Anti-MMP campaign in contempt of Parliament?
You would imagine after having one of their founding members outed as a white supremacist that the anti-MMP 'Vote for Change' group would go out of their way to stay within the rules.
They haven't.
'Vote For change' launched this week an online smear attack on politicians denigrating them for their anti-MMP campaign
Now I'm in favour of attacking politicians and denigrating them, I call that a normal day at the office, but you are not allowed to use the official footage in this manner.
I've written to the speaker and advise any other member of Parliament to complain in writing as well at the manner in which 'Vote for Change' are in contempt of Parliament by contravening the standing orders that dictate the use of Parliament TV footage.
The rules regarding use of Parliamentary images is very clear, and are also in the Broadcasting Act...
PART B: CONDITIONS FOR USE OF OFFICIAL TELEVISION
COVERAGE
1) Official television coverage of the House is made available on the following conditions:
Any broadcast or rebroadcast of coverage must comply with the Broadcasting Standards Authority rules.
Coverage of proceedings must not be used in any medium for—
(a) political advertising or election campaigning (except with
the permission of all members shown):
(b) satire, ridicule, or denigration:
(c) commercial sponsorship or commercial advertising.
3. Reports that use extracts of coverage of proceedings and purport to be summaries must be fair and accurate.
(2) Breach of these conditions may result in a loss of access to official television coverage, and may be treated as a contempt and proceeded against accordingly.
...this use of the official Parliamentary footage to denigrate for a political campaign is a clear no no and backed up in the Broadcasting Act.
Now seeing as 'Vote for change' have simply become a glorified give away site masquerading as a political debate, and seeing as 'Vote for Change' were so kind to thank me for outing their white supremacist founding member, as a thank you for pointing out your latest infringement, I would like an ipad2, $200 worth of itune vouchers and someone fronting on Citizen A to explain why an electoral system that favours the elites of society is preferable to MMP.
posted by Bomber @ 10:13 am
10 comments
10 Comments:
Yeah let's get rid off MMP, too many politicians. Instead we should have four year terms, send bills through two houses - let's call them say, the senate and congress. Why not open the market up and privatize healthcare and education while we are at it. Let's get rid of those pesky minority parties, and have a wild partisan swing every four years between two stone set ideologies.
Compromise? Proportionate representation? democractic process? Those are just big words that really mean 'I'm a pussy.'
Then, of course we could just these bigots.
The country should just be run by the NZRFU. As an election bribe they could force ADIDAS to sell AB jerseys at only 24 times the cost of their production.
What's with the Parekura Horomia one? Are they trying to argue that voters shouldn't even be allowed to choose who represents them?
We can blame the pr1cks running the anti-MMP campaign all we want, they are pr1cks, but we have to confront a very simple issue if we hope to have a chance of shifting the neo-liberal juggernaut sufficiently off-course to save some of NZ's core values.
1/ Why is that so few voters are aware that this election is a do or die effort? That if key's carpetbaggers get their 50%, that spells the end of NZ's economic sovereignty. That when kiwis eventually wake up & recognise how badly they have allowed themselves to be shafted, there won't be a damn thing they can do about it, even when the backlash is sufficient to push the neo-liberal corporate cronies out of the natural gerrymander that's planned to be introduced on the back of the anti-MMP referendum?
Sure they have pulled some stunts but no more than kiwis have allowed them to pull. Test.
Ask your friends a simple question "Who owns the NZ Herald?" Most will hedge and shuffle, some may mutter something about 'that bloke who played for Ireland against the all blacks'. Bugger all will say " Isn't it run by an overseas based family trust as a front for Alex Lebedev, gangster turned wanna-be media power broker who bought the Independent from the bloke who set up the family trust for £1?" (special note to sock-puppets who turn discussion of foreign ownership of assets into ad hominem accusations of xenophobia. It isn't about a foreign culture it is that a foreign owner's priorities will be vastly different from kiwi's priorities yes even those silver spooned kiwis who used to own kiwi fishwraps. They still cared somewhat for the long term future of NZ, foreign owners have no interest in anything NZ outside of profit.
I prefer the company of Australians to many NZers but Murdoch or Fairfax ownership of all the rest of NZ's print media just as bad as Lebedev owning the Herald).
When most fail the test ask them, if foreign ownership is harmless/good why is it a secret?
We -- us the kiwis who do know what is going on, need to risk being labelled bores whilst we point out to other kiwis exactly what is in store if that 'nice mr key' jags a win.
This flirtation with neo-liberalism is likely to be a passing phase. Simply because NZ is too small to protect itself without some constraints on the behaviour of capitalists. If it isn't why are key and co so determined to cement the changes in place so irreversibly by combining the lack of choice that goes hand in hand with being major debtor with the inability to regulate commercial behaviour that is the centerpiece of current bi-lateral free trade agreements?
The nats wouldn't sweat it if they thought foe one moment that kiwis will like the changes they have planned. After all we wouldn't vote for an entity that would change neo-liberal claptrap unless we got sick of it now would we?
There are only a few weeks to go and IMO the debate should be reduced to "Key plans irreversible changes. Why would kiwis want that?"
That is why these guys need to be resisted with every skerrick of resources we can muster. My mob came here nearly two centuries back because the place was small enough for peeps to know those in power. Because we could be different when we wanted to be without causing a major conflict, because what NZ does doesn't unduly upset any apple-carts (eg anti-nuke stuff) getting NZ into huge debt then signing up to secret trade agreements whilst neutering MMP is a recipe for disaster, that will leave too many kiwis at the bottom and powerless to get up.
One of the runner-ups of that competition they ran for advertisements, which can be seen on the Vote for Change competition page, is also blatently copyright infringement of Adultswim's Robot Chicken. Nothing they do surprises me really...
I don't see the problem with Nandor either. He was making a fairly poignant valedictory statement.
Also, given that the entire Green Party was list-based, are they saying that all Green voters should be disenfranchised because National/Labour/Whoever voters disagree with them?
The only one I see a problem with is the National MP. I believe all voters should be represented in Parliament, but how many brain dead voters are there?
Did they have a segment on the Attorney General, Chris Finlaysomn? He's a List MP - having failed to win Rongotai of Annette King, in 2008.
This current group of anti-MMPers are little different to Shirtcliffe's so-called "Campaign for Better Government" when their advertising campaign broke several rules. But by the time the BSA or NZ Press Council or whatever, made a decision, by then it was too late.
Shirtcliffe and his mob worked the system well. They knew how slow and cumbersome it was to react to their publicity machine.
God, ya gotta love right wingers. They are the Law & Order mob - except when it applies to their own machinations.
You are onto it Bomber - this is a clear breach of the conditions and these rogues must be brought to account. The reason for the rules is clear - our MPs must not be frightened of saying ridiculous things or asking naive questions. We want Parliament to be a forum of ideas, people thinking outside the square. Parliament accumulates hours and hours of debate - and we don't want a situation where MP A is ridiculed for Labour, so someone ridicules MP B for National.
Please keep us posted on your progress.
All denigrating clips, showing MPs at their not so best, except the classic Nandor one,who is shown at the BEST of his usual BRILLIANT self! This should be preserved for posterity; also as an argument for RETAINING MMP!
Post a Comment
<< Home