Parties, police and privacy
My column at the NZ Herald is over the different party’s positions on the police surveillance law.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: David Farrar on Politics, NZ HeraldParties, police and privacy
3 Responses to “Parties, police and privacy”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
9(unknown*no*no*1)&guid=ON){kind=small}
September 23rd, 2011 at 5:16 pm
“The possibility of the Greens supporting a law which makes it easier for the police to do their jobs is miniscule.”
“The media are easy to ignore however the filth is a different story and it is likely that they will want to ‘talk’ to some people. ”
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2007/12/evidence-of-green-partyanarchist.html
September 23rd, 2011 at 5:31 pm
DPF:
DPF, I think you mis-state the Greens’ position. My understanding is that the Greens are happy to support the Police having powers to undertake covert video surveillance pursuant to a warrant authorised by a Judge (with some reservations where the surveillance is undertaken via trespass onto private property). So the Greens do want the law changed to make it easier for the police to do their jobs, while at the same time want to defend property rights.
But the far bigger issue for the Greens is that of retrospectivity. To validate actions by a State agency that were knowingly unlawful is a total abrogation of the rule of law. When the High Court found that covert video surveillance was unlawful back in 2009, that should have prompted the Police to stop doing it and ask the Government to legislate to rectify the situation. Instead they ignored the High Court determination continued to undertake covert video surveillance until the appeals were finalised by the Supreme Court earlier this month.
The consequence of the Government’s proposal to validate that unlawful action is that people could be convicted under the new law who would have been acquitted under the law as it stood at the time the alleged offences took place.
That is totally unacceptable in any democratic society which has any respect for the rule of law.
September 24th, 2011 at 10:24 am
“knowingly unlawful” that is an emotion charged phrase as in “breaking the law”: assault and battery, armed robbery etc. Should be “technically unlawful” (thanks to Parliament not doing its job).
“The consequence of the Government’s proposal to validate that [technically] unlawful action is that ["comrades"] people could be convicted under the new law who [could] would have been acquitted [beat the rap] under the law as it stood at the time the alleged [planning murder and indiscriminate acts of violence ] offences took place.
.