Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
DOTCOM saga - updates
IainB:
...In the end, this won't really be about so much about Kim Dotcom. What it will become is an unofficial referendum on exactly how independent a nation New Zealand believes itself to be.
-40hz (March 03, 2013, 02:04 PM)
--- End quote ---
Yes, spot-on, except that the referendum on this was effectively given in 1985, in the case of Prieur and Mafart the French government agents/terrorists who committed illegal and terrorist acts in NZ, in the blowing up of the Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior and the killing of a crew member, in the port of Auckland.
The conclusion to that was that little NZ had to cave in big time when the Big Boys came and twisted their arms.
This was discussed earlier in this same discussion thread, here: Re: DOTCOM saga - updates
Here are the pertinent bits to your comment:
I don't know whether the authorities that executed the Dotcom raid could actually have criminal charges laid against them in an NZ court, though a UN court might be able to do that. However, any illegal actions of the people involved could presumably be a different matter.
Liability for illegal acts by a government's authorities generally rests with that government. It can't (wouldn't) take itself to court. One of the press reports suggested that the NZ government was going to have to foot the bill for restoration of justice to Dotcom+ Etc., and I feel sure that is now being considered anyway.
I wouldn't jump too quickly to the conclusion that because the NZ authorities responded with apparent alacrity to the pressure for action from the US authorities, that the NZ party is by definition inherently corrupt/illegal. The Dotcom raid seems to have been a stupid thing to do - or at least to do in an illegal fashion. Some BIG mistakes seem to have been made. You yourself have said that if it looks like collaboration or stupidity, you'd guess it was the latter every time (OWTTE). Same principle could apply here.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the investigation (which would presumably now be taking place) doesn't lead to some people being privately severely admonished and then quietly but rapidly retired, or promoted sideways into admin. positions, where they can't then screw anything else up ever again. This sort of thing must be excruciatingly embarrassing to the government, because it does rather demonstrate that someone (the government - and by association, the Prime Minister) might well have been guilty of collaborating in what was an illegal act - or at least negligent or asleep at the helm. Not a good look, and the voters are not so unsophisticated that they wouldn't notice this and remember, come the next election. So the government would probably want to be seen rectifying this shambolic mess in a legal, professional and ethical fashion.
The whole Dotcom thing seems to have been an illegal/criminal act instigated by the US government/SS. The NZ government/SS may have been forced/duped (I hope) into complying/collaborating.
The last NZ incident that I know of, where a criminal act sponsored by a foreign government (state terrorism) was committed in NZ was the case of the Sinking of the MV Rainbow Warrior.
As it says in Wikipedia: (see the actual link for embedded hyperlinks in Wikipedia)
Spoilerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior#Aftermath
After the bombing, the New Zealand Police started one of the country's largest police investigations. Most of the agents escaped New Zealand but two, Captain Dominique Prieur and Commander Alain Mafart – posing as married couple 'Sophie and Alain Turenge' and having Swiss passports – were identified as possible suspects with the help of a Neighborhood Watch group, and were arrested. Both were questioned and investigated, and their true identities were uncovered, along with the French government's responsibility. Both agents pleaded guilty to manslaughter and were sentenced to 10 years imprisonment on November 22, 1985.
France threatened an economic embargo of New Zealand's exports to the European Economic Community if the pair was not released.[3] Such an action would have crippled the New Zealand economy, which was dependent on agricultural exports to Britain.
Hao atoll
In June 1986, in a political deal with Prime Minister of New Zealand David Lange and presided over by United Nations Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, France agreed to pay NZ$13 million (USD$6.5 million) to New Zealand and apologise, in return for which Alain Mafart and Dominique Prieur would be detained at the French military base on Hao Atoll for three years. However, the two agents had both returned to France by May 1988, after less than two years on the atoll.
--- End quote ---
Some years ago, I was listening to a TVNZ interview with the then-retired ex-PM David Lange, where he was discussing this incident and its aftermath. I recall that he said he had no option but to comply with the French government's insistence to send Prieur and Mafart from NZ prison to the French military base on Hao Atoll, and that their early release was no surprise. He indicated that it went entirely against the grain for him and his ethics. It was wrong, and NZ were paid money to breach their own laws for the punishment sentence of these two French murderers, who committed their crime at the French government's direction. (OWTTE)
He explained that NZ was this insignificant little wart on the backside of the planet (the southern hemisphere), with a tiny population (then about 3.5million), and with a tiny and fragile economy which lived entirely by its ability to trade competitively with world markets, especially in pastoral produce (meat and dairy products).
"The big guys can twist your arm, and you have to give in to the bully." I think he said (OWTTE).
He reckoned that if he had refused to comply with the French "request", then the markets for NZ produce could mysteriously be closed to NZ. NZ would have been boycotted/blocked - especially in the EU, which had historically been favourably inclined towards NZ products - not least because of the NZ commitment to the Allies in WW2 and it being the "food basket" for Britain during that war.
I could be wrong, of course, but my take on this Dotcom thing is that it could well be that NZ may have already been having its arm twisted big time by an even bigger bully than France, to do the Dotcom raid. And they (NZ government) could have been in such panicky haste to comply before their arm was broken that they stuffed up the legal paperwork by mistake. So now it's all going to have to be PR damage control, and possibly some more unexplained judicial changes of judgement, as in the case of Prieur and Mafart.
Who knows?
We may one day be told the entire truth by our PM John Keys, when he is being interviewed in his retirement.
One thing that the Prieur and Mafart case showed to us all was that, if necessary for the government, then the judiciary are clearly going to do exactly what they are told, and from that time henceforth they must always be regarded as being unable to exist in a proper and independent way. So you can't expect too much of them.
Unfortunately for NZ, the NZ judiciary have been pushing for a long time to run their own highest court of appeal, and thus come out from under the Court of Privy Council (UK). They have succeeded in this, with apparently nary a peep from civil rights proponents, or the public, or the media.
The Supreme Court of New Zealand is now the highest court and the court of last resort in New Zealand, having formally come into existence on 1 January 2004. It was necessary to erect an approx. NZ$80 million building to house the court in Wellington, the capital.
NZ thus has lost access to what has been described as the finest independent collection of legal brains on the planet (The Privy Council), and gained a narrowed and partisan judiciary which acts under government directive (QED).
However, I would say that the published ruling of New Zealand High Court judge Helen Winkelmann in the Dotcom case at least does give me some cause for hope.
-IainB (June 30, 2012, 12:07 AM)
--- End quote ---
America and NZ were part of the Allied effort that ended the Second World War and which liberated France from the German Nazi occupation and liberated all of mankind from the real and existing threat of the horror of Nazi Fascist oppression, tyranny and genocide.
Like all the Allies, New Zealand spilt a great deal of blood in that war: with an estimated population of just 1.6 million, 140,000 New Zealanders served in WWII, with 11,928 fatalities – that is almost one in every 12 New Zealanders that went to war (source: Ancestry.com.au, open online database release for ANZAC Day 2011).
In addition, NZ was "the food basket of Great Britain", sustaining that country throughout the war with massive food shipments as Britain geared up all its available productive resources to munitions manufacture and the war effort. (There is a huge man-made beach of yellow sand in Wellington's rocky harbour, called "Oriental Bay". It was the dumping-point for sand from British beaches, which had been carried as ballast in the otherwise empty holds of ships arriving from Britain, which queued up to fill up with fresh NZ food stores to ship back to the UK.)
Given that background, if the Yanks were seen to be pulling a similarly perfidious "Prieur and Mafart-type" manoeuvre to force NZ to overturn their normal and proper judicial/legal process, then in NZ they will probably be held in the same low regard as France, and it will leave a similarly very bitter taste in the mouths of the loyal NZ public, who cherish their freedom and their independence, and who tend to have long memories and use their vote wisely.
IainB:
Possibly not a good piece of news for New Zealand, this: Mega Eyes Stock Market as Secret Dotcom Extradition Hearing Gets Underway.
I'm not absolutely sure, but I don't think NZ courts held secret hearings before, whilst the UK's Privy Council was the highest court of appeal. These secret hearings, and the deliberate not recording or publishing of proceedings are things which seem to have been introduced by the NZ judiciary subsequently, as they now seem to be beholden to no-one, excepting perhaps the current government.
Whilst I was very happy about the objectivity of the NZ court ruling on the illegality of the Dotcom raid, I wonder whether this latest step could be down a potentially risky path for New Zealand's freedom/liberty and democracy. There was apparently perjury and/or mistake/incompetence by the police/SS on this matter, and we want to know what is being done about it, and whether the government were complicit in it. We shall just have to wait and see. I hope we will be told.
"The rule of thumb is that, if a business process can not stand the hard light of scrutiny, then there is probably something unethical about it". - Sir Adrian Cadbury (Chairman of the then Quaker family-owned Cadbury's) in his prize-winning article on Business Ethics for Harvard Business Review circa 1984.
--- End quote ---
40hz:
Given that background, if the Yanks were seen to be pulling a similarly perfidious "Prieur and Mafart-type" manoeuvre to force NZ to overturn their normal and proper judicial/legal process, then in NZ they will probably be held in the same low regard as France, and it will leave a similarly very bitter taste in the mouths of the loyal NZ public, who cherish their freedom and their independence, and who tend to have long memories and use their vote wisely.
-IainB (March 03, 2013, 06:42 PM)
--- End quote ---
I certainly hope so. Because despite being the setting for Jackson's Middlearth, NZ does not loom very large in the psyche of most Americans. AFAIK NZ is not an official (as in 'by treaty') ally of the US or Nato. And there is still rancor in certain circles over that ban on US Navy vessels in NZ ports which has gone on for the last thirty or so years. So if the citizens of NZ were to develop a sudden contempt for Americans, it likely wouldn't register as even the tiniest of blips on the radar screen of general public awareness here in the USA. Not that that should matter to anybody in NZ. Or stop its people from doing what is right.
:)
Renegade:
Given that background, if the Yanks were seen to be pulling a similarly perfidious "Prieur and Mafart-type" manoeuvre to force NZ to overturn their normal and proper judicial/legal process, then in NZ they will probably be held in the same low regard as France, and it will leave a similarly very bitter taste in the mouths of the loyal NZ public, who cherish their freedom and their independence, and who tend to have long memories and use their vote wisely.
-IainB (March 03, 2013, 06:42 PM)
--- End quote ---
I certainly hope so. Because despite being the setting for Jackson's Middlearth, NZ does not loom very large in the psyche of most Americans. AFAIK NZ is not an official (as in 'by treaty') ally of the US or Nato. And there is still rancor in certain circles over that ban on US Navy vessels in NZ ports which has gone on for the last thirty or so years. So if the citizens of NZ were to develop a sudden contempt for Americans, it likely wouldn't register as even the tiniest of blips on the radar screen of general public awareness here in the USA. Not that that should matter to anybody in NZ. Or stop its people from doing what is right.
:)
-40hz (March 06, 2013, 08:06 AM)
--- End quote ---
What are you talking about?
Those damn Kiwis are nothing but lawless criminal terrorists! Better invade now and pre-empt their designs on world-wide anarchy! Bomb them Kiwi terrorists now! Stop the rape of the civilized world! Nuke NZ! :P ;D
Oh, yeah... they just want to avoid the fate of other countries that have defied the US masters... I'll shut up now. Carry on... :P
40hz:
What are you talking about?
... they just want to avoid the fate of other countries that have defied the US masters
-Renegade (March 06, 2013, 08:26 AM)
--- End quote ---
What are you talking about? US masters??? That's a freekin' golf tournament! :P :
But more seriously, exactly who is the master here? And who is dancing to who's tune? :huh:
Because when it comes to ownership of IP - the biggies aren't necessarily US companies... :o
From the folks at TechDirt comes this bit of curious info:
So Much For Protecting US Interests - Most Big 'IP Intensive' Firms Are Foreign-Owned
from the well,-look-at-that dept
These days, it's become quite common to talk about the importance of spreading copyright maximalism around the globe based on the US's interests. After all, the US seems to be the leading country in pushing for such maximalism, and people often talk about the big copyright players and their lobbyists, as being US-centric. After all, there's Hollywood for movies, NY for publishing and NY/LA/Nashville for music. And, so much activity seems to be driven by their lobbyists -- mostly the RIAA and MPAA. However, a new study is pointing out, for all this talk of the "American entertainment industry" driving the discussion on copyright laws, that a very, very large number of these companies are actually foreign, and much of the industry is really foreign (pdf). There's a nice infographic to go along with the report as well:
--- End quote ---
many have challenged whether or not those industries are truly "dependent" on intellectual property laws, but few have explored whether or not those industries are really "American." Turns out... they're not. And, as such, if we're making policy based on just propping up the few legacy companies who run those industries, we're often funneling US money to foreign countries, rather than investing it in the US. Among the findings (many of which are in the graphic above):
* Four of the "Big Six" publishers (who represent a huge percentage of English-language book publications) are foreign-owned. More than 80% of the revenue made by the Big Six goes to foreign-owned companies.
* Only 7 of the world's top 50 publishers are US-owned.
* The book publishing business in Europe employs twice as many people as the US
* Two of the three major record labels are foreign-owned. Those two labels represent nearly 60% of the market.
* 13 out of the 20 best-selling artists are not American.
* Half of the 50 most popular movies in the US in 2012 were filmed partly or entirely outside the US.
* Over the last two years, half of all Oscar winners were foreign.
* The video game market is dominated by Japanese firms, with 70% of the market for the most recent generation coming from Japan
The report finds that this carries over to the patent side as well.
* Foreign companies obtained 7,000 more US patents than US companies in 2011 (likely a bigger gap in 2012)
* Seven of the top 10 companies getting US patents were foreign in both 2011 and 2012.
* Nearly 60% of pharmaceutical revenue is generated by foreign-owned companies.
* The majority of employees in the pharma industry (including for US-owned firms) work outside the US.
Basically, the more you look, the more you realize that even with all this talk of how we need these laws to protect US interests, a significant amount of any benefits may actually be flowing right out of the country.
--- End quote ---
Read the whole thing here.
Looks like there's a good chance that the old strategy of playing up to the romantic cowboy fantasies and egos of American politicians (in order to double-shuffle the USA into acting as global policeman and relief aid provider) is now being employed by non-US businesses with vested interests in extending the scope of IP law globally.
And if the US takes the blame for all of it...well... that's just more sugar icing for the cake! :Thmbsup:
;D ;D ;D
When is this country ever going to wake up? :-\
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version