Posts by Andrew Geddis
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
... it is important that the Board’s consideration of whether any restriction on availability is appropriate is not inhibited in any way by further distribution in the short period before the Board’s decision, whatever it is, is reached and published.
Huh? This just isn't a reason that goes to "the public interest", which is the only basis on which Mathieson can impose the order.
As best I can make out, it seems that Mathieson is worried that without the order lots and lots and lots of under-14's will get hold of the book before the Board has a chance to slap another R14 classification on it ... and that this will somehow prevent the Board then being able to do so. But this is just barmy:
(1) Even if lots and lots and lots of under-14s did get hold of the book, so what? It might make an R-14 label ineffective for them ... but books don't disappear and kids grow older. So if this really is a bad book that people under-14 should not read (yeah, right), then an R-14 label for future youth would still be justifiable irrespective of how many current kids have had access to it.
(2) Where is the evidence that lots and lots and lots of under-14s will get hold of the book before the Board looks at it again. This book was unclassified for months prior to the Board's first decision on it - did that somehow result in such widespread distribution that the Board's hands were (in effect) tied? Obviously not. So what is different this time around?
(3) What Mathieson is really saying is "the Board has decided under-14s can't see this. The Office shouldn't be allowed to undo our decision. So I'm going to use this interim order to reassert the Board's authority over the Office." Which may be good workplace politics, but it's not the same as "the public interest" - which is all that Mathieson may consider.
He's acting illegally, and counting on the fact that there isn't really enough time to get a court to review his actions before the Board meets and reclassifies the book. Which is pretty average behaviour.
-
On your logic, the OFLC could “overturn” every decision of the FLBR the next day, on the grounds that the Board supports a different rugby team, and this could have no impact on a decision to grant an interim restriction order.
On my logic, the President then would have to consider whether there is harm caused to the public by having each individual publication freely available to all people in NZ for the period until the Board can review the classification. Or, alternatively, you (or the President, or anyone else) could file an application for an urgent injunction in the High Court to set aside the Office’s decision as unlawful on ultra vires grounds. Because the courts determine the lawfulness (or otherwise) of the Office’s decision to accept for reclassification, not the Board.
Put it this way. Can the Board, upon full substantive review, say that the Office has improperly acted when reclassifying the book – not that its “no restrictions” reclassification is wrong, but that its even looking at the book again was wrong? No, it can’t. So you’re arguing that the President has a wider jurisdiction when making an interim order than the whole Board does when making a final substantive ruling. That seems wrong to me.
-
Legal Beagle: Into the River/Interim Restrictions, in reply to Steven Price,
If the censor did make a bad and manifest legal error in purporting to overturn the Board of Review when there really were no special circumstances justifying it (as I think is the case), then surely that is at least a factor that may be taken into account in assessing the public interest in an interim restriction order.
But what role does the Board (and its President) have in reviewing the legality or otherwise of the Office's decision to reclassify? Where in the Act are you sourcing this jurisdiction? The right of review/process of review refers to the Board looking at the publication only ... it's clear that it isn't intended to be able to conduct a full appeal jurisdiction over all aspects of the Office's actions.
In a nutshell, Dr Mathieson (and you) think that the Office exercised its reclassification powers improperly. So - off to the High Court you go! You don't use a power given under the Act for an entirely different purpose to try and remedy what you personally happen to think is a wrong action.
-
@Pete,
Drop me an email (easily googled) and we'll conspire.
-
I just so happen to be a librarian. I think I could draft something.
Excellent. Which library? Because it would be very helpful if someone reading this post could request to borrow Into the River from your institution ... meaning you'd have to tell them "no - you're not allowed to have it". Then we're on the way to showing actual "detriment".
-
But there’s not really a lot any of us can do about it in the meantime.
Or maybe there is. Under s.51(2):
The President of the Board may, on the application of any of the following persons, or on the President’s own motion, revoke an interim restriction order:
(a) the applicant for the order:
(b) the owner, maker, publisher, or authorised distributor of the publication to which the order relates:
(c) any other person who satisfies the President of the Board that the person is detrimentally affected by the existence of the order.I'd suggest that under (c), a librarian or bookseller who can't supply the book to a person wanting to loan or buy it could ask Dr Mathieson to invoke the order. Or, perhaps, even someone who wants to see what all the fuss is about, but is now unable to get hold of a copy of the book?
-
Hard News: Judicial caprice is no way to…, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,
Rosemary,
Tone?
Also, to pick up on other comments, you're targetting the wrong actor here. In fact, you're committing the very same mistake that Garth McVicar, et al, do whenever they rail against defence lawyers who use the system to protect criminals.
-
Polity: Buying a fight with democracy, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Your comparison between The National party and the extreme behaviour of the Republicans, and more specifically the extreme right wing Republicans ...
It isn't just "the extreme right wing Republicans" who support Voter ID laws: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/05/12/where-does-the-republican-party-stand-on-voter-id/
-
Polity: Buying a fight with democracy, in reply to Bart Janssen,
We do not have the same social structure as the US. We do not have the same large communities equivalent to the black and Hispanic communities in the US that can and have been targeted by the Republicans.
The rate of invalid votes in South Auckland and Maori electorates at the 2014 election was around 3-to-4% of the total votes cast in those seats. In South Island rural seats it was as low as 0.007%. That's with the current very liberal ballot access laws in place - even our current minimal requirements to enrol have a disproportionate impact on certain ethnic/socio-economic groups.
Now, change those laws to say no advance voting unless on the printed electoral roll and no voting at all unless you have ID/swear a statutory declaration and you will increase that discrepancy in valid voting rates even more. That will have a particular political effect - it will result in less South Auckland/Maori votes relative to those cast in (say) South Island rural electorates. And you don't have to have a PhD in Political Sorcery to know who that favours.
So Rob's linkage of National's proposals to Republican tactics in the USA is entirely fair and apt. Just as in the places it has been first used, it's a "solution" to a problem that simply does not exist that is adopted in order to achieve other partisan political ends.
-
That’s why all vehicles are equipped with a large glass thing in front of the driver, so one can see what the road does and control the vehicle appropriately.
Of course, on that approach we don’t need set speed limits anywhere … just a general rule to “drive safely” – or, like Montana had until the late 1990’s, a requirement to drive at a “reasonable and prudent” speed. Some problems with that, but:
(1) At least some people are over-confident about their driving abilities, and so will think they are driving in a safe or reasonable and prudent manner when in fact they are not. So a rule that says “no matter how good a driver you are, don’t go faster than 80 km/h here” counteracts that.
(2) Deciding whether a given speed is “unsafe” or “unreasonable and imprudent” gives discretionary power to rule-enforcers … on (say) my stretch of road, one cop may say going 100 km/h is fine, another may say it isn’t and so ticket me.
(3) Speed zones can form a sort-of “risk heuristic” – they can be a way of alerting drivers to what to expect on a given stretch of road. So if I’m driving along the open road in a 100 km/h zone, then come to an 80 km/h zone, it alerts me to the fact that road conditions have changed and that I really need to adjust my driving behaviour accordingly.
None of which is to say that sticking to speed limits takes away a driver’s responsibility to drive safely – and that’s not what the law says either: http://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1998/0110/latest/DLM435152.html