Last month, in a perfect example of the absurdity which the law has descended to since its revival, the manager of Dunedin's Bowling Green Tavern was charged with sedition over advertisments in which he offered students the chance to win a petrol-soaked couch and swap petrol for beer. The charge has now been dropped after legal advice from Police National Headquarters that there was insufficient evidence to prove the crime. As they had flyers and an admission of publication, this almost certainly means they felt they could not prove an intent to incite violence, lawlessness or disorder. Alternatively, they realised that it simply wouldn't pass the laugh test. The pub manager will not be charged with anything else.
I'm glad to see that freedom of speech (and simple sanity) have won out in the end. But this charge should never have been laid in the first place, and if we want to prevent the police from abusing this vague and over-broad law in future, it is vital that we repeal it.
And just to ask a seditious question: if the police bring the administration of justice into contempt with charges like these, is it seditious?
ReplyDeleteNo publication or statement - they're off the hook...
ReplyDeleteMaybe contempt =)
No publication or statement - they're off the hook...
ReplyDeleteWhat about a seditious conspiracy - all that requires is the intent...
Hey I/S, do you know anything about the second recent sedition charge, prior to this one?
ReplyDeleteAll I know is what I read in the "In Brief" column in the Dom Post one day - a youth in Rotorua was charged, but due to his age (I assume) everything else was supressed.
Has this charge been brought to trial yet? Any idea what he's alleged to have done?
Asher - you're after this post:
ReplyDeletehttp://norightturn.blogspot.com/2007/02/sedition-by-example-xxii-christopher.html
The sedition charge was dropped.
I'd add that at 17 the youth is a full adult as far as criminal law is concerned.
'...and if we want to prevent the police from abusing this vague and over-broad law in future, it is vital that we repeal it.'
ReplyDeleteYou talking about the s 59 Bill?