March For Democracy Hijacked

Children's author reporter David Gadd writes for Fairfax owned Stuff.co.nz, putting forward his version of what took place at the March for Democracy in Auckland earlier today. "Hundreds march over government inaction" reads the headline, immediately followed by the opening statement, "Up to 5,000 people marched up Auckland's Queen Street today..." Technically a gathering of this number can be referred to as hundreds, i.e. fifty hundreds, but that's just preposterous, it is a well-recognised convention that such a figure is referred to as thousands. Meanwhile at the Government radio station website, Radio New Zealand, the wordy headline makes the following fallacious claim, "About 1,000 protesters called on the Government to make referendums binding at a march in central Auckland on Saturday afternoon." The clearly disingenuous attempt to lie about the actual turnout at the march is quickly followed with the claim that the purpose of the march was to call for binding referendums. This false claim was also voiced by the news reader on TV3 as the first line in their opening story on the march. The stated purpose of the march has always been to stand up for democracy - think of that what you will, however it is ridiculous to twist a side issue that only some of the protesters may themselves espouse into the primary purpose of the march. The same pathetic attempt to rewrite events in such a blatantly simple way took place following the Christchurch march against the Anti-Smacking bill in March 2007.

The Herald and TV3 (both non-government funded) to their credit, managed to get at least the headlines of their stories correct.

Baldock's 2011 Election Bid

Petitioner, Larry Baldock in 2007

The petition asking "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand" was put forward by Focus on the Family employee Sheryl Savill, however it was the initiative of ex-United Future list MP, Larry Baldock. The petition was signed by over 390,000 Kiwis and was supported by people from a wide range of backgrounds and political parties. However as the 08 election got closer, questions began being asked about what the petition was all about. This is covered in more detail in my Christian Voting guide for the 08 election but in summary involved a new political party forming on the back of the petition, followed by an unprecedented breach of privacy of the personal details of the signatories to the petition. Then on 5 September the Kiwi Party announced their second petition, this time calling for referendums on a law change to be binding. This is not only a knee-jerk reaction to the National Government's ignoring the 87.6% No vote response to the smacking referendum, but also an attempt at creating a platform from which to relaunch the Kiwi Party into the '11 election - and this time it's even more blatant. The Kiwi Campaign for Democracy website and the Kiwi Party's own website contain identical articles, not to mention a striking similarity in the name - and this despite Larry's denial at a recent Christchurch meeting that the campaign was being run by the Kiwi Party.

However today the Legislation Advisory Committee which is headed up by former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer has come out saying the petition must not be allowed to go ahead as it would contradict the fundamental purpose of the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993, which provided for non-binding referendums - NZ Herald. Petition initiator and Kiwi Party leader Larry Baldock fairly responded, "they're trying to shut down democracy". Simeon Brown of NZ Debate observed that "if they have a right to veto it, we should have the right to veto parliament". The fact of the matter is, there are no legitimate grounds on which to prevent the petition from going ahead. The CIR act was established to ensure that citizens could have their say if they thought they were being ignored - on any issue apart from one which had been the subject of a prior referendum question. The Committee raises many very good points as to why the aim of the petition is at conflict with the way New Zealand's electoral system works. Palmer states that, "It is doubtful that Parliament contemplated that such a referendum could be held under the authority of the Act". However if this were the case, why does the law specify various prohibitions for what petition questions may relate to (Section 4), but neglect to rule out questions relating to the operation of the CIR process itself? He comments further on in the Herald's article,

"The second question that arises is what does binding mean? Does it mean that the content of the referendum is capable of displacing or amending an Act of Parliament directly? As a matter of legal drafting, that cannot be the case. It seems quite impossible for a citizen's initiated referendum to contain professionally drafted amendments that would be legally effective.

Palmer here identifies one of the key problems with the Kiwi Party initiative to amend the CIR Act. A simplified petition question can firstly, not adequately address the plethora of issues surrounding a proposed law change, and secondly, acting on the results of a binding referendum would be extremely difficult as referendum questions never specify the exact changes that should be made to a particular law. As such, referendums are at their best, valuable tools for gaining an accurate gauge on public opinion on a specific issue. According to the guidelines around obtaining a referendum, the Clerk of Parliament has until about 14 Jan to come to a decision on whether or not the petition will ultimately be able to go ahead. The public have had their opportunity to make comment (in the 28 days from 16 Sept to 14 Oct), and we are now in the three month period during which the Clerk may deliberate on the final wording of the question with input from the key parties concerned.

Pro-Lifers Shut Down: US, Australia

In Australia, attempts to stop pro-lifers from approaching women going into abortion clinics are heightened, with a proposed new law that would create a 50-metre no-go area surrounding Australia's largest abortion mill.

"The Victorian Government has been asked to create a 50m protest-free "bubble zone" around the entrance of Australia's largest provider of abortion services...
The zone... would effectively end a 16-year campaign by anti-abortion groups to dissuade women from entering the Fertility Control Clinic in East Melbourne..
Protester Dave Forster said such a zone would prevent protesters approaching women seeking abortion. "There would be a minimum distance that we would be required to stay outside of, and I guess it would mean that we are not allowed within 50 metres of the clinic," he said." - The Australian (2 September 2008)

The Constant Joy blog covered this travesty of freedom of speech a couple of days ago,

"By placing a bubble zone around the Fertility Control Clinic, the government would be limiting the protesters' democratic rights. One of the principles of democracy allows all individuals the freedom of speech, so both the abortion clinic and the protesters should therefore be able to have their say - but neither should be able to stop the other from voicing their views. As Voltaire said, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.'" - Constant Joy

What we have here, is a petty little bylaw being put forward, which if it came into law, would specify a 50metre perimeter of public land surrounding an abortion mill as being a restricted-access area - but only to such people as disagreed with what terrible attrocities were being carried out inside it's walls.  This is a contemporary example of discrimination against citizens of a country on the basis of personal belief.  Does this remind you of anything?

Are you annoyed yet?  We haven't even got started. A month ago (1 August) in the town of Bel Air, Maryland, a dozen or more police officers broke up a peaceful protest staged by members of Defend Life.

"The allegations in the case sound like a 3rd World dictatorship: Police officers talk over before the arrests what charges they'll use, there are no explanations when the arrests are made, the suspects are denied access to legal counsel while in custody, and cops subject suspects to semi-public strip-searches."...
The truth of the matter is that our clients were heckled, arrested, imprisoned, shackled, and strip-searched twice for exercising their First Amendment rights," said attorney Daniel Cox, who is allied with the Alliance Defense Fund is serving as local counsel. "No excuse exists for how our young clients were treated."...
The officers had ordered them off of county property because they did not have a permit to engage in free speech, the report said. And after the arrests, "Three young female participants – including teenagers – were subjected to two rounds of strip-searches," the lawsuit said." - WND

"What happened on August 1st is almost unbelievable, that 18 persons who were peaceably assembled on public property out of harm's way were arrested without any warning and without being told what the charges against them were. None of those arrested were read their rights. Only a few were allowed to make a single phone call.
This decision by the State of Maryland to drop the charges shows that our side of the story was the true story. There were no traffic jams. There were no people running in and out of traffic. There was no refusal to disperse. They plainly and simply violated our First Amendment rights!" - Defend Life Blog

And at the Phatmass blog, a friend of the young people reports,

"The officer followed them, and once they had set up, he came and arrested my friend. He said nothing except for "Turn around, you're under arrest." When she asked why she was under arrest and what her rights were, he ignored her. Then they arrested everyone who was there. It took all night for them to be processed. They were all relased by around 9:30am-- some on bail (out of staters), others just released." - Phatmass Blog

"It's a woman's choice" they tell us.  But as abortion-survivor Gianna Jessen says so aptly, "if abortion is merely about women's rights, then what were mine?"  Consider the young women shown in the photos being handcuffed and carted off to jail; where was their choice?

Is abortion so sacred to the state that they are prepared to illegally arrest and detain citizens who are merely voicing their opinion?  The answer is glaringly obvious, and it is Yes.