Wednesday, October 26, 2011

John Key Speaks - I can see his lips moving - but what's that coming out of his mouth?!

Watch this clip, and listen carefully, especially from about 1:33 onwards, to Key's statements regarding the report from Standard and Poors, and what he alleges Standard and Poors said about the Labour Party.

Now watch this clip.  I can see his lips moving, but - what's that coming out of his mouth?!


UPDATE - 12:05 PM 27 OCTOBER 2011:  This post has been CENSORED by John Key and his National party supporters, who do not tolerate free speech and freedom of information, because it is indisputable evidence that his lies, which are actionable, as he well knows.  The second video clip embedded above, of Key speaking at a press conference has been deleted at the source, because it is potentially actionable, and it is indisputable evidence of a corrupt dishonest politician at "work".

Here are two links to other information sources instead, although neither contain the information which was in the deleted clip.
  1. Here is a link to a TV 3 News broadcast
  2. And one to a clip on YouTube - visit the original clip and click "Like"

Under British Law (the Representation of the People Act 1983), there are criminal penalties in place for those convicted of making or publishing false statements about election candidates. This is to protect the democratic process and is in addition to the general, civil law on libel (which must obviously also be observed when reporting elections).

Here's a link to the Hansard report that contains the following exchange:

Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2)---Defamation Provision
9. Hon. PETER DUNNE (Leader---United NZ) to the Associate Minister of Justice: Does she agree with the chairman of the freedom committee of the Commonwealth Press Union that the proposed new anti-defamation law ``not only constrains media freedom, it constrains freedom of speech and that affects everyone''; if not, what were the reasons she gave to the Cabinet and the Caucus for proposing the amendment?
Hon. PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice), on behalf of the Associate Minister of Justice: Any anti-defamation law, including the Defamation Act, constrains the absolute freedom of speech. However, section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act allows constraints that are ``justifiable in a free and democratic society''. The reason for the amendment was to discourage people from making and publishing statements about candidates in an election campaign, knowing them to be untrue and defamatory, with the purpose of damaging candidates' reputations in a way that is calculated to influence voters.

Hon. Peter Dunne: Will the Associate Minister now spell out to the House the reasons that led her to claim twice last week to the House that media ownership was one of the factors behind this change?
Hon. PHIL GOFF: I do not have the benefit of seeing what the Associate Minister said last week, but the reasons for the change were as I explained to the member in reply to the primary question.
Jill Pettis: Will the Minister please explain to the House whether the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) will be passed this week, now that clause 199B is to be removed?
Hon. PHIL GOFF: It is important that this bill be passed as soon as possible, in order to give electoral institutions the time needed to make the necessary administrative changes. However, its passage will depend on progress on other items on the legislative agenda, and on the cooperation of all parties in the House.
Dr Wayne Mapp: Why did the Minister, who was apparently described today as one of New Zealand's most pre-eminent lawyers, chose to ignore the advice of officials who said that criminal defamation would be an unreasonable restriction of free speech?
Hon. PHIL GOFF: I do not know what happened under previous Governments, but in this Government Ministers take responsibility for making decisions. They listen to officials' advice; they do not have to slavishly follow it.
Dr Muriel Newman: In the light of the widespread opposition to the proposal to introduce criminal libel into New Zealand's electoral law, and of the Government's sudden U-turn on it, will the Minister consider removing the press-gagging laws that make it a criminal offence to report on the Family Court; if not, why not?
Mr SPEAKER: That is rather wide of the original question, but the Minister may comment.
Hon. PHIL GOFF: No (abridged)

- Link to full story

No comments:

Post a Comment