Slashdot Log In
NZ MPs Outlaw Satire of Parliament
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Jul 29, 2007 03:45 AM
from the head-and-shoulders-only dept.
from the head-and-shoulders-only dept.
mernil writes "New Zealand's Parliament has voted itself far-reaching powers to control satire and ridicule of MPs in Parliament, attracting a storm of media and academic criticism. The new standing orders, voted in last month, concern the use of images of Parliamentary debates, and make it a contempt of Parliament for broadcasters or anyone else to use footage of the chamber for 'satire, ridicule or denigration.' The new rules are actually more liberal than the previous ones, but the threat of felony contempt is new."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Daily Show (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In this case, perspective is useful. (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyhow, apparently some New Zealanders think that N.Z. has an exaggerated self-importance. So they joke about their country. For example: Adult Sheep Finder [adultsheepfinder.com] "New Zealand's #1 Internet Dating Site". (The site is partly a reference to the fact that raising sheep is the main agricultural activity in New Zealand; although there are only 4 million people, there are 60 million sheep.)
I doubt the N.Z. parliament will stop "satire, ridicule or denigration". In fact, the idea is absurd. Remember, the story Alice in wonderland [wikipedia.org] was partly a parody [victorianweb.org] of the English king and queen, when saying negative things about the monarchy was illegal. That was in England, and it is sometimes said that New Zealanders are "more English than the English".
Parent
The site linked is NSFW if your co-workers are ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, the result of the N.Z. parliament making criticism illegal will be that the criticism becomes much, much worse. Tthe old rules were not followed, either. Quote from the article: "However, the old rules were frequently breached, as the media often used wider-angled shots or published photographs of MPs napping, reading comics, eating lollies, and in one notable case, giving another MP the finger."
Parent
Self-satire? (Score:3, Funny)
Hmmmm. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That being said, We should note that there is a difference between stealing IP and general theft or some violent act and politically motivated crimes that are both non violent and don't rise above issues of speech. It is in international law that the US agreed to where they are supposed to offer safe harbor from people like this. Typically, it has been done with countries who are hostile to the US or our
Re:Hmmmm. (Score:5, Informative)
1. Murder; attempted murder, comprehending the crime designated under law in the United States as assault with intent to commit murder.
2. Manslaughter.
3. Aggravated wounding, injuring or assault; wounding or injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
4. Unlawful throwing or application of any corrosive or injurious substances.
5. Rape; indecent assault; sodomy.
6. Abortion.
7. Unlawful sexual acts with or upon children under the age specified by the laws of both the requesting
and requested parties.
8. Procuring sexual intercourse.
9. Willful abandonment of a minor under the age of six years when the life of that minor is or is likely to be injured or endangered.
10. Bigamy.
11. Kidnapping; child stealing; abduction.
12. Robbery; assault with intent to rob.
13. Burglary; housebreaking or shopbreaking.
14. Larceny.
15. Embezzlement.
16. Obtaining property, money or valuable securities by false pretenses or by conspiracy to defraud the
public or any person by deceit or falsehood or other fraudulent [*3] means, whether such deceit or false-
hood or any fraudulent means would or would not amount to a false pretense.
17. Bribery, including soliciting, offering and accepting.
18. Extortion.
19. Receiving and transporting any money, valuable securities or other property knowing the same to
have been unlawfully obtained.
20. Fraud by promoter, director, manager or officer of any company, existing or not.
21. Forgery, comprehending the crimes designated under law in the United States as the forgery or false
making of private or public obligations and official documents or public records of the government or
public authority or the uttering or fraudulent use of the same; uttering what is forged.
22. The making or the utterance, circulation or fraudulent use of of counterfeit money or counterfeit seals
and stamps of the government or public authority.
23. Knowingly and without lawful authority, making or having in possession any instrument, tool, or
machine adopted and intended for the counterfeiting of money, whether coin or paper.
24. Perjury; subornation of perjury.
25. False swearing.
26. Arson and damage to property, utilities, or means of transportation or communication by fire or ex-
plosive.
27. Any malicious act done with intent to cause danger to property or endanger the safety of any
person in connection with any means of transportation.
28. Piracy, by statute or by law of nations; mutiny or revolt on board an aircraft or vessel against the au-
thority of the captain or commander of such aircraft or vessel; any seizure or exercise of control, by force
or violence or threat of force or violence, of an aircraft or vessel.
29. Malicious injury to property, comprehending willful damage to property under New Zealand law.
30. Offenses against the bankruptcy laws which are punishable by more than three months' imprisonment.
31. Offenses against the laws relating to the importation, exportation, supply, or possession of narcotics
including dangerous drugs; abetting offense against corresponding law in another country.
32. Unlawful obstruction of justice through bribery of judicial officers; corruption and bribery of heads
of government departments or members of the Congress in the United States, or Ministers of the Crown
or members of Parliament in New Zealand; corruption and bribery of law enforcement officers or government
officials; fabrication of evidence; conspiracy to bring false accusation; corrupting juries
and witnesses by threats, bribes, or other corrupt means.
Unless they REALLY try to stretch number 32 here, my guess would be "no", although IANAL.
Parent
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh? I thought the whole point of Parliament was to be ridiculed and denigrated?
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Old News (Score:5, Informative)
Good lord, this is very old news.
The local TV stations have already said they'll ignore it [tv3.co.nz] and certain politicians have already been backing down from their high horse.
It is unlikely this "law" will have any actual effect on the satirisation, ridicule, or other general highlighting of how usless our MPs actually are.
Re:Old News (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, napkin-arse, guess what? You're so wrong with your statement, it almost overflows into the "Correct statements" category! Were you by chance on a re-education trip to Russia, China, or North Korea recently? That would certainly explain you idiotic attitude to the whole "freedom of expression" thingie, the whole concept of which has apparently has been erased from your memory in the Paycheck/Spotless Mind style.
Even if satire is useless, which it is not, people in a free society are expected to be free to satirize as much as they want, even if some dumbasses in the parliament (or on
> Insulting people is not equal to criticism.
No, but a lot fun can be had when both are done at the same time, and there ain't a goddamn thing you can do about it!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In politics ridicule is often not what the other side makes of an issue, it's more often what someone makes of himself or his issue.
Throughout history and in many nations and cultures there has been a very constructive place for satire, quite a few bad politicians have been toppled by the satire (and ridicule) their actions provoked.
Creativity required... (Score:2)
Or build a CGI parliament. Then they could release a FPS version of the parliament and you could run round and blast your MPs to death with a BFG.
Ultra Vires (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually Alberta is not a Commonwealth country, it is a province within one and I believe it was 1935 and the legislation only required papers to print government rebuttals to stories which they ran (so it was bad but not incredibly so). It might h
Have the people in government gone insane? (Score:2, Insightful)
I understand that people in government feel some shame about their corruption and dishonesty, and would like to keep as much of their activities secret as possible, but have they lost all conscience and connection with the people? Also, do they not imagine how making certain laws might make it easier to expand the laws to the point of oppress
Who is going to police it? (Score:3, Interesting)
Who is going to police it? The newly set up Ministry of Truth?
a sign of weakening democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
As democracy weakens, states clamp down on their critics and introduce more extreme punishments for transgressors.
This sounds like a good example of this kind of action - sadly it seems to be getting more common across the world, not just in NZ.
self-parody (Score:2)
Those New Zealand MPs really have a sense of humour. This is self-parody.
Most local New Zealand media sickens me (Score:5, Informative)
As a New Zealander I've found this very disappointing. Normally I associate New Zealand as having a very open and non-corrupt national government with an open information policy (written into law through New Zealand's Official Information Act), and without too many layers of bureaucracy. I'd much rather have an environment where the media is free to take what pictures they like. To put it in context though, the main section of New Zealand's television media, which is most directly affected by this, really is hopeless. Personally I think the un-professionalism of many of the journalists has really encouraged parliament to add some limitations, appropriate or not.
There are only two major providers of television news in New Zealand -- one state-owned (TV1) and another private (TV3, owned by CanWest). Neither actually invests in quality journalism any more. They invest in news that can double as entertainment to sell commercials in a prime-time entertainment slot. The way they advertise their own news programmes makes this obvious, and on television there's no alternative. TV3, in particular, spends a lot of time trying to stress how much better it is than TV1. Any story that has anything to do with that is promoted to the front of its bulletin.
Most reporters are young and inexperienced, with the experienced journalists having either lost their jobs, retired or moved overseas for better opportunities. A lot of reports seem to be more about making sure people know who the reporter is and adding superlatives, annoying clichés, metaphors, and background music that just distract from the actual information. The only reason I bother to watch locally produced television news programmes in New Zealand these days (with a few exceptions) is to get some pictures, but I cringe at the commentary that comes with them. Many of those who are left have an attitude where they like to claim they're hugely important, but in general they're not actually providing quality journalism to back it up. I've found it quite sickening watching this whole thing play out, because the media that's kicking up such a storm isn't actually demonstrating that it's worthy of the right it's wanting.
I'm quite amazed when I flick over to BBC and see something like Hard Talk [bbc.co.uk], which is just amazing in comparison to what we have locally produced. I really wish we could have that kind of quality in a local production, but I suspect the country just isn't large enough to have the resources for a reliable media.
If you are in New Zealand, try listening to MediaWatch [radionz.co.nz] on National Radio (or stream it if you prefer). Personally I think it's one of the most insightful commentaries on the New Zealand media available. (The show on 1st July actually covered this issue.)
Re:Most local New Zealand media sickens me (Score:4, Interesting)
I have had to stop watching the 6pm news. All it does is make me angry, I end up exasperated near yelling at the screen "This is not news!!, of all thats going on in the world today,.. you give us fluff!"
Parent
Re:Most local New Zealand media sickens me (Score:4, Interesting)
Things aren't as bad as they could be, trust me, we've got it good here compared to the states.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have to admit that regardless of what else they churn out, the BBC's produced some of the best television journalism I've seen. My favourite example is a 1981 Horizon interview with Richard Feynman. [bbc.co.uk] The entire clip (about an hour from memory) is just Richard Feynman continuously talking about his ideas and his life. No screen-time at all was wasted in showing an interviewer. Someone was obviously behind the camera to ask questions and guide topics, but those parts were edited out.
Granted that he wasn
Are you sure this law is legal? (Score:2, Interesting)
News? (Score:2, Insightful)
From the Horses Mouth... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates
Basically, this is a sessional order, and will be reviewed after the next election, if not sooner. Based on current popular opinion, it won't last...
Methinks this was introduced because, as others have pointed out, it's much easier for New Zealand's TV stations to fill the 10 minutes between ad breaks with name-calling and napping politicians than it is to actually do some proper journalism. Seriously, the journalism here is so pathetic; with this order in place, TV3's "political editor", Duncan Garner, is screwed.
Also, what Jon Stewart did on the Daily show, as far as I can tell, isn't in breach of the order. Satire of the politician is fine, however showing images of them picking their nose isn't...
Just to Godwin this thread... (Score:3, Interesting)
Needless to say, while I am well aware that NZ can hardly be compared to Nazi Germany, I found this news quite disturbing.
He's actually right... sort of. (Score:3, Insightful)
However, a free press is nonetheless less dangerous than a government that controls the press -- as he himself proved to anyone who was paying any attention whatever.
YouTube law (Score:3, Interesting)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=r90z0PMnKwI [youtube.com]
http://youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE [youtube.com]
and the remixes...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=EtOoQFa5ug8 [youtube.com]
Well, one might say that sound bites are not a fair way of characterizing the entire work of a politician. I think they are right: with Stevens and Allen, the rotten attitudes seem to go far deeper.
Laws like this aren't going to be very effective, but these people are running scared.
It may be influenced by recent BBC failures (Score:3, Interesting)
This is we the people being manipulated by professional liars. It seems to me that the NZ parliament has every right to demand that footage of its debates not be manipulated to suggest things that are not true.
Interestingly, a recent opinion poll in the UK suggested that younger people are less worried about media distortion of public events and people. I suggest this is a mistake. They should be. They have the least political power, the least share of the national wealth. Allowing people who are mostly rich, overentitled middle aged white males to foist lies on them by distorting apparent photographic footage suggests that, at the very least, compulsory reading of _1984_, the history of the 1920s in Russia and history of the 1930s in Germany should be considered.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not sure where the miners strike comes in to the current kerfuffle: there has been a recent storm-in-a-teacup about a slightly misleading trailer for a documentary that purported to show the
Medicating the symptom (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:not really surprising (Score:5, Funny)
With the addition of a 0x20 character you could have been exactly right.
Parent
Re:not really surprising (Score:5, Funny)
I won't disagree with you on that, but what does this have to do with Australia?
Parent
Re:not really surprising (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:not really surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
First, despite what the evidence found around Bondi Beach might suggest, New Zealand is not officially part of Australia.
Second, draconian privacy laws are a good thing. That would mean harsh penalties for companies breaching individuals' right to privacy. I don't think this is what you meant... But it's actually pretty accurate.
Third, on the internet laws... If you host a porn site in Australia, and someone complains, and the complaint is upheld, your site can be taken down. You are completely free to host the same content outside Australia. Australians are free to view the content wherever it's hosted. That, really, is about it.
(Until last November I was head of tech support at a small Aussie ISP, so I have some familiarity with the laws involved.)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
MOD Parent DOWN (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, I have a headache.
Parent
Re:MOD Parent DOWN (Score:5, Funny)
Ok smartass. I've looked at the map, where is this "New Zealand" you're talking about?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thu
Parent
Pretty big difference, actually... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Funny thing though, is that the media has already stated it won't blindly comply with them. It'll be interesting to see how far they go though.
Re:Free Speech Vs. NZ? (Score:5, Informative)
That said, it's very unlikely that anything of the sort will come of it. It's just not worth the trouble for them, especially since the media are so pissed about it now.
Parent
Re:Free Speech Vs. NZ? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Free Speech Vs. NZ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not sure about that . . . it sure looks like the US' current immigration laws are indeed ignored and unenforceable. Any serious attempt at enforcement nowadays results in screams of racism.
Obviously you have never tried to immigrate to the USA. I am in the process of doing just that, and it is not easy. I certainly don't think that the laws are "ignored and unenforceable" in my case. And I'm not screaming "racism" because of it, nor have I heard anyone else do so. But enough about my single data-point.
I think it's way too simplistic a gambit for you to play the "race" card in this discussion in order to imply the other side does. Certainly in some contexts, one might say that US immigrat