Thursday, April 27, 2006



Proof by example

Anyone in need of proof that our sedition law is dangerous and should be repealed need go no further than our local monarchist. That's right - he's suggesting prosecuting those who do not share his peculiar fixation with the Queen. Not that he's the only one - last year, the Monarchist League made exactly the same suggestion. Such prosecutions would of course fall foul of the "good faith" defence, not to mention the affirmation of freedom of expression in the Bill of Rights Act - but I don't think these people have come to terms with the Bill of Rights 1688 (which established Parliamentary rule in England), let alone our modern law of the same name...

5 comments:

Ah, good old farmer Bill.

Posted by Lewis : 4/27/2006 10:03:00 AM

A government that needs to protect itself from criticism is nothing less than a dictatorship. Bill is, bless him, fighting a battle that was lost (in Britain at least) over 300 years ago and not adding anything of value to defending monarchy. When you mentioned his attempt to invoke the divine right of Kings a few weeks ago, a few commenters (RB for one) suggested you give him a chance to build his argument online. Unfortunately his posts don't do much more than shout God Save the Queen from the rooftops (which is fine, I choose to visit that rooftop) or spout rubbish.

Bill, if you read this, please, try injecting some intellectual vigour to your views!

Posted by PabloR : 4/27/2006 11:42:00 AM

I do wonder how the queen herself reacts to foaming at the mouth monarchists. Hopefully with disdain. (part of me hopes she's got a Vickers HMG hidden in the Rolls for dealing with them.)

Posted by Weekend_Viking : 4/27/2006 12:07:00 PM

I've just read the comments thread at kiwirepublic (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kiwirepublic/messages) and can see why Bill doesn't allow comments to be posted by all and sundry. (Matt the Jaffa is entertainingly vitriolic) However, it just confirms that he is, disappointingly, not just unwilling to enter into a debate, he is intellectually incapabale of entering into it.

Posted by PabloR : 4/27/2006 12:30:00 PM

That's very funny... quoting only Section 81(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1962, while leaving out 81(2)(b) which states that it is not seditious:

"To point out errors or defects in the Government or Constitution of New Zealand, or in the administration of justice; or to incite the public or any persons or any class of persons to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter affecting the Constitution, laws, or Government of New Zealand;"

Posted by buzzandhum : 5/02/2006 02:30:00 PM