- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Exclusive: Police DNA database secretly used for racial profiling

After talking to Keith Locke this morning I am even more concerned than before about the police DNA compulsion powers that Simon Power, the Justice Minister, has come up with. The ability to take DNA from someone who is a suspect but has not been charged or arrested is outrageous. Simply outrageous. Everything is in urgency and so questions of ministers will be some time off.

Announcing Police Association/Nactional's new bill introduced into parliament yesterday Powers outlined heavy measures:

The Gangs and Organised Crime Bill:
  • Doubles the penalty for participation in a criminal gang to a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment.
  • Makes involvement in a criminal gang an aggravating factor in sentencing.
  • Gives police authority to apply for interception warrants to investigate the offence of participation in a criminal gang, and lowers the threshold for offences that can be used as the basis for warrants, from those attracting 10 years in prison to those attracting seven years or more.
  • Enables removal orders to be sought from a court to remove gang forts.

    - and it won't be the last time they use this excuse to widen police powers:
    "Gang activity is insidious, and so requires a comprehensive, integrated response. This bill is just one part of that response, providing more effective investigative powers and strengthening penalties.
    "Although it is one of the first actions of this Government, it will not be our final action on gangs."


    The government's legislative response is also insidious. Insidious because the gang leaders in the drug business will be only one of many different people who can be spied on and should they be convicted then penalised again because they talked about it with someone else. The reasons given by the Minister to knee-jerk the sentence maximum upwards dramatically is at total odds with the ability to actually gain convictions in the first place, as he says:

    "Between 2004 and 2007, the average sentence for participating in a gang was just two years, and of 339 prosecutions there were only 19 convictions.

    The police are getting their dream wishes - it's like Christmas in February for Greg O'Conner. The Police bureaucracy will spawn an organised crime unit and so it needs it's laws passed to justify amping up its budgets given that its focus will now be gangs rather than having to also go after white collar offenders handled by the SFO (which will not be merged into the Police's organised crime group under National):

    This bill will give additional powers for such ‘intimidating’ [gang fort] structures to be removed.

    The Police want to eliminate the rival forts. Yesterday night they also introduced the Organised Crime Bill's evil twin, the British-style Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill:

    It allows police to collect DNA from people they ‘intend to charge’, and to match it against samples from unsolved crimes. At present, DNA can be collected only with consent, by judicial approval, or by compulsion where people are suspected or convicted of an offence punishable by more than seven years’ imprisonment, or another specified offence.

    It's a drift net for the cops to go fishing with. It assumes the arrested person is guilty and is designed to build a massive database of people's genetic identification. Why?

    To make their work easier and up the clearance rates of their case loads and prevent crime - that's what it is to the Police. To the politicians and officials it is solving and reducing crime (increase productivity and increase social outcomes) and a rational response to the existence of technology to achieve this. It does all this at the expense of privacy and personal dignity however and it does it without any regard to the merits or justification of the defence to a criminal charge that may be so petty as to only have a maximum sentence of one day imprisonment. A charge that may later be withdrawn altogether. The bill will incite concocted arrests in order to secure a genetic search.

    That is what I blogged about last year when the Policing Act was going through without a word barely uttered from anyone. Less than a hundred submissions in the end I believe. The Police asserted a common law right to search if arrested in the Act - that is nowhere near as innocuous as people may imagine - it is the foundation upon which this new bill rests. It is not at all automatic that a person who is arrested has the right to be searched by a police officer - especially for a very minor offence. Now it is. This encourages arrests in order to gain searches - which is a bad policing strategy because if it is seen to be abused it will erode confidence in the Police. The means of identification of an offender was deliberately not spelled out in the Policing Act - and was certainly not limited - leaving DNA sampling a moot point which is answered in the affirmative by this new bill.

    If a police constable arrests you (or as Locke was explaining they don't even have to arrest you - just suspect you) you will lose your right to genetic anonymity under this draconian population screening process. I said it is degrading, indeed I say all this as someone who has been through "the system" and has been compelled to provide DNA to the police database. It wasn't the sedition, it wasn't the endless concertina-like printout of every individual incident of my ultimately self-destructive fisting of the Crown's piggy bank over the course of the mid-late 90s that earned me a DNA sequencing, it was actually being a party to intentional damage that will get you a mouth swab from Mr Plod.

    OK, it was the PM's electorate office that was intentionally damaged, but I talked to other prisoners and the police have a policy of ordering DNA specimens off everyone they can. My lawyers said it was futile to fight it and it had become quite routine.

    But here's where the routine gets curious.The Police have a survey they want the person they take the sample from to fill out - about the racial origins of their parents and grandparents. Not mandatory, it would just be useful.

    They didn't want to know hair colour or eye colour or height or build or whatever they wanted to record only the ethnic origins.

    Why? Well it's the basis for racial profiling is what it is. They don't want to know any other characteristic of the offender - just their racial make-up. They don't want to know whether the offender is tall or has red-hair or is skinny they want to know what their racial make up is. Half this, quarter that. one-eighth etc.

    Junior phrenology from the Police's Academy of Racial Hygiene? Is Porirua the new Pretoria? I didn't know so many former South African police had moved over after Apartheid ended? Next step would be calipers and measuring noses. That was my impression.

    The only thing I could imagine them using that information for would be to see if they can isolate any genetic markers for race so they can make a probable guess as to an unknown suspect's racial background if they have some of their DNA, or to help identifiy bodies. What else? But to make a study of race and not of physical features (which can be better at describing how a person might look according to their DNA than race) is not evident.

    The problem with their racial profiling study they are running is the sample group are very likely to give false or wrong answers. That will throw their entire study into doubt. It has dubious scientific value as well as having racist undertones.
    Environmental Science and Research (ESR) run the database for the police.The only two things on the ESR website I can find relating to race and the DNA national database is this:

    Race-specific genetic markers and markers for specific physical characteristics are being investigated for their usefulness and applicability in forensic laboratories. Some private laboratories also offer to determine your ancestral lineage, for example Oxford Ancestors.

    - Which does not say that they are undertaking any such work, but doesn't say they are not either. Equally vague, but suggesting the undertaking would be problematic is this bit:

    In some cases the likely ethnic ancestry of a person can be partially indicated although this feature may not be evident from physical characteristics and is therefore of limited value.
    [...]
    Is it possible to tell the ethnic origin of a person from their DNA profile?
    Particular DNA alleles may be more common in one ethnic group than another which may give some indication of a person's ethnic group, however there is considerable overlap between races so it is not yet possible to say that a DNA profile must have come from a member of a particular ethnic group. Further complicating this is the fact that a person will not necessarily look as if they are a member of the ethnic group that is indicated by their heritage and their DNA. Attempts are being made by some international laboratories to develop methods to accurately determine a person's race from their DNA but these techniques are not currently used by ESR.


    Aren't currently used because they are building up a racial profiling survey of their own? Why else are they collecting racial information?

    The officer conducting the sampling assured me it was an internal police survey and not done by an outside organisation. If that is correct and the ESR are out of the loop it is extraordinary. He reckoned that before long everyone would end up on the database anyway - law-abiding people - everyone. That was a just a couple of years ago.Someone ought to ask the Police Minister, Judith Collins, (the one who told the NZ Herald once that the person she most admired in the world was Erwin Rommel), to explain if this DNA racial profiling study by her police force is continuing and what it is all about, including it's scope, objectives and methodology and who is in charge of it.

    What does she have to say? At the moment the Justice Minister is running the show:

    The implementation of DNA sampling will be introduced in two stages:

  • The first will allow police to obtain and test the DNA profile of every person charged with serious offences where DNA trace evidence is often involved, crimes that indicate a propensity for more serious offending, and crimes such as aggravated assault, peeping, committing an indecent act in a public place, unlawful possession of a firearm, cruelty to a child, and male assaults female.

  • The second stage, to come into effect by 2011, will enable samples to be taken from everyone charged with an imprisonable offence.

    "Our preference was full implementation as soon as possible, but we need to allow Environmental Science & Research to adjust to the increased workload and for police to develop guidelines and train staff. Full implementation will occur by the end of 2011.


    UPDATE: No Right Turn

    And further still - the Government's own Attorney-General, Chris Finlayson points out that John Key is wrong

    DNA seizure law triggers rights alert
    The National Government's plans to give the police unfettered power to take DNA from those they arrest has concerned its own Attorney-General, Chris Finlayson, who said it appears to breach the Bill of Rights. A report by Mr Finlayson said the DNA plan "appears to be inconsistent" with the right against unreasonable search and seizure under the Bill of Rights.
    National's plan would give police the power to take DNA from those they "intend to charge" with an imprisonable offence without the safeguard of judicial or other independent approval. Mr Finlayson said such safeguards were required in jurisdictions that used a comparable DNA scheme, including New South Wales, Victoria, Canada, the United States, Germany, Japan and the Netherlands. Mr Finlayson said the only comparable schemes were in the South Australia, Tasmania and the United Kingdom - noting that in the United Kingdom, the lack of safeguards is currently under review after it was found to breach the European Convention on Human Rights.

    Mr Finlayson said he could not see any special circumstances in New Zealand to justify not having statutory safeguards.
    Mr Finlayson's report was completed as part of the Attorney-General's "vetting role" of legislation that may breach the Bill of Rights. It is essentially his opinion as the Government's lawyer, and in his capacity as an MP he will almost certainly still vote for the bill. Currently, DNA samples can only be taken from certain convicted offenders.

    Prime Minister John Key yesterday said the Government was expanding the criteria because DNA was the "modern-day fingerprint". But Mr Finlayson's report notes this similarity "is not generally accepted". Mr Finlayson's report quoted a recent finding of the Supreme Court of Canada, later cited by the European Court of Human rights that: "Unlike a fingerprint [DNA] is capable of revealing the most intimate details of a person's biological make-up ... The taking and retention of a DNA sample is not a trivial matter and, absent a compelling public interest, would inherently constitute a grave intrusion on the subject's right to personal and informational privacy."

  • 30 Comments:

    At 11/2/09 11:20 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Can we copywrite our DNA and then at least gain revenue from it each time it is used?

     
    At 11/2/09 11:27 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Hey this taking the DNA stuff is way out of line, this is NZ, not some weird big brother state

     
    At 11/2/09 11:44 am, Blogger Unknown said...

    Very interesting post on the DNA Tim, thanks for that.

    As far as the organised crime bill goes, it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. As you point out, doubling the sentence for involvement in an gang, or making it an aggravating factor in sentencing, will not increase convictions. Nor is it clear why it is worse for a Mongrel Mob member to sell P than for anyone else. The aggravating factors in the sentencing act are generally of a different nature - to do with the effect on the victim, not the characteristics of the criminal.

    The only factor in the bill that might conceivably increase the likelihood of conviction is lowering the threshold for a warrant. But if the aim is as stated, to target P manufacture, then lowering it from investigation of offenses with max 10 yrs to max 7 is irrelevant - P manufacture and supply has a current max of life!


    FYI I've posted about it here: www.rasnandor.blogspot.com

     
    At 11/2/09 11:53 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    You would be amazed at the increased number of burglariwes we are now able to save due to the DNA database.

     
    At 11/2/09 12:15 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    ok bomber, other than write about it, what can we do about stopping the bill?

     
    At 11/2/09 12:41 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

    ok bomber, other than write about it, what can we do about stopping the bill?

    Good question, I can't imagine many NZers other than a handful of die hard Police supporters and hardline talkback hosts will support these breath takingingly casual erosions of our civil liberties, the cops will be allowed to strip search who they like and forcibly remove DNA based on only suspicion - who would've thought the cops would try this shit on? Even National's own Attorney-General is challenging John Key's position that this is just a fingerprint taking excercise. This surprise move National has blindsided a response to date because no one knew they were going to pull this under urgency (Tumeke pointed it out last year, but we had no idea National would try and pull this stunt). Christ the other Political parties only got this 30minutes before the start of the debate, most of the fucking mainstream media haven't even clicked what the implications of this going through unchallened will be, National have couched all this massive increase of cop powers as 'anti-gang' which is enough of a smokescreen for the rest of NZ to quietly go along with it. As protest builds we will keep people informed on ways they can protest this absolute abortion of justice.

     
    At 11/2/09 1:23 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Yes, what exactly constitutes a "Gang" in NZ?

    Does my Church which accepts sinners and past wrong doers constitute a gang?

    We know there will be a number of Rotary members and Masons going to court for fiddling the figures as the credit crunch come down harder, are they a gang?

    I assume there must be some connection to actual crime, or is that too optimistic of the law.

     
    At 11/2/09 1:24 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    its the tried and true nazi tactic 'its only for hardcore criminals' then 'its for anyone with any criminal conviction' and then it becomes 'well, theres heaps done, the rest of you might as well join in'.
    its nazi tactics at its finest. we have to do something to stop this devil bill where we hand over our most precios sacred thing to a bunch of people who have no trouble stiching peopple up if it makes their job easier

     
    At 11/2/09 1:42 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Gang fortifications - Street view the cnr of Strowan & Heaton Sts Christchurch.

    They're 15ft high and soild concrete block in deepest darkest Fendalton.

    Some of the biggest homes on Mortgagee Sales too.

     
    At 11/2/09 3:04 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    "As far as the organised crime bill goes, it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny"

    Yeah , like someone who wants to have drugs freely available to our children has any credibility.

     
    At 11/2/09 5:15 pm, Blogger Unknown said...

    I agree. Lets ban prohibitionists from contributing to this debate.

     
    At 11/2/09 11:05 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    "Ironic that Keith Locke would complain about this. Considering his communist mates would go much further if they had their way."

    You're on the wrong channel mate...you should be watching Bill O'reilly

     
    At 12/2/09 12:50 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    "I agree. Lets ban prohibitionists from contributing to this debate."

    I can see why the greens supported the Electoral Finance Act with this facistic mindset. Too bad National is in power and is in the process of repealing it. And what is really funny is that for three terms Labour gave the green fuck all for their support. At least the maori party know how to play the game.

     
    At 12/2/09 6:52 am, Blogger Bomber said...

    Yeah , like someone who wants to have drugs freely available to our children has any credibility.
    Who here has ever wanted freed access to drugs to our children? No one here has ever wanted or argued for that.

    I can see why the greens supported the Electoral Finance Act with this facistic mindset. Too bad National is in power and is in the process of repealing it. And what is really funny is that for three terms Labour gave the green fuck all for their support. At least the maori party know how to play the game.

    Sorry what has the attempt to stop our democracy falling into a plutocracy (you do know the difference right Anon) got to do with this latest attempt by National to misuse urgency and ram through draconian reversals of our collective civil rights?

     
    At 12/2/09 9:10 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    i want you all to remember one statement that will sit in my mind forever.

    the polices job is one thing. to put you in jail. if your not in jail its because theyre not doing theyre job properly. the police are not there to help you, protect your kids etc, they do that as a byproduct of putting people in jail but it is not in their intrest to help you.

    by handing out our dna, they simply want additional ways of locking people up, not helping you and your kids out. they will crow for a month about all these unsolved crimes and most of the hearld readers and sensible sentencing members will be so happy they will forget that now the police, a group of sometimes rather corrupt individuals with the power over their entire familys freedom now has total access to their gentetic makeup when previously they cant even stop boy racers or graffiti yet we now trust them with this!

    come on new zealand, dont you see whats going to happen?

     
    At 12/2/09 9:32 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Nandor Tanczos said...
    I agree. Lets ban prohibitionists from contributing to this debate.


    Hah.
    Being that the Green Party is also known as the Banning Party, perhaps Nandor will be taking his own advice.

    I would rather ban gangs that prey on the communities they inhabit, than ban mum from putting a chocolate biscuit in her childs lunch box.

    they will forget that now the police, a group of sometimes rather corrupt individuals with the power over their entire familys freedom now has total access to their gentetic makeup...

    Great conspiracy theory bub, you come up with that one all on your own or did you get help?

     
    At 12/2/09 9:35 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    "Sorry what has the attempt to stop our democracy falling into a plutocracy"

    I guess the Human rights Commission, the Law Society and finally the Labour party think otherwise bomber. It wasn't the Greens finest hour to be strong armed into supporting a law which repressed freedom of speech by a PM hell bent on a 4th term and what is disgraceful is that you fucking know this yet are defending it. Disgraceful. It show just how out of touch you are with mainstream liberals in this country when you make statements like that.

    National could also use the same kind of justification for this bill, that the curtailment of civil rights is a justified to fight crime and because people like you supported the EFA in such a manner. It's the fault of people like you bomber that we high politicised repressive bills. Maybe if you had stood up and said no instead of wanting another term of labour if could have been otherwise but you were clearly too of scared to do anything else.

     
    At 12/2/09 9:50 am, Blogger Bomber said...

    "Sorry what has the attempt to stop our democracy falling into a plutocracy got to do with this latest attempt by National to misuse urgency and ram through draconian reversals of our collective civil rights"

    'anon' no where in your reply did you actually answer this question, so I'll ask it again, what has the attempt to stop our democracy falling into a plutocracy got to do with this latest attempt by National to misuse urgency and ram through draconian reversals of our collective civil rights.

    But let's deal with your lies first shall we?

    I guess the Human rights Commission, the Law Society and finally the Labour party think otherwise bomber.
    As I blogged extensively at the time, did I see you at the first protest march against this law 'Anon' because I was there, I had the exact same concerns the Human Rights commission has, as well as the law society and lets not forget Kat the the electoral commission, she had many valid complaints. But the desire to force the wealthy to declare where their money goes and making sure we don't become a plutocracy are important issues as well.

    It wasn't the Greens finest hour to be strong armed into supporting a law which repressed freedom of speech
    Firstly this wasn't about 'free speech' it was about buying speech, nothing free there buddy, and the Greens were able to add the transperancy elements which we desperatly need in election financing.

    by a PM hell bent on a 4th term and what is disgraceful is that you fucking know this yet are defending it.
    I protested at the time, I blogged at the time, I called it a two headed mutant piece of legislation that needed many elements fixed, but I also want transperancy on donations and I don't want secret trusts like National's able to circumvent scrutiny.

    Disgraceful. It show just how out of touch you are with mainstream liberals in this country when you make statements like that.
    No it shos you have not read what I wrote and will prolly backpeddle when you realise I was at the first protest march.

    National could also use the same kind of justification for this bill, that the curtailment of civil rights is a justified to fight crime and because people like you supported the EFA in such a manner.
    Hold the fucking phone 'anon', let me get this straight - National are ramming through under urgency massive eroisions of our civil rights by taking DNA off people they don't like for no reason whatsoever becuase I protested the EFA but supported it's aims? Are youi smoking meth, any credibility you tried to create has just left the building.

    It's the fault of people like you bomber that we high politicised repressive bills.
    My god, you are smoking meth, hear that folks, it's my personal fault that the Police are about to screw you for your civil rights because I didn't want the rich elite to buy election s, let's hear more from our anonymous crackhead

    Maybe if you had stood up and said no
    Were you there in Auckland for the first protest march against the efa? I was, where were you?

    instead of wanting another term of labour if could have been otherwise but you were clearly too of scared to do anything else.
    There's no point in debating with you anyfurther, you're a clown. Slither off to kiwiblagh

     
    At 12/2/09 10:10 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Your post lost all credibility right at the beginning with "After talking to Keith Locke"

    And Bomber, the EFA you are referring to, is that the same EFA that Labour leader Phil Goff has admitted was flawed? The same EFA that every party aside from the "greens" is voting to repeal this afternoon? The same EFA that has a "chilling effect on democracy"?

    Yeah, thought so.

     
    At 12/2/09 10:50 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    National are ramming through under urgency massive eroisions of our civil rights by taking DNA off people they don't like...

    Is this true?
    So the police aren't taking DNA from people suspected of a crime, but in fact are taking it from, say, people who voted Greens in the last election?

    Thats shocking!!!
    That puts us on a par with, oh I don't know, say, Nazi Germany perhaps?

     
    At 12/2/09 11:03 am, Blogger Bomber said...

    And Bomber, the EFA you are referring to, is that the same EFA that Labour leader Phil Goff has admitted was flawed? The same EFA that every party aside from the "greens" is voting to repeal this afternoon? The same EFA that has a "chilling effect on democracy"?

    Yeah, thought so.


    (cough, cough) - yes the very same one I protested against, yes that one.

     
    At 12/2/09 11:17 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Maybe you should issue a correction, you protested against the first bill which was amended but supported the second which every concerned organisation in NZ irrespective of political leanings came out against and which you continued to support in this thread even though Phil Goff said it was a mistake.

    Your lies live on in blogsphere bomber.

    "My god, you are smoking meth, hear that folks, it's my personal fault that the Police are about to screw you for your civil rights because I didn't want the rich elite to buy election s, let's hear more from our anonymous crackhead"

    The point is, retard, that you supported the second EFA as described above which curtailed our rights to free speech, a civil right so it's utter hypocrisy for you to complain about this violation of our rights.

     
    At 12/2/09 11:20 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    PS Bomber do you really think you have a more objective view than the human rights commissioner on the EFA?

    You continue to totally avoid dealing with that issue for good reason. Because you can't justify your claims.

     
    At 12/2/09 12:16 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

    Here we go folks, what has 'Anon' got as a response? I am dying to find out what the EFA has got to do with National ramming through new legislation that strip away your civil rights, apparently 'Anon' claims it was because I supported moves against plutocracy. So let's see the justicication from 'Anon' now...

    Maybe you should issue a correction, you protested against the first bill which was amended
    Right so you are backpeddling on this now, you admit I protested against the first bill, glad we could clear that up.

    but supported the second which every concerned organisation in NZ irrespective of political leanings came out against and which you continued to support in this thread even though Phil Goff said it was a mistake.
    No, there you go again, if your debate is so strong, why lie? I agreed with those groups concerns BUT I still agree with attempts to force full transparency so we avoid a plutocracy.

    Your lies live on in blogsphere bomber.
    LMAO - princess you can simply read what I had to say on this site, you don't need to go to the rest of the blogsphere, perhaps if you had done that first and seen my problems with this bill, you wouldn't have made so much of a cock of yourself in this blog by saying...

    National could also use the same kind of justification for this bill, that the curtailment of civil rights is a justified to fight crime and because people like you supported the EFA in such a manner.

    The point is, retard,
    You're claiming the Police have tried to erode our civil rights because I protested the first efa bill and demanded transparency to avoid plutocracy and you are calling ME the retard? You can't make this stuff up.

    that you supported the second EFA as described above which curtailed our rights to free speech,
    It wasn't free speech you were after, it was paid speech so your rich chums can effect the outcome of an election. I supported the attempts by the EFA to increase transparency so National can keep using their wwashingmachine accounts to anonymously wash their donations

    a civil right so it's utter hypocrisy for you to complain about this violation of our rights.
    This is a farce, I want more transparency to avoid plutocracy so that means I have no right to bring up the Police demands to force DNA off us based on a mere arrest? Is this the best you have? You must be desperate

    PS Bomber do you really think you have a more objective view than the human rights commissioner on the EFA?
    Where did I say that I did, I agreed with them clown!

    You still haven't been able to connect this to what National are allowing the Police to do in anyway shape or form. Jesus you right wingers must be sweating how you can spin this if this is all you have mate. on your way, the adults have work to do.

     
    At 13/2/09 8:58 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Bomber-

    (cough, cough) - yes the very same one I protested against, yes that one.

    Oh, so you protested against Labour "pack raping" (seriously you need to come up with a better term than that, its deeming and crass at best, you should have the intellect to realize that) the urgency process too?

    And you protested against the final version that got passed by Labour, the "greens", NZ First and Labours lapdog?

    No?

    Flawed legislation with a chilling effect on the democratic process.

     
    At 13/2/09 9:19 am, Blogger Bomber said...

    Oh, so you protested against Labour "pack raping" (seriously you need to come up with a better term than that, its deeming and crass at best, you should have the intellect to realize that) the urgency process too?
    Shooter, you well know as Idiot/Savant has pointed out in the research he did that while Labour forced through the 3rd part of the Bill under urgency, something I didn't agree with at all, it is FAR different to the pack rape of the select committee process National did in their first two weeks in Parliament where they read a bill straight into law taking a total of 3 hours. ANd shooter what Nation did IS a pack rape of the select committe process.

    And you protested against the final version that got passed by Labour, the "greens", NZ First and Labours lapdog?

    No?

    I made my isssues with the bill VERY clear, I also made it clear that election financing needs transperancy so that our demnocracy doesn't become a plutocracy.

    Flawed legislation with a chilling effect on the democratic process.
    And I blogged on that as well shooter. Kat from the Electoral Commission is not some raving right winger and her concerns HAD to be addressed.

     
    At 13/2/09 9:43 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    My apologies to you then. I just assumed from some of your comments here that you were in support of the EFA as it stood.

    What do you think of the "green" party being the only party to vote against its repeal?

     
    At 13/2/09 10:51 am, Blogger Bomber said...

    Look the efa was far from perfect, as I blogged at the time, 80 amendments for your own piece of legislation is pretty bloody appalling right - but I totally support the goals of it to force Political parties to HAVE to be honest about who is donating to them because a democracy can easily become a plutocracy.

     
    At 14/2/09 7:45 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    The story and information about how the NZ police take another step towards facism under the natianal party is very interesting.

    If the police get things how they want under the nats we'll start finding the Dna of police officers like Rickards and Co from vulnrable young woman.

    The police may also like prostitution made illegal again so they can get their old perk of free sex with hookers in return for not busting them and running them out of business.

    Yes the police are yearning for a return to the old ways ...........

     
    At 3/6/09 7:37 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    I found your article to be all over the place.

    It does raise some good questions and as someone who works in the field there are answers to.

    Why don't you ask ESR what they do instead of reading one paragraph on the internet?

    There are more answers then questions. You just have to ask the right people. Unfortunately asking a cop on the beat wasn't the best for you.

     

    Post a Comment

    << Home