Slashdot Mirror
NZ MPs Outlaw Satire of Parliament
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 means that Jon Stewart would get pretty low ratings in NZ - wouldn't he?
Um.. New Zealand is not apart of Australia....
I won't disagree with you on that, but what does this have to do with Australia?
http://michaelsmith.id.au
``make it a contempt of Parliament for broadcasters or anyone else to use footage of the chamber for 'satire, ridicule or denigration.''
Huh? I thought the whole point of Parliament was to be ridiculed and denigrated?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Good lord, this is very old news.
The local TV stations have already said they'll ignore it 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.
With the addition of a 0x20 character you could have been exactly right.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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.)
Attempts to muzzle the press or media have been tried before in Commonwealth countries (such as in Alberta in 1934) but those types of laws are usually refused royal assent because they are ultra vires, or beyond the powers of the government to enact such laws. In this case however, there is no legislation involved, only House rules which expire at end of the present session. So it appears they have effectively found, a way, however temporary, to do an end-run around the Bill of Rights. It will be interesting to see if other parliamentary democracies try - and get away with - the same tactic.
The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
It's not surprising that he doesn't know the difference between NZ and AUS, considering that he's Norwegian. Or Belgian. Same diff. (I did a whois on zakata.com.)
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Its NEW ZEALAND not Australia you moron. Look at a fucking map.
Sorry, I have a headache.
If this were really happening, what would you think?
How is it that a person can grow up in a society of people, enter government, and then vote to enact a law that so evidently goes against the freedoms of that society?
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 oppression of all?
I am amazed and scared by the ideas that have it in to law in countries that I have long considered as ADVANCING freedom! I used to regard the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc, as promoting freedom and democracy around the world, BY EXAMPLE. Now the theme seems to be "spy on everyone" and "no anonymity" for the citizens, but "forbid criticism" and "enforce secrecy" for the governments.
It's not even the courts - it's treated as a contempt of Parliament, so it goes before the Privileges Committee (i.e. a select committee of MPs).
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.
(obligatory 1984 reference)
Who is going to police it? The newly set up Ministry of Truth?
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.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
As a NZ'er I can assure you that the media at large will completely ignore this rule. Most of the papers have a regular comic making fun of the parliament (Its easy to do, since they are all twits), they won't drop that. Police and Judges will not want to waste there time with it either. It will be unenforceable because everyone who does the enforcing enjoys a good laugh too. Especially at the current government.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
laws are never made to be ignored nor unenforcable. they will pull this one out when it suits them mark my words.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
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, 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 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.)
What New Zealanders say about themselves is often much stronger than anything Jon Stewart says. Stories about New Zealand on Slashdot all seem to give the impression that N.Z. is a country like the United States. Actually, only 4 million people live there, so it is more like a city in the U.S. than the U.S. itself.
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 "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 was partly a parody 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".
It sounds rather satirical itself. The mere mention of it could get you locked up.
What?
This is news? Handy rule of thumb: If you're three days behind the Daily Show in covering a news item, you've probably lost the right to describe that story as "news".
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Here's the actual link to the order in question:/ b/2/0/48HansD_20070628_00000893-Standing-Orders-Se ssional.htm
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...
I'm presently in the middle of reading an English translation of Mein Kampf. Earlier tonight, I got to the part where Hitler talks about the dangers of "freedom of the press" -- he rants at length about the need to control it completely, and to stop it from poisoning the state with lies and digging up dirt on even the most noble politicians.
Needless to say, while I am well aware that NZ can hardly be compared to Nazi Germany, I found this news quite disturbing.
I forgot to say that the linked web site is NSFW -- if your co-workers are sheep.
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."
Just to clarify something
Its still legal to make satire, and ridicule politician. You just can't use footage taken from inside the Beehive (The New Zealand parliament)
So making fun of them, while using footage of them outside is perfectly legal, and i belive thats how the Australians have adapted the most part.
I am however greatly bothered by the fact that this is what i consider abuse of power, and rather nasty form of censorship of the actions of our goverment.
To avoid criticism; Say nothing, Do nothing, Be nothing.
This is all pretty meaningless as the vast majority of New Zealanders have nothing but contempt for parliament. The TV news organizations, including the state broadcaster, have indicated that they will ignore the legislation.
It's true that a free press _is_ dangerous. He was right about that much. It causes all kinds of trouble.
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.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Helen Clark has balls; John Howard doesn't.
Wikipedia tells me also that New Zealand decided against joining the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901, and instead changed from being a colony to a separate "dominion" in 1907, equal in status to Australia and Canada.
This sounds like a YouTube law. These politicians are scared of appearing in public with "macaca" and "tubes":
http://youtube.com/watch?v=r90z0PMnKwI
http://youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE
and the remixes...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=EtOoQFa5ug8
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.
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.
Pining for the fjords
I wonder if USA would allow a reporter or somebody to be extradited from here to NZ over this? It goes against the very grain that we use to stand for. But with us asking for other countries to send us those who have committed IP issues, would we hand stewart over if he continues to lampoon NZ?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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 immigration laws are: "ignored" by unscrupulous sweatshop companies; and "unenforceable" when poor immigrant workers sneak in and are hired by these companies, and the sheer number of these workers makes it impossible to deport them. Failing to enforce the law is not a retreat from cries of racism, it's laissez-faire economics combined with a surrender to the magnitude of the problem. And it's convenient for the governments of the day to look the other way and let the companies (and consumers) benefit from the situation, instead of providing legal status to these workers.
I would argue that the real racism here is the exploitation of undocumented immigrant workers, not any attempts to enforce the laws and deport them.
Has no one considered the possibility that Parliament themselves are merely engaging in self-satire? That's the only way I can make sense of this...
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
This is just another attempt to medicate the symptom (dissent) instead of addressing the disease (apathy, corruption, disillusionment) which is a MUCH bigger issue. I'll forgo the soap box but we as a world are heading for a Roman Empire type meltdown on a global scale if we don't start appreciating what we do have instead of whining about what we don't. The world will never be perfect but it's still pretty dang amazing.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
What the parent was trying to do is something rarely seen on slashdot: making fun of both sides of the aisle.
Remember folks, slashdot doesn't have a -1 "disagree" moderation!
I was head of tech support for a small Australian ISP for years. There are strict privacy regulations covering what you can and cannot (mostly cannot) do with user data. There are no regulations requiring ISPs to restrict access to web sites. Nor is there any technology in place to enforce such a thing at a national scale.
Here's a good summary of what the laws actually say.
Websites hosted within Australia can be the target of a take down notice if they are rated X or RC (refused classification) by the OFLC (censors).
Websites hosted outside Australia can be rated by the OFLC as well. In this case, they cannot be the target of a take down notice because the ABA has no jurisdiction. Instead, the site is added to the lists provided by companies producing internet filtering software. Internet filtering software is installed by the user, and is not required by any part of the legislation.
From that page, here's a list of the actual responsibilities of ISPs:
The extent to which as an Australian ISP you are required to filter content? You have to tell your customers that content filtering software is available, and you have to sell such a program to your customers on request. (You can do that via a third-party; you don't have to stock the software yourself.)