The Roll of Shame.

Written By: - Date published: 8:00 am, December 10th, 2014 - 41 comments
Categories: Abuse of power, Environment, human rights, poverty, Spying, uncategorized, workers' rights - Tags:

http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/sc/make-submission/51SCFDT_SCF_00DBHOH_BILL60721_1/countering-terrorist-fighters-legislation-bill

Another day of shame for the New Zealand Government. as they march us in lockstep…….

Towards the sort of police State we used to fight.

http://kjt-kt.blogspot.co.nz/2013/06/new-zealand-joins-roll-of-shame.html
“With recent legislation New Zealand’s Government continues it’s shameful attacks on human rights.
Bill allowing detention without trial, of refugees.
Joins the roll of shame, of countries which allow detention without trial.
We were already on the roll of countries that convict on secret evidence the accused is not allowed to see”.

The roll of countries without workers right to withdraw their labour.

The roll of countries where spies can watch you in your home.

The roll of countries where you can be prevented from travelling at a politicians whim.

The roll of countries where legitimate dissent, and statistics and facts which embarrass the Government are buried.

Where advocates for the environment, workers, ordinary people, the poor, the dispossessed, are silenced.

41 comments on “The Roll of Shame. ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Tracey 1
    10 December 2014 at 12:34 pm

    I heard Little this morning. He talked about the passport law and strong oversight. All provided by the Bill, he says.

    So why not just do that first… Wait to see if the gcsb and SIS can be trusted and do the “no warrant” thing later.

    Am disappointed but not surprised

  2. shorts 2
    10 December 2014 at 12:45 pm

    sad to see labour’s support for this legislation

    way to keep the grassroots distant or lose them to actual progressive parties

    • Puckish Rogue 2.1
      10 December 2014 at 12:48 pm

      Look on the bright side Littles taking Labour back to the center which means he’ll (sadly) possibly win the next election

      • McFlock 2.1.1
        10 December 2014 at 1:35 pm

        Who cares what you think?

        • Puckish Rogue 2.1.1.1
          10 December 2014 at 2:48 pm

          Would have though someone on the right thinking theres a decent chance of Little winning the next election is a good thing

          • McFlock 2.1.1.1.1
            10 December 2014 at 3:07 pm

            Even if one could be sure that that was their honest opinion offered in good faith, the nametag of the party that wins is irrelevant. It’s the policies that count.

      • BassGuy 2.1.2
        10 December 2014 at 2:41 pm

        It wasn’t too many years ago that the Right claimed to stand against those who would readily engage in warrantless searches and surveillance, who might detain someone who they deem to be a threat to the state.

        Above, at 2.1, we see an example of the modern Right supporting precisely the sort of thing they used to say was typical of the Communist dictatorships of the East.

      • minarch 2.1.3
        10 December 2014 at 3:26 pm

        stop blowing smoke, puck, nobody cares…

    • Tracey 2.2
      10 December 2014 at 1:43 pm

      Which is why the Green Party remains important. More important than ever.

  3. ghostwhowalksnz 3
    10 December 2014 at 2:32 pm

    Detention without trial of refugees ?

    Since when. You do know that prisons have a lot of people who havent been given bail before trial !

  4. Tom Jackson 4
    10 December 2014 at 3:17 pm

    This is what democracy looks like these days. Do not even dream that your fellow citizens care one whit about preserving your civil and political rights.

  5. CATMAN 5
    10 December 2014 at 3:53 pm

    Don’t be too hard on Labour over this

    Key was going to pass it with or without Labour, and at least with Labour there have been some improvements to the bill which wouldn’t have been possible without Labour’s support

    It’s a case of bad vs worse, and we got bad

    • minarch 5.1
      10 December 2014 at 4:33 pm

      like when they took the Pork board of the search and surveilance bill ?

      particularly onerous clauses are always added to this kind of legislation so it can be taken out later to “prove” there was a consensus

      its an OOOLLLLDDD trick

      • lprent 5.1.1
        10 December 2014 at 5:28 pm

        I agree with that as well. It may be an old trick. However it is an old trick because it is effective.

        The point was that do *you* think that national would have hesitated to put the original bill into legislation?

        • The Chairman 5.1.1.1
          10 December 2014 at 8:30 pm

          Yes, to appease and win the support of their coalition partners, effectively window dressing it to help win over the media and public.

          Pushing it through as it was and on their own would have look extremely arrogant, thus resulted in a PR mess.

    • lprent 5.2
      10 December 2014 at 4:50 pm

      My view as well.

      Just outright opposing it was rather pointless unless all of the governments client parties (Act, United Future, or the Maori) could be detached.

      Since that wasn’t going to happen, the best that Labour could do was to water down a deliberately draconian bill to something that was a lot more limited and less intrusive for everyone.

      • minarch 5.2.1
        10 December 2014 at 5:05 pm

        “Just outright opposing it was rather pointless unless all of the governments VASSAL parties (Act, United Future, or the Maori) could be detached.”

        FIFY !

      • batweka 5.2.2
        10 December 2014 at 6:13 pm

        The problem for Labour is how they’re going to deal with the various bits of spy legislation once in power. Are they still going to repeal the GCSB law?

        The other problem is that they appear to believe that there is a real issue here that needs such legislation. So it’s unlikely they will repeal the one this week. Which means they’re being pretty conservative politically*. Not a good sign.

        *or they will repeal it, but the will have to take back what they’ve said this week.

        • RedLogix 5.2.2.1
          10 December 2014 at 6:42 pm

          Well I’d suggest Little positioned himself reasonably well given that Key held all the cards here. By voting for it he’s gotten the zombie bits taken out, but has made it clear enough that Labour really only voted for it under duress.

          Which paves the way for a future Labour govt. to change it. Way too soon to be making commitments at this stage.

          • batweka 5.2.2.1.1
            10 December 2014 at 6:51 pm

            ok, that’s good, I’d missed that. The small bits I saw Labour came across as being supportive of the basic idea.

          • Anne 5.2.2.1.2
            10 December 2014 at 7:50 pm

            Labour announced before the election there would be a full and independent review of the security agencies as soon as they are back in power. As far as I know that still stands.

    • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 5.3
      10 December 2014 at 6:54 pm

      at least with Labour there have been some improvements to the bill which wouldn’t have been possible without Labour’s support

      Improvements? That is good to hear. What improvements were they?

      • CATMAN 5.3.1
        10 December 2014 at 8:01 pm

        The most significant is to limit the new powers to terrorism-related spying only

        • lprent 5.3.1.1
          10 December 2014 at 8:48 pm

          Yes. I wasn’t looking forward to being a legal spying target of the SIS under the direction of this rather corrupt government.

          I get the impression that many haven’t read the original bill..

  6. SaveNZ 6
    10 December 2014 at 5:03 pm

    The problem is that Labour needs to grow a spine, and really ‘cut the crap’. Yep that statement was the best move from Labour for a long time. Unfortunately many are pretty disappointed because 24 hours of surveillance is the same to most as 48 hours – it is the intrusion of basic human rights and transparency that it the issue for many – not the time frame. It’s like saying we support anal feeding for 24 hours cos we thought that was better than anal feeding for 48 hours. UMMM still torture! Get some ethics and spine Labour! Don’t just hang around with your ardent supporters those guys are not telling you how it is, look at your election results. There is no spin here, John Key got you again with a lovely chat and a cheap apology from SIS. MSM are all talking about Labour supporting the bill not National. Guess what the public will remember and what about your liberal supporters? Not happy!

    • Murray Rawshark 6.1
      10 December 2014 at 8:36 pm

      +1
      Labour supports squirrel law on day CIA torture report becomes public. Great way to make a stand.

  7. Ross 7
    10 December 2014 at 6:08 pm

    To hell with this politicking. What SaveNZ saysis absolutely right. We need a Labour Party that cut’s the crap. The legislation was going to pass anyway. The concessions won by supporting it aren’t worth having. Labour could have positioned themselves clearly and forthrightly by SCREAMING their opposition to it, from every quarter in every way calling on every scrap of support it could muster.

  8. RedBaronCV 8
    10 December 2014 at 9:38 pm

    And the labour party could have tried for something in return. Small parliamentary committee of PM, leader of the opposition and one other to oversee the security services in the bill. Enjoy key saying “no” to that. Nothing to fear nothing to hide John

  9. Sable 9
    11 December 2014 at 9:49 am

    This is really the same rise in Fascism that happened in the 1920’s and there’s every probability it will follow a similar course and eventually end the same way…