Unreasonable search and torture laws pass without fuss
A chilly front of intrusive and unnecessary police-inspired laws are being run through parliament with the complicity of the big parties. They are statutes hostile to a free society, based on the presumption of guilt, and contrary to our own Bill of Rights...
...and yet the sheep just keep grazing, right next to the abattoir, oblivious...
At that time, Attorney-General Chris Finlayson issued a report saying the bill appeared to be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act's provisions against unreasonable search and seizure.
During the third reading debate Labour MPs said they were worried about the extent of the powers that were being given to the police and MP Charles Chauvel tried to amend the bill so a judicial warrant would be needed.
The amendment was voted down and the bill was passed into law on a vote of 108 to 13, with the Greens and Maori Party opposing.
The Labour Party, eh. We expect this fascist bullshit from the Tories - Judith Collins, the Rommel worshipper, is Police and Corrections Minister after all - but when the supposed defenders of the ordinary man and the underdog start attacking the fabric of justice and freedom there seems little hope. So much for an Opposition. The only liberals left in parliament are the Greens and the Maori Party.
Blood taking:So if the little roadside dance routine the cops force you to do is a little too funky then they can forcibly take your blood. With a needle of course, which is painful and frightening and basically a form of torture. And the NORML chap says that any trace amount will be taken as proof of impairment.
The blood alcohol level is at a set rate, but what he's saying is that there is no rate for cannabis. Is this correct? Can this be true? It will be the first aspect challenged in court because there has to be a rate set on scientific grounds, not just a trace amount. It must be an amount that equates to impairment or else it's just a persecution of people for their past rather than for their actual state at the time.
These laws need to be challenged vigorously in court.
[UPDATE-- And on it goes this afternoon: