When Tim Selwyn was convicted, I sent in an OIA request to the police asking how much it had cost the crown to investigate and prosecute him for sedition. Today, I received the following reply:
There is no cost to the Crown as Police is funded to undertake investigations and prosecutions of this nature
"Mising the point" would be one way of describing this "answer". "Glib bullshit" would be another. And I'm appalled that a government department would take its obligations so lightly as to evade a fairly straightforward question in such a manner.
Needless to say, I've sent in a followup request, but I'm not pleased...
ATM I'm preparing my first complain, over a very late request to Defence (100 working days and counting...) Unfortunately, I forgot to hit a photocopier today...
ReplyDeleteOkay - In some cases you would be right, but in this instance they've probably given the correct answer.
ReplyDeleteIt does miss the point, but had Tim Selwyn not been charged the police probably wouldn't have spent any less of their operating budget this year.
Maybe you should ask them how many burglars they could have caught with all the man-hours spent on the case...
Their reply is disgraceful. Any crown entity could refuse to answer a question on costs based on what they do is what they are funded for.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely a case for the Ombudsman.
Glib stonewalling is the signature of the government under Clark. Look at her response to the ten questions posed by the NZ Herald.
ReplyDelete...This is free speech? It looks like Tim Selwyn was convicted of something like attempted "violent initimdation of an elected official", and encouranging others to do similar. That should be illegal. It's the opposite of freedom of speech to give the thumbs up to vigilante thugs like Tim Selwyn.
ReplyDeleteWhen I want to talk to my MP, I don't violently harass her, or encourage others to do the same. When I don't like what's going on, I like to keep my sulking as non-violent as possible. I use the parliamentary process. And if I don't get what I want, I have to accept it. Democracy's a bastard like that.
Now, how free is my opinion going to be if everytime someone doesn't like what's going on, they go down to their local MP's office and break stuff until they get what they want?
If you or anyone else on the dinosaur left call this issue about "freedom of speech", then you know who your ultimate aspiration should be? Maybe those crowds of thugs who roam the streets and beat up opposing faction supporters in the days leading up to elections. Tim Selwyn got what he deserves.
James: Believing he was treated harshly is neither 'right' nor 'left', it more about believing that in a free and democratic society, the charge of sedition has no place.
ReplyDeletePrecisely. And its worth pointing out that everyone who has criticised the sedition charge has also been in complete agreement with the decision to charge Selwyn with criminal damage. It's ThoughtCrime we object to - not protecting democracy from violence.
I'll have what you're smoking!
ReplyDeleteThis isn't the heart-wrenching story of an innocent man who has been selected by the powers that be to walk a very public perp walk so that other seditious persons like Deborah Coddington or Guyon Espiner or Chris Trotter or Lewis Holden know their place.
A just and fair society exists on free speech that has the just and fair limitations. One is privacy. Two is the protection of the weak (ie, some censorship). Three is libel and four is the application of the principle that freedom of speech is an absolute, and without degree, modification or intensity. One act of speech is as equal as the next.
It doesn't come from nowhere. It comes from being able to say that Tim Selwyn demeans the opinions of people like you and me who can manage to participate in discussion without acting like thugs. My opinion is not equal any more.
"Sedition" is just a word. Tim Selwyn wasn't convicted of a "word" or a "ThoughtCrime" (which is two words); he was convicted of willingly attempting to use force to change the course of events.
If we let him use "freedom of speech" as cover then we privilege violence over reason. What would be worse than making this a simple morality play about not breaking windows would be letting 'freedom of speech' become the new 'Patriotism'. It's a very important thing. It's not just a place for scoundrels to seek refuge.
I am pleased to see that at least Mike has not been sucked in by the "Free Speech" tribe.
ReplyDeleteI personally had a gripe earlier this year with Wayne Mapp so I emailed him and commented on an article he wrote in the North Shore Times.
He replied ,promptly, and accepted my point of view.
I have a very good Kelly Axe but never had any thought of using it on Wayne Mapp's window, or anyone elses property for that matter.
Tim Selwyn is a very strange and dangerous person who may well appear in our courts again sometime in the future. His previous history seems to indicate that he is not capable of learning from his errors.
It's not nothing to say "I just axed the PM's front window and you should too". But, if you think the most important way to protct free speech is to be on the side of the people who have do most to hurt it, then, so be it.
ReplyDeletewell, one might very well ask. I suppose, the answer could end up being cerebral. But, you know what? All I know is that if this is what we're fighting for, then it's a lousy battle.
ReplyDelete