by frog
It would seem however that the Crown Law Office reckon that what they have with the ‘three strikes’ Bill is a ‘failure to communicate’ with New Zealand’s premier human rights legislation.
Worryingly this news doesn’t seem to much worry the crime fightin’ Mr Garrett who would no doubt clap the hapless crown counsel that objected to his kneejerk legislation in leg irons and send them to work on a chain gang.
From the NZ Herald: Mr Garrett, a former legal adviser to the Sensible Sentencing Trust, said the concerns were not Mr Finlayson’s personally but those of “some oik in Crown Law.”
It scares this amphibian that the new sheriff in town – Mr Garrett – reckons any legal opinion different than his own blinkered world view is ‘oikish’.
I guess to Mr Garrett the Bill of Rights is his Billy the Kid. I reckon Sheriff Garrett’s approach to New Zealand’s legal framework is more Judge Dredd(ful) than anything though!
Published in Justice & Democracy | Media by frog on Tue, March 3rd, 2009
Tags: act party, Cool Hand Luke, david garrett, Guantanamo bay, justice, Three strikes law
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Strong words from a former ACT candidate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
well looks like i got beaten to it in another thread. nuts
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Spare us the crocodile tears.
The Bill of Rights didn’t seem so sacred when you were conspiring against the people with your Electoral Finance Act, did it? And your concern for human rights was noticably absent when the RMA was foisted on us.
Of course, the boot was on the other foot then, wasn’t it? It made sense, when you were in power, that the state could pick which rights it would uphold and which, for expediency’s sake, it would oppress.
Happy days, eh?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wat, the EFA didn’t ever get near contravening the BORA.
Have you read either Act?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wat….well said…..Katie……can you lie straight even in bed?
“Greens want criminals free so more people get murdered”
Blunt and offensive Im sure ….but ….isn’t that the obvious conclusion to draw from your twisted reporting of and opposition to this law…?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
wat, the EFA did not constrain freedom of speech. Under it you were free to say whatever you wanted supporting or opposing political parties, put out as many media releases as you wanted supporting or opposing political parties, hold as many public meetings as you wanted supporting or opposing political parties, and do as many media interviews as you wanted supporting or opposing political parties.
What the EFA did restrict was the ability to spend as much in paid advertising as you like supporting or opposing political parties. That was determined by the Attorney General, on advice from the Crown Law office, to not be in breach of the NZBORA. An application by John Boscawen for judicial review of that decision was struck out by the High Court [see Boscawen v Attorney-General (CIV 2007-485-2418 20 June 2008)] on the ground of Parliamentary privilege.
So that is the legal position – the EFA did not breach the NZBORA. wat, you are wrong (and katie is right) – try doing some research before you next come trolling your bigoted views here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Anyone else noticed the similarity in appearance of David Garrett to Enoch Powell?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
toad,
Your hair-splitting does you no credit.
I have an absolute right to publish what the hell I like, even if I have to sell my house to pay for it. No if’s, no but’s. And it is the job of the government to protect that right absolutely.
Yet you – the state – decided that such free speech was not acceptable to you, so you criminalised it.
Under your regime, if I mortgaged my house to run a campaign to warn people not to vote Green because they stifle free speech, you would indeed have me arrested (using anything up to and including lethal force, as is the case with any arrest).
Yet bizarrely, after being so quick to dispense with our basic freedoms that you found so inconvenient when you were in power, you are now piously accusing others of displaying “the kind of thinking that led the United States down the path to Guantanamo Bay,” with a completely straight face.
You must be congratulated on your chutpah, if nothing else.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
wat dabney said: …after being so quick to dispense with our basic freedoms that you found so inconvenient when you were in power…
wat, the Greens have never been “in power” – as in part of a Government wityh a colaition agreement. Between 1999 and 2002 the Greens supported Labour on confidence and supply. Between 2002 and 2005 the Greens opposed Labour on confidence and supply. Between 2005 and 2008 the Greens abstained on confidence and supply. Now the Greens oppose National on confidence and supply.
So, as I said above, please get you facts right before you hit the “post” button.
As for the EFA, the Greens made a principled decision to support it because it moved furtehr in the direction of our policy than it did in the opposite direction. That policy (unlike that of other Parties) is made through a democratic process involving input from any Green member who wants to have input.
Your position on rights does not appear to be consistent. You say “I have an absolute right to publish what the hell I like” but you also appear over here to be supporting Garrett’s Three Strikes Bill even though it has been determined to be inconsistent with the NZBORA prohibition on disproportionately severe punishment.
Either rights are absolute, or they are subject to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society (as s5 of the NZBORA enacts in New Zealand). You can’t have it both ways.
The Attorney General’s NZBORA consistency analysis of the EFA was that the limitation on freedom of expression provided by limits on election advertising expenditure were justified in a free and democratic society. The equivalent analysis of the Three Strikes Bill is that the limitation on freedom from disproportately severe punishment proposed by that Bill cannot be justified in a free and democratic society.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Really toad, the way you are splitting hairs about former Green support for Labour reminds me of nothing so much as George Bush’s dissimulations over his earlier ties to Saddam.
“Your position on rights does not appear to be consistent. You say “I have an absolute right to publish what the hell I like” but you also appear over here to be supporting Garrett’s Three Strikes Bill even though it has been determined to be inconsistent with the NZBORA prohibition on disproportionately severe punishment.”
I have not commented either way on Garrett’s Bill. However, it is not self-evident that a life sentence for serial violent criminals is disproportionate.
In the absence of the state, serial violent attackers would be dealt with by members of the public exercising their legitimate right of self-defence: In other words, the bad guys would be shot dead; an entirely justified and proportionate response. In comparison, a life sentence imposed by the state justice system does not appear overly severe and therefore not obviously “disproportionate.”
- “Either rights are absolute, or they are subject to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society (as s5 of the NZBORA enacts in New Zealand). You can’t have it both ways.”
You are confusing two very different issues: the criminalising of free speech, and the manner in which criminals are dealt with. One is a matter of rights, the other of opinion.
- “The Attorney General’s NZBORA consistency analysis of the EFA was that the limitation on freedom of expression provided by limits on election advertising expenditure were justified in a free and democratic society.”
Huh?
I could understand you quoting the Attorney General if he were expressing his opinion on the interpretation of a certain legal clause, but he’s not doing that. What you have here is some guy who works for the state saying that he thinks it’s a good idea that the state gets to criminalise free speech.
“The equivalent analysis of the Three Strikes Bill is that the limitation on freedom from disproportately severe punishment proposed by that Bill cannot be justified in a free and democratic society.
A non sequitur if ever I saw one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The problem with three strikes and you’re out is that it is seen to be implemented as a judicial tool, whereas removing people from society should be an administrative process, undertaken when an individual has reached a certain threshold of commulative actions against society, and that a thorough review of judicial actions leaves no possibility of there being substantive errors.
Most people think I’m a soft touch on crime but I do believe that once you are (administratively) out then you are out. No appeal process, no visitors. Just out.
And thats what we can use our community prisons for. People who are out. They are worthless as rehabilitation institutes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
David Garrett: …the concerns were not Mr Finlayson’s personally but those of “some oik in Crown Law.
Chris Finlayson refutes that, making it very clear he does not just rubber stamp Crown Law advice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
fascist toad says…”wat, the EFA did not constrain freedom of speech. Under it you were free to say whatever you wanted supporting or opposing political parties, put out as many media releases as you wanted supporting or opposing political parties, hold as many public meetings as you wanted supporting or opposing political parties, and do as many media interviews as you wanted supporting or opposing political parties.”
What the EFA did restrict was the ability to spend as much in paid advertising as you like supporting or opposing political parties.”
Straight contradiction….how can it be free speech if its restricted to a certain dollar amount by the state? “You can have xxxx dollars free speech but spend a dollar more and….” This is speech on condiction….and that ain’t “free” bullyboy.
“So that is the legal position – the EFA did not breach the NZBORA. wat, you are wrong (and katie is right) – try doing some research before you next come trolling your bigoted views here.”
And you try getting some human decency you petty little fascist wart…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
James, aside from the rudeness of your post (I think you are the one who needs to learn something about human decency – I don’t come here and abuse people), I was talking about “free” speech, you are talking about “bought” speech.
Very different thing from where I’m sitting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Name a country that doesn’t have some legal limits on how one can spend money during an election campaign. The vast majority of countries do – does that make them all fascist? If so, toad has lot’s of company at least
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“James, aside from the rudeness of your post (I think you are the one who needs to learn something about human decency – I don’t come here and abuse people), I was talking about “free” speech, you are talking about “bought” speech.”
You are what you are toad……..others may ignore your evil ….I won’t and I’ll call you on it.
Bought speech my arse.If someone has the earned wealth to promote their view thats fine and dandy in a FREE society….no one has to listen to or agree with it….and most seem not to. The Greens seemed very well financed at the last election….and got what they deserved…..people judged the message and voted accordingly.
“Name a country that doesn’t have some legal limits on how one can spend money during an election campaign. The vast majority of countries do – does that make them all fascist? If so, toad has lot’s of company at least
”
Yes it does to a degree.Its been proven that money spent doesn’t equal desired results….people still make up ther own minds and vote accordingly.
Its simple…..if you can afford to promote your view then no one has the right to stop or restrict you….not in a civilized country anyway.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I love this argument that on the one hand that you have the right to spend anything you want on an election and on the other that it makes not a bit of difference to the outcome, even relative to someone who can’t afford to do the same. Its all just about the honest freedom to waste your money. Yeah right.
Of course “money spent doesn’t equal desired results”, its far from an exact science. That’s a far cry from saying its useless. The Greens gained seats against the flow in this election, I’m sure for multiple reasons, one of which is the effectiveness with which they got their message out. Not a single party would choose to go into an election without the ability to purchase in the media channels that get the most exposure. They would all like to spend more. It’s not because they’re idiots who insist on wasting money.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think James is referring to this argument:
Title: ECONOMICS IN A FULL WORLD ,
By: Daly, Herman E., Scientific American, September 2005, Vol. 293, Issue 3
ECONOMICS IN A FULL WORLD
Herman E. Daly The global economy is now so large that society can no longer safely pretend it operates within a limitless ecosystem. Developing an economy that can be sustained within the finite biosphere requires new ways of thinking
Growth is widely thought to be the panacea for all the major economic ills of the modern world. Poverty? Just grow the economy (that is, increase the production of goods and services and spur consumer spending) and watch wealth trickle down. Don’t try to redistribute wealth from rich to poor, because that slows growth. Unemployment? Increase demand for goods and services by lowering interest rates on loans and stimulating investment, which leads to more jobs as well as growth. Overpopulation? Just push economic growth and rely on the resulting demographic transition to reduce birth rates, as it did in the industrial nations during the 20th century. Environmental degradation? Trust in the environmental Kuznets curve, an empirical relation purporting to show that with ongoing growth in gross domestic product (GDP), pollution at first increases but then reaches a maximum and declines.
Relying on growth in this way might be fine if the global economy existed in a void, but it does not. Rather the economy is a subsystem of the finite biosphere that supports it. When the economy’s expansion encroaches too much on its surrounding ecosystem, we will begin to sacrifice natural capital (such as fish, minerals and fossil fuels) that is worth more than the man-made capital (such as roads, factories and appliances) added by the growth. We will then have what I call uneconomic growth, producing “bads” faster than goods–making us poorer, not richer. Once we pass the optimal scale, growth becomes stupid in the short run and impossible to maintain in the long run. Evidence suggests that the U.S. may already have entered the uneconomic growth phase.
http://sef.umd.edu/files/ScientificAmerican_Daly_05.pdf
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
James Says:
“Bought speech my arse.If someone has the earned wealth to promote their view thats fine and dandy in a FREE society….no one has to listen to or agree with it….and most seem not to.”
Not if a powerful body such as the Property Council is able to sway govt policy so that (for example) freeing up migration (“lump of money” catagourie) favors developers and property investors over first home buyers*.
As Bryce Edwards pointed out we don’t know who funds the Greens (or any party).
*hinted at here
http://www.landlords.co.nz/blog/heat-rising-in-housing-policy
http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2007/11/nzs-biggest-ele.html
L ike or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Links to Bryce Edwards go to moderation [who funds the greens]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Your post is just a rant Frog. The Greens are softest when society has gotten soft on crime. That’s why Shawn Tan left?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think appropriate force for punishment is being confused with defensive force.
Given this there is no conflict with the 3 strikes bill and the doctrine of proportionality.
Three Strikes: Proportion and Protection
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Rawiri Taonui “Maori academic”:
“Urban gang violence the world over has its genesis in poverty and alienation by class, religion, creed or ethnicity. Indigenous ethnic violence has particular origins in the intergenerational poverty, alienation and racism derived from colonial land-grabbing, language suppression, subjugation and population dislocation., ”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/507882
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Garrett, a former legal adviser to the Sensible Sentencing Trust, said the concerns were not Mr Finlayson’s personally but those of “some oik in Crown Law.” -> wow wow wow
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)