Justice Minister

Goff's One Strike Policy a winner

Phil Goff has released what appears to be a new Labour “One Strike” Policy for driving fleeing froim Police.

Drivers who try to outrun police should have their vehicle impounded and licence suspended on a first offence, Labour leader Phil Goff says.

So far this year 15 people have died on the roads during police pursuits. Police engage in 2500 pursuits every year and one in four of those ends up in a crash, Mr Goff said.

Mr Goff said a Labour government would tighten the laws on failure to stop. Current proposals involve tougher penalties for repeat offenders.

”But I believe that we need to act more strongly on the very first offence,” he said. ” I say the blame rests fairly and squarely with the drivers who are trying to outrun the police.”

The good news is we won;t need to wait 6 years for a Labour government to implement this, I think it is safe to say that Police Minister Judith Collins will implement this for Phil Goff, she may even go as far as to call it Goff’s Law.

He outlined three options to the Police Association in Wellington this morning.

– toughening up existing provisions in the law such as mandatory licence suspension and impoundment of a vehicle on a first offence

– failure to stop to become a qualifying offence under sections 128 and 129 of the Sentencing act 2002? – which means the offender’s vehicle would be a risk of confiscation

-? a new law that introduces new offences with serious terms of imprisonment as a penalty, similar to one about to be passed in New South Wales

”You can’t afford to wait for two or three offences or for someone to die before you get serious. Drivers who fail to stop…don’t deserve a second chance.”

He told the senior officers they were ”damned if you do, damned if you don’t,” when it came to chases.

Glas to see that Phil Goff has realised that some criminals are beyond redemption, even at first offence. Well done Phil Goff, finally some policy?initiatives?that are reality based.

The onus is now on Judith Collins to push for these to be adopted quickly. No doubt Justice Minister Simon power will oppose them, but he has problems in other areas so can be safely ignored.

Compare and Contrast

Time for a Compare and Contrast.

Judith Collins is perhaps the most popular?Police?Minister ever. My sources in the Police say her support is nigh on 100%. ?Her working relationship with the coppers on the beat and the with the Police Association is at record highs, and her nobbling of PNHQ has met with wide-spread approval.

On almost every issue she has been in step with the thinking of the people in the street as well.

Her latest success is supporting the introduction something that is popular with 60% of New Zealanders.

All police should carry guns, almost 60 per cent of the public and more than 70 per cent of officers believe, a poll shows.

Police Minister Judith Collins said this week that she would support all patrol vehicles carrying pistols in lockboxes. Police Commissioner Howard Broad is preparing a report into arming police officers and will make recommendations at the end of the year. Both have said they don’t favour beat officers routinely being armed.

Last night the Police Association issued a poll it commissioned which said 72 per cent of all association members supported general arming. Asked if they supported it two years ago, 47 per cent were in favour.

The survey showed 58 per cent of the public also supported general arming. Association president Greg O’Connor said the results were no surprise.

The association, holding its 75th annual conference in Wellington this week, endorsed a motion “to support general arming of all sworn New Zealand police officers”.

Our police are increasingly coming up against armed and dangerous criminals. We can no longer delude ourselves that our police shouldn’t be armed.

Now contrast that with the high-handed and petulant?attitude?of Justice Minister Simon Power. FIGJAM has enraged the blogosphere with his bizarre tilt at trying to impose Hugo Chavez (that is now an alternate nickname) type controls on new media. He has ensured ?a uniting of the blogosphere where we will go all out to explain how unpopular he is, no matter our loyalties. Right,Left and Centre are going to ?make it their business to see this out of touch control freak of minister unseated.

Witness the attacks that have started;

Bomber at Tumeke -?National Government shouldn’t empower BSA to gag bloggers

And I think there isn’t much issue with that, Cam got righteously nailed by the Courts recently as the Judiciary stamped its authority on-line, issues regarding trials and suppression orders aren’t controversial expansions of power, but it’s this next part that is the danger…

He said there should be one set of rules for all news media, and the review – by the Law Commission – would look at extending the powers of the Broadcasting Standards Authority and/or the Press Council to cover new media.

…which means Simon Power wants to force the same gag rules of ‘balance’ used in the mainstream onto the blogosphere. The BSA can go fuck itself if it wants to try and enforce it’s narrow view of what can be said and what can not be said because decisions by a political board as to what can be said on-line are not warranted or needed

MacDoctor -?Go Fer Yer Guns,?Power!

The central error that you make, Mr. Power, is contained in your second sentence. You call bloggers ?news media?.?News Media? Very few bloggers actually deliver much in the way of news. We do not have the resources for this. What we deliver is?opinion. And I am afraid, Mr. Power, that if you don?t like my opinion, then tough?bikkies?

There is a word for regulation of opinion:?censorship. New Zealand is a free society precisely because I can call you an idiot, Mr Power, and not be shot at dawn by your goons. If I wish to call you stronger words than that, I may bump up against a law or two, and that is sufficient to maintain the distinction between free speech and decent speech. You do not need artificial standards except perhaps to cushion certain soft politician?egos.

Talking about ?professional and ethical standards? and bloggers in the same breath is laughable. Sure, we already follow a set of unwritten and un-enforcable rules, but these will never be ?standards? in any bureaucratic, measurable way. And the outrageous, unethical behaviour of some bloggers is what makes them entertaining. Bit like Paul Henry, really ? oh,?wait?

The point being is that the blogosphere thrives?because it is a ?wild west?. All you will get with regulation is that the wilder ones will clash with your regulations or, much more likely, will go quite feral. By this, I mean that they will use software that hides their?ID(easily obtainable from Warez sites) and move their sites to countries with less restriction. They will then proceed to snipe at you from inaccessible places with information that, at best, will be embarrassing and, at worst, horribly?destructive.

Recall what happened to the?US?marshals that tried to tame the West, Mr. Power ? they were shot down in large numbers. Recall that the West was not subdued by the application of law but by the?maturation of the society. Be patient and wait. Bloggers come and go. The Fail Whale reigns supreme. Facebook seems to be sliding into a black hole of flash applications. Eventually this will all sort itself out into a new society. I doubt if it will be as polite as you wish, Mr Power, but at least there will be less?cowboys?

Not PC – Cry ?Power-Lust? and let rip the censorship of the blogosphere

While most eyes here and round the world were on the miner miracle in Chile, a speech in the House by Simon Power-Lust this afternoon signalled (if anyone were looking) that things ahead are looking ominous for bloggers.

Cameron Slater?s tilt against name suppression?did eventually earn him a partial victory. But as I said when Cameron, akaWhale Oil, was given his lumps earlier by Justice Harvey, that decision was very much?not a victory for free speech?becausein his bewailing the lack of official ?oversight? of the blogosphere, Harvey was floating a trial balloon to which Power-Lust this afternoon gave motive power by asking Jeffrey Palmer?s inveterately lemon-sucking Law Commission ?to review the adequacy of regulations around how the internet interacts with the justice system.?

In other words, to begin drawing up plans for full regulation of the blogosphere by bureaucrats like Jeffrey?who has never seen a committee, board or tribunal he hasn?t wanted to join.

We may continue to post what we like and what we think. For the moment.? But all that will stop when Jeffrey Palmer and Simon Power-Lust?men who look at the freedom of the blogosphere and see only a ?Wild West? that needs manacles?men between them who have a face that needs punching and an ego that needs puncturing?bring in the very shackles on we bloggers that Justice Harvey?s 70-page decision presaged.

This is how easily censorship comes to a country.

Who now will rise up in protest?

It seems quite a few of us Peter. See above and now the links below.

Government looking at further regulation of speech on the Internet ? Thomas Beagle, TECH LIBERTY
?These is no mention in the press release of the freedom of expression guaranteed to New Zealanders in the Bill of Rights Act. Nor is there any recognition that many forms of old media such as leaflets, posters and books are also unregulated??
??this, in a socialist country where the MSM are no more than lickspittles pushing government propaganda and recycling handouts!? No wonder this little statist creep wants blogs to conform to the same standards?.?
High Noon ? ROAR PRAWN
??who in tarnation advised him to set about making the bloggers and online community the enemy??
From The Hood : Absolutist?Simon Power Corrupts Absolutely ? Lyndon Hood, WEREWOLF
?Simon is so powerful nobody?s allowed to argue with him..?
Internet no wild west ? lawyer ? NBR
?I don?t agree internet is the Wild West,? Rick Shera told NBR?

Idiot/Savant – No Right Turn – Against regulating the blogosphere

These are all things worth looking at, because the law needs to keep up with the technology (if it can). But Power is fundamentally mistaken about two things. First, he’s fundamentally mistaken in thinking bloggers should be treated as if they were professionals, because we simply aren’t. The typical blogger is a private individual mouthing off on the internet. Some of us know a little about what we are mouthing off about, some of us don’t – but fundamentally, its no different from people talking in a cafe. The government wouldn’t dream of trying to regulate and force “professional standards” on that, and rightly so. So why is it trying to regulate and force professional standards on the same conversations in the blogosphere? It smacks of another example of the old problem of things being suddenly scarier the moment you attach the word “internet” to them.

Secondly, the claim that we are not subject to any form of regulation is simply false. As a blogger, I’m subject to exactly the same laws as Power is in issuing his press releases. If I defame someone, I can be sued. If I publish objectionable material, I can be prosecuted. If I breach a court suppression order, I can be fined. Rather than showing that the blosophere is a “wild west”, the recent Whale Oil case showed that the law is?perfectly capable of dealing with it.

The problem for the justice system isn’t the blogosphere, but the net’s combination of strong anonyminity and a free market in legal jurisdictions. The same technology that allows human rights activists to hide from the Iranian regime and circumvent the?Great Firewall of China also allows people to read or post or host information which undermines our justice system. It could be used, for example, to set up a website whose sole function is to violate New Zealand suppression orders. If located in the right jurisdiction, such a site could never be taken down at source. It could never be effectively blocked – “the net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it” is an old saw, but its also true (in that such blocks are also fundamentally ineffective). And unless the authors were very, very stupid, they would never be caught.

But there’s nothing the government can do about that. Nothing. The collective minds of the world’s most powerful dictatorships can’t stop it, so I doubt New Zealand could. More importantly, adding new laws does nothing to help. The problem is not that such behaviour wouldn’t be illegal, its that we now have reliable technological means to?not get caught.

But the blogosphere isn’t in that space. Its already subject to existing laws. And those laws seem to generally be up to the task. We don’t need new ones.

Pedobear Power on Q+A

Pedobear Power on Q+A

You know you are in trouble with a political position when left, right and centre attack you. When Bomber, Idiot/Savant, MacDoctor, Peter Cresswell and Whaleoil all agree on something then you know that what they say is right and what the politician says is dead wrong. Simon Power is about to find out what a united blogosphere will do to his silly proposition to limit our freedoms.

One wonders what meds FIGJAM is taking, on a day when Bill English had some good news to release, Simon Power goes and takes his limelight. If he thinks the new media will lie down while he attempts to impose Chinese style limits on our freedom of opinion then he is sadly mistaken. We marched in the streets over the Electoral Finance Act, and DOF and I ran a bill board campaign against the law.

Simon Power is heading for a similar campaign that will be brought up close and personal in Rangitikei. If he thinks that won;t work then he should look very carefully at what happened to Andrew Williams. Because right now he is next on the list. When you add on his refusal to look at introducing ?a NZ version of Megan’s Law, then you get the picture that Simon Power is a friend of criminals, pedophiles and other assorted scum.

We need politicians that will?govern?for the people not for the liberal elite and their cotton-wool view of the world.

FIGJAM dreaming if he thinks he can control us

The United States military can’t keep its secrets from the Internet but that isn’t going to stop FIGJAM Simon Power from attempting to regulate it and bloggers and other new media. The man is clearly a blithering idiot who should have stuck to conveyancing in the Manawatu.

Justice Minister Simon Power has asked the Law Commission to review the adequacy of regulations around how the internet interacts with the justice system.

?I?ve ordered this review because it?s imperative the law keeps pace with technology and that we have one set of rules for all news media,? Mr Power said.

“At the moment we’ve got two tracks ? conventional media and the so-called ‘new media’ ? intersecting with the justice system, and it’s not sustainable.

The “new media” category includes the likes of bloggers, and professional journalists and regular citizens who use the likes of Twitter to report events in real-time.

?It?s a bit of a Wild West out there in cyberspace at the moment, because bloggers and online publishers are not subject to any form of regulation or professional or ethical standards,” Mr Power said.

Instead of embracing freedom, FIGJAM has decided to go all 1984 on us. He will succeed in regulating me and my fellow bloggers like Andrew Williams succeeded in winning re-election. I’ve been looking for a new target and I think I just found one.

“Issues I?m concerned about include how trials can be prejudiced by information posted on websites and seen by jurors, real-time online streaming of court cases, breaches of court suppression orders, and re-publication of a libel.

?Because of the enormous scope of this whole issue, the terms of reference for the review have been tightly defined.?

It will focus on whether either of the two existing industry watchdogs ? the Broadcasting Standards Authority and the Press Council – could provide a suitable vehicle for regulating unregulated forms of new media.

Actually FIGJAM should consider focusing on issues like stopping pedophiles from hiding behind name suppression instead of trying to hammer freedom seekers bringing open-ness to our court system. I’ll submit to the Press Council and Broadcasting Standards Authority over my dead body. I bet FIGJAM can’t show me a single case where a trial has been prejudiced by open-ness. It is a?specious?argument propposed by a specious politician. Is he really saying that open reporting can lead to prejudicing of a trial? ?Judges specifically tell jurors before any trial that they are not to look at the media during the course of the trial, is Simon Power saying he doesn’t trust jurors and so the internet must be controlled? Is Simon Power saying that the entire legal system of most of the free world is compromised because people can find out information about the trial on websites. The more you examine his paper-thin pretense of looking at the law the more you can see the vested interests of the legal fraternity using Simon Power as their sock-puppet.

He is a sad deluded little failure of a man trying desperately to shed his nickname (which is now included in NZ case law) of FIGJAM. He has now bought a war with everyone in new media.

Instead of de-regulating existing media he?has?decided to go down the?fascist?path of?attempting?to regulate new media. Well be it on his head the results of the fury of new media.

One cool thing though is that there is now something known as “The Whaleoil Effect”. It is yet to be fully defined but it could end up something like the unintended?consequences?for a politician of going head to head with Whaleoil. Right now that is electoral oblivion. Let’s see if I can take out another politician.

I lost the battle but won the war

Simon “FIGJAM:” Power has announced changes to Name Suppression laws today. About time, he has been sitting on them for like for ever. My sources tell me it was because he didn’t want to be seen to be reacting to a blogger.

Even Judge Harvey told me off for campaigning for changes by breaking the law, and pinko handwringers said that there were more appropriate ways to achieve what I have actually done.

Make no mistake I have forced changes upon a government through protest.

It will be harder to get name suppression in court under changes announced by the Government today.

Justice Minister Simon Power said proposals included automatic name suppression for child victims and substantial penalties for breaches.

Suppression would be allowed when;

* it was needed to ensure a fair trial;
* it would prevent hardship for victims;
* publication of an accused’s name would identify a victim whose name was suppressed;
* when it would put someone in danger;
* when naming would create extreme hardship and;
* when publication would impair ongoing investigations.

No problem with one or two. the fourth option is a weasel clause that would allow pedo’s to hide behind the fact they might get a hiding, same with clause 5.

They are?futilely?trying to shut the door behind the bolted horse with attempting to censor the internet and it is downright ridiculous to expect ISPs to monitor everything. This was tossed out when looking at copyright infringment and it should be tossed out when looking at name suppression.

“Being famous is not a good enough reason to be granted name suppression.

“To ensure public confidence in the justice system is maintained there must be one set of rules for everyone.

Good. But I bet the Judges will just carry on willy-nilly unless the qualifications for name suppression are very tight indeed.

I said to the people of Albany that if they want changes made then they should vote for someone with a big hammer to smash down the barriers. Here is my proof.

I still have to pay my fines and my lawyers bills,so any help would be appreciated.

My bank account for legal fees is Kiwibank Howick 38-9010-0764240-01

Law to out pedos – no way , Law to prevent carboot lawyers – hell yes

The mad law-making abilities of Simon “Pedobear” Power continue.

After telling the Sensible Sentencing Trust that a law to name and shame pedos isn’t on his agenda, he then goes and announces that his priorities are to remove access to lawyers for the poorest people and to make sure his cosy club of approved lawyers gets to fill their boots on the legal aid bill.

Approved by pedobearJustice Minister Simon Power has introduced a bill to Parliament to reform the legal aid system and weed out ”car boot” lawyers.

Dame Margaret Bazley estimated up to 200 lawyers were abusing the system in a critical report released last November.

The Government then announced a reform package in response, The new bill introduced today gives effect to the changes, which include making lawyers pass a competency test before they can carry out legal aid work.

“This bill shows the Government has acted quickly to address the issues identified in Dame Margaret’s report,” Simon Power said.

“The bill, in conjunction with operational changes already under way, will establish a system that will deliver high-quality legal services to those who need them and ensure that public money is spent properly.”

This is nothing more than knee-jerk law-making in order to protect the income streams of “approved” lawyers. Quite how Simon Power plans to describe “car-boot” lawyers in? apiece of legislation is laughable in the first place. The fact that his timetable has no space to actually address protecting victims and does have space, time and resources to protect income streams of lawyers shows just how out of touch he has become.

Blair Mulholland sums up “Pedobear” Power’s attitude succinctly.

There is always a danger of encouraging vigilantism, of course, but I would rather have the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff than the fence at the top, in that case.? If paedophiles are attacked after paying their debt to society, that is wrong, and those who do it should likewise be punished, but those are the risks you take when you partake in bad touching.? Crazed angry mobs picketing your house and grieving parents attaching electrodes to your balls are a possible consequence one should be aware of before one plays pedobear, I would have thought.

So come on, Simon, let’s set up a register.? Let’s know who these people are before I ask them to babysit for me.

So “Pedobear” Power, how about you explain why there is no time in in you calendar to protect victims, but plenty of time to protect income streams of establishment lawyers?

PS. I know you don’t like me calling you Pedobear (the Whale’s spies say you hate more than FIGJAM), but I’ll tell you what, you stop protecting pedos and I’ll stop calling you Pedobear. Seems fair to me.

More knee-jerk lawmaking from Power

Simon Power - FIGJAMSimon “FIGJAM” Power never has an original idea. Two fools used the defense of provocation unsuccessfuly and the law is gone in a heart-beat under urgency.

Now FIGJAM is wanting the defense of “Claim of Right” to go too, because someone used it successfully to get off serious vandalism charges. That doesn’t mean the law is broken, it means the system is. That they were able to successfully use this defense tells us more about the adequacy of the prosecutor and the judge than it does about the law.

Just because someone successfully uses a defense doesn’t mean that we should now amend the law to prevent the defense being successfully used again. That, my friends, is starting to sound like a dictatorship, changing laws to suit the end game. If seems that if FIGJAM doesn’t agree with a judicial outcome his solution is to change the law pronto. That is knee-jerk law making and completely unnecessary.

Each case rests upon its own merits and so it is farcical to suggest the law needs to be repealed because one group successfully used the defense.

FIGJAM also raises an interesting point:

It also appears our law on this is out of step with comparable overseas jurisdictions, including England and Canada, and several Australian states.

Yes and so do our Name Suppression laws, but I don’t see FIGJAM rushing to change those to bring them in line with other jurisdictions. If he did then there wouldn’t be any name suppression unless under extremely rare situations.

It would be nice if our Justice Minister focused on how Justice is administered rather than tinkering with obscure laws very few people use.