The New Zealand Government, its Five Eyes security partners plus India and Japan want companies like Facebook to release encrypted data when requested. The reason: to curb online crime.

Signatories from each country have declared their support for end-to-end encryption - but only if they have a way to legally access that information.

Encryption is an ‘existential anchor of trust in the digital world', and countries shouldn't try to find ways to exploit that security, they say.

They would like to see legal back doors for law enforcement to use to clamp down on illegal content - so long as these back doors have the appropriate safeguards and oversight.

New Zealand's Minister for Justice Andrew Little says while encryption plays an important role in protecting personal data it has another side: it is used to hide illicit material such as child pornography or terror communication.

Little - who is also the Minister responsible for both the GCSB and SIS - says the New Zealand government wants to co-operate with tech companies.

In common with his Five Eyes, Indian and Japanese cohorts, he cites research from the WePROTECT Global Alliance - a coalition of countries, tech firms and civil society firms.

WePROTECT claims public social media and communications platforms are the most-used ways of grooming and meeting children online.

In 2018, WePROTECT says the US National Center of Missing and Exploited Children found Facebook Messenger was used in almost 12 million of the 18.4 million reports of child sexual abuse material.

"Measures to increase privacy - including end-to-end encryption - should not come at the expense of children's safety," the signatories state.

They think the industry should reconsider encryption that blocks any kind of legal access to content.

Furthermore, they believe technology companies and service providers should take responsibility for detecting and responding to violations, especially regarding the most serious illegal content like exploitation and abuse, violent crime, and terrorist activities.

They say encryption undermines these responsibilities and prevents law enforcement from accessing content in cases where it is lawful and necessary.

Little explains how the backdoor policy would work.

"Governments would demonstrate there is a reasonable cause to suspect there has been criminal offending, so the control is still left in the platform owners, but it gives enforcement authorities the ability to chase up and investigate some of the most heinous criminal offending we've ever seen."

However, these explanations don't impress Council of Civil Liberties chair Thomas Beagle.

He says the Government's plea for more access is contradictory and dangerous and privacy will be at stake.

"It talks about the value of encryption - secure information, private conversations, doing things free from repressive governments - and then it talks about how they need to stop all that because they need to access it to stop crime."

Source

• New Zealand Herald
• IT Brief
• Image: RNZ

"The safe zone provision was always the most marginally supported," Little said.

The abortion law bill was going through the committee stage on Tuesday evening and into the early hours of Wednesday.

ACT leader David Seymour had proposed an amendment to remove safe areas from the bill.

His proposal was voted for in two parts.

The first vote was to have the definition of Safe Zones removed from the bill.

It was rejected by a margin, 59 votes to 56.

The second vote was on removing all the legal provisions for safe zones, including the ways in which the police could administer them.

Deputy Speaker Anne Tolley passed it on a verbal vote.

So the definition of 'safe area' became redundant in the law.

Green MP Jan Logie immediately asked for clarification on what had happened.

"Can I just check the vote and how it evolved around David Seymour's SOP (Supplementary Order Papers) and what the outcome of that vote is... I just wanted to check and to see if I needed to change my vote".

Tolley advised it was a "vote on the voices" and the "amendment was agreed to".

Logie sought leave for a personal vote, but this was rejected.

The proposed safe zones would set up a regime where a protest against abortion could be barred within 150 metres of clinics.

Seymour was concerned that the safe areas violated wider principles of free speech.

MPs who are for the safe zones have indicated they may try to re-introduce them.

National MP Nikki Kaye said it would be up to the House to decide whether or not to revisit the issue.

Green MP Jan Logie said she was looking at options to reinstate them.

Source

• stuff.co.nz
• stuff.co.nz

Right to Life asks that if the images exposing the bodies of the brutally murdered victims of abortion are so horrible that they cannot stand to look at them, why do they tolerate and facilitate their murder?

Prime Minister, the only voice aborted babies have is their broken and bloodied bodies.

Their broken and bloodied bodies is the only way they can speak to you.

Adern does not listen

On the day of the second reading of the anti-women and anti-life Abortion Legislation Bill, members of the pro-life movement gathered peacefully outside Parliament.

Several members held heart-rendering graphic pictures of aborted babies.

The Prime Minister, who has enthusiastically sponsored her Labour-led government bill, said she was personally against the use of such images.

"I just think that's not a way to share the legitimate views that other people will have."

"People will have their own views and they should be able to freely express them.

"But people should also be mindful that those who have gone through some of these experiences, that will weigh heavy for many."

Right to Life sympathises with the Prime Minister, it is very disturbing to see pictures of the dismembered and bloodied bodies of children who have been violently killed.

Right to Life believes that if we are going to engage in a respectful and informed debate about abortion it is important to consider the objective of abortion.

Every abortion results in a violently killed child.

How can we debate your Bill when you refuse to acknowledge that abortion kills an innocent human being?

Little objection

Justice Minister Andrew Little also objected to the use of such images.

"New Zealanders on average have a low level of tolerance for that sort of extremism. If these people want to go around upsetting the rest of New Zealand, that's their call."

Minister, why is it extreme to graphically depict the results of your ill-conceived abortion Bill?

Is it your Bill that is extreme?

Is it not you and your extreme abortion Bill that is upsetting the rest of New Zealand?

Vulnerable not protected

Prime Minister and Minister of Justice, why do you want to kill unborn children?

Why are you not protecting society's most vulnerable?

From the moment of conception we are human beings endowed with an inalienable right to life.

Children come to bless our nation, all they ask is to love and be loved

Prime Minister, Minister of Justice you choose not to hear the silent scream of the unborn child as the abortionist forces their way into their home, intent on violently killing a living child.

You might not like to listen, but the graphic pictures of the bloodied and dismembered bodies speak to you.

• Ken Orr is a spokesperson for Right to Life.

"I know people are saying, 'Look, 14 grams means 21, or 42, or even more kind of joints a day'.

"It's a bit like saying, 'somebody who goes off to buy a bottle of vodka at 7 o'clock on a Friday night, is going to consume it there and then'.

"Find me somebody who has smoked 42 joints in a day and I'll take the objection seriously," he said. Read more

They are angry their voices are denied a hearing by the special Select Committee taking public input on his Abortion Legislation Bill.

Committee chair, Ruth Dyson, Wednesday, announced the committee would only hear 150 of 2890 seeking an oral submission.

Dyson told RNZ, "Every voice that needs to be heard will be".

She confirmed the Committee had received more than 25,000 written submissions.

By comparison, the End of Life Choice Bill - legalising voluntary euthanasia - received a record 35,000 submissions last year, while same-sex marriage legislation in 2012 garnered 22,000.

Opponents of Little's legislation say too many submitters are being turned away and claim their rights are violated.

"This is totally unacceptable in the democracy", Right to Life says in a statement.

Family First is of a similar view.

"This means that more than 2,700 submitters from both sides of the debate are being denied the ability to engage with the politicians about this controversial bill," it says in a statement.

"95% of submitters are being muzzled".

"The committee has also said that they are ‘focusing on submissions that will most help it consider what, if any, changes should be recommended to the bill.'

Family First considers this indicates the general intent of the legislation is already accepted.

"This is a shocking abuse of the process and debate", it says.

Right to Life sounds a warning, accusing the committee of not properly doing its job.

"Those who govern should not forget that they govern with the consent of the governed.

"We the governed have an absolute right to be heard," it says.

Both groups accuse the Committee of doing a rush-job; ramming through Andrew Little's controversial legislation.

"The community should be concerned and alarmed that the Minister of Justice wants this committee to act with urgency in reporting this contentious bill back to Parliament in order that it can be rushed through Parliament and passed into law before the 19 December 2019 the last sitting day for this year", Right to Life says.

It says there is no urgency to pass this bill, but there is an urgency for the Committee to ensure all citizens, for and against, are heard.

Family First says a range of people have contacted them; lawyers, health care professionals, national organisations, women and families who are being denied the right to speak.

Sources

• Supplied
• NZ Herald

It is a gift from Pike River Re-entry Minister Andrew Little.

He presented it on May 3, when re-entry of the mine was planned and then abandoned because of the oxygen levels.

"There has long been a link between Catholicism and mining communities on the West Coast," a spokeswoman for Little told Stuff.

"Before he was an MP and was a union leader, Andrew noticed when he visited mines on the Coast that there was always an icon of St Barbara near the entrances."

The spokeswoman said he had noticed that many non-religious miners would acknowledge the icon at the start of their shifts.

"So it's a symbol of good fortune without necessarily any religious connotations in those communities."

In the aftermath of the disaster, Andrew noticed St Barbara was absent at Pike," she said.

"It's a small thought that stuck with him."

Little bought the small resin statue, which was made in the Dominican Republic, online and with his own money. "Taxpayer funds were not used," the spokeswoman stressed.

After the group representing the families approved, the icon was passed on to the agency for installation.

It has been mounted near the portal.

Little is an agnostic but was raised in a Catholic family.

"He rarely attends church, but enjoys the singing when he does."

Who was St Barbara?

St Barbara (died c. 200 CE; feast day 4 December) was a legendary virgin martyr of the early church. She is venerated as one of the 14 Auxiliary Saints (Holy Helpers).

She is invoked in thunderstorms and is the patron saint of miners and artillerymen.

Because Barbara's authenticity is highly questionable and her legend is probably spurious, she was dropped from the General Roman Calendar in 1969.

According to the legend, which dates only to the 7th century, she was the beautiful daughter of a pagan, Dioscorus, who kept her guarded in a tower to protect her from harm.

When she professed Christianity and refused marriage, he became enraged and took her to the provincial prefect, who ordered her to be tortured and beheaded.

Dioscorus himself performed the execution and, upon his return home, was struck by lightning and reduced to ashes.

Source

• stuff.co.nz
• nzherald.co.nz
• twitter.com
• britannica.com
• Image: twitter.com

Currently, hate-motivated hostility can be considered an "aggravating factor" in sentencing, and staff can note when a crime was motivated by a "common characteristic" such as race, gender identity, sexual orientation, or religion. Read more

He echoed comments made earlier by Justice Minister Andrew Little, who said Destiny had never actually made a formal application to partner with the Government to work in prisons.

"There have been no formal applications made to deliver the Man-Up or Legacy programmes in prison."

Tamaki wanted Destiny Church's Man-Up programme - an initiative focused on tackling family violence, depression, obesity, addiction and suicide - to be brought into prisons.

Last week Tamaki and 2000 others - including patched gang members - and presented a petition at Parliament urging the Government to allow the church to work within prisons.

"For all of my efforts to try and get into prison, they [the Government] shut us down," Tamaki told those gathered.

The Destiny Church says the Department of Corrections is breaching the Treaty of Waitangi by refusing to let it into prisons.

But Little said he wanted to talk with Tamaki about the programme and what he and the Government could do together.

Davis said in his statement that any community group or organisation wanting to offer a programme in prison is welcome to make a formal application in writing.

He said any organisation that wanted to help safely reduce the prison population should focus on preventing people from going to prison in the first place.

He said until there are no more drugs being baked, until there is no more domestic violence, and when people with addiction services are supported, there will be a need for churches in every community to "work their magic."

"No one needs my blessing to do that work."

Source

• nzherald.co.nz
• tvnz.co.nz
• newshub.co.nz
• Image: newshub.co.nz

They say the Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, should put his money where his mouth is and to scrap the planned mega-prison.

Rather than incarcerating people, the Salvation Army says the money is better spent on re-integration programmes.

Former Justice Minister Judith Collins has sent a warning to Andrew Little, saying victims of family violence aren't going to have the same protection if he changes the country's bail laws.

Collins said the "main driver" behind tightening bail laws was to protect victims of family violence.

In the last 20 years, prison numbers have doubled. Little wants to reduce the prison population by 30% over the next 15 years.

He says "tough-on-crime" style policies had not worked and it was a time for a shift in philosophy.

Harsher punishments and more prison beds were not bringing numbers down, Little told RNZ.

He said many prisoners had health and mental health issues and a proactive approach rather than prison was required.

The Salvation Army said Little's view was music to their ears.

"Often people that offend have mental health issues. And if all you're doing is investing in what is, in a sense, the punitive end of things, it's a backwards step in many respects", said Ian Hutson of the Army's social policy unit.

Collins however told Stuff that before Little talks about changing laws around violent offending, bail laws in particular, he needs to actually consider why they were put there in the first place.

Source

• RNZ
• Stuff
• Image: Salvation Army

Prime Minister Bill English disagrees.

On the other hand Labour leader, Andrew Little believes reform is necessary as does his newly elected deputy, Jacinda Ardern.

On TVNZ's Q & A programme on Sunday morning English told interviewer Corrin Dann that he is not in favour of liberalising the abortion laws and would not vote for legislation that did.

English went on to say that it would be an issue dealt with in a parliamentary vote, and his would be one vote in 121.

He hoped that others would vote with him.

Later in the same programme Andrew Little said English was "deeply conservative on an issue like abortion."

"I happen to differ from him on that. I think that the advisory committee is right."

Jacinda Ardern told the programme, "I think those recommendations do need to be pursued. That's my view, but it is a conscience vote."

She said English was right to point out that it is a conscience issue but she thought many New Zealanders would be surprised to know that currently those laws are contained in the Crimes Act 1961.

"And so, for obvious reasons, that has been raised by the Abortion Supervisory Committee. So they've called for a review, and when you've still got abortion in the Crimes Act, that's understandable, and it would be timely."

Sh said her position "on issues like this has always been regardless of what my view is, why should I impose that view on others and remove their choice?"

Source

• tvnz.co.nz
• scoop.co.nz
• Image: radionz.co.nz

In letter to the secretary of Right to Life written in December last year Little said, "Labour's position is to support the cross-party select committee inquiry".

"Euthanasia is a conscience issue, not a party political issue, and it is not one of Labour's priorities.

"This is why no Labour MP is introducing a bill on euthanasia to Parliament".

In his letter Little went on to say "The select committee process allows members of the public to submit ideas for what any change in the law could look like."

"Louisa Wall was making use of this process as an individual, as is her democratic right."

"It does not reflect Labour's view and Labour will not be introducing a private member's bill on euthanasia."

Orr said the Labour Party has a long and illustrious history of defending life.

"Andrew Little's stand is in the tradition of its great leaders who defended life; Michael Savage, Peter Frazer, Walter Nash, Arnold Nordmeyer, Bill Rowling, David Lange and Mike Moore."

"This is a welcome assurance, that should Labour be elected to govern at the general election on Saturday 23rd September 2017, a Labour government would not present a bill promoting Euthanasia," said Orr

" It is also reassuring that should a private members bill on Euthanasia be drawn from the ballot, Labour members would have a conscience vote, " he said.

Source

• Supplied