Media reaction to the conviction of Tim Selwyn for sedition:
- TVNZ: Still a place for sedition charges
- NestalkZB: Extraordinary verdict in sedition case
- The Age: NZ axe thrower found guilty of sedition charge
- New Zealand Herald; Sedition verdict 'harms free speech'
- Dominion-Post: Axe flier ruled seditious
- NewstalkZB: Outrage over verdicts
- Radio New Zealand: Sedition verdict
There have also been blog posts at DPF, Not PC, Capitalism Bad, Tree Pretty, Oh Crikey!, Holden Republic, NZBC, and Liberty Scott. The latter raises the quite reasonable question of where the usual voices of liberalism within the political parties are on this. The Labour Party, who were once victims of this unjust law? Silent. National? Silent. ACT, who proudly proclaim themselves to be "the liberal party"? Silent. The Greens, usually a reliable voice on civil liberties issues? Silent. And of course nothing from the Progressives or Maori Party either. This is a serious civil liberties issue which threatens the freedom of speech of everyone in New Zealand - and our supposed representatives in Parliament refuse to say a word. Thanks, guys.
There was also a fairly long discussion on Nine to Noon this morning, which I'll blog about when the audio is up.
8 comments:
Dear No Right Turn,
Perhaps Selwyn misread public sympathy for his actions when he chose to go with a jury trail. However, because Selwyn printed his thoughts encouraging others to commit acts of violence, the guilty verdict is the right one.
Posted by Anonymous : 6/09/2006 11:12:00 AM
Greens break silence:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0606/S00143.htm
Posted by Lyndon : 6/09/2006 01:56:00 PM
Selwyn's lawyer sounds like he agrees with the verdict and that Selwyn got what he deserved, at least that's how he came across on the radio this morning.
On an unrelated matter, do TVNZ employ proof readers in their web team?
"Selwyn's lawyer, Mark Anthony Edgar, says free speech can transcend into anti-social urging, and there will always be a need to enforce laws against that."
Does he mean that free speech can descend into anti-social urging or that free speech can transcend anti-social urging?
Posted by Anonymous : 6/09/2006 03:51:00 PM
I think we should blame our man from Palmerston North. There is sedition, saely slumbering in the vaults of our collective legal amnesia, then along comes Idiot/savant and he starts a campaign against against... And of course some bright and ambitious plod amongst his readership got all excited, and wrote "SEDITION! HOW COOL IS THAT?" on a post it note and stuck it on his PC. The rest is history.
Posted by Sanctuary : 6/09/2006 04:26:00 PM
Maybe the Greens initial silence has something to do with this right-wing "reorientation" crap they're going through.
Posted by Anonymous : 6/09/2006 08:01:00 PM
"Anti-social urging?" Yo, what?
Hmm, so it seems that thus far only Keith Locke, the whipping boy of untold right-wing blogs, is the only MP to actually speak up. Bernard Darnton's point is so good it gets a second run:
"Don't complain about "Helengrad" if you're going to implicitly support dictatorial behaviour."
Posted by Psycho Milt : 6/09/2006 09:08:00 PM
Sanctuary: That would imply that the police can read. I was going to add time-travel, as the campaign really only started after Selwyn was charged, but it seems I was doign my nut about blasphemy and sedition even before it had come to public attention. Bugger.
Christiaan: no; they're just a bit slack, that's all. I guess I should have been emailing them about it more often...
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 6/09/2006 10:01:00 PM
I'd put the Green's reticence (and that of other politicians) down to a healthy respect for the separation of powers (and perhaps a desire to avoid contempt of court for trying to contaminate a jury).
Posted by Graeme Edgeler : 6/10/2006 01:21:00 AM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).