|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 29, 2006 13:30:12 GMT 12
I heard some incredible information this morning on National Radio regarding this country's sedition laws. They apply to much that has been said here on the forum in the past regarding the Government and PM and their decisions we have not agreed with in the past. I'd like you to take 15 minutes to please listen to the recording of the piece from the radio. Go here www.radionz.co.nz/nr/programmes/ninetonoonand on the page listed at 11.30 'Law' click and listen. I'm sure many of you will find it of interest and it may stop some of us getting ourselves into legal trouble when we write stuff here in future. |
|
|
|
Post by stu on Nov 29, 2006 14:16:15 GMT 12
With thanks to the NZ Herald - October 17 2006 ......
IT'S AGAINST THE LAW...
IN NEW ZEALAND
* To bring into hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection, against Her Majesty, or the Government of New Zealand or the administration of justice.
* To incite the public or any persons or any class of persons to attempt to procure otherwise than by lawful means the alteration of any matter affecting the constitution, laws or government of New Zealand.
* To incite, procure or encourage violence, lawlessness or disorder.
* To incite, procure or encourage the commission of any offence that is prejudicial to the public safety or to the maintenance of public order.
* To excite such hostility or ill will between different classes of persons as may endanger the public safety.
- Crimes Act 1961, section 81
IN AUSTRALIA
* To urge another to overthrow, by force or violence, the constitution or government of the Commonwealth, a state or territory or lawful authority of the Government.
* To urge another to interfere by force or violence with the lawful process of parliamentary elections.
* To urge a group or groups to use force or violence against another group or groups.
* To urge a person to engage in conduct where the offender intends to assist an organisation or country at war with the Commonwealth.
* To urge a person to engage in armed hostilities against the Australian Defence Force.
- Anti-Terrorism Act (No.2) 2005, section 80.
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Nov 29, 2006 14:32:07 GMT 12
So does this mean that it's okay to slag off John Howard, but not Helen Clark?
What about protesting against the arrival of the Skyhawks in NZ in 1970: wasn't that sedition?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 29, 2006 14:39:28 GMT 12
"What about protesting against the arrival of the Skyhawks in NZ in 1970: wasn't that sedition?"
It seems so, especially those who through stones at them. Along with many other things that Labour has done lately according to that legal expert on the radio link. Bloody amazing how they charge a chap with the law and are doing it themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by stu on Nov 29, 2006 14:45:17 GMT 12
"What about protesting against the arrival of the Skyhawks in NZ in 1970: wasn't that sedition?" It seems so, especially those who through stones at them. Along with many other things that Labour has done lately according to that legal expert on the radio link. Bloody amazing how they charge a chap with the law and are doing it themselves. thinking aloud .... pledge cards and retrospective law changes to suit ..... |
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Nov 29, 2006 14:50:39 GMT 12
The thing that annoys me is that a lot of people have died in wars to stamp out this kind of erosion of free speech. I think it's time for a serious review of these laws which sit quietly in the background, and only get wheeled out when it suits the government in power at the time. Anyway, maybe I should be concerned about visiting NZ again next year?   |
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Nov 29, 2006 15:10:45 GMT 12
I heard the talk also.
As a generalization, I understand it, to promote a change by democratic non-violent means is perfectly legal. For example, if say ACT came out and said that they would restore the strike wing if elected to power, there would be no problem if all of us here went out into the world and promoted the idea that people should vote ACT at the next election.
Conversley, if we encouraged people to storm parliament and put it to the torch, then we would have a potential problem.
Shipley had a problem with blocking protesters when the Chinese premier visited. People were perfectly entitled to picket the visit, and when she tried to block it (at the Chinese request) all she could do was get a police van parked in the line-of-sight so that neither party could see each other.
Would't worry too much Corsair67, they're too busy looking for Arab overstayers right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 29, 2006 15:50:14 GMT 12
Yes, I view it that way too Peter.
But I think in future we'll not encourage threads like one a few weeks ago advocating a Skyhawk drop bombs on the PM's house, as it could get us into mirky waters, even if in jest.
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Nov 29, 2006 19:10:14 GMT 12
oops
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 29, 2006 19:14:06 GMT 12
;D You can still think it Beagle, but be careful how you say it.   |
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Nov 29, 2006 21:09:47 GMT 12
Something like 'delivering an explosive point of view' might be better?
|
|
