Court Helps Media Stack Deck Against Democracy – Advance New Zealand

2
50

The Co-Leaders of Advance NZ, Jami-Lee Ross and Billy Te Kahika, say the decision by the High Court today is another example of the media stacking the deck against democracy.

“Today’s High Court decision is disappointing for us as a political party, but more disappointing for all the people out there that deserve to hear a range of ideas and perspectives in the lead up to the election,” says Mr Ross.

“The High Court has just helped MediaWorks stack the deck even further against democracy.

“We took this case because we believe in free speech.

“We also took this case because we know hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders are asking for a new direction that isn’t the same old tired Labour and National path.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

“MediaWorks decision to exclude any political party formed after the last election shows their bias in favour of the establishment.

“Their decision is undemocratic and means two parties with the same level of poll result are included in the debate, when Advance NZ is not.

“Advance NZ does stand a real prospect of election this year, with Billy Te Kahika in a strong position to win in Te Tai Tokerau.

“Voters deserve to see just how well he matches up against politicians from the other parties set to enter Parliament.

“Right now there’s a far higher likelihood of Advance NZ entering Parliament than NZ First or the Maori Party.

“We will keep campaigning hard, and use the peoples voice on the ground and via social media.

“We will keep bypassing the media bias that continues to prevail in elections.

“We thank the Court for hearing this case, although we respectfully disagree with the Court’s conclusions.”

2 COMMENTS

  1. I doubt whether it’s practical for Media Works to include all minor parties. I think they have to have some basis for selecting which parties will participate.

    • clearly that’s correct, however it appears not to be the most logical & fair qualifier ie. support numbers ! While i don’t know exact figures etc but on face value if they have similar levels of support to 2 parties included in the debate – they should be there period. If not decided by % of NZ voter support then it must be on the basis of what they stand for – which i thought was not our law – the bullshit about when they formed is invalid – if they have satisfied the legal requirements of forming a party as prescribed & stands in this election voters must be allowed to evaluate the offer.
      bradbury bleats on about crushing them in debate so their deluded followers re-educated – here was the perfect chance ….. if they got nothing to hide they got nothing to fear have they…so i guess they too scared to go public. wonder if they make tinfoil cheesecutters ? oh by the way shows you dont do research cause we wear alfoil hats now, tin too expensive

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.