And OTOH, statement from the HRC here. Still pretty happy, but also unhappy with the regulated period, and utterly unconcerned with the normal Parliamentary process.
The HRC's view, according to the report:
We acknowledge the assistance of the Human Rights Commission.
After hearings of evidence on this bill we requested that the Human
Rights Commission consider our proceedings, speak with our advisers,
and comment on our recommended amendments. We note that
the Commission strongly supported a number of recommended
changes relating to third party involvement and increased expenditure
limits. The Commission stated that it believed the changes
enhanced freedom of expression and upheld the right to participate
in electoral processes.
Sounds like in the end they were pretty happy with it as well.
I am very happy with National's new stance opposing anonymous donations, maybe they could do a deal with like minded parties to force an amendment through to that affect.
Seconded. C'mon, give us your SOP!
(Though actually, if we want it to pass, the person we really need to pressure is Winston).
Meanwhile, the protest organiser reportedly spent $50,000 to get 2,000 people. And the right calls people a "rent-a-mob"?
Wow, I stand corrected. What is it with Prime actually screening stuff? First Dr Who, and now this?
(Of course, I've already seen it thanks to aforementioned friends in America, but the gesture is nice).
So, how long till Family First tries yet again to get the leave of the Solicitor-General to bring a private prosecution for Blasphemous Libel? And isn't it time that law went?
Are the Dresden Files coming to NZ?
Only from "friends in America". And if it really does end up screening here, they'll bury it in some time slot no-one watches, just like they do with anything else good (The Wire, Veronica Mars...)
I'm probably on the flaming fringes now in my belief that New Zealand - and every other nation with any pretensions towards regard for civil and political human rights, regard for the environment, or international labour standards -- should be boycotting the Beijing Olympics.
I'll happily be on the fringes with you on that.
Maybe we should print some T-shirts?
And from Tim Selwyn (who was a dick, but didn't deserve to go to jail for sedition), we have this lovely bit: they're all roleplayers
Having read the leaked allegations I find them to be indicative of nothing more than role-playing. Role-playing by grown men with firearms - rather than by man-children in homemade knight's armour. Role-playing by angry men embittered by a regime that has harassed them - rather than by frustrated geeks who can't get dates. Role-playing by a group of eclectic opinionated, radical, loners who lust for the company of similar minds to fuel their fantasies - rather than... well, yes... role-players.
Ignoring the nasty streak of bigotry there, I can only say that these aren't the sort of role-playing games I or my many gamer friends play.
And the firearms charges are simply charges of failure to comply with bureaucracy
No they're not - that would be possession without a license. The accused are being prosecuted for "possession for an unlawful purpose", which may see them jailed even if the weapons were legally owned, on the basis of what the police believe they might do with them.
Note, might do. Because what they were doing - target practice - would normally be considered entirely legal. This is a crime of context, in which interpretations of purpose are highly relevant - and this is why the police leaking of inadmissible evidence is so damaging to their chances of a fair trial.
(I should add that this is the same law the police tried to get Iti on a couple of years back over the flag-shooting incident).