3. De-banking letter Talking about money, the issue of de-banking continues to grow. Internationally, numerous major examples (such as with the FSU UK, and also with UK politician Nigel Farage) show what can happen when banks decide, because of what you think and say, they won't do business with you. That's why we've contacted seven of New Zealand's banks, asking them to outline what their policies are, and what criteria exist for whether they would ever refuse to work with individuals with unorthodox views. We are still waiting on several responses, but ASB has started on a good note. In an otherwise entirely pro-forma response, the ASB Senior Customer Care Manager told us that they are "committed to ensuring the safe, secure and responsible delivery of banking services". To which we promptly replied, what does 'safe' banking services mean? Especially if it's somehow different to 'secure' and 'responsible'. Our concern is that it's a 'filler term', really used as an 'anything we don't like' clause. Of course, banks won't part ways with customers too easily - they're there to make money. But when it comes to such a critical service as banking, especially when we have such a concentration of banks that there's little competition, denying banking services because you don't like their opinions or what they say mustn't be permitted. We'll keep working on this, and make sure the banks know there's someone watching. 😎 4. Local Council censors socials In our experience, local councils rarely respect ratepayers' speech rights in the way they should, but the Far North District Council has recently taken the cake! Moko Tepania, Far North Mayor, claimed that “people challenging some of the decisions we [FNDC] make” and “letting us know their thoughts” was fine. However, he also stated that certain feedback was “racist,” and, in response, noted: “We’re just blocking them now. We’re not going to stand for it if you’re going to be racist or rude or try to defame anyone… you’re going to be blocked and your comments are going to be deleted.” No examples of the material were given, which means it's possibly there was some vile, threatening speech that was rightly removed. But given our experience, we think it more likely someone sounded off, and the Council simply feels it doesn't need to listen. 😬 That's why we've contacted the Council, seeking clarification around what criteria they use to establish whether someone is being racist (as this work could be used by some to simply mean 'they disagree with us'). We also reminded them we've had some considerable success in fighting local councils, and that while we'd rather not, we're ready to hold them accountable if we have to. We listed off the Councils we've challenged - it's turning into a fair list: Auckland City Council, Taupo District Council, Rotorua Lakes District Council, Palmerston North City Council, Wellington City Council, Blenheim District Council, Christchurch City Council, and others! 🙌 | 
