Tech Liberty confirms that it is legal in New Zealand to photograph or video the police at work.

We wrote to both the Police Commissioner and the Minister of Police and asked them "Is it against the law in New Zealand to take photos of video of the police at work?" The Police responded first: "No, not if the photos of video of police at work are taken in a public place, or with the landowner's consent if on private property."

Read the full article.

The group opposing the Search & Surveillance Bill have called for a public protest against the government's plans to retrospectively permit the police to use illegal video surveillance.

We would like to invite you to a protest march next Saturday 1 October at 2pm starting from Cuba Mall in Wellington. Please bring banners, placards, friends and whanau - and pass this message along to any likeminded folks - and help spread the word via Facebook and email lists.

See http://stopthebillnow.blogspot.com/ for more information.

Generally the NZCCL does not advocate censorship. Where possible, we believe, people should be free to make up their own minds what to read, and that the process of banning inhibits the free exchange of ideas.

The fact that a book advocates something that is against the law is not a good argument for banning it. Indeed the only way that our justice and legal systems may change is through challenge to them. So books that advocate the death penalty, the legalisation of marjijuana or the abolition of prisons may be raising legitimate debate about fundamental decisions that have informed our legal system for many years.

Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill

It seems strange that in this society that values so much the rule of law, and one where other government departments must keep stringently to their legal mandate, the New Zealand Police are able to stretch the law to suit themselves, and then require retrospective legislation to legalise their actions.

The police may state that they believed they were working inside the law. However they must have known that that was not the case – papers produced in 2010 to clarify the Search and Surveillance legislation indicated then that in part the Bill was to mandate actions the police had assumed without legal support.

When the government in its efficiency drive gets around to reorganising the Charities Commission, we hope that it will adopt a definition of charity that is more contemporary than the purpose currently in our 2005 New Zealand Charities Act, namely: “every charitable purpose, whether it relates to the relief of poverty, the advancement of education or religion, or any other matter beneficial to the community.” This purpose was derived from the English 1601 Charitable Purposes Act, in a society where poverty was regarded as a crime, there was no public schooling, and no health or welfare system.

George Barton recently died in Wellington. He was a long time member and supporter of the Council over many years.

The following obituary is as it appeared in the Dominion Post on 28 May 2011 and is used with permission from Peter Kitchin.

Lawyer Steven Price writes strongly in defence of freedom of speech in the Dominion Post (also on his blog). He was one of the laywers representing Valerie Morse in the Supreme Court when she successfully appealed her conviction for burning a New Zealand flag as a protest at an ANZAC Day dawn ceremony.

He points out that the protest at an ANZAC Day memorial was relevant:

Their banner that day called on the government to pull our troops out of Afghanistan, East Timor and the Solomon Islands. They pointed up the irony that, while we were solemnly gathering to commemorate the war dead, the government was sending more soldiers to die overseas.

He goes on to point out that our society needs people to challenge our beliefs, paraphrasing Cass Sunstein:

The evidence shows we have a strong tendency to conform to prevailing ideas. ... But the good news is that society can be rattled out of narrow mindsets, and sometimes change direction altogether. All it takes is a handful of dissenting voices. They provide the opening for the rest of us to start considering different approaches.

Finally, he sums up the findings of the Supreme Court:

The court unanimously laid down a principle that we can’t punish behaviour as offensive unless it’s disturbing public order. And when protesters are exercising speech rights, we must be extra tolerant of their views and their methods – even if we despise both – before we can call their conduct criminal. That seems right to me. That’s what freedom looks like.

Prior to 16 December 2010 prisoners who had been sentenced to preventative detention or imprisoned for a term of 3 years of more were disqualified from voting, or enrolling to vote.  After this date the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010 disqualified people sentenced to any term of imprisonment after the Act's commencement from enrolling or voting.  Prisoners on remand were still entitled to vote, as were those sentenced to home detention.

MyFone.mobi is a device that enables people to view both the traffic and the content of texts from other people's phones. Promoted as a way of parents keeping their children safe by alerting them to any phone bullying or other problems, it is actually a process whereby parents can track their children  wherever they go and whatever they do. Of course the device can have much greater consequences as well. It can be used for husbands to spy on wives or for bosses to snoop on their staff. We do not know what safeguards actually exist to prevent the device being used by other people wishing to tap into a person's private messages. In the Close-up item on the night of Wednesday 23 March it appeared that it required the consent of the cellphone user. However there was no elaboration about how that consent was to be obtained or whether it was actually required to operate the device.

The argument that the device will only be used to prevent school bullying is naive in the extreme. As there can be no control over who may use it or the purposes to which it may be put, it is more likely to be used as a control process to limit the freedom of expression and movement of the person been snooped on. This is uncomfortably close to the bullying behaviour it purports to eliminate.

Besides, is it not illegal under Part 9A of the Crimes Act 1961: Crimes against personal privacy?

For news comment and NZCCL response view http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4805461/Worrying-product-snoops-on-childrens-phone-calls

One of the more intriguing inquiries received by NZCCL has been about council requirements for ratepayers to mow their lawns, often accompanied by threats of fines of up to $5000 if they fail to comply.  The reasons given by the councils are usually relating to 'fire risk' or 'encouraging rats', both of which could possibly be regarded as hazards, were it not that there is little evidence that long lawns do either of those things.  Indeed the 'fire risk' excuse has been used against the owner of a house that had already been burned down by arson, and next door to a field of dry hay (which might have posed a greater risk), and the 'rat' excuse has been used by a council that itself failed to clear or keep tidy land that it owned itself just down the road.

I surmise that councils do not have any ability to intercede in ratepayers' private property ownership, except if they are carrying out illegal activity, causing a nuisance (for instance if neighbours persistently complain), or if it is a health or safety issue.  Councils use the health and safety issue, but really need to justify their use of it in these circumstances. There will be little evidence that long lawns either increase rats or create fires.

It is a different matter if a person is a council (or private) tenant.  Then there is usually in the agreement a clause about tenants' obligations to maintain the property. It is explicit in one of the tenancy documents I saw.

The only other possibility is that the council makes lawn maintenance a condition of the development of the property or properties, in which case rate-payers should have specific notice to that effect.

And what about this from Christchurch:

Wellington, Feb 3 NZPA - The Christchurch City Council has admitted it stuffed up when it threatened 11 home owners with fines of up to $5000 for not mowing their lawns, even though their houses were rendered uninhabitable by last year's massive earthquake.

The council sent a letter to residents in the suburbs of Avonside and Dallington reminding them to keep the grass below 100mm, or the council would have it done and bill them, Campbell Live reported.

The quake-damaged houses are condemned but the owners are still paying mortgages and rent to live elsewhere.

Resident Gary Johnson said the notice was unbelievable. He was disgusted at the blunt letter, considering what they had been through.

He had tried mowing his lawn but it was difficult as it was riddled with large cracks. Some residents said they did not have time or money to spend on houses which should be destroyed.

Council inspection and enforcement manager Gary Lennan said the notices had to go out because of the fire hazard, but admitted the process was wrong. "We messed up and we need to do something about it."

The residents were in a special situation and the council could have been more sympathetic. They would be speaking to the owners to see what could be done to help, he said.