The law has probably prohibited political theatre during election year, but I’m sure the Electoral Commission will do its best to avoid telling the Police to close a theatre. It would too convincingly highlight the idiocy of the law.

For the sake of free speech I hope they’ll find some way to rationalise that the law does not mean what it says.

My letter I wrote to the Electoral Commission last week is set out below.  

Unintended theatre bans are the kinds of train smashes that happen when you’re stupid, ruthlessly indifferent to your opponents’ rights, and you want it to be illegal for ordinary citizens to take part in electoral debate (persuading their fellow citizens how they should vote), so you restrict  participation to:

a) sitting politicians, or

b) people with licences from a sitting politician; or

c) people with the resources to hire accountants, who register with the Commission and promise only to attack, not support another party.

If Labour and the Greens had not debauched the language of human rights, the Commission could have replied instantly to my letter with an official – “don’t be stupid”.

I hate to see theatre threatened, but Labour can remove the threat immediately, perhaps while the courts are asked how to interpret the section, by consenting under s.65.

The honourable thing for them would be to consent in the meantime if there is even minor risk to the innocent producers and players. Any consequent erosion of Labour’s election headroom by the amount of production costs would be a fair punishment for not exempting theatre in the first place.

Alternatively the producers could register as a third party.

“Dear Dr Catt

In budgeting for my campaign I have wondered how to treat expenses associated with public addresses. They can include loudspeaker hire, hall hire, security, compulsory use of venue ushers and other staff, equipment to serve the traditional cup of tea and biscuit, advertising the event etc.

…

 I am trying to decide whether public addresses and performance are caught at all. Speeches clearly involve “words or graphics” for the purposes of the offending “advertisement” definitions. Only mime would exclude speeches, drama or street theatre from the advertisement definition if it had the effect of persuading or encouraging people to vote, or not to vote in particular directions.

But there is a second question – whether direct presentation or performing to the public is “publishing” for the purposes of the Act? I fear that it might be caught by “publish” in the following paragraphs of the definition:

(b) “display to the public” 

(d) “delivering to the public by any means”;

(e) “broadcast” when amplifying equipment is used; or

(f) if clips go on You Tube (which may happen without the approval of the presenter or performer “include in a film or video displayed to the public”. As you know, the exemptions in section 5(2) benefit stuff editorially selected by written news media, radio, television and non-commercial blog sites.But there is no exemption for theatre or any other live presentations (or for film distributed of them other than thru the exempted main stream media).I can not imagine the Labour Party meant to end the long and noble tradition of street theatre (Red Mole?).