Drop the Immigration Bill

77 comments on “Drop the Immigration Bill ”

• Comments are now closed

1. T-rex 1

   9 July 2008 at 2:58 pm

   Amen, that sounds like a bloody awful proposal.

   Anyone here seen ‘Rendition’?

   Righties – here at least we should be able to agree. What could be more of an intrusion into your lives than this?
2. Aaron Kirk 2

   9 July 2008 at 3:04 pm

   “Clause 9 of the Bill provides that entry to New Zealand may not be permitted for anyone who has been denied entry to or deported from another country”. Do we really want people in New Zealand that have been clearly convicted, and deported in the hope of starting a fresh in a our country? Same example can be used for if a convicted murderer were to move into our neighbourhood we wouldn’t want him there. I don’t know why you disagree with it Mr. Pierson.
3. AndrewE 3

   9 July 2008 at 3:04 pm

   I, for one, am against this bill being passed.

   It is relatively easy to be denied entry into a country. I got denied entry into Singapore on medical grounds as I’d just come from a malarial zone and didn’t have the required medical clearance.

   If I pissed off some immigration official I could be denied entry into NZ.

   Technicalities matter.

   Now if only we could get agreement on our Electoral Law.
4. T-rex 4

   9 July 2008 at 3:06 pm

   Do they mean “may not be permitted” (imperative) or “may be refused” (option)? Because if they mean the latter it would make slightly more sense, but they really ought to change the wording.
5. George Darroch 5

   9 July 2008 at 3:11 pm

   Before visiting this site I was literally wondering who, apart from Campbell and Idiot/Savant would stand against this bill. It is profoundly ugly, giving immigration unprecedented powers to use against both immigrant and citizen alike (anyone associated with an immigrant can be investigated). These powers are completely without judicial oversight, and can be used at the behest of foreign powers.

   I don’t think I’m engaging in hyperbole when I say that this bill opens the back door to a fascist state. It takes away that many rights, and puts them in the hands of the SIS.

   Captcha: Hon Palmer – I wonder what Geoffrey has to say about this law.
6. Pascal's bookie 6

   9 July 2008 at 3:16 pm

   Yep, this bill sucks.
7. Steve Pierson 7

   9 July 2008 at 3:23 pm

   Aaron Kirk. Read my example and AndrewE’s one, those are reasons to oppose the clause in it’s current form. Essentially, the clause says we should give up our sovereign right to decide who should enter our country and instead give that decision to any country (any country eg Saudi Arabia, Russia, Cuba) who has denied that person entry for whatever reason, regardless of whether that reason is relevant or just in New Zealand.
8. George Darroch 8

   9 July 2008 at 3:23 pm

   The media are almost completely silent on the issue. A search of the Herald, Stuff, RadioNZ, TVNZ, and TV3 brings up nothing. At least we know whether to count on them to bring us the news that matters. As per usual, Scoop is the only reliable professional news source in the country.
9. Steve Pierson 9

   9 July 2008 at 3:25 pm

   As per usual, Scoop is the only reliable professional news source in the country.

   true that (we’re not professionals 😉 )
10. Daveski 10

    9 July 2008 at 3:28 pm

    Ha ha … should have read this before making my previous comments about the Standard and Labour 🙂

    The lack of transparency and the abuse of power is something we should all oppose.
11. AndrewE 11

    9 July 2008 at 3:35 pm

    Heh, odds are that the Nats will support this bill too.
12. Steve Pierson 12

    9 July 2008 at 3:37 pm

    Yeah, National does support it. In fact, i would think that the major party more likely to drop support for it is Labour.
13. AndrewE 13

    9 July 2008 at 3:43 pm

    Steve, you may not realise this but this is a GOVERNMENT bill.
14. George Darroch 14

    9 July 2008 at 3:46 pm

    I would hope so, but Helen Clark stated her firm intention to pass a bill of this nature in the middle of the Zaoui fiasco:

    December 7, 2004: “I regard the protracted procedures around this matter as quite unsatisfactory, and when the Zaoui case is complete, there will certainly be a review of the law.”

    I don’t think Helen Clark will be giving up on this bill any time soon.

    Also, given NZFirst’s enthusiasm for this bill, withdrawing from it would seriously damage their coalition.

    My only hope at this stage is that the Greens and Maori Party hold the balance of power after the election and are able to thwart it. It’s pretty difficult to see it being properly reformed, as there are simply so many things wrong with it.
15. higherstandard 15

    9 July 2008 at 3:50 pm

    While I would have been happy to have seen Zaoui sent back from whence he came, briefly reading Campbell’s overview of the bill it appears to be rampantly draconian.

    Anything that gives these kind of broad, sweeping powers to government officials and bureaucrats needs to be very carefully considered, vetted and hopefully watered down.

    As it reads at the moment the Bill should be killed – if the price is an occasional Zaoui getting into NZ rather than delivering more unbridled power to government I’ll happily (probably grudingly) pay it.
16. T-rex 16

    9 July 2008 at 3:51 pm

    Also, given NZFirst’s enthusiasm for this bill, withdrawing from it would seriously damage their coalition.

    That will hopefully be irrelevant.
17. T-rex 17

    9 July 2008 at 3:51 pm

    HS – High five! AGAIN!
18. Pascal's bookie 18

    9 July 2008 at 3:52 pm

    “My only hope at this stage is that the Greens and Maori Party hold the balance of power after the election and are able to thwart it.”

    True

    Re the media

    It’s an election year and the media have got a horse race to cover. On this crappy bill the two main horses are in agreement, so there is no hook to hang the story on.

    “A contentious immigration bill is coming to the house that could spell problems for party X. Party Y Leader Yy Yyyyy said today that “This Bill is an outrage that shows ordinary New Zealanders how beleggidty blag snargle party X really is. What a pack of w8nkers”

    A Party X spokesperson responded that “Yy Yyyyy is a terrorist symp fargnarkling champion from way back”, and that “New Zealanders should be aware that should they vote for Y they’ll prob’ly end up slaughtered in their beds”. (developing) lede to follow.

    is a story, “Parties X and Y Agree on Craptacular Bill ” is not.

    Which is a problem.
19. George Darroch 19

    9 July 2008 at 3:55 pm

    Not for nothing did Nandor describe talk with anger about the press gallery’s refusal to talk about anything other than conflicts, and describe them as vultures. EFA “rights removal” = conflict = front page stories. Immigration bill rights removal = consensus = nothing.

    So the obvious question is: how do we create some bloody conflict? My suggestion is to get a retiring Labour MP to cross the floor and vote with his or her conscience (fat chance, I know).
20. Ari 20

    9 July 2008 at 4:05 pm

    PB: Which is exactly what’s wrong with the media. They only want to hear about political issues when it’s a fight between National and Labour, not when we actually have policy to talk about.
21. Pascal's bookie 21

    9 July 2008 at 4:08 pm

    ” My suggestion is to get a retiring Labour MP to cross the floor and vote with his or her conscience (fat chance, I know).”

    It’s a good idea though. Fill their email boxes, write letters, ring the buggers up. That sort of thing?
22. George Darroch 22

    9 July 2008 at 4:42 pm

    Margaret Wilson and Tim Barnett are both sensitive to rights issues and retiring. Wilson is also speaking at Drinking Liberally – I wonder if any could convince her to stand up for her liberal principles against this most illiberal law?
23. Steve Pierson 23

    9 July 2008 at 5:22 pm

    AndrewE. i know it’s a government bill but that doesn’t mean it necessarily has strong support in Labour. Hopefully they will at least bump it to the bottom of the order paper or there will be big changes coming out of select committee.
24. George Darroch 24

    9 July 2008 at 6:54 pm

    I wish I could say: “oh, at least Labour will be out soon and the law won’t pass”, but given National’s support for it, that seems unlikely.

    Should we resign ourselves to the inevitable and save ourselves the anguish of having a faint hope dashed?
25. T-rex 25

    9 July 2008 at 7:34 pm

    NO!

    FUCK THAT SHIT!

    We should get a easy to understand summary together, and see how people feel about it.

    This is precisely the kind of thing that should be an election issue! And it’s also PRECISELY the kind of thing that compromises the freedoms conservatives love to pretend they uphold but actually subvert.

    I’ll do the colouring in?
26. Idiot/Savant 26

    9 July 2008 at 9:54 pm

    T-rex: unfortunately, it’ll be law by election-time. The Committee reports back in two weeks, after which they’ll have two whole months to get it through (and its a priority bill, so it’ll be pushed to the top of the Order Paper, maybe even get urgency).

    If we want to fight this, we have to attack Labour’s majority for it – which means hitting the Greens, Maori Party, and United Future (NZ First, of course, loves the idea). Of course, they’d still be able to pass it with National, but I don’t think either party would relish that prospect.
27. T-rex 27

    9 July 2008 at 10:18 pm

    I/S – I’ve emailed you a reply, let me know if it doesn’t come through.
28. jbc 28

    9 July 2008 at 10:20 pm

    You mention Clause 9, did you spot this (it’s under Appeals in relation to residence class visas):

    No appeal however lies against –
    a refusal to grant a visa or entry permission to an excluded person (a person to whom clause 9 or 10 applies)

    If that means what I think it does then it is nasty nasty nasty.

    Particularly given that the USA has turned paranoid lunatic with their immigration practices. You could probably be denied entry there just for looking different.
29. Robinsod 29

    9 July 2008 at 10:23 pm

    So um – who here has issues campaign experience? I’m betting a fair few of you. Perhaps start with a web petition? Or an email campaign (I’d recommend targeting key journos rather than MPs – they aren’t so used to being lobbied). How about a few letters to the editor? But wait. I’m getting ahead of myself. You need to be able to sell the issue in a framed soundbite. How about the fortress NZ Bill? Nah I don’t like it – any other ideas?
30. T-rex 30

    9 July 2008 at 10:27 pm

    Working on it as we speak Sod.

    I’m a pretty pissed of panda right now.
31. T-rex 31

    9 July 2008 at 10:29 pm

    The Guantanamo Bill
32. T-rex 32

    9 July 2008 at 10:42 pm

    No? Journalists LOVE saying Guantanamo. It’ll be like when sportscasters learnt to say ‘Rokocoko’ all over again.
33. Idiot/Savant 33

    9 July 2008 at 11:25 pm

    The Guantanamo Bill? I like it (the name at least)
34. Oliver 34

    10 July 2008 at 2:13 am

    That clause you’re talking about is hardly new. Next time you travel read the back of the arrival card, most people never actually read the card, and you’ll see that anyone who is not a New Zealand citizen is required to state whether they have ever been sentenced to 12 months or more in prison or deported or removed from any country.
35. Ari 35

    10 July 2008 at 8:00 am

    I/S: I think it’s pretty much guaranteed the Greens will vote against this. I think you’re really going to have to go directly to Labour on this one. One of the really good strategies to try on them would be that turning this thing around would be a great way to counter that whole “arrogant” line John Key is running 😛

    Is this one being voted along party lines? If so… ewww.

    If I can lend a hand on this, I’ll try to make some time for it, as this sounds like it’s going to be this terms big human rights stinker. (Why is there always at least one?)

    Oliver: Firstly, there’s a difference between deportation and removal and being turned away. Secondly, there’s a difference between being required to reveal something like that and officials being required to turn you away because of it.
36. Idiot/Savant 36

    10 July 2008 at 2:11 pm

    Ari: Of course its being voted on on party lines. Almost everything is.

    As for going to Labour, they wrote the bill, they’ve made it a centrepiece of their legislative programme for this year, and they’re hardly going to want to dump it, or make embarassing amendments (though the SC might at least do that bit for them). They will have to be forced to – and the way to do that is to systematically target the small parties they need to make up the votes, denying them a majority unless they make concessions.

    Lobbying Labour backbenchers so they can raise concerns and push for amendments in caucus is good, but secondary. In order for their even to be amendments, we have to deny Labour a majority. It’s that simple.
37. T-rex 37

    10 July 2008 at 2:27 pm

    If ever there was a bill that should be a concience vote, it’s this.
38. Tane 38

    10 July 2008 at 2:43 pm

    I/S – I haven’t really followed this so you’ll have to forgive me, but wouldn’t Labour and National be able to push this through even without the minor parties?
39. T-rex 39

    10 July 2008 at 2:52 pm

    Tane – Combined, easily, yes.

    Hence the need for a bit of marching in the streets.

    A significant number of the components of this bill are not consistent with Labour party ideology. The Greens already oppose it. Labour should make their opposition to it a point of difference from National, and withdraw it from consideration – or at the very least modify it to such a degree that it’s barely recognisable.
40. Quick Justice 40

    10 July 2008 at 3:39 pm

    Thanks for the article and analysis Steve.
    I also like the site and vintage masthead. But hey, your readers are not all white and middleclass. Some of us working class Polynesians care about politics and human rights too.
41. Idiot/Savant 41

    10 July 2008 at 3:57 pm

    Tane: yes, they could. But this close to an election, National has definite incentives to embarass the government, which should preclude a bipartisan rescue in the short-term.

    T-rex: the problem is that Labour has hung a fair amount of prestige on this, and in addition Winston has their nuts in a vice. So they’re not going to give it up easily.
42. T-rex 42

    10 July 2008 at 4:15 pm

    Well it was a stupid thing for them to hang their prestige on. I think it’s a concession to Peters, as you say. In that case, persuading Labour to abandon it would be a matter of persuading them that the political cost of supporting it is higher than the political cost of said abandonment.

    The political cost of abandoning it should be pretty low if we can bring Peters to task for his total disregard of basic human rights.
43. Ari 43

    10 July 2008 at 8:13 pm

    I/S: You can never be too sure- I tend to ask obvious questions. I figured this didn’t seem like a conscience vote though.

    Tane: Considering it’s voted on party lines, only John Key and Helen Clark need to agree to the policy, essentially. Generally even on conscience votes, anything supported by the senior leadership of both Labour and National is incredibly likely to pass- we’ve yet to have a poll or election that gives the minor parties that kind of mandate.

    Quick Justice: Hang around! It’d be nice to have another commenter with a different upbringing. The feminists charge in here now and then, too, so the Standardistas are pretty welcoming.

    T-rex: Less of a concession and more of a capitulation, I’d say.
44. John Edmundson 44

    10 July 2008 at 8:33 pm

    Idiot/Savant: “Winston has their nuts in a vice”

    T-Rex: “The political cost of abandoning it should be pretty low if we can bring Peters to task for his total disregard of basic human rights”

    Moan about New Zealand First’s xenophobia if you want, but you can’t hang this Bill on Peters; as a couple of people have already mentioned here, this Bill is a Labour Party initiative, telegraphed by Helen Clark when she realised that illegally holding Ahmed Zaoui as a political prisoner was not going to be retrospectively legitimised by the courts. Labour and National are marching in lockstep on this (surprise surprise) and they will do everything they need to to get it through. Don’t hold your breath waiting for Barnett or Wilson to go out in a blaze of glory. I never noticed them dying in a ditch for Zaoui while he rotted in gaol for nearly 5 years (5 Labour government years that is).
45. George Darroch 45

    10 July 2008 at 8:48 pm

    T-Rex. While it is the kind of legislation that makes NZ First happy, it is a Government bill, and Helen Clark and other ministers were making explicit noises about changing the law to prevent Zaoui from ever occuring again in 2004 and 2005. They wrote the bill in mid 2006 and released a paper summarising the ideas contained and asked for comment. Human rights and immigration orgs made submissions, but it is largely unchanged from that document.

    Peter Dunne might be worth a go. But given that he won’t want to piss of Helen Clark and be excluded should Labour hold the balance of power again, I think there are pretty long odds on it, even if he disagrees. Still, probably worth a shot.

    Otherwise the best way to stop this bill is to vote the bastards out. And then, in 2011, have the law changed.
46. George Darroch 46

    10 July 2008 at 8:53 pm

    Thanks John. It astounds me to hear the expressions of surprise from Labour supporters, but especially from people who should know better. It’s like they’ve had their hands over their ears for years. They’ll talk about the things they want to talk about, unemployment etc. and how bad John Key is, but anything else just falls off the radar.

    To be fair to I/S, he hasn’t blamed this bill on anyone but Labour.

    This Government is arrogant and out of touch, and needs to go.
47. T-rex 47

    10 July 2008 at 10:45 pm

    George, your last sentence causes me to doubt your sincerity.

    Labour does not want to lose this election.

    There are 4 options here.

    1) National Support, Labour Support: Neither party gains any advantage – unlikely as they’re both desperate for any edge they can get.

    2) National support, Labour oppose: Bill unlikely to pass in the short term, Labour may gain some advantage through NOT trying to deny NZ citizens due process of law etc

    3) Labour support, National oppose: Bill may not pass, and even if it does it will be amended by National following the election. Clark would be a complete MORON to allow this combination, it would guarantee political oblivion. The UN might have some questions as to why she implemented a set of laws that contravened international law too.

    4) Both oppose: Works for me.
48. John Edmundson 48

    11 July 2008 at 12:29 am

    But T-rex, why would Labour oppose its own Bill? What you don’t seem prepared to accept is that Labour actually “want” to implement this draconian piece of legislation. This is not some kind of game they’re playing. They’re not tossing a bit of xenophobia Peters’ way to secure his support after the election. Chances are Peters and NZ First won’t even be there after the election. This is all about Labour and National putting in place the legislation they think this country needs in a “post 9/11” world. Welcome to a new era of dawn raids, first introduced at the end of a Labour term of government, oh! just like last time, when Kirk introduced the first round of dawn raids . . .
49. higherstandard 49

    11 July 2008 at 10:00 am

    On a similar note from the UK.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/former-head-of-mi5-says-42day-detention-plan-is-unworkable-862947.html
50. T-rex 50

    11 July 2008 at 10:17 am

    why would Labour oppose its own Bill

    Because they are OUR government and they answer to US. Not the other way around.

    If the genuinely want to implement it, they can give eachother high 5’s over its success from the side of the road, and try to get new jobs while tainted with the following labels.

    1) Attacker of freedom
    2) Advocate of torture
    3) Enemy of equality under law
    4) Proponent of unchecked power
    5) … I could come up with quite a few

    It will take me until the end of the weekend to come up with something effective. Various Labour MP’s potentially reading this – Between now and monday is about how long you’ve got to say something like “I have grave reservations about the details of this bill – I feel it represents a direct attack on not only Kiwi values, but the most basic of international human rights”.

    Parker?
    Barnett?
    Cullen?
    Goff?
    O’Connor?
    CLARK?
    COSGROVE?

    Sort it out. Now.

    2 Days.

    Then you all get burnt.
51. John Edmundson 51

    11 July 2008 at 10:31 am

    I hate to disillusion you T-rex but we’re not in V for Vendetta II here, and even V took 20 years in preparation plus a year of people “actually knowing about him” before he built his mass movement. It won’t happen “between now and Monday”. Good luck if it does. If so, I’ll eat humble pie and get right behind you. In the meantime, good luck raising your army of the outraged to do what no one has been able to do for a hundred years and overthrow the Labour and National parties “by Monday”. Burnt??? I can’t picture Phil Goff right now, rushing to the Warehouse to buy a fire extinguisher. This is actually one of the problems with the blogosphere. People mistake their own little circle for the real world…
52. T-rex 52

    11 July 2008 at 10:42 am

    Well sh*t, yes, you’re probably right.

    So what are YOU going to do John?

    I don’t need to overthrow both of them – only one.

    The other problem with the blogosphere is that it’s full of people who hold forth at great length about ideals, goals, and the world we should live in, but sod all time actually acting to further them.

    The other thing we’re got that V didn’t is freedom of press.I don’t need to put a print machine in my basement, I just need to email something suitably shiny and provocative to every editor in New Zealand. They might be incompetent a lot of the time, but they’re free.

    For now.

    Until it’s decided that National Security trumps freedom of speech as well.
53. T-rex 53

    11 July 2008 at 10:46 am

    Also – I’m not going to acheive a bloody thing by monday, obviously. But it’s a lot more convincing coming out in opposition to something before you have reporters baying at your door.

    Labour is on the skids amidst ‘Nanny State’ accusations over saying you shouldn’t hit your children. Can you imagine how people will react to:

    NannyState2 – You shouldn’t be allowed a fair trial.
54. T-rex 54

    11 July 2008 at 11:08 am

    Come on people.

    Don’t be the guy in panel 7, be the kid at the bottom.
55. John Edmundson 55

    11 July 2008 at 11:14 am

    You’re right T-rex. We all know you’re not going to achieve anything by Monday; so why the histrionics? Why the empty threats of “burning” a bunch of Labour MPs? The “other problem with the blogosphere” is actually the same problem. People thing being online and making grand declarations actually achieves something in itself. In reality, it’s mostly a little circle of people who are largely in agreement and a few, like some clown called “whaleoil” who everyone else spends their time waging war against. It’s like a battle of the egotists and degenerates very quickly if people don’t keep a sense of perspective.

    As for the media, if you write a good press release, there’s a remote chance some media outlet might pick it up. Given the deafening silence on this from the media so far, I think the chances are very remote. We don’t have some kind of “accessible” “free press”, we have a private press, owned by huge corporations, whose interests coincide by and large with organisations like the Labour and National parties. I was at a meeting on Wednesday organised by a guy who’s been involved in anti-surveillance and draconianism stuff for about 40 years. He pointed out that the main reason they were touring an overseas speaker around the country was that the NZ media simply aren’t interested otherwise. As he put it, she got coverage; he would be told to write a letter to the editor.

    New Zealand is not on the brink of massive (revolutionary even) social transformation – unfortunately. So keep up the good fight against this piece of legislation, but enough with the hyperbole. Otherwise, the only person who’ll end up burnt will be you – burnt out, when nothing seems to happen.
56. T-rex 56

    11 July 2008 at 11:24 am

    You’re a good Voice of Reason John, and I agree everything you say is almost certainly true.

    Still, got to have a crack.

    To clarify, I’m not trying to “burn a bunch of labour MP’s”. It’s more that I can see that, if this does turn into something big, they will get burnt by it if they’re supporting it. And I’d rather they didn’t.

    re: free press – meh, I’ll just persuade some turkish guys to hack ‘Stuff’ and put it on the front page 🙂

    Maybe we could brand it with cocacola. “Coke – The drink of people who aren’t filthy police state proponents”.
57. T-rex 57

    11 July 2008 at 11:26 am

    p.s. – Don’t worry, people have been telling me I’m going to burn out for YEARS. It only happens very occasionally, and just means I go drink beer in the sun for a bit 🙂
58. rave 58

    11 July 2008 at 12:10 pm

    T-Bone:
    “Burning a bunch of MPs” means the electorates need to know what their MPs are promising to do to them. There is no sign that Labour Voters out there even know that this Bill will send the IS searching for overstayers. If T-Bone and co could get this thing publicised this would warn people about Dawn Raids 2 and call MPs to account. This may not work, but at least its making Labour MPs think about the rights of those that vote for them.

    John Edmundson:
    Don’t be so pessimistic about Labour supporters challenging their MPs. The recent EU decision to throw out migrants has created a huge stink in Latin America where for 500 years they have taken in Euro white trash. I look forward to the Workers Party rallying the unions in working class electorates against Dawn Raids 2.

    Stever Pierson:
    We need to link all this stuff together. The closing of borders to migrants is a measure to control workers who are starting to rise up against wars and poverty. Its like closing down the punishment wings of the jails to control rioting prisoners.

    Demonising and terrorising migrant workers who are resisting the attacks of big oil and big business has to be resisted. The real terrorists are those who move their capital and armies and political prisoners across borders without barriers.

    That’s why we have to combine demands for living wages, controls on prices of food and fuel with demands for freedom of movement. Otherwise as soon as we stand up to fight for affordable food and fuel, we’ll have some of our best fighters end up in jail, deported or rendered.
59. Ari 59

    11 July 2008 at 12:15 pm

    Well, I’ve sent off my letters pretty much politely saying “I’m not going to support you at all if this thing passes.” I’ll send one off to Dunne in a bit, too.

    What else is worth doing before the weekend?
60. T-rex 60

    11 July 2008 at 12:27 pm

    Ari – Good on you!

    I’ve done likewise (with a slightly broader assurance along the lines of “I’m going to try and make sure no one supports you if this thing passes”). I’m trying to create something that’s slightly easier to digest than the existing summaries (thanks I/S) and will hopefully have it ready to be distributed on monday.

    Before the weekend? Try and become familiar with a few key points, and mention them to people? I can’t imagine many people will support it, it’s simply a matter of their realising it exists.

    Cheers.
61. Steve Pierson 61

    11 July 2008 at 2:05 pm

    rave. yeah in a perfect world we’d be in a post-State, post-capitalist system with multi-level sovereignty – based on a recognition that sovereignty arises from the individual and various elements of it are delegated to communities, to regions, to global level …. but we’re quite a way from that and having a rant about that is not going to help moderate the current discourse.
62. rave 62

    11 July 2008 at 4:25 pm

    Steve the current discourse is couched in terms of individual rights. We have here a few individuals writing blogs and sending letters. The reality is that this Bill is not directed at individuals as such but is part of a concerted attack on workers rights. Bosses’ are not at all worried about their citizenship rights except in an abstract sense like British MP David Davis. All I am asking right now is not to time travel into the perfect future but raise the need to oppose this in the unions and in the electorates. That’s the only way that any changes will happen. What I am suggesting right now is not that we time travel into the perfect future but raise the urgency of opposing this in the unions and in the electorates before it gets passed. That’s the only way that any changes will happen. In this I an an optimist and not a pessimist because I know what workers are capable of when mobilised.
63. George Darroch 63

    11 July 2008 at 4:39 pm

    Rave, you’re absolutely right. What ever happened to workers internationalism?
64. T-rex 64

    12 July 2008 at 11:37 am

    Hi all,

    I need a website/blog/whatever to provide a place for people to register opposition to this terrible bill.

    It needs to be as simple as hell. I can provide a concept.

    All I want is basically a completely black page with “record your details here to indicate your opposition to the immigration bill’s attack on human rights” in the middle. Under that, a box for a name that people can fill in. If under that we could have a huge scrolling list of all names so far that would be awesome, but I’m not greedy – just a counter would be fine.

    At the bottom, how about: “New Zealand is a free country. Let’s keep it that way”

    Can anyone help? I’ll have a shot at it tomorrow if not, but I’ve never done it before, will be a bit of learning. Busy with the publicity material for now.
65. T-rex 65

    12 July 2008 at 12:02 pm

    Ok, for now we are http://www.stopthebill.wordpress.com

    Better ideas and web-design expertise still welcome.
66. rave 66

    12 July 2008 at 12:35 pm

    Well done T-Rex needs some supercharged people to do this. Will help with the blog in any way I can.
    What about campaign logos. Dawn Raids 2 Rendition would get at the attack on NZ citizens rights and provide a lead into all the other attacks.
67. Jennifer 67

    12 July 2008 at 5:38 pm

    You mention Human Rights? Perhaps you should converse with Labour MP Anjem Choudry about Human Rights. Last time I saw that man (for want of a better word) on television he was trying to convince us that stoning to death for adultery was OK, just not in NZ of course. ( His appearance came after the worldwide controversy about the stoning a Saudi woman).

    That is the last time me and many many of my friends will ever vote for Labour. I realise he is only with Labour to capture the muslim vote, but all he did, fortunately, was turn a lot of people off. I see he is still with you – what uneducated selection board chose a neanderthal like that to represent Kiwis who mostly find Sharia law totally abhorrent. Being tolerant to the intolerant gets you in hot water.

    Any party or bill that negates NZ ending up like Britain who cannot get rid of terrorist leeches because of overtolerant western attitudes, whose taxpayers are forced to financially support these dissidents and their abnormally large families who have a high overrepresentation of intellectually/physically handicapped children)gets my tick.

    Having lived (as a married white woman) in two Islamic countries and visited many more I would suggest the Labour party do a bit more homework on issues such as this.

    However, I do find it funny to think of Mr. Choudry having to associate (and Gasp! – maybe even having to shake hands with) so many of those that his ideology hangs, throws from rooftops, pushes walls on top of – can’t think how the poor chap sleeps at night. What a party of hypocrites!

    Even funnier was the time when NZ posted a female to Malaysia as our defence liason representative. (Under a Labour govt. of course)
68. T-rex 68

    12 July 2008 at 6:43 pm

    Great to have you here Jennifer, always welcome lucid and cogent arguments.

    Those damn im’grints and their abnormally large handicapped families… gosh, I just don’t know how we’ve made it this far!

    Basically you think that persecution is a terrible thing… yet you’re damned if you’re going to let anyone being persecuted escape from it. You’re the hypocrite.
69. T-rex 69

    12 July 2008 at 7:28 pm

    Ok!

    I have what is probably, without an ounce of ego, the single best protest movie ever made.

    maybe a few ounces of ego.

    ounces, tons, who’s counting right?

    Anyway, I still need ideas for what to actually put ON the site once people go there.

    If we’ve got a whole lot of horrified people, who want to do something very quick and simple – what do we give them?

    A form email would be ideal – who knows how to do that?

    That, and a big list of people who oppose it. One of those “enter your email address and you’ll be sent a confirmation link” things.

    I’d like to release the movie tomorrow night, which means there needs to be something working by then.
70. T-rex 70

    13 July 2008 at 6:37 pm

    Almost ready to go.

    I’m just creating a petition statement – opinions of the below please?

    —

    We call upon the elected officials of the New Zealand Government to withdraw all support for the Immigration Bill. We feel it grants unchecked power to government, and should not be allowed while it continues to attack basic freedoms, attack natural justice, and violate universal human rights.
71. Robinsod 71

    13 July 2008 at 7:27 pm

    Looks good to me.
72. T-rex 72

    13 July 2008 at 7:32 pm

    Cheers ‘Sod, going with it.
73. T-rex 73

    13 July 2008 at 8:41 pm

    Right, http://www.stopthebill.wordpress.com is now ready to use.

    There is a link to a petition.

    I have a video ready to go, just taking final thoughts to consider.

    I have written some brief summaries of worrying elements of the bill (well – written/shamelessly copied). These can be accessed under the “brief summary” links section on the right of the page.

    If anyone wants to write a summary of another element, please feel free to do so and post it in the comments section on the main page. I’ll make it into another page and place the link. I’m just tired, so i’m stopping for now.

    All the people above who said they thought the Immigration Bill was a terrible idea, please go to the site and sign the petition.

    Standardistas – if you could have a post tomorrow morning directing attention to the site that would be great. Steve – I’ll send you a copy of the video once it’s final.

    Anyone else who wants it, feel free to rip it and send it far and wide. I’m going to start emailing it all directions tomorrow morning, as well as to the various media/human rights groups.

    Cheers.
74. Idiot/Savant 74

    14 July 2008 at 2:59 pm

    Steve: any chance your partner would volunteer for her story and still photo to be used in an ad? Alternatively, if you know anyone else in that situation who might be willing…

Links to post

1. There is no such thing as a “humane” immigration policy « Socialist Democracy: posted on 10 July 2008 at 12:16 pm
2. The Standard Week: July 4 - July 11 at The Standard 2.01: posted on 11 July 2008 at 1:54 pm
3. The Standard 2.01: Growing opposition to Immigration Bill: posted on 14 July 2008 at 12:07 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS