Jump to content

Coronavirus Mega-Thread.


numnuts
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, JJ73 said:

 

This is what I can't get with the numbers.

 

Are they coding for the people who are behind this to know everything is working as it's been envisaged? Is the 33 (as well as 23, 323, 33, 333, 44, 66, 77, 88 etc) an insider code saying this (whatever is being reported) isn't going to happen but it's having the desired outcome, eg fear porn of the magnitude to keep the populations cowed?

 

Or something else entirely?

If you tried all those numbers and got articles it is a real time algorithm run by a three letter agency.

 

It takes your search term and creates an article. I tried the first two.

 

Hawaiʻi COVID-19 Update: 23 New Cases On Big Island (bigislandvideonews.com)

 

323 new cases, 7 deaths (italy24news.com) 

 

It is just part of the fear campaign. To ensure that someone scared of a spooky virus will get a search result confirming their fears.

 

Positive reinforcement.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SoundOfSilence said:

If you tried all those numbers and got articles it is a real time algorithm run by a three letter agency.

 

It takes your search term and creates an article. I tried the first two.

 

Hawaiʻi COVID-19 Update: 23 New Cases On Big Island (bigislandvideonews.com)

 

323 new cases, 7 deaths (italy24news.com) 

 

It is just part of the fear campaign. To ensure that someone scared of a spooky virus will get a search result confirming their fears.

 

Positive reinforcement.

 

 

Wow. 

 

Does that mean these stories are placed there purely to plant fear and have no veracity? No, I suppose not. It's just that, as you say, we go searching and we get even more horror stories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SoundOfSilence said:

Yep.

 

A fiction created by a deep state algorithm.

 

Wow!

 

I was going to ask, why don't people in those places come forward and say these stories aren't real? Why would they risk it? Mainstream media wouldn't cover it. The police and local authorities would know who the person/people were. It wouldn't be worth their while.

 

I have just seen this link. I don't know how true it is but the notes underneath the video seem plausible enough.

 

https://rumble.com/vpot5p-dr.-david-martin-who-they-are-the-names-and-faces-of-the-people-who-are-kil.html

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, skitzorat said:

 

NZ has the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) and operates out of this spy base that's part of the 5-eyes.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/police-consider-fresh-charges-against-spy-base-attackers-photos/G5STWAKKXSSLG2MMLN3AFQ6M3E/

 

675647854_Screenshot2021-12-23143421.jpg.7e1cd6b5ffce1d816f726f013c5b610d.jpg

 

NZ doesn't have f-all actual hard military - like nothing.. Australia does- I don't think NZ has the resources to commit to a full on 77-brigade agency, wouldn't surprise me if Aussie did though.

 

However in saying that, we have for some time now had the strictest internet regulations even before the covid era. For example about a decade ago they bought in laws to make it completely illegal to download anything from the internet, (think Kim Dotcom or when game of thrones first came out) and they somehow had the ability to know if you did and your internet provider would be cut off after three strikes.

 

After the Christchurch mosque  hoax, (which the patsy Trenton live streamed on FB, aparently,) before she did the gun grab she made it illegal for anyone to VIEW that footage online! - not just illegal to share it on social media etc, but actually VIEW it - somehow they knew that people did because several people were busted and raided and got hefty sentences!

 

They data suck and observe everything here! EVERYTHING! I doubt we could go to the bathroom without them knowing,  we've been the trial place for the tech for a long time - the first to go all in on eftpos etc.

 

Kiwis are so docile and gullible they haven't needed to go-in and waste the resources on controlling the online narrative to the same extent as the UK, all the comments sections on the mainstream popular news sites are highly regulated by the gate keepers so unlike thedailymail, nothing "harmful" ever gets through to sheeples screens - Cindy did just fine with her everyday press conferences anyway. Things may change now that its gone so draconian and shes lost control of it..

 

But they must have in Australia because they're showing up at peoples doors in real time to arrest pregnant woman about a FB post or coming around asking questions about facebooks posts made 6 months ago!

That takes some serious resource commitment!

 

I never knew it was so bad mate you have my sympathies ,as you know the levels of censorship across the globe are at unprecedented levels however in the UK we can still say and post stuff online that is critical of governmental overreach....that said it doesn't mean you won't get put on a watch list and if yer really vocal you'll get surveillance by the 'security services' coff....Frightening to think of governments using resources to fight their own people,people who electedthem ,people who wanted to try and help initially ,,,but then again 1984 was a warning not a work of fiction

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, JJ73 said:

 

Wow!

 

I was going to ask, why don't people in those places come forward and say these stories aren't real? Why would they risk it? Mainstream media wouldn't cover it. The police and local authorities would know who the person/people were. It wouldn't be worth their while.

 

I have just seen this link. I don't know how true it is but the notes underneath the video seem plausible enough.

 

https://rumble.com/vpot5p-dr.-david-martin-who-they-are-the-names-and-faces-of-the-people-who-are-kil.html

I haven't watched it.

 

But I am familiar with his work.

 

These guys?

 

1.       Al Gore, Vice-President of the United States (1993-2001), Chairman and Co-Founder, Generation Investment Management LLP

2.       Andre Hoffmann, Vice- Chairman, Roche

3.       Angel Gurria, QECD

4.       Bill Gates, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

5.       Christine Lagarde, President European Central Bank

6.       Chrystia Freeland, Deputy Prime Minister & Minister of Finance, Office of the Deputy Prime minister of Canada

7.       David M. Rubenstein, Co-Founder and Co-Executive Chairman, Carlyle Group

8.       Dustin Moskovitz, Open Philanthropy

9.       Fabiola Gianotti, Director-General, European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN)

10.   Feike Sybesma, Chairman of the Supervisory Board, Royal Philips

11.   H.M. Queen Rania Al Abdullah of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Queen of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Office of H.M Queen Rania Al Abdullah

12.   Heizo Takenaka, Professor Emeritus, Keio University

13.   Herman Gref, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, Sberbank

14.   Jim Hagemann Snabe,Chairman Siemens

15.   Julie Sweet , Chief Executive Officer, Accenture

16.   Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum

17.   Kristalina Georgeva, Managing Director, International Monetary Fund (IMF)

18.   L. Rafael Reif, President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

19.   Larry Page, Google

20.   Laurence D Fink, Chair and Chief Executive Officer, BlackRock

21.   Luis Alberto Moreno, Member of the Board of Trustees World Economic Forum

22.   Marc Benioff, Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Salesforce

23.   Mark Carney, United Nations Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance, United Nations

24.   Mark Schneider, Chief Executive Officer, Nestle

25.   Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook

26.   Mukesh D Ambani, Chairman and Managing Director of Reliance Industries

27.   Orit Gadiesh, Chairman, Bain & Company

28.   Patrice Motsepe, Founder and Executive Chairman, African Rainbow Minerals

29.   Paula Ingabire, Minister of Information Technology and Innovation, Ministry of Information Communication Technology and Innovation of Rwanda

30.   Peter Brabeck-Latmathe, Vice Chairman of the Board of Trustees, World Economic Forum

31.   Peter Maurer, President, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)

32.   Robert Mercer, Renaissance Fund

33.   Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Senior Minister, Government of Singapore

34.   Thomas Buberi, Chief Executive Officer, AXA

35.   Yo-Yo Ma, Cellist

36.   Zhu Min, Chairman, National Institute of Financial Research

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SoundOfSilence said:

I haven't watched it.

 

But I am familiar with his work.

 

These guys?

 

1.       Al Gore, Vice-President of the United States (1993-2001), Chairman and Co-Founder, Generation Investment Management LLP

2.       Andre Hoffmann, Vice- Chairman, Roche

3.       Angel Gurria, QECD

4.       Bill Gates, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

5.       Christine Lagarde, President European Central Bank

6.       Chrystia Freeland, Deputy Prime Minister & Minister of Finance, Office of the Deputy Prime minister of Canada

7.       David M. Rubenstein, Co-Founder and Co-Executive Chairman, Carlyle Group

8.       Dustin Moskovitz, Open Philanthropy

9.       Fabiola Gianotti, Director-General, European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN)

10.   Feike Sybesma, Chairman of the Supervisory Board, Royal Philips

11.   H.M. Queen Rania Al Abdullah of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Queen of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Office of H.M Queen Rania Al Abdullah

12.   Heizo Takenaka, Professor Emeritus, Keio University

13.   Herman Gref, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, Sberbank

14.   Jim Hagemann Snabe,Chairman Siemens

15.   Julie Sweet , Chief Executive Officer, Accenture

16.   Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum

17.   Kristalina Georgeva, Managing Director, International Monetary Fund (IMF)

18.   L. Rafael Reif, President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

19.   Larry Page, Google

20.   Laurence D Fink, Chair and Chief Executive Officer, BlackRock

21.   Luis Alberto Moreno, Member of the Board of Trustees World Economic Forum

22.   Marc Benioff, Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Salesforce

23.   Mark Carney, United Nations Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance, United Nations

24.   Mark Schneider, Chief Executive Officer, Nestle

25.   Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook

26.   Mukesh D Ambani, Chairman and Managing Director of Reliance Industries

27.   Orit Gadiesh, Chairman, Bain & Company

28.   Patrice Motsepe, Founder and Executive Chairman, African Rainbow Minerals

29.   Paula Ingabire, Minister of Information Technology and Innovation, Ministry of Information Communication Technology and Innovation of Rwanda

30.   Peter Brabeck-Latmathe, Vice Chairman of the Board of Trustees, World Economic Forum

31.   Peter Maurer, President, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)

32.   Robert Mercer, Renaissance Fund

33.   Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Senior Minister, Government of Singapore

34.   Thomas Buberi, Chief Executive Officer, AXA

35.   Yo-Yo Ma, Cellist

36.   Zhu Min, Chairman, National Institute of Financial Research

Wondr how many of those names have been through the wef's future leaders programme...disproportionatially high i would think?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SoundOfSilence said:

I haven't watched it.

 

But I am familiar with his work.

 

These guys?

 

1.       Al Gore, Vice-President of the United States (1993-2001), Chairman and Co-Founder, Generation Investment Management LLP

2.       Andre Hoffmann, Vice- Chairman, Roche

3.       Angel Gurria, QECD

4.       Bill Gates, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

5.       Christine Lagarde, President European Central Bank

6.       Chrystia Freeland, Deputy Prime Minister & Minister of Finance, Office of the Deputy Prime minister of Canada

7.       David M. Rubenstein, Co-Founder and Co-Executive Chairman, Carlyle Group

8.       Dustin Moskovitz, Open Philanthropy

9.       Fabiola Gianotti, Director-General, European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN)

10.   Feike Sybesma, Chairman of the Supervisory Board, Royal Philips

11.   H.M. Queen Rania Al Abdullah of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Queen of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Office of H.M Queen Rania Al Abdullah

12.   Heizo Takenaka, Professor Emeritus, Keio University

13.   Herman Gref, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, Sberbank

14.   Jim Hagemann Snabe,Chairman Siemens

15.   Julie Sweet , Chief Executive Officer, Accenture

16.   Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum

17.   Kristalina Georgeva, Managing Director, International Monetary Fund (IMF)

18.   L. Rafael Reif, President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

19.   Larry Page, Google

20.   Laurence D Fink, Chair and Chief Executive Officer, BlackRock

21.   Luis Alberto Moreno, Member of the Board of Trustees World Economic Forum

22.   Marc Benioff, Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Salesforce

23.   Mark Carney, United Nations Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance, United Nations

24.   Mark Schneider, Chief Executive Officer, Nestle

25.   Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook

26.   Mukesh D Ambani, Chairman and Managing Director of Reliance Industries

27.   Orit Gadiesh, Chairman, Bain & Company

28.   Patrice Motsepe, Founder and Executive Chairman, African Rainbow Minerals

29.   Paula Ingabire, Minister of Information Technology and Innovation, Ministry of Information Communication Technology and Innovation of Rwanda

30.   Peter Brabeck-Latmathe, Vice Chairman of the Board of Trustees, World Economic Forum

31.   Peter Maurer, President, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)

32.   Robert Mercer, Renaissance Fund

33.   Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Senior Minister, Government of Singapore

34.   Thomas Buberi, Chief Executive Officer, AXA

35.   Yo-Yo Ma, Cellist

36.   Zhu Min, Chairman, National Institute of Financial Research

 

I wasn't aware of Yo-Yo Ma the Cellist but yes, a lot of those names.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Ziggy Sawdust said:

The parents need horsewhipping.

 

 

chil.JPG

This just goes to show that the story of how the govt were going against the alleged JCVI "advice" for over 12s was obviously bullshit. The stages are all incrementally planned, with the odd fake curveball thrown in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, whatthefoxhat said:

I never knew it was so bad mate you have my sympathies ,as you know the levels of censorship across the globe are at unprecedented levels however in the UK we can still say and post stuff online that is critical of governmental overreach....that said it doesn't mean you won't get put on a watch list and if yer really vocal you'll get surveillance by the 'security services' coff....Frightening to think of governments using resources to fight their own people,people who electedthem ,people who wanted to try and help initially ,,,but then again 1984 was a warning not a work of fiction

 

 

Yeah it's nuts!

 

It's been a slow creep so no one noticed.

 

2011

Where you stand under new copyright law

What does the law aim to do?

Stamp out internet piracy by making it easier to punish people who illegally download music, TV shows, films, books and games

 

What is peer-to-peer file sharing?

When internet users connect via an application or network to download or upload off each other without paying a cent

 

Who is liable?

The person named on the internet bill, not the person who physically clicks on the download icon. So mums, dads, holiday home owners, schools and universities are at risk of being pinged for their children's, guests' or students' illegal activities

 

How does the copyright holder track you down?

When you start downloading a file, your internet protocol (IP) address pops up, which is visible to all users on the site. Copyright owners can scan sites and detect when their work is being illegally shared.

 

How does the three strikes system work?

Once a copyright holder sees that your computer is downloading pirated material, it will contact your internet service provider, such as Telecom or TelstraClear. Your ISP will send a letter or email on behalf of the copyright owner.

 

The first strike is called a detection notice, the second a warning notice, and the third an enforcement notice.

You can challenge these notices within 14 days of receiving them. If three notifications are sent within nine months, the copyright owner can pay $200 to take you to the Copyright Tribunal, to seek damages from as little as $275 up to $15,000

 

Can I be barred from using the internet?

Potentially. The provision allowing a district court to suspend your internet account for up to six months is not in force, but will be reviewed by the Government next year.

 

https://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/5558008/Where-you-stand-under-new-copyright-law

 

2019 - Trentons "Manifesto" is illegal to read too! lol

 

Document written by alleged Christchurch gunman classified 'objectionable'

 

A document written by the alleged Christchurch gunman has been labelled crude and promotive of murder and terrorism.

 

 

Shanks said anyone who sees the document online should report it immediately.

Shanks officially classified the full 17-minute video as "objectionable" on Monday, because of its "depiction and promotion of extreme violence and terrorism".

  

Shanks said the video contained "exceedingly graphic real life images, which could cause significant harm to those who view it, especially for victims and their families".

 

It is illegal for anyone in New Zealand to view, possess or distribute the video in any form, including through social media.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/111503450/document-written-by-alleged-christchurch-gunman-classified-objectionable

 

 

2021

Our new "hate speech" law is truly Orwellian, twisted and crafted and written in a way to "protect" the feelings of minority groups.

 

 

Instead of outlawing certain communications about people based on colour, race, ethnicity or nationality alone, the law would protect the groups protected from discrimination under section 21 of the Human Rights Act.

That could include discrimination on the basis of:

• Sex or sexual orientation *

• Marital status or family status

• Religious belief or ethical belief

• Colour, race, ethnicity, nationality or citizenship

• Disability

• Age

Political opinion

• Employment status (including receiving a government benefit)

 

 

It would be a crime to:

1. intentionally incite/stir up, maintain or normalise hatred

2. against any group protected from discrimination by section 21 of the Human Rights Act

3. through threatening, abusive or insulting communications, including inciting violence

4. made by any means

 

The proposal also makes clear that this would apply to any kind of communication including digital, something the current criminal law is vague on.

While the proposal document did not explicitly state what it means to "incite/stir up, maintain or normalise hatred", Ministry of Justice general manager of civil and constitutional policy Caroline Greaney explained that:

 Hatred implies extreme dislike or disgust

 Incite/stir up covers speech that causes other people to also feel hatred towards a group

 Maintain or normalise covers speech towards a protected group which builds on or reinforces already held feelings of hatred in others

 

As the discussion document notes, the current law uses four terms - hostility, ill will, contempt, and ridicule, which have broad meanings and could overlap - a problem this new law would aim to solve.

 

Proposal 3: The punishment

The new criminal provision in the Crimes Act would state that a person who commits the offence is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years' imprisonment or to a fine not exceeding $50,000.

This one is pretty clean-cut, but could be in plainer language: you get up to three years in prison or a fine up to $50,000 for breaking this law.

 

This is an increase from the current punishment of three months in prison or a fine up to $7000.

 

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/proposed-hate-speech-laws-what-you-need-to-know/MVWR2D7MNZXJCD7FEUUUDQCH4A/

 

That was just the first article that came up. The above points were just "proposed" back then, but I'm sure they all went through. lol

 

Since everyone hates Cindy now, no doubt they will be monitoring the platforms for "hate" directed towards her, like this poor tranny below:

 

june 2021

ransgender woman Lexie Matheson says the proposed hate speech law is “immensely important

 

 

PS>

after the mosque shooting NO ONE would have been harassing those Muslims- they lie! The country was overwhelming in grief with them.

(obviously I do not know NO ONE did, but we're not a country full of "white supremists" - no matter how hard they try and gaslight us into thinking so.

Edited by skitzorat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JJ73 said:

I never wanted to post this however I'm going to. Is it already too late? I mean, is this going to end well for any of us? My health is failing. I am sleeping so much now. The neighbours are being turned against me. Family don't want to see me. I doubt I'm alone in this. In fact, I know I am absolutely not. This is global and the same measures are rolling out at the same time everywhere. Nowhere is safe. Now we have the archbishop (I won't capitalise his title - cnt!) of Canterbury who is coming out with the most evil things. It seems as if everyone everywhere in positions of powers have been bought off.

 

I keep hearing "Hold the line" but really what good is that?

 

We're nearly 2 years into this and those around me will just keep on getting jabbed. They're not questioning the narrative at all. If they were drones before, they are super drones now. I can feel an air of threat now. How long before the verbal aggression from those around me becomes physical? Who can I call? The police? What a joke. They have chosen their side. It feels very strongly like that thing we are not allowed to discuss which happened 80 years ago only now the people doing the oppressing were the ones who were being led away. Away from this forum and all of you, I have zero quality of life. Being not here is the better option. I go to bed every day hoping I don't wake up.

 

Sorry to be on a downer but this is how I feel and you are the only people I know who get it.

Have an internet detox from everything - 48 hrs - spend that time in nature buy yourself. Think of things you can be grateful for.

 

Then come back to us refreshed and re-energized. We are here with you. We need you ship shape for the times ahead....you are not alone...

 

we await....

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr H said:

Have an internet detox from everything - 48 hrs - spend that time in nature buy yourself. Think of things you can be grateful for.

 

Then come back to us refreshed and re-energized. We are here with you. We need you ship shape for the times ahead....you are not alone...

 

we await....

 

Yes, good idea.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SoundOfSilence said:

You may recall, over a year ago, the arrest of Harvard scientist Charles Lieber. He was arrested for taking money from the Chicoms.

 

You'll never get it from MSM, but he was convicted yesterday. On all six counts.

 

It gets better.

 

Apparently he was working on some very advanced technology. The tech has been developed now to the stage where it is possible to inject a self assembling computer into someone. This system will embed itself into cells and then link them into the internet of things.

 

This is confirmed through patents and successful experiments. Lieber was a real pioneer in this field.

 

The patents refer to carbon nanotubes. Which is the same as graphene oxide.

 

Also the technology exists, and has been confirmed, whereby emotions and actions can be controlled through 5G.

 

Mike Adams is breaking it down with Owen Shroyer. A bit under 40 minutes.

 

Top Scientist Who Worked With Human Interfacing Tech Charged For Illegally Working In China (banned.video) 

 

Teslaphoresis...

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/8/2021 at 10:43 PM, Martin1234 said:

Terrifying watching Boris on the telly tonight. The mandatory Vax question was so staged.

 

I think it is a matter of time before we are at that point, I just dread to think about what'll happen to those that refuse.

 

I've mentioned him quite a few times now but seeing my once friendly, chatty neighbour turn on me and become unpleasant and oddly combative doesn't bode well for the future.

 

The PTB are actively getting the vaxxed to turn on the unvaxxed. They couldn't be clearer about that. Sajid Javid stated recently that if the homeless don't get jabbed they can remain in that condition. That was on Mayhar Tousi's YouTube channel very recently.

 

I'm dreading the direction people are going in already. I think mandatory shots are coming and not just for certain sectors. For everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, dumbcritic said:

In one study conducted here in the UK, data collected from Scottish hospitals by a group of researchers suggest that Omicron infections are linked to two-thirds of the reduction in the risk of hospitalisation compared to Delta https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/12/22/world/omicron-covid-vaccine-tests#omicron-infections-do-not-seem-as-severe-leading-less-often-to-hospitalization-uk-researchers-report

 

Fergusson said although Omicron is mild compared to Delta, there are more 'cases' so we are back to square one.

 

In Scotland they are demanding testing and increased vaccination, ventilation and hygiene to return to schools.

 

Being forced into self-isolation, whether you are ill or not, is causing real problems here among the workforce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JJ73 said:

The PTB are actively getting the vaxxed to turn on the unvaxxed.

 

Yep, and very quickly.

 

2 minutes ago, JJ73 said:

 

Sajid Javid stated recently that if the homeless don't get jabbed they can remain in that condition.

 

Like they're going to take that seriously.

 

Yeah, government has a brilliant track record of housing the homeless.

 

2 minutes ago, JJ73 said:

 

 

I'm dreading the direction people are going in already. I think mandatory shots are coming and not just for certain sectors. For everyone.

 

There's no doubt about that.

 

Best to show strength and numbers now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, skitzorat said:

 

 

Yeah it's nuts!

 

It's been a slow creep so no one noticed.

 

2011

Where you stand under new copyright law

What does the law aim to do?

Stamp out internet piracy by making it easier to punish people who illegally download music, TV shows, films, books and games

 

What is peer-to-peer file sharing?

When internet users connect via an application or network to download or upload off each other without paying a cent

 

Who is liable?

The person named on the internet bill, not the person who physically clicks on the download icon. So mums, dads, holiday home owners, schools and universities are at risk of being pinged for their children's, guests' or students' illegal activities

 

How does the copyright holder track you down?

When you start downloading a file, your internet protocol (IP) address pops up, which is visible to all users on the site. Copyright owners can scan sites and detect when their work is being illegally shared.

 

How does the three strikes system work?

Once a copyright holder sees that your computer is downloading pirated material, it will contact your internet service provider, such as Telecom or TelstraClear. Your ISP will send a letter or email on behalf of the copyright owner.

 

The first strike is called a detection notice, the second a warning notice, and the third an enforcement notice.

You can challenge these notices within 14 days of receiving them. If three notifications are sent within nine months, the copyright owner can pay $200 to take you to the Copyright Tribunal, to seek damages from as little as $275 up to $15,000

 

Can I be barred from using the internet?

Potentially. The provision allowing a district court to suspend your internet account for up to six months is not in force, but will be reviewed by the Government next year.

 

https://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/5558008/Where-you-stand-under-new-copyright-law

 

2019 - Trentons "Manifesto" is illegal to read too! lol

 

Document written by alleged Christchurch gunman classified 'objectionable'

 

A document written by the alleged Christchurch gunman has been labelled crude and promotive of murder and terrorism.

 

 

Shanks said anyone who sees the document online should report it immediately.

Shanks officially classified the full 17-minute video as "objectionable" on Monday, because of its "depiction and promotion of extreme violence and terrorism".

  

Shanks said the video contained "exceedingly graphic real life images, which could cause significant harm to those who view it, especially for victims and their families".

 

It is illegal for anyone in New Zealand to view, possess or distribute the video in any form, including through social media.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/111503450/document-written-by-alleged-christchurch-gunman-classified-objectionable

 

 

2021

Our new "hate speech" law is truly Orwellian, twisted and crafted and written in a way to "protect" the feelings of minority groups.

 

 

Instead of outlawing certain communications about people based on colour, race, ethnicity or nationality alone, the law would protect the groups protected from discrimination under section 21 of the Human Rights Act.

That could include discrimination on the basis of:

• Sex or sexual orientation *

• Marital status or family status

• Religious belief or ethical belief

• Colour, race, ethnicity, nationality or citizenship

• Disability

• Age

Political opinion

• Employment status (including receiving a government benefit)

 

 

It would be a crime to:

1. intentionally incite/stir up, maintain or normalise hatred

2. against any group protected from discrimination by section 21 of the Human Rights Act

3. through threatening, abusive or insulting communications, including inciting violence

4. made by any means

 

The proposal also makes clear that this would apply to any kind of communication including digital, something the current criminal law is vague on.

While the proposal document did not explicitly state what it means to "incite/stir up, maintain or normalise hatred", Ministry of Justice general manager of civil and constitutional policy Caroline Greaney explained that:

 Hatred implies extreme dislike or disgust

 Incite/stir up covers speech that causes other people to also feel hatred towards a group

 Maintain or normalise covers speech towards a protected group which builds on or reinforces already held feelings of hatred in others

 

As the discussion document notes, the current law uses four terms - hostility, ill will, contempt, and ridicule, which have broad meanings and could overlap - a problem this new law would aim to solve.

 

Proposal 3: The punishment

The new criminal provision in the Crimes Act would state that a person who commits the offence is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years' imprisonment or to a fine not exceeding $50,000.

This one is pretty clean-cut, but could be in plainer language: you get up to three years in prison or a fine up to $50,000 for breaking this law.

 

This is an increase from the current punishment of three months in prison or a fine up to $7000.

 

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/proposed-hate-speech-laws-what-you-need-to-know/MVWR2D7MNZXJCD7FEUUUDQCH4A/

 

That was just the first article that came up. The above points were just "proposed" back then, but I'm sure they all went through. lol

 

Since everyone hates Cindy now, no doubt they will be monitoring the platforms for "hate" directed towards her, like this poor tranny below:

 

june 2021

ransgender woman Lexie Matheson says the proposed hate speech law is “immensely important

 

 

PS>

after the mosque shooting NO ONE would have been harassing those Muslims- they lie! The country was overwhelming in grief with them.

(obviously I do not know NO ONE did, but we're not a country full of "white supremists" - no matter how hard they try and gaslight us into thinking so.

 

I think this legislation is really aimed at protecting one specific "chosen" group from exposure or criticism, but that would be a thought crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SoundOfSilence said:

Yeah, government has a brilliant track record of housing the homeless.

 

Very true. Gesture politics at best. We know it can be done and quickly at that because we saw so at the beginning of all this. They don't do it outside of crises because they don't want to.

 

7 minutes ago, SoundOfSilence said:

Best to show strength and numbers now.

 

I agree. 

Edited by JJ73
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • lake locked this topic
  • lake unlocked this topic
  • Beaujangles featured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...