Posts by izogi
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Envirologue: 1080, "eco-terrorism" and agendas, in reply to Sacha,
I've been searching the law as best as I can, and I can't find a requirement for a terrorism threat. I'll happily submit to someone who's actually qualified to interpret law.
As I can see, in the Search and Surveillance Act, all of Part 4 seems to be about search warrants.
Within that, section 131 requires that Police notify the occupier.
BUT, section 134 then states that with an application a judge can postpone the notification period for up to 12 months if they're satistisfied there are reasonable grounds for believing notification would indanger any person's safety, or prejudice ongoing investigations.
Section 135 then states that new applications can be made if the period needs to be extended further, but it can only be done once and for up to another 12 months.
Have these provisions from sections 134 and 135 always been there, or were they introduced with terrorism changes, despite not requiring anything resembling terrorism?
It brings to mind a few questions about how it's used. eg:
* How frequently do police and judges use this in day-to-day operations?
* What reasoning was used to justify that their knowledge of this search might put people in danger or prejudice the investigation?
* Do police always apply for 12 months and judges always sign it off, or was this exceptionally long?
* Why did Police wait the entire 12 months to tell them, when there was presumably zero risk after it became clear that they weren't involved?In various 1080 facebook forums, the suppositions I've seen are that it has something to do with the letters this couple sent to Fonterra earlier, added to police apparently thinking the threat came from someone with English as a second language (and based on that, the language history of the guy in court could also be interesting). Last year the couple had already noted they'd written strongly worded letters expressing concern that 1080 drops near dairy farms might result in contamination of milk products including baby formula. To me it seems a big extrapolation to assume that someone who'd write a letter saying that (if that's really all it said) would actively threaten babies, or anyone. I'd hope Police had more to go on to justify not simply asking them stuff, or at least notifying them of the search when it happened.
-
Envirologue: 1080, "eco-terrorism" and agendas, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
So just like politics then…
Yes and no. I don’t think there’s so much in the way of high level personal agendas and ulterior motives as often seems to happen in politics.
The 1080 argument is largely a fight directly about stuff people strongly believe, and as Rosemary said it’s hard to be involved at all without picking a side. Generally on one side are people who strongly believe its use by government agencies is wiping out our native fauna and poisoning our water supplies. Generally on the other are people who strongly believe it doesn’t do either of these things in any significant way, and that without its immediate and widespread application for the combined control of possums, stoats and rats, we’re signing the extinction warrant for blankets of our native flora and fauna in the wild by the not-very-distant future.
I think the combination of strong conviction of being right, combined with signficance of the consequences, is enough to explain why a few people probably take an ends-justifies-means approach towards making points and justifying claims, hence my earlier comment about that happening. But, I also can’t see how anyone taking any view in this could rationally conclude that threatening babies with 1080 could possibly further their agenda. It’ll be interesting to eventually find out who and why, if there even is a why that makes any vague sense.
Also, the Police had better have a damn good reason for having needed a secret search warrant, and a judge had better have had an equally good reason for authorising it. Based on other recent happenings, though, I don’t hold my hopes very high. How frequently are secret search warrants used? Is it only available when there’s an alleged terrorism threat?
-
Envirologue: 1080, "eco-terrorism" and agendas, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
The Kleines strike me as the kind of decent New Zealanders who
Yes, probably. Though from what I've seen of the 1080 debate in the last few years, and some of the people involved, I'm reluctant to draw conclusions about people based solely on how they're presented in a media article like this one. The entire argument is a breeding ground for conspiracy theories, group polarisation with confirmation bias, plenty of other fallacies, and occasional subterfuge. People on each side frequently accuse the other of blatantly lying, fabricating evidence, generally making stuff up or ignoring evidence. I know that most involved are decent people, but there are certainly a few involved who are hardly decent in their actions, but can present themselves as such. Who these people are will depend on who you ask.
it’s not just whether Mr and Mrs Kleine have any ongoing concerns about these Police actions, it’s whether we all should…
Exactly. Learning more about the grounds on which the warrant was issued for a secret search would be a good start. Is that very easy to discover?
-
A Golden Bay couple already reeling after a police raid last March were shocked to learn of an earlier secret search of their home.
Rolf and Ute Kleine, who run teahouse and bakery Takaka Infusion, received an email last week from Detective Senior Sergeant Aaron Pascoe that attached a signed copy of a search warrant and a "postponement notice". That notice had enabled police to keep the search secret for 12 months.
"We had no clue," Rolf Kleine said. "I had to read it three times. "I thought 'that can't be'."
A property record sheet attached to the email showed police took hair samples from brushes, four pieces of used dental floss, a sheet of A4 paper with a print test and two plain sheets of A4 paper.
Wet and dry swabs were taken from two toothbrush heads and handles. Police also copied electronic storage items including computers, an iPad, external disk drive and a USB stick.
-
It's not directly on this story but this, from this evening, seems very significant re government departments and charging for OIA requests:
Official Information Act request charges for media in spotlight
The Reserve Bank has invoiced Fairfax for an OIA request, and other departments are expected to follow.
-
Hard News: Bowie, in reply to Russell Brown,
I’m unsure how I’d cope beyond small doses, but I enjoy Matinee Idle. As far as today was concerned, I figured that if I’d wanted to hear major hits again and again then I’d go to Youtube, or any number of other sources. Not being highly invested in the music industry, they introduced me to a side of him I’d never really known. Plus, the injected doco about Bowie’s visit to Takapūwāhia Marae in Porirua (this one?) was fab.
I guess the tone’s not universal, but I don’t think it’s fair to assume most of the criticism they read out is from seriously irritated people, considering part of their long-established format aims to try and encourage listeners to jestfully complain about how dreadful the show is.
I prefer it over Jesse Mulligan’s show, which hasn’t yet captured me.
-
Hard News: Bowie, in reply to Russell Brown,
Philip Matthews noted on Twitter just now that we haven’t had a Bowie tweet from John Key
I’m not sure what I’m supposed to take from such a comment, but at the risk of a political distraction to some otherwise wonderful reminiscing which has caused me to reflect on how Bowie's affected my life in ways I never realised at the time, is there significance in the PM not tweeting about this? His last two tweets were Happy New Year and Merry Christmas.
I haven’t tweeted anything about David Bowie, either.
-
Hard News: Bowie, in reply to Bart Janssen,
ALL of them????
No, just the obscure and less popular stuff. It doesn't seem entirely chronological either.
-
Legal Beagle: New Zealand's most racist law, in reply to B Jones,
the idea of doing this by private member’s bill raises a few questions for me about where the Crown is in all of this and what its responsibility to Maori is in terms of the Treaty
Steven Joyce is now suggesting that this law might be updated without needing to wait for a private member’s bill.
Depending on logistics, of course. DPF must've gotten the polls in.
-
If an MP wants to actually pass a good law from the back benches (or from the opposition), they’re well advised to make it a simple one (or be really really careful!).
What sorts of resources are regular MPs given in order to draft Bills prior to them going into the ballot?
Does the system provide them with expert advice and consultation for drafting what they actually mean? Or are they expected to sit alone in their offices, and draw on their great personal skills of marketing themselves to the public as they scribble new legislation onto a page?