Posts by nzlemming
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: TPP: Error Correction, in reply to Brent Jackson,
That's a good place to start. Robyn, it's a multi-national treaty that started life as a much smaller trade agreement between 4 nations - NZ, Brunei, Chile and Singapore. As hopes for ACTA started to fade because of European intransigence, the US decided to join in and try and do the same sort of thing on a somewhat wider range of issues but without that pesky European Parliament. With a large group of states (now up to 12), who are not joined the way European states are, the US may have decided they had a better chance of strong-arming individual nations to accept their rules. Since 2010, the US Trade Representative (a global Ambassador, part of Obama's Cabinet) has been driving these 'negotiations' just as he did for ACTA, and under the same all-encompassing secrecy. We have had a few leaks, but they have managed it much more tightly than ACTA was, which leaked like a sieve.
What little we actually know is not encouraging. It appears that the treaty is less about trade than it is about forcing member nations to accept and adopt the IP regulations of the US and remove bureaucratic red tape that might require corporations to comply with silly things like environmental standards and human rights legislation. It's a bold push by the corporations of the US to take control of the global economy de jure as well as de facto.
Where the secrecy is particularly concerning is here in NZ, because, as Bill Hodge implies above, Parliamentary ratification is a rubber stamp if Cabinet decides we are signing it. Which they will, given comments by Key, Joyce and Groser.
-
A slight correction to point 2 - corporations can sue in court, under the laws of a country, which is actually what the tobacco industry is doing in Australia at present. What the TPP would allow them to do is seek judgements against governments from a private tribunal, made up of lawyers from corporations, with no appeal process, which is what Chevron has done in Ecuador, to set aside an Ecuadorian judicial ruling, and what Infinito Gold is doing in Costa Rica. Smellie doesn't even mention this extra-judiciality.
-
It seems to me that Craig is talking about the place of the Key Government (or more correctly, the National Party as a whole) on the spectrum of global left/right, in which case centrist is dead right. This is because left and right around the world (with a few exceptions like Cuba) got enraptured by the promise of Chicago school economics and “trickle down” (a.k.a. being pissed on from a great height) and all embraced market economics.
Within a NZ only perspective, this is one of the more right wing governments we’ve had since the first Labour government came to office, and the most corrupt and disregarding of the rule of law, but globally speaking, they are pretty wimpy. This is not to say that the National Party is either centrist or wimpy, but there we get into territory that I dare not approach. ;-)
Having been a public servant through the Bolger/Shipley/Richardson gummints, this one is much worse, in my opinion. At least Bill Birch had some idea – Bill English has none.
-
Can I just point out that the term is preventive detention, not preventative, despite what you will hear on the radio or tv?
-
Hard News: Cranks, self-seekers and the mayor, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
If you have information that leads you to believe Penny Bright represents some sort of threat to the mayor, you should make it public
My personal belief is that Penny Bright represents some sort of threat to the public; maybe I should tell the mayor...
-
Hard News: Crashing the party before it starts, in reply to Richard Aston,
I can’t find a website or facebook page for the NZ Internet party.
Seems a pretty basic thing to have for an party focused on the net or am I missing something?Given that Slater scooped them before they were ready, not hugely surprising.
-
Hard News: Crashing the party before it starts, in reply to Richard Aston,
Um … quick trivia: which McGillicuddy Serious Party candidate is now an MP and party leader of a NZ political party?
Would that be Metiria Ture ?
Turei, and yes, she did stand for the McGillicudies in 1993, when she was 23, and the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party in 1996, and joined the Greens in 2002.
A number of other McGillicuddy candidates have also moved on to local politics as well.
-
Hard News: Making it up on smacking, in reply to Steve Parks,
So you’re making the basically the point I was getting at, but was too lazy to expand upon.
I kinda figured that after I posted ;-)
-
Hard News: Cranks, self-seekers and the mayor, in reply to ,
I need to get out more and read the herald.
You really don't. Well, get out more, maybe...
-
Hard News: Making it up on smacking, in reply to Steve Parks,
I could be wrong, but I don’t think people get PD just because it is considered that they might commit a crime upon release.
Actually, I think that’s exactly why they get it, to prevent them from committing further crimes. Not given lightly, but there are some who just continue to offend and are deemed a risk to public safety.
From Wikipedia (as an overview)
In New Zealand, “preventive detention” is an indeterminate life sentence, and is handed down to individuals convicted of violent and/or sexual crimes (such as sociopathic murderers, serial rapists or recidivist pedophiles) where it is likely that the offender will reoffend if released. Such individuals will only receive parole if they can demonstrate they no longer pose a threat to the community. In October 2010, a total of 269 prisoners in New Zealand were serving terms of preventive detention.
Preventive detention has a minimum non-parole period of five years in prison, but the sentencing judge can extend this if they believe that the prisoner’s history warrants it. Prisoners on preventive detention are very rarely, if ever, released, and generally persons given the sentence are kept in prison for life. Currently only 16 of the 269 persons serving sentences of preventive detention are on parole.
More importantly, from a legal perspective, Section 87 of the Sentencing Act 2002
Preventive detention
87Sentence of preventive detention
(1)The purpose of preventive detention is to protect the community from those who pose a significant and ongoing risk to the safety of its members.
(2)This section applies if—
(a)a person is convicted of a qualifying sexual or violent offence (as that term is defined in subsection (5)); and
(b)the person was 18 years of age or over at the time of committing the offence; and
(c)the court is satisfied that the person is likely to commit another qualifying sexual or violent offence if the person is released at the sentence expiry date (as specified in subpart 3 of Part 1 of the Parole Act 2002) of any sentence, other than a sentence under this section, that the court is able to impose.
(3)The High Court may, on the application of the prosecutor or on its own motion, impose a sentence of preventive detention on the offender.
(4)When considering whether to impose a sentence of preventive detention, the court must take into account—
(a)any pattern of serious offending disclosed by the offender’s history; and
(b)the seriousness of the harm to the community caused by the offending; and
(c)information indicating a tendency to commit serious offences in future; and
(d)the absence of, or failure of, efforts by the offender to address the cause or causes of the offending; and
(e)the principle that a lengthy determinate sentence is preferable if this provides adequate protection for society.
(5)In this section and in sections 88 and 90, qualifying sexual or violent offence means—
(a)a sexual crime under Part 7 of the Crimes Act 1961 punishable by 7 or more years’ imprisonment; and includes a crime under section 144A or section 144C of that Act; or
(b)an offence against any of sections 171, 173 to 176, 188, 189(1), 191, 198 to 199, 208 to 210, 234, 235, or 236 of the Crimes Act 1961.So, yes, not given because they might commit a crime, but given because they are not repentant and are likely to continue committing the same type of crime and pose a danger to public safety.