5 posts tagged “free speech”

[Cross-posted] As if Britain wasn’t already sufficiently heading down the V for Vendetta path (remember how last year, Mr Brown seized Icelandic funds on the grounds of terrorism—anyone know an Icelandic terrorist?), along comes amendments to the big catch-all Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 where people could be arrested and imprisoned if they take a photograph of officers ‘likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism’, says the British Journal of Photography.
   Anything could really qualify, couldn’t it? A journalist taking a photograph for a newspaper might fall foul of the provision. One time I photographed two French policemen hassling a street vendor. I never published it but it struck me that the gentleman was being hassled because he was black.
   Could this be helpful to a terrorist? Probably. While my motives were to document possible racism, a terrorist could use this image to show the prejudice against non-whites in the west and encourage attacks on the occident. Lucky I didn’t take the photo in Britain then.
   Equally a photograph of Big Ben with a police officer in front could be helpful to terrorists in figuring out just where policemen walked on their beat. Tourists beware. You could become a crook after taking pics of HM Life Guards (no, not the Baywatch–Alerte à Malibu sort).
   ‘Set to become law on 16 February, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 amends the Terrorism Act 2000 regarding offences relating to information about members of armed forces, a member of the intelligence services, or a police officer,’ says the Journal.
   ‘The new set of rules, under section 76 of the 2008 Act and section 58A of the 2000 Act, will target anyone who “elicits or attempts to elicit information about (members of armed forces) … which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism”.’
   Someone found guilty could be liable for 10 years’ imprisonment and a fine.
   This goes to the heart of civil liberties in the United Kingdom, something already eroded over the years by the European Union and now, under the guise of anti-terrorism. If it were proposed in the United States, some would label it as ‘un-American’, striking at the heart of their First Amendment. Well, this is un-British. Forgive me for having a memory, but when Britain was a regular terror target during the Troubles—when Britons were being blown up by the IRA—no such laws were required and the country muddled through.
   Policies regarded as anathema when I was a child, such as a UK identity card, are now accepted; this is merely another in a long line of Labour policies of late that leave me unsurprised at the number of UK immigrants to New Zealand. Many are documented regularly at Alfred the Ordinary’s blog, which actually has a V for Vendetta (movie) line in its header. It is becoming more appropriate by the day unless the British public stands up—and recent events have shown that, in the words of Bob the Builder (in Neil Morrissey’s finest hour?), ‘Yes we can.’

The folks behind the Free Fouad website have asked if anyone had participated in the day of blogging silence on January 6. I believe that they do want a link where the campaign banner was (which I forgot to mention on the day, unfortunately, in my haste to join in). Still, maybe recording your blog URL there in the comments might not be a bad idea so they know who had participated.

Fouad Alfarhan is a Saudi blogger who has been writing to advocate greater freedom in his country. He was arrested without charge on December 11. Some bloggers have gotten together to deem today (Sunday, January 6) a day of silence, so after this post, I will not blog publicly for 24 hours. Please tell other bloggers if you feel you should, or observe the day’s silence if you wish to join in this campaign.

Here’s one going around the blogosphere, courtesy of my friend and colleague Patrick Harris in London. The basic story: dude gets bad service from company. Blogs about it. Company decides to get revenge by signing him up to heterosexual and homosexual dating sites, including writing derogatory profiles about him. He blogs about that and manages to do a reverse DNS look-up to trace the sign-ups back to the company. Company sends lawyers’ letters demanding he take the blog posts down and threatens to sick the cops on him.
   The company is Sky Handling Partners. Read more at Damien Mulley’s blog about this sorry-ass case of bad customer relations. And bravo to Mr Mulley for his insistence in keeping his blog posts up.
   I hope the Gardai do get involved and haul this company over the rocks for fraud. Mr Mulley, I hope, will consider dragging Sky Handling to the Irish courts for libel.

[Cross-posted] The press release says it all, really. No one voted in the Communist Chinese as the government of New Zealand, even if a lot of us voted Labour. Pity that some of our senior government figures and cops decided to take their orders from Beijing, or are too scared to confront the Politburo when given the chance.

Publisher outraged at barring of Nick Wang from Parliamentary event

Jack Yan reminds Red Chinese that their sovereignty ends at Embassy doors

Wellington, March 27 (JY&A Media) Jack Yan, publisher of Lucire, says he is ‘outraged’ by the barring of journalist Nick Wang from a Parliamentary event last night, and says it is among a ‘pattern’ of suppression that the New Zealand Government is either ignoring, or endorsing.
   Earlier reports indicate that Red Chinese Embassy officials had pressured Marie McNicholas, the head of the Parliamentary Press Gallery, to bar Mr Wang from reporting on the visit of Zeng Peiyan (Tsang Pui Yam, 曾培炎), an official from Beijing. Mrs McNicholas refused, and told Radio New Zealand that officials may have approached members of the New Zealand police force.
   ‘We generally have some of the best police officers in the world,’ says Mr Yan. ‘The Red Chinese government needs to understand that they do not have the right to give orders to our cops, especially not the right to suppress a New Zealand-based journalist in the course of his job.
   ‘This is New Zealand territory, and diplomatic missions are here by convention, not by right.
   ‘Red Chinese sovereignty ends at their Embassy’s doors. They do not extend on to New Zealand soil,’ he says. ‘Why certain MPs like Peter Dunne and I have to remind Beijing of this, constantly, is beyond me.’
   Both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister are saying the incident is a misunderstanding which has been blown out of proportion.
   ‘A free press and New Zealand sovereignty deserve to be protected, and if the Government believes either can be so readily dismissed, then they are ignoring, or endorsing, a pattern of Politburo pressure,’ says Mr Yan.
   ‘Red China’s actions, once again, make me question their understanding of other nations’ rights, and why we should even pursue a free-trade deal with a régime that does not respect New Zealanders or New Zealand jobs.’
   Mr Yan says that he has found Mr Wang to be a fair and balanced journalist, who has never been staunchly anti-Beijing in his reports in the Capital Chinese News.
   Mr Yan adds that he was disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition, John Key, did not raise the matter with Mr Zeng in his meeting earlier today, and questions why no other MP with Chinese ethnicity has publicly stood by Mr Wang.