Last chance! Campaign ends at midnight! Get your copy of the CIA's declassified training game by 
RSS
New Zealand Uses Earthquake As An Excuse To Sneak 3 Strikes Law Through
from the well-isn't-that-nice dept
You may recall that a few years back, New Zealand politicians tried to sneak through a "three strikes" proposal to kick people offline based on accusations (not convictions) of file sharing. When lots of New Zealanders complained, the Copyright Minister first got angry that anyone wouldn't accept this, but eventually the government was forced to back down. Of course, that was only temporary, as last year the plan came back, with a sneaky provision that said they'd only really implement it if file sharing didn't decrease. The argument was that you couldn't say the law was about kicking people off the internet, because it wouldn't start doing that for a few years.
Of course, that proposal hadn't been touched since last December... and yet suddenly it's being pushed through quickly, to the surprise of many New Zealand politicians who had no idea it was even on the docket. Even more nefarious? Supporters are trying to attach it to an emergency bill related to earthquake recovery efforts in the wake of the Christchurch earthquake. Of course, no politician wants to be seen holding up an earthquake recovery bill. This is the ultimate in underhanded moves by politicians, at the behest of the entertainment industry, to ram through broken policies by attaching it to a separate bill. Update: Good explanation in the comments showing that this bill wasn't "attached" to the earthquake bill, but rather just put through the same process in parallel.
Of course, that proposal hadn't been touched since last December... and yet suddenly it's being pushed through quickly, to the surprise of many New Zealand politicians who had no idea it was even on the docket. Even more nefarious? Supporters are trying to attach it to an emergency bill related to earthquake recovery efforts in the wake of the Christchurch earthquake. Of course, no politician wants to be seen holding up an earthquake recovery bill. This is the ultimate in underhanded moves by politicians, at the behest of the entertainment industry, to ram through broken policies by attaching it to a separate bill. Update: Good explanation in the comments showing that this bill wasn't "attached" to the earthquake bill, but rather just put through the same process in parallel.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Being a politician as it was supposed to be was supposed to be about:
1. Helping to protect and guide society.
2. Serving society.
It was only in the past 50 years that being a politician (actually more a conservative politician) has morphed into being a liar.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
What is with you and your cruel, heartless, uninformed blog posts? Are you really going to be in favor of holding up a bill that would bring millions of dollars in aid to those suffering from broken lives and those suffering from broken business models? All we want is for everyone's lives to go back to the status quo; just because the earthquake was a literal disruption does not mean we need further figurative business disruption.
Thank you for your inanity.
Sincerely, the RIAA, New Zealand branch.
(That was supposed to be sarcastic.)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
How?...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How?...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How?...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How?...
Of course, I doubt the politicians siding with **AAs would care that they were against the helpful bill.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How?...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I still don't understand why they don't go after the source
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I still don't understand why they don't go after the source
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But seriously. Have you looked around. People. All over the world. They are entitled, whiny little bitches that can't think past the last commercial they saw.
Truth be told the only two things I can think of that would make things worse than they are now is
A) Total anarchy,
and
B) Total democracy.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I can see total democracy being good in some ways, bad in others. Lobbying would certainly decrease.
The major problem I see would be that 'The Many' have wants that are ultimately self-destructive. In a dramatic oversimplification, most would vote to increase taxes on the rich, while decreasing their own, and impossibly increasing services. Causing the rich to hire less, inflation to rise... I'm sure most can see where I'm rolling this snowball. I think there would be 2 directions we would go - economically 3rd world, isolationist or militant resource plundering empire builder.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
At least then there'd be a good chance of creating something new and worthwhile on top of it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: License
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
not exactly something that id be all that excited to see.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
No proof
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No proof
What I mean is that under the law an unchallenged accusation is a presumption of guilt. It's unclear to me whether a challenged accusation would be something less than a presumption of guilt or not. Its just a badly thought out law.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No proof
Doubtful ... there will be a list of those exempt from these provisions. this list will include the content pushers, uber rich and politcos
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
It wasn't attached to other legislation.
When parliament went into urgency yesterday the Section 92A legislation was put on the docket as a seperate piece of legislation. The only connection it had with the shit earthquake legislation is that they were both put through under urgency.
Otherwise they were entirely seperate pieces of legislation. For example the S92A bill could have not passed while the Earthquake bill did.
And to understand exactly what parliament sitting under urgency is the NZ Parliament site has a page describing it. http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/Features/8/f/a/00NZPHomeNews170220091-What-is-urgency.htm
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It wasn't attached to other legislation.
From your link: "A Minister may move an urgency motion for specified business, particularly bills. The motion can be moved without advance notice, and is not debated by the House, although the Minister must inform the House why the Government wishes to take urgency."
I would really like to know what the Minister said when informing the House why the Government wished to take urgency on this 3 strikes bill.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It wasn't attached to other legislation.
well, at least, i did until i stopped and thought about it and realised it was probably both depressing and stupid. now i don't.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It wasn't attached to other legislation.
relate to one subject area only.", available here http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/81D0893A-FFF2-47A3-9311-6358590BEB3D/100828/standingorders2008 _5.pdf (PDF 841kb)).
The issue here is that the Bill was put through under urgency, when there's no apparent need for that to happen (there's an election due later this year, but plenty of time before then to pass this legislation following due process).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It wasn't attached to other legislation.
No surprise of course, but still a slimeball move that perfectly demonstrates his agenda.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It wasn't attached to other legislation.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
The TD headline is FUD and a fabrication.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment