Speakers Office investigating complaint against anti-MMP Group
As I pointed out last week...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.
...Speaker's office has contacted me and are investigating this issue now. It looks like other politicians have also complained.
What's the jail time for contempt of Parliament?
posted by Bomber @ 12:05 pm
7 comments
7 Comments:
"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."
No, Bomber, they will not be staying within the rules. As Shirtcliffe's so-called "Campaign for Better Government" did no numerous occassions, they will sail close to the law, and often cross the line.
With bureaucratic/police inertia (unless to you live in Tuhoe country), the anti-MMP clique can rely on getting away with breaking rules and achieving their goals, before Authorities can react.
Expect more from them, Bomber. It's S.O.P. for that mob.
Is their a Bill of Rights, freedom of speech angle? Are the Standing Orders higher law?
Is their a Bill of Rights, freedom of speech angle? Are the Standing Orders higher law?
Laws are not for rich white reactionaries, they're to keep poor polynesians in line.
Ah, dude, why exactly are you giving all of these videos oxygen? Just ignore them and MMP will be saved. Try and make a fight out of it and we might lose.
Has Katrina Shanks become a 'sacrificial lamb' for the political right? First, she was snubbed by her own leader, who has thrown his support behind Peter Dunne for the Ohariu electorate, and now the NACT-affiliated Vote for Change is using her negatively in their campaign against MMP. If I were her, I would start to question my political allegiances.
Jd said...
" Is their a Bill of Rights, freedom of speech angle? Are the Standing Orders higher law?" - 7/9/11 12:42 PM
JD, it's a matter of copyright. If Parliaments owns the rights to that video footage, then they can control it's use.
Post a Comment
<< Home