provide any expert advice to the Select Committee on the Bill.

     All of those steps are downright unprecedented within the normal policy-formation process, let alone a process making constitutional change.

     The outcome is a Bill that has emerged from the Select Committee that is so flawed that the Electoral Commission says it doesn’t understand what the law means, and can’t do its job of advising the public on some fundamental aspects of electoral law. In response to this shoddy piece of legislation, which should have been robust emerging from Select Committee, is for the Minister of Justice to propose 150 amendments to the Bill in the Committee stage of the House. None of those amendments address the Electoral Commission’s ability to interpret the law.

     The Labour Party made much of changing employment law to introduce “good faith bargaining”. When it comes to the rules around electing MPs, Labour has acted in totally bad faith. It has done no bargaining with the public.

     The Prime Minister assured the public that the Select Committee would address all of the public’s concerns with the Bill. The Standard echoed this message. Well, Gruela, the Select Committee has reported back, and yet STILL needed 150 amendments just two hours before the Bill was to be voted on by MPs.

     After such a shambolic process, do you really have faith that Labour has finally got it right?
129. the sprout 129

     4 December 2007 at 11:19 pm

     going by how hard you’re working on this tonight IP, i’d say they got it bang on.
130. Gruela 130

     4 December 2007 at 11:25 pm

     insolent

     You wrote all that in 8 minutes?
     There’s no way I’m going to debate any more tonight. I know it’s an important issue, and I know there’s still a lot to say, but I’m sorry, I’m tired. Till we meet again, Mr Insolent….

     (P.S. EFB Rulz)
131. the sprout 131

     4 December 2007 at 11:31 pm

     g, no wonder you’re tired. the IP identity alone has written 3,016 words since 6:22 – that’s quite prodigious.
132. Insolent Prick 132

     4 December 2007 at 11:31 pm

     Not an entirely constructive contribution, Sprout.

     I can tell you now. If John Key ever proposed a major constitutional change that it didn’t signal before an election, then proceeded to stitch the policy up in secret without public consultation of any kind during the policy formation process, rail-roaded such a poorly drafted Bill through to select committee, ignored the overwhelming majority of submitters, had the Law Commission and the HRC call for the Bill to be scrapped, ignored the key advice of expert officials, had a National-dominated select committee report back with a Bill still so poorly drafted that it needed 150 amendments, and still enacted a Bill that was so ambiguous that the principal organisation implementing the legislation didn’t understand it, then I would never vote for him, or his cowardly colleagues who voted for that travesty again.
133. Gruela 133

     4 December 2007 at 11:38 pm

     S**t, I must be tired. Something The Insolent One wrote actually got me agreeing with him.
134. r0b 134

     4 December 2007 at 11:40 pm

     ” If John Key ever proposed a major constitutional change that it didn’t signal before an election”

     And round we go again. It’s not a major constitutional change, it’s a tidy up of existing legislation governing election spending.

     Meanwhile, in other news…
     http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10480282&pnum=0
     Yes – something the government should have done earlier. No – not exactly evidence of an evil left wing conspiracy.
135. Outofbed 135

     4 December 2007 at 11:41 pm

     I’m not tired but I need to sleep I will probably have to play the JK dvd
136. r0b 136

     4 December 2007 at 11:42 pm

     “S**t, I must be tired. Something The Insolent One wrote actually got me agreeing with him.”

     Quick – get some sleep before you start voting tory!
137. roger nome 137

     4 December 2007 at 11:44 pm

     IP-

     So the process wasn’t ideal – I think we all agree on that. Yet this alone not a hanging offence, after all, Labour was never going to get the National Party to sign off on something that diminished their plutocratic advantage come election time. What’s really important now is the outcome of the process – and from where I’m sitting there isn’t a whole lot to complain about – most of the common concerns advanced by civil society groups have been addressed, bar perhaps section 80 (though as I’ve said, there’s still time to fix that). Thankfully it seems that Labour really has come to its senses, and we’re going to end up with a good piece of legislation.
138. Dean 138

     4 December 2007 at 11:51 pm

     Oh good, its roger nome.

     roger, have you decided why you wanted to compare before tax income levels to argue that NZ was better off than Australia yet?
139. Robinsod 139

     4 December 2007 at 11:55 pm

     Hey Bean, hey Sprout – good to see yous guys. I heard a few things about the nats tonight. Do you reckon I should spill them?
140. Gruela 140

     4 December 2007 at 11:58 pm

     I’ll guess that it had something to do with Capital Gains. Also State and Federal taxes. Let’s not forget higher mortgage payments. Higher school fees? Maybe cost of living comparisons?
141. Gruela 141

     5 December 2007 at 12:00 am

     Not the nats. I meant NZ vs. Aussie tax rates.
142. roger nome 142

     5 December 2007 at 12:02 am

     “have you decided why you wanted to compare before tax income levels to argue that NZ was better off than Australia yet?”

     You mean median income levels? Hey, if you can be bothered factoring in all the different property and income taxes that they have in Aus and then comparing them to NZ, including WFF I would like to see your results – me, I don’t have that kind of time, but thought that before tax comparisons were of some indicative value.

     But that’s not really what this thread’s about anyway, is it idiot?
143. roger nome 143

     5 December 2007 at 12:03 am

     Robinsod – don’t be a tease….
144. Dean 144

     5 December 2007 at 12:07 am

     roger, you compared one set of statistics taken at one time, then compared them to a totally different set taken with a different sample of people in a different time frame, and youre calling me an idiot?

     dont give up your day job.
145. Gruela 145

     5 December 2007 at 12:10 am

     Robinsod

     What is the internet made for? (apart from porn.)
146. burt 146

     5 December 2007 at 12:17 am

     Sam Dixon

     In your first post:

     Cheers OutofBed, those amendments actually weaken the spending retrictions. – makes DPF look kind of stupid for getting all up in arms about them.

     Your second:

     Is it jsut me or do Lindsay Perigo, David Farrar, and Cameron Slater all have something in common? A certain – fat, rich, paheka (oops, ‘white’, sorry), male quality?

     Oh dear oh dear, you really should seek help for your DPF fixation. But keep up the good work posting here, it’s good to see all you mates here at the standard still have time for a person like yourself. Couldn’t you have stopped at defacing DPF’s wiki and let it rest there?
147. Insolent Prick 147

     5 December 2007 at 12:21 am

     Roger,

     I didn’t spend five years at law school, and a pretty decent chunk of my career interpreting law, to come to the view that a political party that:

     a: rejects a public consultation process on a fundamental constitutional change
     b: rams it through the House ignoring the overwhelming majority of submitters
     c: rejects the key recommendations of the expert officials
     d: has the Law Society and the HRC saying the Bill is irretrievably bad that it needs to be dumped
     e: suppresses the official advice from public scrutiny
     f: has the Law Commission opt out of advising it
     g: then reports back to the House with a Bill that is still so flawed that it needs 150 amendments in a supplementary order paper
     h: STILL has the organisation implementing the law not understanding its core functions;

     “not a hanging offence”. It doesn’t matter what the outcome is. With all due respect to you, Roger, you are by no means an authority on electoral law. You have no concept of what the outcome is right now, other than that the Labour Party assures you it is a good outcome. The Party has been assuring everybody, at every turn, that it has got it right. At every turn, subsequent scrambling efforts by the Labour Party to fix its many flaws, have resulted in the Labour Party finally saying it has got it right.

     When, as the Bill is being voted on through the Committee stage, the Minister of Justice says she can give no advice to the Electoral Commission on how to interpret the ambiguous Clause 80, you cannot possibly have faith in the Bill’s outcome.

     There isn’t time to fix it, Roger. We have just a few sitting days left before the end of the year, and the Bill comes into force on 1 January.

     It’s all very well to claim rhetorically that that National would never have worked constructively with the Labour Party to get cross-party support on the financing regime. But that is patently untrue, Roger. National made a commitment, long before the Bill was introduced in the House, to work constructively with the Government to place reasonable restrictions on third party expenditure, clarify the use of parliamentary services expenditure in an election campaign, clamp down on excessive anonymous donations, and clamp down on donations from trusts.

     Instead of consulting with National, Mark Burton hatched a secret deal with the NZ First and United Future parties. Labour has no official advice advocating the extended election period, has no expert advice on the amounts it is advocating on the third party regime, places no restrictions on donations from trusts, only introduced limits on anonymous donations that coincidentally coincide with Labour’s own anonymous donation fundraising levels from 2005, and leaves the use of parliamentary expenditure in campaigns ambiguous.

     Now, Roger, even if Labour had totally ignored the National Party, and gone to the country with an independent group of experts to consult with the public and come up with a policy regime that shares all of the restrictions that we have in the present Bill, I wouldn’t have a problem. At least the process would have been transparent and fair.

     But we never had that, Roger. We have a governing party that has written electoral law with its own interests in mind, using a flawed process. Yes, absolutely, that is a hanging offence.
148. burt 148

     5 December 2007 at 12:27 am

     What IP said.
149. burt 149

     5 December 2007 at 12:30 am

     Dear The Standard

     Thank you for alerting me to the views of Lindsay Perigo, having read this thread, I’m starting to think he has a valid point.
150. Gruela 150

     5 December 2007 at 12:36 am

     Oh burt

     “Thank you for alerting me to the views of Lindsay Perigo, having read this thread, I’m starting to think he has a valid point.”

     Please, don’t ruin it now.
151. nih 151

     5 December 2007 at 12:42 am

     What IP said.

     That wasn’t worth switching accounts for IP.
152. burt 152

     5 December 2007 at 12:45 am

     Gruela

     Ruin what? The thread? That happened when reality got dumped in favour of partisan point scoring.

     Irrespective of your political flavour, DPF post of “oh my god 150 last minute amendments” is valid. If National had done this would the good folk here at the standard be supporting it? Hell no!

     They support it because it’s Labour, and because they believe that Labour is good and National is bad. End of story – partisan hacks having their dig at DPF for pointing out the highly irregular nature of the way constitutional level legislation is being handled.

     As A Lawyer you should understand that.
153. Gruela 153

     5 December 2007 at 12:50 am

     Double Standard

     No, sorry, I meant it for the Lindsey Perigo support.

     Also, apologies for the A Lawyer jape.
154. Robinsod 154

     5 December 2007 at 12:54 am

     I didn’t spend five years at law school, and a pretty decent chunk of my career interpreting law, to come to the view that a political party that:

     That’s right IP you didn’t spend blah blah blah at law school blah blah blah because you’re lying. Unless you’re telling the truth in which case you should ask for your money back bro ‘cos you shouldn’t have even got through moot with your lame arguments…
155. roger nome 155

     5 December 2007 at 12:56 am

     IP – you seem to really on sheer volume of assertions mixing fact with innuendo as you go along, never providing any links. You simply create long winded puffed up, heavily personalised narrative. You really are a bloody boring bastard to debate. As such, I’m not really interested in addressing your claims regarding process – as has been established previously here, it us a relatively minor piece of legislation which, in practice, doesn’t change a thing for 99.9% of our public, so it doesn’t necessitate a debate of many years, or an attempt to keep the torries happy who would have kicked and screamed all the way, dragging the process out so that they could repeat all of their little semi-legal electoral rorts of 2005 (secret EB campaign that they lied to the public about, $1.7 laundered through secretive slush funds for the super-rich).

     What’s important now is that a good, workable piece of law has resulted from the process which enhances our democracy. At the moment I’m happy that this has been achieved, and you haven’t provided any good reason for me to change my mind about this.
156. burt 156

     5 December 2007 at 1:00 am

     roger nome

     You have been happy with the EFB at every stage of it’s evolution. You are like Jordan, support it simply because it’s produced by Labour. Your credibility is as much on this line as Labour’s is over this. If Labour are fried in the 2008 election will you be prepared to admit that you supported them to their defeat?
157. Robinsod 157

     5 December 2007 at 1:13 am

     Burt – you’re a moron. Take your ritalin and go to sleep.
158. Gruela 158

     5 December 2007 at 1:14 am

     burt

     do you seriously believe that the election will be won or lost because of the EFB?

     Do you have anything to say on a policy of privatisation?
159. burt 159

     5 December 2007 at 1:19 am

     Gruela

     Not tonight, I’ve just spent hours with a bunch of Catholics who were discussing their election campaign to fight for the rights of the EB. The grass roots of religion seem to have woken up to the fact that Labour are not that friendly to religion and they are on a slippery slope when the govt targets individuals based on their religion.

     Normally I’d be in like a robbers dog, but the topic of privatisation is a bit broad to say yes or no outright. Another night I’ll discuss it case by case.

     Goodnight.
160. Insolent Prick 160

     5 December 2007 at 1:21 am

     Roger,

     I have provided links. It isn’t evident that you’ve read them.

     Have you read the HRC submission to the select committee? Which parts of the HRC advice do you disagree with? Have you read their subsequent advice to the select committee? Because it’s all available online, if you wish.

     Have you read the Law Society submission? Which parts of the Law Society submission do you disagree with?

     You have claimed that the issues of the “civil society” groups have been addressed. Which ones, specifically?

     Which issues raised by the Electoral Commission have been addressed?

     What, specifically, do you know about Labour’s plans for amending Clause 80 to clarify the crucial position on parliamentary spending during an election year? How is it that you are aware of Labour’s clarification, when it is not contained in Annette King’s SOP released today? Are you aware of another SOP due to be sprung on the House on Wednesday? Is it acceptable, in your view, to spring SOPs on the House just minutes before they are to be voted on?

     What official advice have you seen that supports any of the proposals the Government has put through?

     What reports have you seen of any efforts by either Mark Burton, or Annette King, to create a cross-party consensus on the policy proposals of the EFB?

     What reports have you seen suggesting that the Government is relying on official advice to extend the defined election period?

     What reports have you seen, Roger, of any attempts by the Ministry of Justice to consult with the public on the policy issues prior to introducing the Bill into the House?

     You have claimed that I indulge in mixing fact and innuendo, Roger. What have I said in this thread that constitutes innuendo that is not backed up by fact? If I indulge in so much innuendo, then how is it that you are unable to debate any of my points?
161. Robinsod 161

     5 December 2007 at 1:32 am

     Prick – by using innuendo you make few concrete points. That means people who which to challenge you (god knows why) have to take you to task on what you’ve implied. When they do you claim they’ve deliberately misunderstood you and that they are liars. You pull this shit time and again and then expect people to take you seriously. We don’t.
162. Gruela 162

     5 December 2007 at 1:34 am

     When the Brethren have anything to do with religion, rather than power and subjugation, then you can paint me yellow and call me Sir Lemony. Also, I know a lot of Catholics and they’re about as agreeable to the EB as the Pope is to condom scrambles. burt, you’ve just dropped low down in my books. Go back to your Lindsey Perigo fanclub meeting.
163. roger nome 163

     5 December 2007 at 1:43 am

     IP – you supplied two links in this thread which confirm only relatively minor points that you make.

     As to support by the civil society groups – well the Coalition For Open Government already support it, as do green peace, and the HRC welcome many of the changes that were made by the SC, and this support will be solidified by the many sensible changes that have been made in the SOP.

     Ultimately however we’re goign to have to wait and see how the legislation pans out in practice – and you still (aside from your point about section 80 – which still may be fixed) haven’t given me any reason to doubt that the outcome will be a good one.
164. AncientGeek 164

     5 December 2007 at 1:49 am

     Please – this debate is getting boring… It is just a question of numbers that make the EFB or something like it inevitable. It is the difference between playing to 2.9 million voters rather than 0.2 million voters.

     Or if you prefer – AncientGeek’s Politics 101 – the long winded way.

     The point of the EFB is that it is a legal recognition of a previous change in the electoral system.

     Many aeons ago when I was a mere child, the 3 month period covered by the electoral act was more than sufficent to cover the usual election campaign. Furthermore, the political parties generally confined all of the advertising, active campaigning, most character smearing, and general public politic’ing to that period.

     The reason for this was the nature of a first past the post (FPP) system – the general public didn’t matter all that much. The effective election was fought in marginal seats. Resources. time and energy could be concentrated, and attempts to fight a real national campaign were usually exercises in futility. Everyones attention was concentrated in the areas that mattered. In that environment, attempts to sway elections with sneaky, nasty, and underhanded tactics usually backfired.

     The nearest thing that we ever had to a general election was in 1975 when Muldoon ran an effective smear campaign using TV. Otherwise the nearest thing to a national campaign was the war to gerrymander the electorate boundaries after each census. Have to admit that the nats were very good at that. They’d usually be well behind in the total vote, but win the election on seats.

     Now most of you children were probably a mere glazed expression in your parents eyes at the time (for a number of varied reasons). But the political system in NZ CHANGED in 1996. The legal frameworks are still catching up. I’ve been involved in some way in every political campaign since 1978 – originally on the right – then on the left as I studied more history.

     MMP requires that a campaign is run over the whole of the NZ electorate – all 2.9 million of them, rather than the 200k in the 10 most marginal electorates.

     The effect of this is obvious in the effective public period of campaigning. In 1996, the public election campaign was about 3 months. In 1999, it was a month or so longer. 2002 – well we werte all caught short by a early election – it would have been a 6 month campaign.

     In 2005, both national started public campaigning in Feb/March with my tax dollars being wasted on a billboard campaign, and labour started a bit later at the visible level. This was partially in anticipation of another early election. But mostly because it takes more time (and money and resources) to ‘talk’ to 2.9 million people than it does to 0.2 million. Both major parties are staring to realize this.

     The mass media is of limited use these days, and getting more limited all of the time. Who has the time or diligence to sit through boringly pre-scripted political drama, when they have the net (or 50 other possible things to do) at their disposal. And there really isn’t much left that is shockable in the NZ public. We’ve seen it all before. If it isn’t politics, then it is reality shows or the simpsons.

     This means that the political process is the same as all marketing these days – it is about repetition, contact, exposure, and more repetition (which is why marketing is soooooo boring).

     Anyway, my point is, that the public election campaign period is currently the year prior to the election. Thats what all major parties currently plan on. Just be glad we have the Christmas holiday break, when most people stop thinking for summer. Otherwise we could have some really LONG campaigns.

     What the EFB is proposing if pretty much what was in the existing electoral act some constraints on ‘non-political’ organizations and individuals to do smear campaigns. The main difference is that instead of restricting it to 3 months, it is about 9 months – assuming a sept/oct election.

     Work on it started immediately after the last election, and with the exception (in public) of the nats – pretty much across all parties. The current rule set was just unsustainable for the political system – a spiral of mutually assured destruction (MAD) with preemptive strikes was forming.

     Of course there is a lot of jockeying by politicians, amendments being the current manifestation – after all they are talking about how they organize their jobs and livelihoods. Thats why the way the bill is coming out is so dull. The nett effect is that we have pretty much the same rules as the old 3 month period, but extended out to up to 9 months. Slightly less interference permitted from people not willing to be active in the political system – and bugger all from people running back room smear campaigns.

     Gee – why is any of this a shock? In the latter case, it is like me letting a politician (or marketing managers) play with the internal structure of my programming code. All they can do is fuck it up – because all they want to do is play without doing the training and legwork that’d make them useful. So I allow them to be critical, feed ideas and suggestions, but not to screw the system. If they try to knife me in the back anonymously – then they’re likely to have steps taken to prevent it happening again. I’ll take a bet that is the approach taken to their area of expertise by anyone who has any – including politicians.

     Personally I’m confident that, in the event that the EFB doesn’t pass (unlikely) this year, and (even more unlikely) the nats to form a government after the next election, that they’d bring a similar bill with a different name forward prior to the following election. They’d just prefer to run one more preemptive strike this election so they could win. But they’d hate someone else to do it to them.
165. Gruela 165

     5 December 2007 at 2:04 am

     It’s hard to argue with Ancient wisdom.
166. AncientGeek 166

     5 December 2007 at 2:14 am

     IP: I think you’re slightly misrepresenting the process of constitutional change processes through history. Its a nice theory – never seen it.

     The process you’re presenting as how it should be followed does not exist in history. Constitutional or electoral system changes are always messy, extremely fractional, massively frictional, and always have a host of people claiming that the process is flawed. At least that is the case in almost every one I’ve ever read about, observed, or been involved in. This includes all of the ones that have extensive consultative processes prior (thinking Canadian especially here).

     The ones that do have a a high degree of public unanimity about them, usually also seem to have a rather large number of mass graves associated with them.

     If you’d care to present an example of where this perfect process has ever occurred – I’d be very interested in reading more about it. But it sounds more like the difference between a legal theory and legal practice to me.
167. AncientGeek 167

     5 December 2007 at 2:34 am

     G: Yeah – well what can I say.. Its easier writing this on here than the multi-threaded code I’m actually debugging at this early hour. At least the stuff on here doesn’t have a pedantic compiler and obscure badly documented rule set making my life difficult.

     Ummm – actually I think it is called a written constitution in politics..
168. Lampie 168

     5 December 2007 at 8:03 am

     This means that the political process is the same as all marketing these days – it is about repetition, contact, exposure, and more repetition (which is why marketing is soooooo boring).

     Some marketing elements, perhaps more the election process (as you can draw marketing into every organisation as importment element to understand to use correctly) so not boringgggg!!!! Told you it would be a marketers dream to in one of these election campaign 🙂
169. the sprout 169

     5 December 2007 at 10:03 am

     nice synopsis Ancient, and you seem to have put a halt, for now, to our flaccid puffy friend’s 4,000 word effort.

     nice to see you too robinsod, sorry i missed you last night.
170. deemac 170

     5 December 2007 at 10:51 am

     I asked some days ago for some sort of limit on lemgth and/or frequency of posts. IP is getting beyond a joke – everyone else seems able to make a point succinctly, he goes on and on and on…
171. Peter Cresswell 171

     5 December 2007 at 12:12 pm

     Tane, let me point out a few things to you and your readers.

     **Unsurprisingly, “the Nazi flags and ‘Heil Helen’ signs at Saturday’s march” were not waved approvingly, but in distaste at this country’s most fundamental constitutional law being meddled with so peremptorily.

     But you knew that, or should have. And the sad fact is that you approve of the meddling, and will lie to defend it. That you have to lie suggests it is impossible to defend it honestly.

     **That photo you use is not from this month’s anti-EFB march, but from April’s anti-anti-smacking bill march. Perigo didn’t speak at any of the anti-EFB marches, and is not associated with the Free Speech Coalition.

     But you knew that too since you pinched the picture from here, but probably just figured it didn’t matter.

     **You say that Perigo’s comments have now been deleted from the SOLO website, or “appear to have been.” In fact they’ve not been deleted at all, and reappear again today in a press release making the same point. Far from resiling from his comments as you intimate, he’s four-square behind them.

     But you would know that too if either you or Molesworth and Featherston did your research. Reading the comments in context is much more powerful, and much, much more accurate.

     But I doubt that accuracy is important to you either.

     **Now, down to the substance of Perigo’s comments, which your readers are more likely to appreciate with the necessary context, which they might get by reading Perigo’s entire post, and also comments by others including myself, Libertarianz leader Bernard Darnton and Canterbury law professor David Round.

     Perigo quotes from America’s ‘Declaration of Independence,’ written to explain the justification for throwing off a tyrant and setting up a constitutional republic to defend their liberties. “The original American freedom-fighters declared,” notes Perigo, ‘A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.’ New Zealanders must now ask themselves if they are a free people—and if so, are they prepared to act accordingly? Which is to say, are they prepared forcibly to evict all tyranny-mongers from their positions of power?”

     Too harsh? Well, notes Bernard Darnton, “recent efforts of the NZ Government to kill democracy are on a par with those of Pakistan’s. In 2005 they flouted election laws by stealing public money to buy propaganda. In 2006, they abandoned all constitutional norms and retrospectively changed the law so that they wouldn’t be called into the High Court to answer for that action. This year the government has passed legislation allowing them to steal far more at the next election. Worst of all, the Clark regime is now trying to ram through legislation that would ban me from pointing out that they are behaving like tyrants and telling people not to vote for them.”

     “Tyrants”? Tyranny? Is that more than a little hyperbolic?.” Here’s John Locke, the inspiration for Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, from which Perigo quotes:

     “TYRANNY: AS usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to. And this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private separate advantage…”

     Clear enough? Look back again at Darnton’s litany above and think about it.

     The chief point is this: Once constitutional means of overturning governments have been removed or gerrymandered, only the speech of protest remains. Once that is regulated, what’s left?. As I argued it myself at Not PC, is this:

     “As long as it’s possible to exercise your right to free speech, you may resist your government peacefully; once that right is taken away, anything goes. After all, if you can’t use reason or persuasion to make your voice heard, then what course of action is left?

     That’s how important this is.”

     David Round puts it even more bluntly:

     “Hitherto, people of other political opinions also had rights. Hitherto, our electoral finance laws, like other parts of our basic constitutional arrangements, enjoyed general cross-party support. Hitherto, democracy meant ongoing popular engagement in the issues, not just casting a vote on election day after a year of comparative silence on all political issues from all but the incumbent government.

     Our present Prime Minister ceased to resemble Muldoon some time ago. She now more resembles Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, gerrymandering his country’s constitution to guarantee his own hold on power indefinitely. Both strut on the world stage. Helen Clark professes concern for human rights in Zimbabwe and Fiji. Why not here? The similarities extend even to a common tendency to insult monarchs.

     As many dictators have learnt, when constitutional means for replacing a government are not available, only unconstitutional means are left. That is not good for a country.”

     ** So the point is that “the anti-EFB campaign” is far more important and has far greater constitutional implications than your sneering, spin and shortsightedness would suggest. Far from being “hijacked by an extreme far-right agenda,” it’s been accompanied at all times by an acute awareness of the historic and constitutional implications of overturning the very basis on which governments claim a mandate.

     Perhaps I should finish by quoting Sam Adams, one of the great men of 1776, before helping to throw out a tyrant…

     “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsel or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands that feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were even our countrymen!”
172. slightlyrighty 172

     5 December 2007 at 12:27 pm

     So when Robinsod says

     “That’s right IP you didn’t spend blah blah blah at law school blah blah blah because you’re lying. Unless you’re telling the truth in which case you should ask for your money back bro ‘cos you shouldn’t have even got through moot with your lame arguments.”

     Does he realise that he is actually engaging in a lame arguement? Forget the issues eh ‘Sod, just fire off a general insult or accuse the speaker of lying, that’ll do!

     Have you actually read the bill, or some of the submissions on it?
     I would direct you to the submission by the law society, which outlines why, although the intentions of the bill are admirable, the process by which this bill has been excessively flawed leading to flawed legislation, having the opposite effect to which was intended.

     Electoral law needed to be re-addressed. All parties have expressed that view. The manner in which it has been is partisan, and vindictive. This is not the basis to proceed on such a path.

     I would have a better erspect for your opinion if you actually articulated it, rather than rely on invective and insult.
173. Lampie 173

     5 December 2007 at 12:42 pm

     Still waiting on the DVD for this thread, mind the music.
174. PhilBest 174

     5 December 2007 at 12:44 pm

     It is just incredible that none of the regulars here seem willing to concede anything about just how bad the EFB is. Even the otherwise surprisingly decent Gruela.

     Suppose “Family First” does one leaflet drop nationwide. That’s their $120,000 gone. Then Labour attacks “Family First” in the media, getting wide press coverage for THEIR opinions, smearing “Family First”, Chris Trotter, Finlay MacDonald, John Minto, Tracey Watkins, et al lambast “Family First” in their columns, the Dompost Editorial likewise, and to add insult to injury, a 10 million dollar propaganda campaign by the Health Dept. does a whitewash of the “Family First” criticisms.

     Supposing much of this was unfair. What does “Family First” do now?

     (By the way, the above is pretty much what happened to the Exclusive Brethren. Even by reading “The Hollow Men”, I can see that these people, and Don Brash, have been set up by a campaign of lies about them. Read my post at 5.59 yesterday. No-one has addressed this point.)

     Back to “Family First” (or whoever). What do they do? Is THIS your idea of “levelling the playing field”? Gruela?

     If John Boscawen or someone ends up in Jail in the next few months, is he not a “political prisoner”?

     And by the way, I agree with Insolent Prick above, that if John Key tried to do ANYTHING LIKE this, he would lose the votes of all the regular rightwing contributors to these blogs AND we would be raising just as much of a storm over it. Plus, YOU GUYS would also be raising a storm over it instead of selling your souls and justifying it. Its called “principles”.

     I strongly suspect that the reason YOU’RE not worried is that you KNOW you have the relevant institutions so stacked that prosecutions carried out under this act will only ever be on a completely partisan political basis. Not unlike various “Police Investigations” for the last few years. (Again, see my post 5.59 yesterday).
175. r0b 175

     5 December 2007 at 1:43 pm

     And by the way, I agree with Insolent Prick above, that if John Key tried to do ANYTHING LIKE this, he would lose the votes of all the regular rightwing contributors to these blogs

     Uh huh. The same way all those right wingers stopped supporting National after their naked attempt to buy the last election was exposed.

     Its called “principles”.

     You misspelled “hypocrisy”.
176. Insolent Prick 176

     5 December 2007 at 1:49 pm

     By hypocrisy, r0b, do you include a blog campaigning for intellectual property issues, and then stealing somebody else’s photo, attributing it to an event it had nothing to do with, and then failing to disclose the source of the image?
177. r0b 177

     5 December 2007 at 1:55 pm

     G’day again IP. No, by hipocrisy I mean “the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretense.”
178. r0b 178

     5 December 2007 at 2:01 pm

     I misspelled hypocrisy – heh!
179. Tane 179

     5 December 2007 at 2:03 pm

     Hi Peter, thanks for your lengthy response. I don’t have time at the moment to respond to every part of it, but I will make a few points:

     * Whether or not Perigo’s comments were actually set in a wider context, the substance is what I have laid it out as: he supports a right-wing coup to overthrow our democratically elected government. That’s violent extremism and it undermines your cause. If I were you I’d be frantically distancing myself from Perigo’s comments.

     * I know the Nazi flags and Heil Helen signs were intended to shame the government, but their use was so utterly out of proportion that it was distasteful. Don’t use the holocaust to try and score political points over the EFB, it’s frankly sickening.

     * The Libertarianz have played an important role in the anti-EFB campaign. Perigo is the godfather of that movement. You can’t pretend his advocacy for a business-backed coup against a democratically elected government is of no consequence. If you want to make comparisons to Venezuela I’d start there.

     * The EFB does not restrict speech, it restricts spending. I know propertarians like yourself and Perigo don’t understand that distinction, but pretty much everyone else does.

     * I’m sorry if you got the wrong impression, but I’m not trying to present the photo above as having been from the EFB rally. Nowhere in the post did I say or imply that he spoke there. I used it because it’s the best photo of Perigo that I could find online.
180. slightlyrighty 180

     5 December 2007 at 2:35 pm

     Tane.

     You make the distinction that the bill does not restrict free speech, but restricts spending.

     That is correct and when you look at the bill in isolation it seems harmless. The problem that I and many others have is that the bill must be seen in a wider context. When you consider the appropriation bill allows incumbents to spend to a greater limit than any challenger or other third party, the bill cannot be seen in any other way as an attempt to screw the scrum in favour of the incumbents.

     The fact of the matter is to engane in any sort of meaningful “free speech” in this countery does come at a cost. Labour has vast resources at it’s disposal as a result of the appropriations bill.

     Imagine a debate where one side has a megaphone and the other side is reduced to a whisper. This is the net effect of both the EFB and the appropriations bill when they are considered as 2 parts of the same regime.

     The previous system was flawed. The proposed system is similarly flawed. The correct result lies between the 2 extremes and requires a bi-partisan approach FROM THE OUTSET.

     As I have said previously, if an individual engages in free speech, and no-one is there to hear it, does he or she make a noise?
181. Santi 181

     5 December 2007 at 2:43 pm

     Tane, come clean and admit you’ve been caught with your pants down by Peter Creswell, who has exposed your intellectual limitations in your feeble defense of the EFB.

     As a full-time Labour myrmidon your task is to defend it at all costs. You have failed, you are fired!
182. Insolent Prick 182

     5 December 2007 at 2:46 pm

     Tane,

     The title of this post is “Anti-EFB crusader calls for armed revolution”. Lindsay isn’t an anti-EFB “crusader”. He’s never spoken at an anti-EFB rally.

     The image gives the impression of Lindsay speaking at an anti-EFB rally. It isn’t.

     It’s obvious that you pulled the image from somewhere you found it online. Given your campaign against the National Party’s use of a song that you have claimed is Clocks, can’t you see the hypocrisy of stealing somebody else’s image, attributing it to an event it has nothing to do with, and failing to acknowledge the source of the image?
183. Robinsod 183

     5 December 2007 at 2:47 pm

     Santi – stop thinking about Tane with his pants down.
184. r0b 184

     5 December 2007 at 3:01 pm

     slightlyrighty – “That is correct and when you look at the bill [EFB] in isolation it seems harmless.”

     Well saints be praised, a righty tells it like it is!

     The problem that I and many others have is that the bill must be seen in a wider context. When you consider the appropriation bill allows

     And so we segue to the next round of The Forever War. slightly, you need to do a bit more homework on this one. I suggest:

     http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2007/11/hypocrites.html
185. Tane 185

     5 December 2007 at 3:06 pm

     Prick, that’s weak. Perigo is a crusader against the EFB. He’s even called for a business-backed coup. His Libertarianz party is one third of the Free Speech Coalition.

     You’ll also see I’ve never claimed Perigo spoke at an anti-EFB rally. You can read it like that if you want, but that’s clearly not what was intended. So I used an image that I found on the net? Big deal. It’s pretty standard practice online, and Peter Cresswell’s done it himself in the last week. This is just another desperate diversionary tactic Prick.

     While we’re here, what do you think of Perigo’s call for armed revolution over the EFB?
186. The Double Standard 186

     5 December 2007 at 3:15 pm

     Tane, what did you think of Clark’s implict call for revolution in Fiji last year?
187. Matthew Pilott 187

     5 December 2007 at 3:28 pm

     IP that photo looks like it’s in Wellington, and we all know that there weren’t that many people there for the EFB rally so I doubt anyone would confuse it. Even if they did, wouldn’t that be a good thing for the EFB cause, thinking there were at least 11 people there?
188. Robinsod 188

     5 December 2007 at 3:29 pm

     DPFDblStdClaws – I believe Tane asked first.
189. The Double Standard 189

     5 December 2007 at 3:35 pm

     Robbo – did you happen to see Outrageous Fortune last night? You’re not going to flop it out also are you?
190. Insolent Prick 190

     5 December 2007 at 3:37 pm

     Tane,

     You are being dishonest. You post a picture of Lindsay Perigo speaking at a rally, below the title: “Anti-EFB crusader calls for armed revolution”, and the clear implication is that Lindsay spoke at the EFB rally. He didn’t.

     Perigo’s call was filled with hyperbole. It’s his style. The point he made, with some really pretty obvious historical references, is the right of citizens to take up arms to overthrow a despotic and tyrannical regime. That’s how the American revolution came about. So too the Cuban revolution. In fact, pretty much every democracy in the world has come about through expulsion either of colonial masters, or overthrow of tyranny. I’m struggling to see how you’re finding that difficult to understand. You’re a better woman than that, Tane.

     Perigo linked the EFB to New Zealand being a tyrannical and despotic regime. In my own view, that statement is an act of outlandish hyperbole, for which Perigo is well known. I disagree with it. I think there is a very fundamental difference between a government acting against the interests of its voters, acting entirely in its own interests, being completely out of touch with reality; and a government that succumbs to despotism and tyranny.

     My view is that we are seeing in New Zealand the former, rather than the latter. The former will be dealt with at the polls next year, when voters use democracy to turf out this bunch of loathsome, corrupt, and self-serving cretins. The Labour Party will face the wrath of the ballot, rather than the bullet.
191. slightlyrighty 191

     5 December 2007 at 3:41 pm

     Rob.

     Please read my entire post before you quote snippets and pass them off as gosple.

     Remember free speech means nothing if nobody hears it.

     Or better still, how about a quote from one of your own.

     If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.
     * Noam Chomsky
192. Matthew Pilott 192

     5 December 2007 at 3:45 pm

     IP, “The Labour Party will face the wrath of the ballot, rather than the bullet.”

     Some people will be happy that third parties can’t hide while spending millions directly and indirectly.

     Can I ask how you can all (not just IP) cry foul and protest so strongly against EFB, and how plain awful it is and what a disaster it is, and how Labour is buying the next election, and it’s so strongly tilting the playing foirld in its favour, yet in the same breath assume Labour will lose the next election?

     Can’t be that bloody bad then. 🙂
193. Sus 193

     5 December 2007 at 3:46 pm

     It was refreshing to see objective lefties in last Saturday’s march. They at least respect the concept of freedom.

     Level the playing field? Crap. Face it, your boss got her fingers caught in the till after the last election and, after protesting her innocence for months, vilifying senior civil servants into the bargain, quickly legalised an illegality rather than have her day in court to prove that much-touted innocence.

     She’s cheesed off that the Nats raise more in donations than she receives – although why anyone would support John Key is beyond me, either.

     ‘We can’t have people buying an election!’, she cries – while helping herself to even more public money to tell us to vote for her.

     It’d be funny if it wasn’t criminal.
194. r0b 194

     5 December 2007 at 3:49 pm

     “Please read my entire post before you quote snippets and pass them off as gosple.”

     I did read the whole thing righty. That’s whay I think you’re misinterpreting the appropriations bill. Read the NRT link. It isn’t about electioneering. And while it does favour the incumbent MPs (as do many many other factors) it doesn’t favour the left or the right. Hence I think we’re OK with Noam on this one.
195. Sus 195

     5 December 2007 at 3:51 pm

     And as for this being an ‘extreme right’ ploy; another Clark dream; the last I heard the Maori party were still opposed to the EFB.

     Diehard righties, those guys.
196. Robinsod 196

     5 December 2007 at 3:52 pm

     DPFDbleStdClaws – I don’t have a telly (it got repossessed after I spent the payments on advertisements protesting the EFB).
197. r0b 197

     5 December 2007 at 3:54 pm

     “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all”

     PS – righty, do remember to pass that one on to DPF on Kiwiblg won’t you…
198. MikeE 198

     5 December 2007 at 4:15 pm

     Tane – I doubt Lindsay supports a “Right Wing” anything. Hes a Libertarian, not a right winger.
199. Pascal's bookie 199

     5 December 2007 at 4:29 pm

     I’m not sure that you can write off Perigos stuff as hyperbole when Peter was just here saying that he was being very serious.

     I mean he’s an Objectivist isn’t he? Don’t they get excommunicated for lying? A=A’ and all that. 😉
200. Tane 200

     5 December 2007 at 4:31 pm

     Mike, libertarians try to claim they’re not right wing, but they are. The fundamental split between left and right is one’s view of property rights. Libertarians are propertarian absolutists who shun any form of interference in the market. That’s right wing extremism, my friend.
201. Sus 201

     5 December 2007 at 5:19 pm

     Right and wrong, Tane. Respecting property rights is just that. No interference. Nothing right-wing about it. Nothing left, either!

     Libertarians also respect the rights of adults as to their sexual preferences, providing the other consenting party/ies are also of age. Not much right-wing going on there, either.

     Or how about a repeal of the Misuse of Drugs Act, eh? Horrendously right-wing, that! 🙂

     Left-wing/right-wing; bugger all difference in that you’re all happy to mind each other’s business. Both authoritarian, varying only by degree.
202. Dean 202

     5 December 2007 at 5:36 pm

     Tane said:

     “Mike, libertarians try to claim they’re not right wing, but they are. The fundamental split between left and right is one’s view of property rights. Libertarians are propertarian absolutists who shun any form of interference in the market. That’s right wing extremism, my friend.”

     I think that’s the most deluded thing I’ve read all week.
     If you honestly believe that the fundamental difference between the “left” and the “right” are their respective attitudes on property rights then it’s no wonder you say some of the things you do. Which is a shame, because you seem to be an otherwise insightful kind of person.
203. r0b 203

     5 December 2007 at 5:38 pm

     Sus – “Respecting property rights is just that. No interference. Nothing right-wing about it. Nothing left, either!”

     A little simplistic don’t you think? No interference is actually anarchism. When libertarians say “respecting property rights” they don’t mention the baggage with that goes with it. Laws. Police. Courts. Prisons. All the mechanisms by which the rich make sure that the poor don’t interfere with the property rights of the rich. “No interference” is a myth – it means “no interference with the rich”.

     Mary Antoinette was a good libertarian. Let them eat cake…
204. Tane 204

     5 December 2007 at 5:42 pm

     Except, Sus, that your conception of property rights and the free market relies entirely on state interference. Try removing the coercive power of the state and see how long your natural right to property lasts, or how well your ‘free market’ functions.

     Your ideology is not about ‘leaving things alone’, it’s choosing to structure society in such a way that we allow individuals (or legal individuals) to own as much of the earth’s scarce resources as they’d like while others starve or go without.

     That kind of market absolutism is a fundamentally right-wing idea and has nothing in common with the left-wing ideals of equality and solidarity.

     Oh, but you point out you want to let people use drugs and choose their own sexuality. But that’s not entirely the truth, because what you really believe in is the ability of people to use drugs and choose their own sexuality on their own property. And if you don’t own property? Well you’ll do what your landlord tells you to do. In fact, the libertarian conception of freedom is so warped that it claims to be against racism while defending the right of restaurants to put up signs saying ‘no dogs or Jews’ and claims to be against discrimination while upholding the right of a landlord association to refuse to let any flats to gay tenants.

     That doesn’t sound like liberty to me.
205. The PC Avenger 205

     5 December 2007 at 6:26 pm

     Ah, but you see Tane, in Libertopia, people will be free to choose!

     For example, they can choose either to meet the insane requirements of the local Captains of Industry, or sleep in a ditch and starve to death.

     Truly, this would be a paradise.
206. Phil 206

     5 December 2007 at 6:38 pm

     “For example, they can choose either to meet the insane requirements of the local Captains of Industry, or sleep in a ditch and starve to death.”

     PC avenger; go back into your straw-man, fear-mongering little cave, and come out when you’ve got something sensible to say
207. Gruela 207

     5 December 2007 at 6:53 pm

     Phil

     That is sensible, as anyone who has read a history of the Irish famine or the Highland clearances could tell you.
208. Roark 208

     5 December 2007 at 7:15 pm

     Tane, you just don’t get it do you? The key point of libertarianism is that it is meritocratic. Those without merit receive no reward. Yes you can die in a ditch rather than work but that is your choice. There is no reason beyond your baseless socialist theology that those without merit, or more correctly those who wish to act without merit, should be allowed to hold their betters back.
209. Pascal's bookie 209

     5 December 2007 at 7:18 pm

     Libertarians are funny.

     http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3328/floating_utopias/
210. Roark 210

     5 December 2007 at 7:24 pm

     I see you’re employing the usual razor wit of the cosseted left, PB. Much easier than actually providing a rational argument, isn’t it?
211. Gruela 211

     5 December 2007 at 7:25 pm

     Roark

     So obviously you’d believe in a 100% death tax…
212. Tane 212

     5 December 2007 at 7:32 pm

     Roark, you’ve made it over! And here I was thinking you were that old psychopath Barnsley Bill.

     So, it’s meritocracy you want? How exactly do you define that, cos I can see some real difficulty in your argument that libertarianism is meritocratic when it shuns any kind of equality of opportunity, let alone equality of outcome.

     You’re angry and full of bluster Roark, but then so was Ayn Rand. And she died a hated old pervert. Reckon you can do any better?
213. Tane 213

     5 December 2007 at 7:34 pm

     Oh and Roark, care to explain your ‘Key is a faggot’ comment from this morning? What a nasty piece of work you are.

     http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/12/over_150_last_second_amendments.html#comment-377910

     I know it’s a cliche that libertarians are just psychopaths looking for a justification, but you really take the cake.
214. Roark 214

     5 December 2007 at 7:35 pm

     Gruela – I believe in the individual’s right to leave their estate to whoever they want to. And before you start bitching about how that sets up hereditary hierarchies you should think about the fact that those who inherit need also to have merit or they will have their gains taken from them. Just as members of the “middle class” took from the aristocracy during the industrial revolution.
215. Tane 215

     5 December 2007 at 7:37 pm

     Roark. You haven’t explained where your absolute property rights come from.
216. Roark 216

     5 December 2007 at 7:43 pm

     Tane, you could do a bit better than your petty baiting. Meritocratic doesn’t mean equality. It means those who have merit succeed over those who don’t. If you can’t understand that basic concept then you should consider buying a dictionary.

     You can try to brand me as a psychopath if you want but I seem to recall that those who didn’t conform in communist Russia were similarly “diagnosed” and often paid with their minds. Good to see you’re keeping up the tradition.
217. Gruela 217

     5 December 2007 at 7:46 pm

     Roark

     So then it’s alright if I smash you over the head and take your wallet, since if I don’t have merit my gains will soon be taken from me?

     You may have developed the most inconsistent political philosophy I’ve ever heard of.
218. Roark 218

     5 December 2007 at 7:46 pm

     And where do your “human rights” come from Tane?
219. Roark 219

     5 December 2007 at 7:50 pm

     You may have developed the most inconsistent political philosophy I’ve ever heard of.

     That’s right Gruela if you say it it comes true. Are you an arts major by any chance?
220. Tane 220

     5 December 2007 at 7:50 pm

     They’re a socially useful construction. As are property rights. There’s nothing absolute about either of them. That’s where your libertarianism falls over.
221. Gruela 221

     5 December 2007 at 7:53 pm

     Roark

     You didn’t answer my question. If I can beat you up and steal your wallet, I should get to keep it, right? Since my ability to do so is of ‘merit’ to me.
222. Roark 222

     5 December 2007 at 7:57 pm

     They’re a socially useful construction

     So you are saying that outrage over the murder of a child is only a social construction? Does that make it meaningless? What about acts of religious faith? I would imagine you don’t believe in that “construction”. Do you just pick and choose what has meaning or value? As I understand it your uncle Joe shared a similar philosophy.
223. ben 223

     5 December 2007 at 7:59 pm

     So then it’s alright if I smash you over the head and take your wallet, since if I don’t have merit my gains will soon be taken from me?

     You may have developed the most inconsistent political philosophy I’ve ever heard of.

     Jesus that’s an appalling comeback. Just a total, idiotic straw man.
224. Roark 224

     5 December 2007 at 8:01 pm

     Gruela – I didn’t answer you because you are trying to turn a petty criminal act into a metaphor for an ontology. The reality is much more complex because your act would not stand alone as a singular symbol of strength. You’re implying it would. That’s dishonest.
225. Gruela 225

     5 December 2007 at 8:08 pm

     Nope, sorry, I see it as a direct metaphor for your own argument. You’re arguing for a meritocracy, so am I. It’s not so complex: might makes right, right?
226. Tane 226

     5 December 2007 at 8:14 pm

     No Roark. There are evolutionary and social reasons why we abhor child murder. The discourse of human rights is merely a shorthand. Your mistake is to think that your conception of rights is real, eternal and absolute. It’s not.

     Unless you can demonstrate where your absolute property rights come from then I’m afraid you haven’t got a leg to stand on. Your belief system sits atop a house of cards Roark, and a very shaky one at that.
227. Robinsod 227

     5 December 2007 at 8:17 pm

     Oh what have we here? A little Nietzschean? If you want to talk about the endless iteration of meaning to nothingness I won’t argue with you Roark but fuck boy – that’s not gonna help you in the real world and it’s collective behaviour predicated on constructed meaning that has created a society in which you can spout your drivel in comparative safety. Don’t think for a second you wouldn’t be eaten alive if your fantasy came true and even if you’re the smartest, toughest guy around there’s still a very good reason we didn’t live much past thirty for the first 90% of our (ungoverned) existence as a species.

     “hold their betters back”? You fruitcake.
228. Gruela 228

     5 December 2007 at 8:18 pm

     Tane

     I like it, especially since HE was the one implying YOU wanted to live in a Stalinist state.

     Who’s the free-thinker now, Roark?
229. Outofbed 229

     5 December 2007 at 8:29 pm

     it’s collective behaviour predicated on constructed meaning that has created a society in which you can spout your drivel in comparative safety
     Rob I kneel at your feet
230. Outofbed 230

     5 December 2007 at 8:30 pm

     I wish someone was kneeling at my feet, come to think of it
231. Gruela 231

     5 December 2007 at 8:35 pm

     I think he ran away. If there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s a Libertarian.

     “Are you an arts major by any chance?” Wot a snooty little fuck.
232. Pascal's bookie 232

     5 December 2007 at 8:37 pm

     I wasn’t being witty Roark, just stating my opinion. I find Libertarians to be funny.

     Have you booked a berth on the Freedom Ship?

     Catchy name that. It’s a Ship and it’s for Freedom.

     But no, I have no interest whatsoever in engaging in an argument with you, rational or otherwise.

     I wish you no ill will. In fact I’d be more than happy if you fulfilled your fantasy and run off into the desert or wherever and formed your perfect society of meritocratic, objectively right about everything, good looking, artistically perfect and fabulously wealthy individuals, just to spite us lesser folk, who sponge off of you and mock you and fail to give you the deference that you believe is your due. Have at it, knock yourself out, prove us wrong.

     I promise I’ll come crawling over to you if it all turns to custard here without you, and you can deliver a 50 page speech about how right you are. No doubt in a rousing Baritone with the sun glinting off of your steely eyes or somesuch. I’ll even listen and promise not to laugh.

     Aside from that: what robinsod and Tane said.
233. Tane 233

     5 December 2007 at 8:39 pm

     Right on PB. Where’s Galt’s Gulch when you need it?
234. Ruth 234

     5 December 2007 at 8:47 pm

     The vicious hatred toward John Key by Libertarianz is creepy. I hadn’t seen that faggot comment Tane linked to.

     I think it’s all because he’s not Don Brash — so he’s the anti-Christ. Seriously extremist.
235. CMR 235

     5 December 2007 at 8:50 pm

     Tane said …the bill does not restrict speech it restricts spending…” (I paraphrase.)

     This is naive semantics in the extreme. Freedom is indivisible. Freedom to spend (one’s own monies!) and freedom of speech are merely vignettes of the freedom I seek, enjoy and defend!

     The freedom to acquire property is not and has never been axiomatic in the left/right wing debate,

     For a profuse commentator you exhibit a remarkable, almost childish ability to assume rather than ponder. Grow up, grow up fast!

     CMR
236. Tane 236

     5 December 2007 at 9:05 pm

     CMR, what a strange comment.

     a) I’m sorry, but I don’t see where the freedom to spend as much as you’d like in an election campaign comes from. Democracy requires a level of equality between its participants, and as such it’s perfectly justifiable to make sure those who have great wealth cannot drown out the equally valid voices of those who do not.

     b) The matter of who owns and controls property (broadly including the means of production) and the power relationships that flow from this has always been at the core of the left-right divide. If you can’t see that then I suggest you do some reading.

     For someone who tells others to ‘grow up’ you show a rather naive understanding of politics.
237. Roark 237

     5 December 2007 at 9:15 pm

     Tane, our species is 100,000 years old. Child murder has only been taboo for a tiny part of that history. In some cultures it’s only been an issue for a matter of decades. Property and territory however is hard wired. I’d say if you’re going to use the evolutionary card you’ll find property rights re far more ingrained in our make-up.
238. The Double Standard 238

     5 December 2007 at 9:18 pm

     http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperbole

     You want me to go look up ridiculous statements by unionists Tane?

     I’m sure that there are plenty out there. Surely you are embarrassed to seriously claim that Perigo is inciting revolt?

     Is that short enough for you to cope with G?
239. The Double Standard 239

     5 December 2007 at 9:24 pm

     Also I’m interested in your thoughts on Clark’s rather more deliberate and hardly-coded call for some sort of revolt against the military takeover in Fiji

     http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=798#comment-7684

     Surely a head of state making calls like this (deliberately and repeatedly) is a more serious action than Perigo’s ranting?

     Also, what are you view’s on the repeal of the sedition law? Since it hasn’t been repealed yet (I think) I assume you’ll be making a complaint to the police about Perigo?
240. Dean 240

     5 December 2007 at 9:26 pm

     Speaking of growing up Tane, I’d just love to hear your take on the Erin Leigh case.
241. Roark 241

     5 December 2007 at 9:29 pm

     Yes Robinsod, we have progressed well enough through “collective behaviour predicated on constructed meaning” but before that we did well under the rule of the pope and before that under the rule of the roman empire. These are stages in history Robinsod. If everyone saw the world your way we would still be living in caves. I’m glad you brought Nietzsche up. He once said “the new philosophers are coming” and that they would be met with anger and fear. You are yesterday’s man Robinsod and your beliefs belong to the past.
242. Gruela 242

     5 December 2007 at 9:30 pm

     Double

     Ha ha, yeah, I got through your entire post without falling asleep, unlike some of insolent’s efforts.

     Roark

     Are you seriously arguing that protection of their property is more important than protection of their children, due to some genetic hard-wiring? Okay…..
243. Tane 243

     5 December 2007 at 9:33 pm

     Roark, you’re back! And here I was thinking you’d escaped with your tail between your legs.

     I really can’t figure out what you’re trying to contradict here.

     With infanticide you’ve kind of proven my point. The fact that history shows it has been socially accepted under certain social, environmental and economic conditions suggests your conception of rights is not as clearcut as you might think.

     As for your unlimited individual property rights, that’s an even more recent historical development. Like, so recent that it wasn’t even heard of in this country until around 1840. If your conception of property rights is in our makeup you’ve got to wonder who it was that forgot to tell everyone until the development of industrial civilization.

     So, are you going to tell me where your absolute property rights come from Roark?
244. Roark 244

     5 December 2007 at 9:36 pm

     Gruela, I said that if Tane will argue evolutionary pragmatism he must admit territory has been more important than children for the vast bulk of our specie’s history. He has not offered any argument other than moral superstition. You seem unable to see beyond your blind humanist faith also.
245. Tane 245

     5 December 2007 at 9:38 pm

     Roark. The argument isn’t over whether humans find territory important.

     My question is where your far more specific absolute individualist property rights come from. Why is your right to own as much property as you like, untaxed and unregulated, in any way inalienable?
246. Dean 246

     5 December 2007 at 9:39 pm

     Tane said: “As for your unlimited individual property rights, that’s an even more recent historical development. Like, so recent that it wasn’t even heard of in this country until around 1840.”

     To be fair, you’re taking about a people who hadn’t even invented the wheel by then. I’m not sure that property rights were the highest thing on their list of priorities.

     And Tane, how about that Erin Leigh?
247. Gruela 247

     5 December 2007 at 9:39 pm

     Sounds to me like Tane’s won the debate.:-)
248. Roark 248

     5 December 2007 at 9:49 pm

     Tane, you seem to have mistaken me for some kind of ignorant fundamentalist. As I have explained to Gruela you are arguing superstitions. That you believe my philosophy is as grounded in false essentialism as your’s, and seem determined to attack me on this attribute you have imaginatively allocated to me, shows only that you are unable to transcend your pathetic historical construct. You are a prisoner of your banal mind.
249. Tane 249

     5 December 2007 at 9:51 pm

     Dean, to be honest I haven’t really followed what’s happened with Erin Leigh because it doesn’t interest me. I’m not going to defend Mallard either, I think the guy’s an idiot and Labour would be better off without him.

     TDS, yes I’m sure Perigo isn’t actually plotting a coup, but he’s certainly advocating it. Don’t pretend for a moment that his statements aren’t extremist or that they don’t advocate overthrowing our democratically elected government. If Perigo was Tuhoe he’d be locked up in Mt Eden tonight.
250. r0b 250

     5 December 2007 at 9:56 pm

     Roark – “Tane, our species is 100,000 years old. Child murder has only been taboo for a tiny part of that history. In some cultures it’s only been an issue for a matter of decades. Property and territory however is hard wired”

     I call bullshit. References please. You are wrong on all counts. Humans evolved as social and wandering primate tribes. Child murder is an obvious evolutionary looser, and the very concepts of “property” and “territory” are too recent, in evolutionary terms, to be hardwired.
251. The Double Standard 251

     5 December 2007 at 9:59 pm

     So, did anyone hear that the Nats DVD had a clocks sound-alike on it?
252. Gruela 252

     5 December 2007 at 10:00 pm

     Roark

     “Property and territory however is hard wired.”

     How is that not false essentialism?
253. Tane 253

     5 December 2007 at 10:03 pm

     Roark. You’re arguing libertarianism but you’ve failed utterly to come up with a decent defence of it. You’ve obviously gone through life spouting crap about property rights and the free market without once even considering whether your premises make sense.

     Stop trying to weasel your way out of the argument and face the fact that you borrowed your political philosophy from a fantasy novel and when challenged in the cold hard light of day it doesn’t stack up.

     Go to bed Roark, you’re an embarrassment to your cause.

     (Oh, and “your’s” doesn’t need an apostrophe. It’s a possessive pronoun.)
254. Gruela 254

     5 December 2007 at 10:05 pm

     Double

     You might also be interested to hear that Labour overspent their electoral cap last election (by $800,000!)
255. Roark 255

     5 December 2007 at 10:06 pm

     Rob, infanticide is well documented throughout our history. The killing of the children of a sexual competitor in particular was a regular and expected behaviour. We are hardwired for the strong to eliminate the weak. That’s how we evolve. When Tane talks of “right” he assumes it has some core meaning but “rights” are the result of the will to power. The market in a pure form is the best intellectual expression of this physical truth. To answer Tane’s question about property rights: it is my “right” to own what I can because I will it. It is your delusional belief in society that stops you from seeing the world for what it is: interwoven expressions of power. To turn a blind eye to that is to ensure the miring of our race.
256. Gruela 256

     5 December 2007 at 10:12 pm

     “it is my “right” to own what I can because I will it.”

     So I CAN steal your wallet then? Groovy!
257. Roark 257

     5 December 2007 at 10:14 pm

     You can try.
258. Tane 258

     5 December 2007 at 10:15 pm

     Roark, I take that back. You’re not a libertarian. You’re a psycho looking for something, anything, to grab onto to justify your illness. Libertarianism was your respectable face, then when you lost that argument you fell back on some Nietzchian will-to-power bullshit.

     You’re a slightly more coherent version of Dad4Justice, but without the humanity or the comic value. You’re not impressing anyone by parading your illness all over the internet. Go to bed and stop embarrassing yourself.
259. r0b 259

     5 December 2007 at 10:15 pm

     So Rorak, we have gone from “Tane our species is 100,000 years old. Child murder has only been taboo for a tiny part of that history” to “infanticide is well documented throughout our history”. That’s an appropriate back down from you. Of course its taboo, no species would survive without that taboo. And the fact that it does happen some times in specific circumstances doesn’t change that.

     “We are hardwired for the strong to eliminate the weak. That’s how we evolve.”

     That’s an utterly simplistic view of a Darwinian model of evolution. Grab a clue – the field has moved on. Its about the survival of the gene, not the survival of the individual. Kin effects, altruism, cooperation, are all just as important as the selective pressure that you oversimplify as “the strong eliminate the weak”.

     Your understanding of evolution is trivially superficial. I’ll leave someone else to call you on the philosophy.
260. Gruela 260

     5 December 2007 at 10:18 pm

     “You can try.”

     Game, set and match, there, buddy.
261. Roark 261

     5 December 2007 at 10:27 pm

     Tane, go fuck yourself you smug commie fool. Rob, you may be interested to know that a species based model of evolution still holds considerable weight in anthropological and biology circles. You’ve read Dawkins and think you know it all. Well done. He’s a good promulgator of his “memes” you’ve obviously bought what he is selling.
262. r0b 262

     5 December 2007 at 10:37 pm

     Rorak – “Rob, you may be interested to know that a species based model of evolution still holds considerable weight in anthropological and biology circles.” That’s as may be, but that’s a far cry from the recycled social Darwinism that you were peddling.

     “You’ve read Dawkins and think you know it all. Well done.”

     I’m old, I’ve read Dawkins and many more, and I’m grumpy about people who abuse science for political ends.
263. Tane 263

     5 December 2007 at 10:42 pm

     Don’t worry r0b, I doubt we’ll see Roark round these parts for some time after the drubbing he took tonight. By the looks of it “Tane, go fuck yourself you smug commie fool” was his parting shot. He’s a class act all round, that Roark.
264. r0b 264

     5 December 2007 at 10:47 pm

     Tane – So it seems! Interesting thread here tonight, we seem so share some similar views. No surprise I guess. Thanks for The Standard, it was a job that needed doing.
265. Gruela 265

     5 December 2007 at 10:52 pm

     Extermination! I hope the smug little Fascist is crying into his pillow. Tane, you’re the man. rOb, you’re another man.
266. r0b 266

     5 December 2007 at 10:58 pm

     “rOb, you’re another man.” Cheers Gruela, but if I’m so manly, how come I’ve got to go and do the dishes now? Sigh. G’night all.
267. the sprout 267

     5 December 2007 at 11:50 pm

     bugger i miss all the fun. a real live frothing psuedo-evolutionary fascist. arbeit macht frei Roark, and you have a lot of arbeit to do.
268. CMR 268

     6 December 2007 at 6:22 am

     Tane,

     My response to your clumsy rhetoric will hardly rank after your biting ad hominem dismissal of Roark,(Wnoever he/she is.) This is less of a debating forum than it is a sandpit cluttered by your personal bigotry. However if you own it you can do as you please within it as far as I am concerned.

     I follow your tabulations.

     a You assert that democracy requires a level of equality in the vein that it, democracy, is a first principle. It is not. It is a method constructed by both legislation and custom. In other words it is a device rather than a fundamental process and as such can be interpreted, amended etc at will. If parties wish to invest their own resources to assist in the operation of this device, it is simply a matter of personal choice. (It is also a choice to decry the intentions of our current nefarious government.)
     b “Has always been at the core of the left-right divide.” Always? The ownership of property was elevated to the apparent “core” by Marxism less than 130 years ago. This is “always?”
269. Lampie 269

     6 December 2007 at 8:12 am

     Is there goiing to be a part 2 thread?
270. Matthew Pilott 270

     6 December 2007 at 9:37 am

     CMR “You assert that democracy requires a level of equality in the vein that it, democracy, is a first principle. It is not. It is a method constructed by both legislation and custom. In other words it is a device rather than a fundamental process and as such can be interpreted, amended etc at will. ”

     So none of this equal rights bullshit then, no one-man one-vote rubbish?

     You’re mistaking the machinations of state with the underlying principle, and falsely asserting that the physical interpretation of democracy is all that exists – and that it is a device rather than a fundamental process.

     The ‘device’ and ‘process’ you refer to are one and the same, the method and process of a functioning democracy; you’re ignoring the founding principles of democracy.

     This makes sense though, if you think that freedom is indivisible. The next step in your logic, given you have no belief in an underlying democratic principle, would be one person/dollar per vote.

     “If parties wish to invest their own resources to assist in the operation of this device, it is simply a matter of personal choice.” – if there is no underlying democratic principle I don’t think it would take long for a right-wing capitalistic government to take the step of allowing votes to be directly bought. Surely that would be a more pure expression of caputalism?

     However I think the principle would preclude this, because it would no longer be a Democracy!
271. MikeE 271

     6 December 2007 at 1:56 pm

     It was once the left who were defenders of human rights, now we have the labour party blog claiming the human rights are not absolute, and merely a useful social construct.

     hmmm
272. CMR 272

     6 December 2007 at 9:25 pm

     Matthew Pilott,

     You possess the same conceit as Tane in that you just know what other contributors think without reference to their words. I take it that illiteracy is the accepted norm on this site?? If I am wrong then I apologise.

     The only “underlying principle” in democracy is an adopted one by a series of inadequate politicians, that is to say,it maintains an illusion of equality, while destroying what you would identify as a founding principle. It has evolved to a cousin of mob-rule..ie 51% are in favour, therefore 49% are bludgeoned into acquiescence. Democracy no matter how it is supremely framed is a device to maintain order and acquiescence. Individual rights are wickedly shelved before the onslaught of a contrived majority. Ironically the process deserves the disdain the present “Clarxist government” affords it.

     You ridiculously assume that the investment of monies in the electoral process will be made by those who seek a “right-wing capitalistic” government. Is it not fair to suggest that the trades union of this country have set a remarkable precedent in achieving a series of victories for those governments that espouse other than “right-wing” policies? The compulsory snatching of funds from workers’ pockets to attain political success is democracy…is it? Enjoy your petty servitude!
273. Tane 273

     6 December 2007 at 9:48 pm

     I’m kind of sick of this thread so I’ll try not to jump back in entirely, but God you’re a bore CMR. I see you’re fond of the term “Clarxist” – did you make that up all by yourself, or is it one of Linz’s?

     I’m not pretending to understand what anyone thinks, but if someone says they’re a libertarian then I’ll debate them on libertarian theory. Roark tried but he failed to put forward a coherent argument., and all you’ve offered is a bog standard critique of majoritarianism and said you don’t like democracy because it impinges on your property rights (which you haven’t bothered to defend).

     You also seem to share a trait common to libertarians – a love of theory but very little knowledge of fact. Workers do not have election funds ‘compulsorily snatched’ from their pockets. You just made that up. Why would you do that unless you’ve got some kind of prejudice against solidarity and collective action?

     I also suspect you’ve never had a look at where the big private money in our election system comes from. (Here’s a hint: it’s not from the trade unions.)
     http://www.elections.org.nz/parties/donations_summary.html

     Very naive, CMR. Back to the libertarian fantasy novels for you.
274. CMR 274

     6 December 2007 at 9:55 pm

     So I am ASSUMED to be libertarian…I am a member of a compulsory trade union to which I am compulsorily tithed. The union is a creature of statute. This is a fact and not derived from fantasy novels or any other source your conceitedly imagine.I note that you assert I resent solidarity yet you happily lump me with Perigo and his ilk! Consistency of thought is not a blessing you have been endowed with.
275. Tane 275

     6 December 2007 at 10:06 pm

     CMR, you’re arguing classic libertarianism and you first posted on this site defending libertarianism in a thread about libertarianism. I’ve dealt with a few of you in my time and I can smell you from a mile away. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

     If you live in New Zealand then you’re not a member of a compulsory trade union, nor are you compulsorily tithed. You’d be lying. You’re also wrong that unions are a creation of statute. Unions were being shut down and persecuted long before they became legally recognised.

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions

     It would do you well to read some history CMR, because you won’t find any in Atlas Shrugged, and it makes you look silly when you try and talk to people who don’t share your rather strange belief system.
276. CMR 276

     6 December 2007 at 10:19 pm

     I live in NZ. I am a member of a compulsory trade union and I am compulsorily tithed to it, at least until 30th June 2008 when the law will change, and the union I am forced to be a member of will be re-configured. I am NOT a liar! I have been forced to be a member of this creature of statute since my admission in 1977. Think again!

     I have never read Atlas Shrugged or any other Rand literature.I am not a member of any political party, ginger-group or other organisation which may be even loosely portrayed as “political!”

     So much for your knowledgeable assumptions!
277. Tane 277

     6 December 2007 at 10:23 pm

     If you’re not a libertarian you share a strange likeness to them CMR – you should do some reading into it, you might be surprised.

     I’m not sure I can put this any more plainly: You are not a member of a compulsory trade union. Trade union membership is voluntary in this country, and has been for some time. I’m also not sure what law you’re referring to that’s supposed to come into place on June 30 next year.

     Would you care to tell me the name of your union and the name of law you’re referring to?
278. Dean 278

     6 December 2007 at 10:30 pm

     Tane said: “Would you care to tell me the name of your union and the name of law you’re referring to?”

     He’ll be grapsing at straws, whatever his answer is.
279. Pascal's bookie 279

     6 December 2007 at 10:59 pm

     He’ll be grasping something no doubt. I’m picking it’s some sort of professional body rather than a union.

     But, yep, he reeks of libertarianism. He hasn’t denied being one and thinks that we are fooled by his oh so sneaky ‘member of a group’ cornswaddle.

     So why don’t you either front up with some actual answers for us CMR, or piss off like Superman Roark boy. I think there’s still time for you both to catch that Freedom Ship linked to way way upthread.
280. Tane 280

     6 December 2007 at 11:01 pm

     By the way PB, that Freedom Ship article was the best link ever. I’m still laughing.
281. Tane 281

     6 December 2007 at 11:05 pm

     He’ll be grasping something no doubt. I’m picking it’s some sort of professional body rather than a union.

     Got it – it’ll be the Real Estate Institute. That’s not a trade union CMR, not even close.
282. dave 282

     6 December 2007 at 11:16 pm

     I think Insolent Prick wins here hands down
283. Pascal's bookie 283

     6 December 2007 at 11:17 pm

     Glad you liked the link Tane. I’ve never had any luck getting a response to it from a Libertarian.

     Have you read any of China Melville’s novels? If not I am pretty sure that you would love The Iron Council.

     And thanks for the ‘site.
284. Tane 284

     6 December 2007 at 11:19 pm

     Na, I haven’t but will look into it. Glad you like the site, thanks for helping to make it work.
285. PhilBest 285

     7 December 2007 at 4:40 pm

     You must have read Orwell, surely, Tane?
286. Tane 286

     7 December 2007 at 4:45 pm

     Yes, he’s a democratic socialist. So am I. What’s your point?
287. the sprout 287

     7 December 2007 at 5:02 pm

     Tane you’re supposed to burn books, not read them
288. Tane 288

     7 December 2007 at 5:20 pm

     Isn’t that going to be made compulsory under the EFB anyway?
289. the sprout 289

     7 December 2007 at 5:53 pm

     totally. Eliminate Fancy Booklearnin
290. Santi 290

     7 December 2007 at 6:29 pm

     “Isn’t that going to be made compulsory under the EFB anyway?”

     Tane,you’re nothing sophist. Go back to your cave, “bro”.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS