Maybe hang the odd Green Party sign on their fence.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Anonymous or non-party affiliated persons write whatever they damn well please without a shred of evidence or a passing nod at truth, and they aren’t able to be held accountable. Their money protects them from normal retribution, their position of power is bought and paid for, and there’s a lawyer on retainer and a security guard at the gate.

If this doesn’t bother you, it should. If we can’t haul them into a courtroom and have them punished meaningfully (IMHO damages that bankrupt them would be appropriate) then we’ve already lost. These aren’t politicians. They’re wealthy folks investing money in the pursuit of more wealth through shifting the tax burden…. looting the future through insane borrowing.

NZ taxes aren’t too high, they aren’t balanced properly but the overall tax take is not excessive. I wish Labour had listened when I wrote to them about the problem… but it is still not too late. As in today is not too late. It is however, going to be too late very soon.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Libel is libel, even in politics.

Of course, suing someone is very expensive. A court battle can end up a matter of both sides burning money in legal fees until either the poorer quits or justice is done. If you’re taking on well-funded business interests the Greens would certainly need to consider if the expense is likely to be worth it.

Hmm. But if they’re telling blatant lies then a swift injuction ordering a public apology may be possible. Depends on the precise details of what’s happened.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Aren’t there “Truth in Advertising” restrictions?

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Frankly, couldn’t give the proverbial tinker’s fart. If the gentleman concerned is found to have broken election laws, I hope he has the book thrown at him along with anything else that comes to hand. I also hope Jeanette gets back to some real campaigning rather this nonsense.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

You’ll be pleased to hear that Don Brash has denied all knowledge of who produced this silly pamphlet, so obviously all you Nats are in the clear.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

What this may mean is that the electoral law will have to be tightened up yet again to prevent this sort of thing from happening next election.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

From http://www.elections.org.nz/elections/e5_party_campaigning.html

QUOTE
Authorising of Advertising

All advertising requires written authorisation. Advertising promoting the party vote must be authorised by the secretary of the party. Advertising promoting a candidate must be authorised by that candidate. Advertising promoting both must be authorised by both the secretary and the candidate.

In addition, the advertisement itself must state the name and address (business or residential) of the person for whom or at whose direction the advertisement is published. A Post Office box or website address is insufficient.
END QUOTE

Now I’m no expert in electoral law, but I think running campaign material through a proxy sounds pretty falls short of the intent, if not the letter, of the law.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

If one was being extremely cynical, one could imagine the Greens generating a bit of negative publicity just to get some media time to stop them too sinking under the 5% threshold. The way things are shaping up for all the minor parties – any attention is good attention…

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

So what isn’t allowed by the Electoral Act? And what restitution is available?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

It is quite unnecessary to misrepresent National. Brash has cr**d on Kyoto, licked Bush’s boots (figuratively) and offered the same old tax cuts for the wealthy… The fact that he’s unable to represent his own policies consistently himself is the only reason you could possibly regard what I just said as “fraudulent”. I dunno about history. It isn’t needed in this case. We are looking at fraud being perpetrated now…

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I’m sure this isn’t your intention, but I’d be very careful about implying that the authorisation on any campaign material is fradulent. That is, as far as I’m aware, a breech of the Electoral Act.

Nezumi:
IMO, the Greens have a lengthy record of not only distorting and misrepresenting National policy, but conducting an outrageous personal smear campaign against Don Brash. Of course, I’m sure the Green Party would strenuously deny doing any such thing. Smears are so often in the eye of the beholder…

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

It was here http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411749/608606 before the news at 6.00pm.

Alan

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“Second, you’d give Brash a well-deserved ballocking if he put out a PR with these words: “Given the Greens’ history of smearing National, a reticence on Ms. Fitzsimmon’s behalf would probably have to be interpreted as an admission of guilt.â€?

That is because the Greens do not have a history of smearing National. National on the other hand do have a history of smearing the Greens.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

FWIW the first I knew of this pamphlet is reading about it here.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Surely that should lead to who’s responsible?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

And as you know perfectly well, it is standard procedure in Parliament to attempt to gain a clear “statement of position” (in this case a denial of involvment) from an opponent, in order that they can be subsequently held to account on it when, or if, the true facts later emerge.

In these situations silence is normally read as an admission.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

First, if I did believe the Greens were behind a covert “smear campaign” I wouldn’t consider any denial worth the recycled paper it was printed on.

Second, you’d give Brash a well-deserved ballocking if he put out a PR with these words: “Given the Greens’ history of smearing National, a reticence on Ms. Fitzsimmon’s behalf would probably have to be interpreted as an admission of guilt.”

Look, I’m saying this is great spin, but Jeanette should dump the tortitious weasel words and actually come up with some evidence. This is the kind of rubbish I expect from Winston or Trevor Mallard after a quadruple espresso; somehow, I expect a little better from Jeanette, especially if she’s trying to occupy the high moral ground on so-called ’smears’.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)