Electoral law reform

So can anyone tell me, plain and simple, what is wrong with letting free people decide how the express their views in campaigning in election year, as long as it isn't defamatory?

^

Is your vote bought by someone's elaborate political campaigning? Or do you think before you vote?

^

Or do you think that the vast majority of voters are stupid, and that spending lots of money on electoral advertising influences them in ways you don't like - and that there aren't enough people on your side of the argument willing to spend money to counter that?

^

You see my political views are almost always only represented by one party, which is small, has no Parliamentary funding and only modest levels of fundraising itself. I don't whinge and moan that most donations go to the main two parties.

^

So why would anyone want to establish rules on this, unless they were simply envious of those political parties and perspectives that they don't agree with? Labour supporters couldn't possibly be envious of National supporters being wealthier could they? Never!

Winston in North Korea

The Korean Central News Agency, which has a complete monopoly on all news publishing in North Korea has finally reported on Winston's trip. You'll be astounded at how little it says:

"Pyongyang, November 14 (KCNA) -- DPRK Foreign Minister Pak Ui Chun met and had a friendly conversation with Foreign Minister of New Zealand Winston Raymond Peters and his party at the Mansudae Assembly Hall Wednesday when they paid a courtesy call on him. "

^

The very same bulletin of news had such interesting points such as:

"New books came off the press recently. They tell that the Japanese imperialists are the sworn enemy of the Korean people and the aggressive nature of the Japanese reactionaries will never change."

^

Very peace loving.

^

or..."Capitalism was restored in some socialist countries in the 1990s. The US-led imperialists took the opportunity to focus the arrow of attack on the DPRK. The Korean people were compelled to undergo the "Arduous March" and forced march due to the unprecedented moves of the imperialists to isolate and stifle the DPRK and the natural disasters for successive years. "

^

oh it wasn't because Soviet aid dried up, the entire socialist system is bankrupt and stifling the population, and the refusal of the regime to let aid agencies to operate freely?

^

Maybe Winston will tell us what he really thinks of the place when he returns? He can tell us about how he gave honour to Kim Il Sung by visiting his Mausoleum as he is planned to do.

^

Yes, the New Zealand Minister of Foreign Affairs is going to pay respects to the tomb of one of the most Orwellian dictators of the 20th century. How can Peters ever look RSA veterans of the Korean War in the face again? Kim Il Sung's record is one of being an elaborate liar about his revolutionary past, of ruthlessly suppressing all dissent, of running Stalinist gulags which exist to this day and placing half of the Korean peninsula in virtual imprisonment. Then HE led an attack on South Korea, sparking the Korean War.

^

Nice one Winston. I know you can't refuse the visit to the mausoleum if you go to North Korea, but why did you have to go? Is the nuclear moral fetish of the government that important that you have to bow to murderers, operators of gulags with children in them and visit the tomb of one of the most bloodthirsty warmongering dictators of the 20th century?

Those disgusted by sex are fascinated by it

It started with David Farrar's largely agreeable post about the Department of Internal Affairs supplying lists of known child porn websites to NZ ISPs so they can block access to them. In and of itself this is fine, although the law as it is makes it illegal for anyone to check what this covers - as you risk prosecution yourself. Indeed, censorship laws are strict liability - you can break them without even intending to do so, but I digress.

^

The Society for the Promotion of Community Standards (it even has a blog) has for many many years been at the forefront of advocating the prohibition of any form of publications that depict sexuality or nudity. It is dominated by fundamentalist Christians, has a clear anti-homosexual bent (having waged a campaign against Chief Censor Bill Hastings because of his sexuality showing not the slightest respect for his privacy), and responded to the Kiwiblog post. Not only does it want all "objectionable" content blocked on the internet (which given that NZ bans content which is legal in the USA, most of Europe and Japan, would be an enormous and almost futile task), but it called for:

^

"all New Zealand ISPs (Internet Service Providers) to block ALL overseas based websites that host child pornography AND hard core pornography (NZ-based websites containing “objectionable content” including child porn are illegal under NZ censorship laws)."

^

Hardcore pornography is more than that of course. Material depicting BDSM, groupsex and all sorts of adult consensual fetishes is clearly hardcore. However, objectionable content includes urophilia under the law - which is not an illegal practice. It is not a crime to use urine for sexual purposes, but inexplicably it is a crime to photograph or own a photograph of people doing so.

^

Of course SPCS has a curious view of those who reject this. We're all perverts, but check out the language used - it's almost rabid in a certain obsession about homosexuality:

^

"Gay rights activists, paedophiles, homosexuals wanting to ‘hook up’ with underage school boys or view ‘bare-backing’ films, those addicted to hardcore pornography and all those who make a living from marketing such moral filth, have rubbished the Society’s call for the implementation of such controls to prevent injury to the “public good”."

^

I'm none of those.

^

Libertarianz presented a submission on the censorship laws calling for, at the very least, the laws to only prohibit material which was produced through the commission of a criminal act. In other words, if someone was being murdered, raped, sexually abused and being filmed in the act, then it would be an objectionable publication. However, if people were engaging in consentual legal acts, it is absolutely absurd for it to be a crime to film them or even write an account of what they were doing.

^

You see, it is crime to even possess an erotic story about watersports in New Zealand. It is not in the USA, and it would take little for anyone to find hundreds of such stories. I don't care for watersports myself, but there is something inherently vile about people risking police action because they read a story about something they can legally do!

^

So I responded to the SPCS response with my own concern that proposing child porn sites to be banned is one thing, but extending to all objectionable categories is another - and that SPCS has another agenda. It frankly finds any depictions of nudity and sexuality to be offensive. I simply believe that it is absurd that NZ censorship law bans publications of acts that are legal for adults to participate in. That's my point pure and simple.

^

So SPCS went on its long tirade, talking about "rimming" and "So-called “sexual fetish material” (DVDs, videos etc) involving urination (referred to as “water sports in hardcore porn publications) is imported into New Zealand by homosexuals and other sexual pervets (many heterosexual) via the internet." SPCS knows a lot about pornography, odd for a group which hates it so much. Check out the descriptions in this post. SPCS wondered at my motivation, implying that i might sell porn or get off on watersports. Sorry to disappoint guys, I'm not as obsessed with it as you are - I don't sell porn, and watersports aren't my thing, and I'm not gay. I believe in freedom - you know, leaving peaceful adults to get on with their lives, and not having a psychotic obsession with what other people do with their bodies?

^

SPCS, with some cheerleading from NZ First, would probably imprison homosexuals, would probably cheerlead on the banning of all erotic material visual and written, and would encourage the spread of their own bigotry against those who have a different view of how they want to use their own bodies sexually. I simply want consenting adults to have freedom.

French turn against the unionists

Nicolas Sarkozy is having what some have called his "Thatcher" moment, when confronting the old fashioned privileges of socialist France he is standing steady. As the first high speed Eurostar train from St. Pancras arrived at Gare du Nord - almost the entire French national rail network, and the Paris Metro were strikebound, along with bus services and cuts in gas and power due to energy worker strikes. Add in postal workers, teachers and judges, and you're in for the typical French socialist union attitude - go on strike if anyone dares suggest you get something less than the generous terms and conditions currently offered. There will be weeks of strikes in France, it is the final showdown between liberalism and socialism.

^

However, something has changed in France. You see, the trains aren't running because the government is demanding that locomotive drivers retire later than 50. 50 was the retirement age when driving a locomotive meant shovelling coal - now it means sitting and moving a throttle. Similar ridiculous feather bedding has cost France, and the vast majority of French people who are NOT in such industries or the state sector are sick of it all. They are fighting back. With state debt at 70% of GDP, calls to keep this bloated public sector are looking unsustainable, and calls by unions to increase taxes to pay for it are not kidding most people.

^

You see, while the trains are on strike, there were hundreds of commuters handing out anti-strike leaflets opposing the unions, confronting them. After all, Sarkozy won the last election - something the left kind of forgets, and no doubt thinks he somehow cheated his way there, but the reality is this - the majority of French voters chose Sarkozy over Royale the socialist candidate. He has a popular mandate to change France, and the public are standing beside him,

^

84% of those polled say the government will not surrender to the unions, but more importantly 71% think it should NOT surrender. Something for John Key and David Cameron to think about - Sarkozy has a pair of what neither of these men seem to display. May he hold firm, because we are all better off if France's economy can be saved, freed and allow to grow.

St. Pancras to Europe

Today a new era in travel between the UK and Europe has begun with the shifting of the Eurostar rail service from Waterloo Station to St. Pancras. This change is the culmination of two integrated projects, the refurbishment and upgrade of St.Pancras station into an international rail terminal, and the completion of the fastest high speed rail link in the UK, allowing 186mph rail journeys from the Channel Tunnel to St. Pancras.

^

The upgrade knocks around 20 minutes off of the rail trip from London to Paris. Frankly, air travel between London and Paris, and Brussels has become increasingly pointless. Not least because the need to check in, the tightening of security at airports (not that security is absent on Eurostar), and the distance of Heathrow and Charles De Gaulle airports from London and Paris city centres - means rail travel is simply faster and more pleasant than being boxed in on a short flight, that may be delayed for ages at either airport due to congestion. The cost of this line is an incredible £5.2 billion - astronomical, not least because it involves a 19km tunnel under east London.

^

However, today was not the day to debate the questionable value of this investment, only undertaken through convaluted financial arrangements with essentially the British taxpayer supporting it - and today was not the day to remind people that the line is expected only to be used to one-quarter of its capacity, and only half the trains are actually needed. Today was the day of St. Pancras.

^

St. Pancras is now, once again, London's premier station. Built by the Midland Railway Company back when Britain's railways were being built and run by the unfettered private sector, it was designed to be (and succeeded in being) grander than the Kings Cross and Euston stations of the competing railway companies of the age - Great Northern Railway and London and North Western Railway. Following the demolition of the original Euston for functional yet uninspiring current terminal, St. Pancras was saved from demolition under British Rail (after nationalisation by the Atlee Labour Government) by the efforts of John Betjemen the poet.

^

So now the Gothic wonder of grand old St. Pancras has been painstakingly restored, and I have yet to see it for myself. However, it promises to be grander, and a far more alluring gateway than the overcrowded Waterloo. In a few months time I hope to be able to test this. Meanwhile, judge for yourselves from the website or Eurostar's website.

Peacemakers

Stuff reports "If I had a can, I'd throw it at you" says one Tuhoe protestor, who doesn't respect the freedom of speech of those who disagree with them. Another says " "Why are you supporting the police? You just want to get us angry here." That's right, others can't have a different point of view without the angry mob coming out.

^

Imagine if the country was run by them, imagine how much freedom you'd have to protest, to keep your private property, to criticise and ridicule them - imagine how peaceful their law and order policy would be, how impartial their courts would be.

^

You know Tuhoe may have a point, but walking around town being intimidating and threatening doesn't win them any prizes - I think they should get self-government, over their own land with the agreement of landowners. Then the money from Wellington can dry up. Self determination is not fed from the money of others.

Socialist economics - the land of the simple minded

The BBC reports that Hugo Chavez has called on OPEC to charge a lower price for oil exports to poor countries, say US$20 a barrel, compared to rich countries (he suggests US$100).

^

Of course he expects this will ease the burden of the poor countries, because then they can buy and use oil cheaply.

^

It's so clever, I'm sure he doesn't know what arbitrage means. You see, I'd set up an oil importing company in say, Tonga. I'd then start importing as much as I can, and reselling my $20 oil to "rich" countries at say $90, (maybe $80 if I want to break through). Don't worry about storage, as a Tongan importer I happen to use storage facilities in New Zealand and Australia - thanks.

^

OPEC is cleverer than that, so will dismiss Chavez as the charlatan he claims to be, but hopefully Venezuela will flood the developing world with cheap oil, that can be resold on at a lower price. Let's watch socialist economics fail once more!

Why don’t they condemn it, if it were true?

The Green Party has nailed it’s colours to the mast – and they are dripping red, the red of Maoism and the red of the blood lust from the Police affidavits which they refuse to condemn in content.

^
Instead, Keith Locke is waging war against the Dom Post on the grounds that it jeopardizes the right to a fair trial by those facing the firearms charges. The affidavits do not reveal individuals, but there is an argument to be made on this – and again, it will be up the judicial system to decide.
^
However, to claim the Greens are neutral on this is a lie. The desire for an independent inquiry implies a belief the Police acted wrongly and excessively. The affidavit reported by the Dom Post indicates that there is, at least prima facie, cause for concern.
^
The real eye opener is the stony eyed silence of Locke and the Green Party on the allegations. Would it hurt to say “if the evidence in the affidavit is true, then it is disturbing and the Green Party wholeheartedly condemns those willing to use violence for political ends”. Apparently so. After given the Greens already called them “Maori, peace and environmental activists”, it would appear there is evidence that being a peace activist may also mean cheering about murder.

^

Idiot Savant simply condemns the publishing for the same reason as Keith Locke, but although he doesn't roundly condemn the content of the evidence, his comment on Jamie Lockett does indicate that view.

^

The Maori Party remains silent. Big surprise given how they nailed their colours to those accused being angels.

^

So, once again - will those who have roundly condemned the Police for the raids, those who have supported those arrested, condemn the sentiments in the affidavits? Will the Green Party and Maori Party in particular wholeheartedly declare abhorrence to anyone who wants to bring political violence to New Zealand?

^

or is this about supporting your mates?

^

On a final note, would you counter protest the "peaceful" looking Tuhoe hikoi? Do they look as if they would quietly and peacefully tolerate views expressed on this blog, or by other advocates of western capitalist liberal democracy? Or is looking tough, intimidating and threatening just a coincidence? and when the far left (which this lot clearly represent) protest in an intimidating manner, why aren't they condemned as much as Brian Tamaki and his goons when they do something not that far different? I don't agree with Idiot Savant that the Hikoi is just another public protest. It isn't Grey Power, they are intimidating - and it wouldn't be a surprise if any in the Hikoi possessed a firearm. In fact, I do think if it were an all caucasian protest by white supremacists the Police would and should respond in kind. Let's face it, what are the far left of Maori nationalists if not just a bunch of racist thugs?

^

UPDATE 1. Pita Sharples has at least said "Make no mistake - we are absolutely and categorically horrified by the threatening language we have read in the paper today" . However, he is more often a voice of some reason than others in the party.

Peace loving people of the Tuhoe "peace movement"

The Dominion Post's report on the evidence amassed against those arrested on firearms charges makes sobering reading. All of the claims that the police investigation was anti-Maori and the like look like what they are - the opportunistic kneejerk reaction of those who sympathise with the far left. The 156 page affidavit submitted to Manukau District Court includes all sorts of delightful statements. How about the bugged phone conversation on 17 August that went "Get someone to assassinate the prime minister, the new one, next year's one. Just been in office five days, bang ... Yeah, John Key ... just drop a bomb ... Just wait till he visits somewhere and just blow them ... They won't even find you."

^

Lovely types them, I guess it wouldn't matter if he was democratically elected, and wouldn't matter what innocent civilians were near them eh?

^

If this cannot be universally condemned, then those who refuse to condemn do not deserve to be in Parliament or part of the democratic process. They are friends of those willing to murder for political ends.

^

So besides assassinating John Key, bugged conversations told of:

• Calls to kill police and evict non-Maori farmers;
• Talk of using a sniper's rifle to assassinate US President Bush;
• Making nail bombs and napalm;
• How to throw Molotov cocktails;
• Blowing up power stations, gas plants, Telecom, petrol stations and the Waihopai Spy Station.

^

The Dom Post lists of many more of the bugged conversations tells us even more:

• "Kill Pakehas" for practice;
• Wanting to emulate the IRA;
• Using the "Al Qaeda manual" on terror tactics.

^

It's all bloody frightening, and indicates a desire to engage in an orchestrated campaign of killings, bombings and to create enormous economic damage and carnage. The motive is clear, to divide the country - to try to lead a sectarian Maori uprising against the entire liberal democratic system and capitalist economy. Indeed, sectarian is the word - this is Tuhoe against New Zealand. The Maoist background of Tame Iti doesn't look too out of place here, and those uttering those statements are thugs, the same sort of thugs that wouldn't look twice at shooting you if you got in the way.

^

Now the bigger question is this. Do those who have thrown around their slogans and accusations that the police action was racist, fascist, unjustified and politically motivated sympathise with what their "friends" said, or are they too going to react with horror and dismay. After all, this Labour Government is hardly a tool of the liberal right, and Helen Clark has fairly solid leftwing credentials. If HER government can be appalled, then you might ask exactly how the Maori Party, the Green Party and the sycophants of the far left who automatically assumed the Police were being racist and fascist feel about it now?

^

The Dom Post editorial clearly points out:

"The police have been accused of over-reacting, and of being racist. Supporters of those accused have argued there is nothing to justify the operation the police mounted, that notions of domestic terrorism are as insubstantial as the Urewera mist, and that those arrested are the victims of some sort of vendetta. They argue that those the police arrested are blameless. Their claims have not been tested in any meaningful way till now. "

^

As the editorial further points out, the Police had a duty to act " Police needed to treat that seriously and needed to investigate. To do anything less would have been to fail in their duty to protect New Zealanders. We believe that the police were right to act. "

^

Go on, it's time for Keith Locke to express his view, as a self proclaimed peace campaigner now that evidence is out. It is time for the Maori Party to decide what it believes in - do you oppose political violence? Do you oppose murder? Do you oppose mass vandalism to destroy the economy? Do you oppose violent evictions of farmers from their private property? Or is your support for peace about as skindeep as your support for freedom? At least Maia inadvertently may be quite true in her post, as a friend of the fascist left.

^

oh and when you see the hikoi supporting those who support terrorism, you might tell them what you think of them. Methinks those on the hikoi might go home and reflect on who their friends are.

Government department boycotts advertising

So MED - the personal department of Jim Anderton has boycotted buying TV advertising during TV3's viewing of the show "Californication" because it's naughty, according to the NZ Herald.

^

Here's an idea, MED should stop buying TV advertising. Meanwhile ratings for Californication will no doubt improve as a result - as telling anyone something is naughty, just makes it all the more attractive.

Gordon Brown's "hard headed" internationalism

Gordon Brown's speech at the Lord Mayor of London's banquet yesterday was about foreign policy. The Times reports the highlights were:

• Giving Iran a clear choice, stop pursuing its nuclear programme without IAEA inspections and stop supporting terrorism, and transform its relationship with the world, or face tougher sanctions, including bans on investment in its energy sector and financial sanctions. He will lead for tougher EU and UN sanctions. (not quite military action, but he didn't rule it out);
• The USA is the UK's most important bilateral relationship "I have no truck with anti-Americanism in Britain or elsewhere" he said (good!);
• Urged President Musharraf of Pakistan to respect the constitution, free political prisoners and step down as army chief (good);
• Proposed an international standby civilian intervention force, of police and judges to restore civil law and order in failed states (good luck on that one!).

He also wants to reform the UN Security Council, which of course is a perennial, but which nobody can ever agree on. So what does this all mean? A clear message that there is business as usual from the UK as regards terrorism, Iran and the USA. However, a call for an international civilian intervention force is an interesting one - and where would you stop!! Imagine being a cop in Iraq, you better be fluent in Arabic for starters, but while perhaps laudable it is - in fact, a form of temporary colonisation. This is not necessarily a bad thing, and would be useful for Iraq, but where else? Are British taxpayers and soldiers going to be mercenaries to save states all over the place?

Pacific Blue's domestic launch sees others raise the bar

Good on them, more competition on domestic air routes. It reminds me again of the debates in the 1980s when old Labour (yes before 1984) fought AGAINST deregulating the domestic airline market - and then in power opened it up to 100% foreign owned competition.

^

Something Jim Anderton and Winston Peters opposed vehemently, because they loved old fashioned state owned Air NZ. Of course Air NZ is new fashioned mostly state owned now (albeit a publicly listed one).

^

The domestic airline market has gone through a full cycle. Before 1987 and Ansett NZ, there was next to no service and fares were expensive. Ansett saw more discount fares, but also saw airline lounges, airbridges, business/first class and hot meals appear on domestic flights. I recall a column by Chris Trotter who saw domestic business class being some sort of class divider between the "haves" and "have nots". I never figured why people who flew were ever "have nots". On top of that, who the hell ever flew domestic business class unless they were:

a. Connecting to a long haul business class flight, so it was part of the ticket;

b. Using a free upgrade voucher which you got as a Gold/Gold Elite airpoints member; or

c. A politician (Rodney Hide used to say he had to fly Business Class to meet his constituents, but Laila Harre also regularly flew business class between Auckland and Wellington).

^

Then Ansett became Qantas NZ, then Qantas before Air NZ dropped business class and hot meals a few years ago, to go no frills. Qantas followed suit. Now Pacific Blue is coming in with no frills, Air NZ is responding by introducing a few rows in the front with around 4-5 inches more legroom for "premium customers " (likely Gold Elite/Gold status frequent flyers, full fare passengers and passengers connecting to business class international flights). Qantas has also announced it is upgrading NZ domestic lounges and installing upgraded interiors, more food service and a free evening bar service on flights.

^

S0 you might get a good deal on Pacific Blue, but frankly I'm looking forward to sitting at the front end of Air NZ with international long haul economy class legroom, or getting fed for free again on domestic flights. No doubt Chris Trotter will bemoan this as representing a new bastion of the class struggle!

"Big Money" envy

The left uses language carefully when it talks about issues. The term "Big Money" in most countries wouldn't refer to a peculiar small religious group spending a 5 figure sum campaigning against a particular electoral outcome. It usually means businesses funding politics. However, for Labour it is the new "bogey man", and Labour is used to creating language based bogeymen.

^

The word "nuclear" is one. The 1984-1990 Labour Government and the Party before the 1984 election eagerly took the word to be a byword for war and pollution. The first big scaremongering messages associated with "nuclear" were that anything "nuclear" would make NZ a target for Soviet nuclear weapons - something that was ok for Australia, the UK and the US in the event that the then communist bloc wanted to destroy free Western liberal democracy, but not NZ - which wanted to distance itself from that. That of course spoke volumes about who was behind being "anti-nuclear", as it was about being neutral between liberty and Marxist-Leninist dictatorship - as if you could be. The second scare is that "nuclear" meant Three Mile Island, Chernobyl - there were visions of fallout, Hiroshima and the like from nuclear propelled ships - despite the evidence to the contrary. The numbers who voted Labour because of this fear are difficult to determine.

^

Another is "privatisation", which is associated with people being ripped off, or services being cut, or "flogging off the family silver" -instead of flogging off the fools gold and the mythology around how good state owned monopolies really were. It's a bogey word - which too many of those who are economically illiterate in the media find easy to throw out there, when close scrutiny reveals most of the claims made make little sense.

^

So now we have "big money". Visions of Montgomery Burns from the Simpsons scheming with John Key to find ways to send children down salt mines (Winston Peters can get advice on this from North Korea of course), to find ways to poison the population, cut wages and ensure old people shiver in the streets. Visions that those who are successful and well off are only that way because they have taken from the less well off, or cheated them, or been greedy. The idea that wealth is a pie magically baked by "society" and those with "big money" have been so mean as to cut a big slice for themselves. This all forgetting that everyone bakes their own pies - their own pies - you know it's called property, and almost all of those who bake big pies did so from their own initiative and use of reason. The government at best exists to stop people stealing from each others' pies - although it does a good job of confiscating different amounts from most people's pies. OK enough of the pies.

^

Helen Clark is now painting a world where you, the voter, is actually quite gullible. You don't know what is good for you, let alone the country - and you can be bought by political parties which get large donations, or by "big money" campaigning for who THEY want. Those parties can dazzle you with flash ads, slogans and advertising and you wont vote for who you want. Her solution is simple, she will ban anyone from campaigning outside a political party. She also wants you to be made to pay for political parties too, even if you despise them all, she likes forcing you to pay for people who well, force you to pay. Nice that. She is hiding all this under the auspices of a threat from "big money".

^

So what is "big money"? It is organisations, made up of individuals, who want to spend their own money - remember that phrase "their own money" on political campaigns. They don't want to force you to pay for it, but they want you to vote a particular way. Labour believes, with good reason, that in sum, it will get less money from voluntary donations than National. It thinks this is unfair, so it wants to ban the spending of such money, and force you to pay for political parties to be equal.

^

Well not all political parties. The big ones would be nearly equal, the small ones would get bits and bobs - because, after all, Labour finds it hard enough competing with National, to have to worry about those annoying small parties "stealing" votes from their left and right flanks.

^

So let's not forget what Helen Clark means when she says "the National Party benefits enormously from big money in New Zealand politics." She means "I wish we did too, and if we can't attract it, they are not allowed it." It's naked party political self interest, and it is, as the Herald has said, all about keeping Labour in power. The last major electoral reform carried out was MMP - by National - and nobody can ever accuse that move of being about keeping the National Party in power!

In the "no shit Sherlock" files

Stuff reports "A family's fatal attempt to drive out a Maori curse may have been performed by charlatans, an expert in Maori culture says."

^

Perhaps those who are not claimed to be charlatans will participate in double blind experiments on this

Trust NZPA to give you the "facts"

According to NZPA, which has given us "facts about North Korea" on the end of an article included on Stuff.

^

"National legislature – Supreme People's Assembly, unicameral, 687 members elected directly for five-year terms.
Last election – September 2003, Next election due – 2008."

^

Oh you'd think there are elections, just like us, especially if the term one-party state confused you, you'd now be relaxed. It is just another country, a bit like all the others really. Of course let's not say the elections have one candidate, the choice is yes and no, and turnout and majorities are 100% respectively for both pretty much. No. Let's not list the estimated 150,000 political prisoners in gulags. No.

^

Can't have Winston asking about the children in gulags, or the most abominable human rights record in the world now can we?

The immoral plead to the amoral

Notwithstanding the blunders involving the arrest of extreme leftwing activists for firearms offences and claims of terrorism, one of New Zealand's highest profile cheerleaders for Al Qaeda's greatest attack is now wanting to go to a body that puts Cuba and Syria on its Human Rights Council.

^

In other words a woman who clapped and cheered when the World Trade Center was attacked and destroyed is now running to an international body that treats North Korea, New Zealand, Syria, Sweden and Burma as moral equivalents.

^

According to Stuff, Annette Sykes (who for some inexplicable reason can still command some respect in the media) is going to go to the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Peoples. A body which has as its full time, Western taxpayer funded job, to criticise Western governments for treatment of Indigenous peoples, whilst treating the corrupt ridden tinpot quasi-democracies of Africa as being great models of decolonised empowerment. You know, the type of body that throws stones at New Zealand but ignores Zimbabwe, because (after all) Robert Mugabe is indigenous and we all know indigenous people are peaceful and kind to their own people.

^

Besides Annette makes odd statements which seem to indicate that Tuhoe didn't have a community before the 1990s "When are the computers and the cell phones that have actually made this whole community absolutely impossible to communicate with going to be returned to this community", it does raise the question as to why Tame Iti says they have nothing to hide when of course they DID try to hide evidence, as Not PC points out.

^

The braindead media of course will do next to no investigation into the philosophies and ideologies of those charged, or even question Tame Iti on his Maoist background, you know like real interviewers do. Or maybe they are a bit scared of him?

^

Of course now there is going to be a Hikoi - curious of course for those of us with jobs, or who own businesses that one can afford to spend a week ambling down the countryside. I for one wouldn't really mind if Tuhoe declared independence over the vast tracts of publicly owned land, and their own private land in the Ureweras. Good luck to them, but the money from Wellington would come to a grinding halt. Let them have self-determination.

Liberal democracy under further attack?

The NZ Herald reports that a deal between Labour, the Greens and NZ First may mean that spending by government departments on advertising are to be exempt from electoral spending limits - and no amount of two-faced swarminess by the government or its sycophants is going to disguise what this will mean - more government department advertising promoting the benefits of policies of the government.

^

Labour has already started using government department activities to promote "the government". I noticed it on signs used by Transit New Zealand associated with road projects, no longer is it simply a fact that project X is underway costing $xxxxxxx, it now has a sign saying "a project funded by the New Zealand Government" as if it is directly linked to Ministers and MPs. Ads for Working for Families also are contentious.

^

However as the Herald editorial reports, there is one point that Labour and its supporters don't get " When is the Government going to get this message: democracy is not a device to keep the Labour Party in power."

^

The Electoral Finance Bill has been criticised by plenty who would otherwise be supportive of Labour politically - the Human Rights Commission and PPTA are unlikely opponents of a Labour government measure. As the Herald says:

^

"It was staggering enough last year that Helen Clark and her lieutenants could not understand why nobody else regarded their electoral pledge card as innocent information. Now, having grudgingly repaid the public purse, they are hell-bent on giving themselves the right to raid it again."

^

It is this complete disconnect with the truth that is the hallmark of the ruthlessness of Labour to remain in power. Elections should be campaigned on the basis of people voluntarily promoting and supporting political parties.

^

The Herald concludes:

^

"Parties have different advantages. If National has more well-heeled donors, Labour probably has the more committed and articulate foot soldiers. National's supposed advantages were of less urgent concern to Labour when it was polling well. Now in desperation it wants to screw the scrum. It has succumbed to the old conceit of the Left that the interests of the people are identical with its own. The interests of any healthy democracy lie in unrestricted debate, not laws that favour incumbents with public finance and suppression of free speech. If these bills pass, they will be Labour's epitaph."

^

One can only hope, and it will put paid to any claim of neutrality and belief in democracy that the Greens and NZ First purport to support. What it would show by all those parties is that power is more important than principle.

Woman dies due to lack of reason

Stone age beliefs have killed Janet Moses. It is believed she drowned as people tried to remove a Maori"curse".

^

The dark ages are still here, and as Stuff reports, Dr. Hone Kaa is a part of this by saying ""It's a very difficult process," he said. "I'm personally very wary of removing them." He said while water was often used to cleanse the victim: "I've never heard of great gallons being used".
Kaa said there could be a physical element to the removal. "You may have to hold the person down because the spirit may fight within the person to stay, so you need others around you to restrain them."

^

Or maybe you could leave someone alone and not assault them in the process, which is what this is really saying. Or how about simply recognising that this is all witchcraft and nonsense.

King Carlos tells Chavez to "shut up"

The creeping authoritarianism of Hugo Chavez's elected socialist dictatorship has been periodically reported on by myself from his insane rant at the UN, to his growing restrictions on free speech. Not PC has also told the ongoing story of Chavez's regime from shortages in supermarkets, how Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhilips have turned their back on investments in Venezuela, seeking to expel foreigners who express criticism of the regime, and government approval needed for baby names. A friend who has relatives there has described how poor service is there, and how there is a distinct lack of work ethic among anyone involved in anything to do with government or any monopolies. Oil money buys complacency.

^

Meanwhile the left still looks fondly upon him, after all the ends (socialism) always seems to justify the means (state bullying). What particularly grates is how London Mayor Ken Livingstone has cuddled up to this bully. This is so unspeakably abominable that Livingstone deserves to be booted out on this ground alone.

^

Now Chavez has been told off, by no less than the King of Spain, Juan Carlos. Someone who knows something about a transition from dictatorship to freedom. Both were at the "Ibero-American" summit in Santiago, Chile. Chavez called the previous Spanish Prime Minister, Jose Aznar a "fascist". Given Spain's past under Franco, this was a grave insult - particularly given the dramatic change Spain undertook to have its current vibrant, free and open society, with liberal democracy.

^

The Spanish Prime Minister (Zapatero, who defeated Aznar at the ballot box) called for more diplomatic words to be used and for respect of other leaders, despite political differences.

^

The Sunday Telegraph reports: "Former prime minister Aznar was democratically elected by the Spanish people and was a legitimate representative of the Spanish people," said Mr Zapatero, eliciting applause from the gathered heads of state.

^

Indeed, Chavez doesn't understand that liberal democracy actually includes respecting that previous (and future) elected governments have legitimacy, and something called a constitution and rule of law is what true leaders respect. Chavez simply changes these on a whim because he is a power hungry demagogue.

^

Chavez apparently kept trying to interrupt until King Juan Carlos could take no more and said "Why don't you shut up?".

^

Indeed. Chavez thinks he is the vanguard of a new revolution, when he is a blundering loudmouthed bully, and quite unhinged.

^

Meanwhile, yesterday a two mile protest march went through Caracas opposing Chavez's changes to the Constitution to increase his power. He called students protesting "spoilt little brats" and that it is all orchestrated by the USA. Yes - of course it is Hugo. Four students were shot returning to campus after a protest earlier in the week after an armed group stormed the campus.

What Winston should say to North Korea

Winston is visiting North Korea next week, a visit I've already condemned as being unconscionable, as it implies that a state which imprisons children as young as 4 as political prisoners and works entire families in gulags from dusk till midnight 7 days, should be treated as an equal - or even deserves being talked to.

^

After all would you treat those who abuse children as a deliberate state policy as equals?

^

I'm unsure why he is going, North Korea is a long way off being a valuable trading partner, I can think of many less tinpot places with better human rights records he hasn't visited. I can only put it down to the Labour Party nuclear fetish. North Korea has signed a deal to dismantle its (announced and detected) nuclear facilities - not destroy its current nuclear weapons arsenal - but is to be rewarded for successfully developing and testing a nuclear weapon, but promising to "never ever proliferate and not make any more".

^

Coming from a country that insists the Korean War was started by the US, when even the Kremlin revealed some years ago that this is complete fiction. A country that claims the rest of the world starves while it is a workers' paradise - in other words one of the most truth detached countries on earth, is hardly one you can trust to do a deal with.

Anyway, Winston is apparently going to "reinforce with North Korea the importance of fully declaring and dismantling its nuclear programmes and to express New Zealand's strong support for the Six Party Talks process" according to NZ Herald. Well that'll make a difference, Kim Jong Il will be bearing that in mind with his next bottle of cognac - oooh New Zealand agrees with us keeping our nukes and dismantling (hiding) the rest of our programme.

Setting aside this worthless piece of diplomacy, there IS something else Winston said that is more sinister. The Herald also says "New Zealand was ready to help North Korea's economic development once it had abandoned its plans to develop nuclear weapons" (sic).

Well setting aside the illiterate past tense from NZPA which would please me ("was" not "is"), how will this happen? Are taxpayers going to help this murderous totalitarian nightmare to develop? Would we have supported the economic development of Nazi Germany if it never invaded Poland and promised not to develop MORE nuclear weapons (but keep the ones it has)?

No. New Zealand taxpayers should absolutely revolt at the idea of paying a cent towards these butchers. Winston SHOULD ask North Korea to open up its gulags, which hold around 200,000 prisoners, to the Red Cross (not the North Korean Red Cross which is near useless). Ask them about Camp 22, about imprisoning children as political prisoners, about these cases from the gulags:

^

"there were two girls and they were trying to take out a piece of noodle from one polluted water pond where they put the garbage. And one guard kicked the kids into the small pond, and they drowned."

^

and

^

"And I heard many times that eyeballs were taken out by beating. And I saw that by beating the person, the muscle was damaged and the bone was exposed, outside, and they put salt on the wounded part."

^

and

^

"The reason why she was forced to go to the prison is her father’s elder brother was purged at the Anbyon, Kanwhan Do province. She went when she was 5 years old. All of the family members were imprisoned. Her mother starved to death, and her brother also starved to death in the prison. I met her at age 26. So it means she was in the prison for 21 years. I think she no longer is in the world"

^

So what happened to this woman who was a political prisoner from age 5? Yes 5!! A former gulag guard tells:

^

"my supervisor, when he saw the woman, she was beautiful. And he raped her, and he was found by the watchman officer. And he was investigated. My superior, his rank was reduced and the woman was sent to the detention center And then I didn’t see her for one year.
...One day I was going to the place to load the coal, I met her. And I noticed she was exactly that woman, and I asked her, how you could survive. And she told me, that "yes, I survived". But she showed me her body, and it was all burned by fire.
...After six months I met her at the corn storage in Kusan district and found her putting on a used tire on her knees because her legs were cut off. Because of a coal mine wagon ran over her knees. And all she could do now was separate the corn grains from the cob"

^

Winston, if you don't raise human rights with North Korea then, in the words of the cliche, you don't deserve to be pissed on if you're on fire. Nobody in North Korea can even utter a word questioning this - you can, you effectively have diplomatic immunity in this case.

^

Oh and if you only care about economic development, you might give North Korea the only seriously sound advice it needs ...

^

set your people free!

Time to give Harawira a lesson

"I don't understand terrorism as it is understood by those fuelled by the jingoistic, acid-drenched, hate-filled, anti-Islamic, death to anyone from the Middle East, vitriolic, poisonous claptrap that the United States is trying to foist upon the rest of the world" he says according to the Herald.

^

He's either an idiot or willfully blind.

^

What jingo was involved when four airliners were hijacked on 9/11, what jingo was involved when the London underground and a bus were bombed? Who foisted THAT upon us you leftwing bigot?

^

Who said "death to anyone from the Middle East"? You did - idiot!

^

Who spreads poisonous claptrap that the world should be a Islamic caliphate which barely tolerates other religions, and calls for death to infidels, and willingly spreads a doctrine of suicide and sacrifice to children, and spreads venom about Jews that is akin to Nazi Germany?

^

Or maybe Hone your own "jingoistic, acid-drenched, hate filled" anti-Americanism is the reality? You'd love a world where you and your mates could steal the property of others, lock up those who offend you, where you and your mates could wander on land you think is yours and take it off the registered legal owners, where taxes can be used for you and your mates - and where words like "accountability" are dismissed as "business roundtable speak" (a former Maori MP once said that!). Maybe Hone you like the model of Africa, the continent of rampant corruption, where who you know matters more than what you do.

^
It's about time that the electoral system was made colourblind, and a Maori vote counted as much as a non-Maori vote - the Maori seats should go, the Maori Party can then try to convince an electorate or 5% of voters that it is entitled to be in Parliament- like everyone else, but Hone has his own "jingoistic, acid-drenched, hate filled word" for being treated like everyone else - racism.

So consider this

If New Zealand white supremacists, who have for years damned Western liberal democratic civilisation as corrupt, attacked capitalism and were warm towards Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain and South Africa's apartheid regime, had weapons training camps in the hills, and had been arrested on firearms charges and possibly terrorism - would the Maori Party, Green Party and all those who have long been warm towards the butchers of Marxism Leninism be sympathetic and weeping tears? Would Archbishop Brown Turei be defending their civil rights?

^

Of course not, nor should they - so why are their buddies exempt from the rule of law when they themselves show little respect for it, or secular liberal democracy?

Islam is NOT peace as long as Muslims do not fight Islamists

Today I saw an ad inside the tube that I thought was intriguing, it talked of a young woman police officer here in the UK who is a Muslim, and how she was committed to protecting British citizens and the country. All very well I thought, and the website link from it was this.
^
So what is it all about?

^

The website says the campaign has 5 goals:

1. Fight Islamophobia wherever it occurs (in other words bigotry against Muslims. Well fine, although if this means supporting campaigns to do violence to anyone critical or laughing at Islam, then count me out. Muslims should be able to live anywhere in peace not harassed because of their religion, but they also must respect the rights of others to free speech regarding their religion);

2. Create dialogue to ensure Muslim concerns are taken into account to ensure concerns about racism and social exclusion are understood and Muslim voices are always in mainstream media (in other words be a voice for Muslims in lobbying government, though I suspect the term "social exclusion" means seeking taxpayers' money);

3. Government to work for long and lasting peace in areas of conflict, helping eliminate injustices that fervent division and nurture violence (in other words, the Palestinian issue);

4. Be creative, so that our community understands the mainstream and what its community wants to hear (? spin doctoring ?);

5. To create friendships and a culture of understanding (fine!).
^
It appears to be a British Muslim campaign to spread the view that Islam is a peaceful religion and that British Muslims do not want to fight the liberal secular democracy of the UK (which it effectively is) but work within it. Well it appears to, except that there is virtually nothing on the website that gives any support for pluralist Western liberal secular democracy at all.
^
The website has a lot of video which gives a positive view of "Muslims in your neighbourhood", and includes a section on Islam. None of that is wrong in itself, and not for a minute would I imply British Muslims are predominantly inclined towards terrorism. It's a reasonably clever site, lots of women and girls as well, no doubt designed to dispel views that Muslims are misogynistic and discriminatory.

^

Unfortunately, it fails here. It makes it clear that Islam explicitly discriminates against women as they are required to cover more than men, because, of course, women who don’t cover are inciting rape aren’t they? Of course people should wear whatever they choose, if Muslims choose to cover up that’s their choice.

^

There is the section on marriage which is also curious. The website says “It is generally recommended that prospective husband and wife meet prior to marriage; although some couples choose not to, leaving it to the judgement of their families.” Generally recommended! Then we have more sexism with allowing men to have multiple wives but not vice versa. Wonder why? After all if men and women are equal, or are men more equal than women?

^

Women of course are seen as being very special "The woman’s priority lies in being a good mother” well that’s clear but to make it clearer “The decision to work is hers if she chooses but she will not be disrespected if she decides to concentrate on her primary role as a mother.” I wonder if the converse is true.

^

Don't ask about homosexuals though - they don't exist.

^

However this site isn’t about women, where it helps to re-emphasise the underlying sexism of Islam, but about peace. So how IS it on peace?
^
Well apparently non-Muslims should never be harmed, but interestingly only in the context of an Islamic state. Yes the “Islam is peace” website seems implicitly to support an Islamic state – you know, the type that means the state is not secular, not blind to religion and does not treat you as an individual with individual rights. The website says so here in the section on "misconceptions" responding to the claim that Islam is intolerant of other religions:
^
“One who kills a non-Muslim person (under the guardianship of an Islamic state) will not even smell the fragrance of Paradise."
^
So there you go, you’re ok “under the guardianship of an Islamic state”, not the British government. Not intolerant as long as Islam is the basis for all laws and government? I’m less than unimpressed, in fact the whole credibility of this website is severely dented by this and the next statement that "Whoever hurts a non-Muslim person (under the guardianship of an Islamic state), I am his adversary, and I shall be an adversary to him on the Day of Resurrection".

^

You see this justifies bombings in London or New York or Spain or Bali. Peace???

^

There is a small section responding to misconceptions about Muslim Fundamentalism. This exists of course, it is the basis for the Iranian constitution and government, the Taliban, Hamas, Hizbollah, Al Qaeda etc. It exists and it is evil. You might have thought that this website would condemn Muslims who use Islam to justify political violence or the imposition of Islamic laws on non-Muslims. No.

^

In fact the site's credibility was further eroded. Instead of accepting that some Muslims, including the Taliban, the Iranian government and Hamas apply literal radical interpretations of Islam that incite violence and waging holy war and terrorism, and condemning this AS IT SHOULD HAVE! ... it says “Unfortunately, due to a twisted mixture of biased reporting in the media and the actions of some misguided Muslims, the word "Islam" has become almost synonymous with "terrorism".

^

Hold on, the biased reporting? You can't mean the BBC which never uses the word "terrorist". However, is there denial that almost sole terrorist threat in the Western world today comes from Islamists?

^

“Some misguided Muslims”? Some in New York, London, Glasgow, Madrid, Bali, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Israel, Egypt, Algeria, Pakistan, India? Is there denial that most terrorism in the world in the past few years has been carried out by Islamists? Is the use of quotation marks around “terrorism” implying that it is something else? What is "misguided" if it isn't a weasel word for evil?

^

It goes on “However, when one analyses the situation, the question that should come to mind is: Do the teachings of Islam encourage terrorism? The answer: Certainly not! Islam totally forbids the terrorist acts that are carried out by some misguided people. Islam encourages peace, mercy and forgiveness. Killing innocent people totally contradicts the teachings of Islam.”

^
To which I say “Stop telling me this! I'm not the problem, the problem is in people who hold YOUR religion and preach YOUR religion. Tell the Muslims who DO carry out terrorist acts, who DO aid and abet them, who DO cheer when they happen, who FUND it. Reject them, report them, fight them if you can - if you want to have respect of being a British Muslim. Otherwise you are part of the problem.

^
And that’s the rub. You can tell non-Muslim Britons as much as you like about how you are good citizens and the like. You can try to sell how good your religion is, fine, there is free speech.

^
BUT. If you want people to believe YOU believe in peace then maybe you need to do something more than tell those who fear Islamist terrorism. You need to fight those who are Islamist terrorists, you need to turn on them and their supporters, and their funders. It means opposing the murderous Iranian regime, which executes teenagers for having consensual sex, or punishes girls for claiming they have been raped. It means opposing the Taliban, which banned music, education for girls and was one of the most brutally repressive regimes on earth, and which providing shelter and succour for Osama Bin Laden. It means turning on those who hold your religion and use it against us all.

^

Peace is not defined as being Islam, and Islam clearly is not peace for a sizeable number of Muslims. However, the majority of British Muslims are undoubtedly hard working peaceful residents who get on with their lives with little bother to others. If the point of the website is to point that out, then I think it goes without saying to most non-Muslim people here.

^

Howevr, if Muslims in Britain want to really know what is wanted, it is a clear categorical rejection of any interest in seeking an Islamic state in Britain, and a rejection of terrorism, including admitting it IS an Islamic problem. It means turning on those within Islam in Britain who threaten violence against this country, and NOT wanting to overthrow the secular liberal democratic state.

^

Quite simply if you want to live in Britain, then accept that it is a secular Western liberal democracy where individual rights are, by and large, protected. If you don't like that, then leave, and if you want to conspire to fight against it, or protect those who conspire to wage war against it - then you're no longer welcome, you're a criminal.

^
Sadly this website not only doesn't do that, but appears to be in denial that there even is a problem called "Islamic Fundamentalism". I'm sure Muslims in Britain can do better than that.

Young people rebel against Nanny State

Gee what a surprise. The NZ Herald reports that "the number of people aged 15 to 45 who have smoked at least once in the previous year has increased from 31.1 per cent in 2003 to 35.8 per cent."

^

The Ministry of Health is astounded no doubt that constantly telling people how bad they are doing something so bad for them, sometimes means it seems more seductive, more taboo, and appealing.

^

The report continues "It may be there was a general decline in lifetime use for tobacco, but the groups that were picking up smoking were doing it because it was seen as 'cool' and somehow anti-establishment. That included some young people, particularly young women, who were reacting to the Government regulation and the social intolerance that was developing for smoking."

^

Everyone with enough neurons to feed themselves should know smoking is deadly. Those who don't frankly ought to be left well alone to smoke themselves to an early grave - one of the most depressing legacies of humanity in recent generations is how much effort is spent keeping the gene pool full of stupid people who breed and raise more stupid people. That is also why adults should be allowed to not wear seatbelts (and please don't mention health costs when you also support socialist medicine).

Herald on Sunday is a post-modernist Marxist rag

Kiwiblog's commentary on the Herald on Sunday's editorial say so much - it is effectively the Guardian of New Zealand and should not pretend to be anything else, but a leftwing rag edited by a postmodernist who does not believe in an objective reality.

^

The claim that racism has nothing to do with skin colour and everything to do with power is intriguing - it would mean that Hutus murdering Tutsis who were in power and wealthier wasn't racism. You see what it means is that Maori "can't" be racist in this "world view". So it isn't about a person being bigoted on race, it is only white people bigoted on race. So when governments discriminate against non-Maori in favour of Maori for funding, university places or the like - it can't be racist - even though, objectively it is.

^

Racism is when you discriminate against someone on the basis of skin colour. Put two kids in a school yard and have one say the other one is inferior because she is white, black, brown or yellow - and it is racism - or if a group of Maori kids call a caucasian kid names, it isn't? Yes that is what the Herald on Sunday is saying - and yes, that is what so many of our university graduates are taught, and a not inconsiderably number of bureaucrats believe.

^

The post-modernist neo-Marxist structuralist definition used in the Herald on Sunday is the sort of moral relativist nonsense that is often trotted out by likeminded university lecturers - you know, the sort that say that a Maori lecturer humiliating a non-Maori student isn't racist because "Maori can't be racist". It is such mindless collectivist nonsense that appeals to the simple minded, and appeals to those who want to lie blatantly about their true agenda, which is a utopian (to them) vision of a revolutionary world where your place in it is defined by your race, class and sex. You see that's how the Herald on Sunday editor sees the world:

- A man has more power than a woman, the world makes it that way. Woman can't change this except through force;

- A caucasian has more power than a Maori, the world makes it that way. Maori can't change this except through force;

- A wealthy older person has more power than a poor young person, the world makes it that way. Young poor people can't change this except through force.

^

It think of us all as members of collective groups - you are not an individual, you are classified based on sex, race, income. It treats you as if who you are is defined by those characteristics, not what you do.

^

So many of those railing against the arrests of the Marxist Tuhoe activists and their comrades are "professional protestors" and great enthusiasts for state violence against the productive in order to pay for them and their friends. They warmly embrace the state ganging up against peaceful people who work hard, make a living and are successful with their lives, but suck on the state tit paid for by those people whether through welfare or state jobs. The Herald on Sunday is dead wrong in claiming "Those protesting against the police actions and their courtroom sequels are not seeking apartheid but evenhanded justice, openly dispensed".

^

Actually those protesting are seeking socialism, socialism with a strong Maori nationalist component that would cheerlead a kind of ethno-fascism regarding what is Maori over everything else - don't expect the media or education to be free and open under their world. After all, ever tried to have a free and frank debate about cultural value, history or philosophy with such people? Or do you just get a taste of "direct action" and violent threats? Simply look at their ideological comrades - Guevara, Lenin, Castro, Mao - none of whom hesitate to spill blood.

CYFS and Police fascism in 2007 - Cindy Kiro's world

I've reported on incidents like this before, an alleged (and strongly denied) case of adult incest. According to Stuff, a couple living together, he 48 and she 30, are biologically father and daughter, but she was adopted and didn't meet him until she was 19. They became close over time, remember that he wasn't her father throughout her childhood, and he moved from the UK to live with her, although they strongly deny a sexual relationship. Bizarrely, her birth mother found out and decided it was time to wreck vengeance for some reason, she contacted CYFS.

Now let's not forget that CYFS claims constantly it has a backlog of cases of children - as in people under 18 - at risk, and not being properly followed up. I would have thought that a case of alleged incest, between adults in their 30s and 40s, where there is little evidence, no complaint from anyone directly involved, would be bottom of the priority list.

Maybe CYFS CEO can be asked about that?

Then there is the Police response. Again, when you next report a burglary, or car conversion or even an intruder, ask yourself whether it will be quite as important as this. I also wonder if this isn't a case of a bunch of cops thinking that there is something so prurient about this case that they all want to be involved. Two adults have allegedly a criminal sexual relationship that involved nobody else but what do you do?

^

Stuff reports "12 armed police raided their Auckland home just after dawn on Easter Tuesday. The police, wearing bullet-proof vests and accompanied by a Child, Youth and Family officer, arrested the couple, who appeared in court a week later."

^

I guess it's a bit easier than raiding a criminal gang isn't it, big tough cops that they were!

^

CYFS busybodies then questioned the women's children (of a previous relationship) about whether "they had seen us touch in private places", so in other words getting her kids to spy on whether the couple had been sexual.

^

Remind you of anything? Well gay men before 1985 would know of this sort of questioning - it is the sort of questioning that is not out of place in Islamic Iran, and was not out of place in Nazi Germany. The childrens' mother and their biological grandfather were taken from the house at gunpoint, and the biggest concern of CYFS is whether the kids saw them grope - which apparently they did not.

^

So what about Cindy Kiro? Oh well you see, she wants children to be monitored by the state and regularly questioned about family life. I doubt she will stand up for this family to not have armed raids on it for doing nothing wrong.

^

Moreover I doubt whether there will be much outrage from other parties in Parliament.

^

So what is really going on here?

^

1. A couple are living together, aged 30 and 48. Nothing more is known, but they have had her kids questioned by CYFS investigators as to whether they've seen them do anything sexual, and they've had a DNA test each to determine if they are related (as his name is not actually on her birth certificate as the father).

2. There is no allegation of any force involved in this relationship, even if there is anything sexual and certainly no allegation of children being involved. In other words, IT IS NOT ANYONE ELSE'S BUSINESS WHAT THESE TWO ADULTS DO CONSENSUALLY IN THEIR OWN HOME.

3. It is criminal for them to have a sexual relationship if they are related.

4. It is such a high priority for the New Zealand Government, led by Labour (after all they claim credit for building roads, they have to claim credit for this), to send 12 armed cops in to arrest this couple and separate the mother from her kids.

5. It's difficult to get any Police interest in most property crimes, and the Police constantly claim how overstretched they are to cope with serious crime, but enforcing this victimless crime gets the Police interested - I'd hate to think because of a prurient interest in the case.

6. CYFS claims it is also overstretched with a backlog of cases to investigate. A case of an adult couple potentially having consensual incest has priority, and there is a high priority to separate the mother from the children and put them through grilling to help the Police with their enquiries when there are NO allegations of abuse of the children.

^

Disgusting, abhorrent and yes fascist that a peaceful couple that may not even be having sexual relations get arrested and gunpoint and have to face this law.

^

The law is an ass, but what really disturbs me is how the Police and CYFS have not used the discretion they should to treat it more appropriately. What would be wrong to simply send two officers to ask a few questions? What would be wrong to treat it like car conversion, take the details but say unless there is any serious evidence nothing will be done?

^

So what should be done?

^

In this case, the charges should be dropped for lack of evidence and the couple left well alone (in a proper jurisdiction you could sue the cops for the mental anguish caused, but ACC stops all that).

^

The law on incest should be repealed in its entirety (children are protected by age of consent laws) or at least not be applicable when both parties are 18 and over. It is a waste of money to have the state pursue this, and a gross invasion of personal liberty and privacy to give a damn.

^

So WHAT if they fucked each other? So WHAT if it offends you? It isn't a crime to have a gangbang, or to tie consenting adults up and spank, whip and pee on them. Why should THIS be a crime?

^

More importantly, the cops and CYFS need to be held accountable for initiating force and causing harm to this family. They have hurt nobody, including each other (except perhaps the feelings of the woman's birth mother). The cops and CYFS need to learn something about individual rights - oh and Cindy Kiro and her entire office need to be fired and disbanded.

Airbus A380 is NOT a revolution, it's the end of an era

The enormous media coverage of the very first commercial passenger carrying flight of the Airbus A380 "whalejet"as some have coined it, has been full of the hype that Singapore Airlines would have hoped for. However, I'm not going to agree with the view of many that the A380 is a revolutionary step forward - it's not. Why?
^
1. It is not the "biggest plane in the world", as the Russian built Antonov An-225 took that title in 1988. However, it is the largest one to be mass produced, as there is only only An-225 to date, and it is the largest airliner.
^
2. It is not a particular quantum leap in capacity, if only because many airlines are using the vastly increased floorspace to upgrade their on board product. In any case, unlike the Boeing 747 it is not a doubling of seating compared to its predecessors.
^
3. It is not technologically a major leap forward compared to the last brand new large jet airliner introduced by the "big two" of Airbus and Boeing - the last was the Boeing 777. It does represent an evolution, but not a revolution.
^
4. The passenger product introduced by Singapore Airlines is only an advance in First Class Suites (the now famous double beds for some), with separate cabins, and beds separate from seats. The Business Class and Economy Class products are identical to their existing Boeing 777-300ER aircraft (which, by the way, don't yet fly to New Zealand), and have been getting rolled out on those 777s for the past year.
^
In short, it's bigger, quieter and the windows are a bit bigger. All very well, but that is it. You see the key difference between the A380 and future new airliners, is that it is probably the last predominantly aluminium jet airliner to be built. The next ones, the Boeing 787 and the Airbus A350XWB will be predominantly carbon composite - with windows twice the size of existing airliners, a flight interior altitude substantially lower and humidity substantially higher than that of current airliners. In other words, a major change to the current experience of being dehydrated and feeling cooped in a metal tube. The A380 is a fine replacement for airlines that need a 747 or larger sized airliner, but there aren't too many of those - Air New Zealand almost certainly will never buy any.
^
It's also important to dismiss the nonsense debate that the A380 competes with the 787 Dreamliner - as if airlines that need a 450 seat airliner, wouldn't need a 250 seat one or vice versa. Given that Singapore Airlines, Qantas and BA have bought both, this is a debate created by journalists interviewing their laptops. There is clearly a market for the A380, it's just for now it not enough to make it break even - 190 so far. The Boeing 787 has sold 710 so far and hasn't flown. I think we can tell which aircraft manufacturer chose the right market to target!

Sicko

I pay around NZ$10,000 a year in National Insurance contributions to the British government - so, maybe you might ask Michael Moore, why I needed to go private to get surgery to relieve a chronic condition in my right leg than has been agonising for the last year? You might ask what value I get out of that money, the two GP visits at times that aren't even close to my choosing? The inability to get a decent NHS dentist?

^

Yes - the fat American man who can afford all of the healthcare his far from optimal physique will require can sing praises about the NHS as much as he likes - he doesn't pay for it - nor does it look like he wants to move here.

^

Funny that.

^

and yes I know it would be three years before i'd get the surgery in New Zealand too.

^

and before i read the kneejerk comments about whether I want an American health system, I don't. I want a system that has been reformed by transitioning all provision to be private and gradually weaning the public off of socialist style medicine to insurance based cover for all who want it.

National could get law and order right, but doesn't

I'm sure you're all terribly surprised at how, according to Stuff, the NZ Police Association (effectively the trade union for the Police) is cheerleading National's new policy of allowing the Police to take DNA from everyone ARRESTED of a crime. The Police Association, which itself has a long standing policy of resisting any reforms to improve Police accountability for performance or budgeting, has never been a friend of freedom, and neither is the Police. Let's face it, they are probably the only organisations in the country that don't know why people worry about a "Police state", because after all "you have nothing to fear if you've done nothing wrong".

^

Yes, how many of YOU have used that phrase whenever there is an increase in powers of state surveillance? Now I don't expect an institution which is at the front line of enforcing state violence to give a damn about freedom, but I do expect a political party which claims to give a damn about freedom to do so.

^

Why indeed - you've done nothing wrong, but somehow you have less freedom and rights than others. Of course, the Police will treat that database as an invaluable contribution to fighting future crimes because they can match more people - you see that old argument that the ends justify the means comes out. On that basis we should do more, we should require everyone to have tracking devices carried at all times so the Police can check who was where at what times, then we could fix more crimes! You have nothing to fear if you've done nothing wrong have you now? Of course you leave your DNA anywhere you might shed a hair, or urinate, or bleed, or leave saliva, or shag - get the picture?

^

Now if you believe Keith Locke, you'd think John Key wants a database of DNA held by the Polic on everyone arrested.

^

So what DID John Key say in his speech announcing National's Law and Order policy?

- Allow the Police to use tasers: Well fair enough to help restrain troublesome people, as long as they don't abuse it.

- Give police the ability to issue time-bound, on-the-spot protection orders: This could be highly valuable, but then you might ask yourself whether the Police shouldn't simply be arresting the people the orders are intended for? So this is worthy of discussion.

- Reinstating the previous provisions on bail to increase the difficulty of getting bail: Fine.

- Make it illegal to be a member of a criminal gang. Of course this is perpetually the funny one, brought up on talkback radio. So what is a criminal gang? It's simple, either the government defines them explicitly, and then the name of the gang changes every day, or it becomes a catch all - so anyone could be in a criminal gang, you know like a protest group that opposes mandatory censuses, or opposes drug laws. How do you prove membership? You'll find this one quietly disappears.

- Increase ease of surveillance of gang communications. Same issue really, what's a gang? Surveillance powers are already very high, what more are they going to do?

- Allow the police to remove gang fortifications. Well you would've thought that given how fascist the RMA is that this would be relatively simple, of course what it is likely to mean is that Police powers would exist to destroy any local authority unapproved constructions. Hmmm hardly looking forward to that, especially since the Nats show little interest in private property rights, once more.

- More cops. Yes yes, always makes people cheer. Might be nice if the Police are accountable for what they do, might be nice if they didn't pursue victimless crimes and might be nice if the Police Association agreed to performance based pay - but the Nats wouldn't want their favourite union to answer that question would they? You see, what would happen if any government did that is the Police would go on strike, and claim that suddenly they couldn't do all the visible policing you all care about. It's one of the toughest nuts to crack in government - making the cops accountable.

- Require DNA samples to be taken from all those arrested for offences punishable by imprisonment, but destroyed when someone is acquitted. If you can trust the Police to do that, then all very well. However, as I've said, try making them accountable.

^

If you are guilty of a crime, then it is right that as part of your sentence your DNA can be kept on a database which may indicate next time you commit a crime. Your right to freedom from surveillance was countered by you infringing upon the freedom of others. Of course I am only talking about real crimes, not victimless "crimes".

^

So what could the Nats have said?

- Review all criminal laws to repeal victimless crimes, and revise sentencing;

- Review and revise drug laws, to change the emphasis from chasing users to chasing supply to minors, and fraudulent supply;

- Introduce three strikes laws, so those convicted of violent offences are detained permanently for a third violent crime;

- Allow sentencing to include permanent denial of custody of children to convicted serious violent and sexual offenders;

- Second time murderers get life - meaning life;

- A renewed emphasis on pursuing property offences;

- Zero-tolerance for minor offences.

^

so, i might yawn....

Judith Tizard's eroding career

One thing I'll give Helen Clark, despite my almost universal distaste for her politics, she is a smart woman - very calculated. She transformed herself from a universally loathed figure as Health Minister in the late 1980s (you know when most NZ political reporters were focused entirely on drinking, drugs and shagging), granting Labour's worst election result in modern history in 2006 (28% of the vote) to being a three term PM almost always leading the preferred PM polls.

^

So what of Judith Tizard? Judith comes from a rather peculiar clan of Labour politicians. All of them with firey tempers, I remember vividly Bob Tizard storming out of a TVNZ interview in the 1980s when he was Minister of Energy, and Cath Tizard's frequent (and in some ways laudable) use of expletives is legendary. However, Judith's career has been far less notable.

^

She took the usual leftwing career path of seeking election on local bodies, you know the sorts that made clever decisions on our infrastructure that sometimes bore little resemblance to economic demand and supply, before being elected as MP of Panmure in 1990. She has always been very close to Helen Clark, as they have been good friends since university days, so she was certainly a cheerleader for, if not instrumental in the Maoist coup against Mike Moore following the 1993 election defeat for Labour. In 1996 she gained kudos for taking the new MMP Auckland Central electorate from Sandra Lee (who took it for the Alliance in 1993).

^

Judith has long sought to be a Cabinet Minister, but failed time and time again to be elected to this role. This reflects two very distinct parts of her character:

- Inability to keep quiet (unless it is really really really really really matters);

- Not particularly keen on hard work.

^

The roles she has taken on have therefore largely been associate roles as Minister outside Cabinet. She simply hasn't been trusted enough by her caucus colleagues to respect the strict confidentiality of Cabinet meetings, and is also not thought to be capable of contributing sufficiently to them (she's not stupid, just moody and well, not the hardest working Labour MP by a long shot).

^

Her character is also one which can endear, as she likes a glass of wine and can be friendly, convivial and a good host - which fits in nicely with her role as Associate Minister of Arts, Culture and Heritage because it gives her every excuse to be with the (albeit New Zealand) movie, TV, music and arts set. In other words a cocktail party circuit of events, speeches and mixing with people - something she's very good at. However, get Judith on a bad day and she'll let it rip, blaming whoever matters to be in the room for whatsoever and sounding off about how bad the National Party is. In that case she wont listen and actually just needs to sit down, have a drink and get over whatever got under her knickers that day.

^

So she was given the odd portfolio of the Minister Assisting the PM on Auckland issues - or as many have called it, holding the PM's handbag. ARC chairman Mike Lee claims she has done wonders for Auckland transport, and that meant I couldn't stop laughing.

^

I'll give Judith two things she has done, positively, for Auckland transport. First, in the early days of the Labour government she did advocate for work to be carried out on spaghetti junction ahead of the ALPURT B2 (Orewa bypass) motorway now underway (but which was ready to go some years ago). Yes, depending on what side you're on you can blame her for delaying a ready to be built motorway, or accelerating a major upgrade to central Auckland's most critical piece of motorway. However, advocacy was about it. It was the Labour appointed board members of Transit and (then) Transfund that made the real difference, and the fact the PM agreed with her and encouraged the very same move that was taken. However, you could argue that what Judith did was no different than any good local MP would do - seek pork from the state to fill the belly of her own electorate (although spaghetti junction has far more than local importance).

^

Secondly, she cut ribbons - which did no harm. She lobbied for all sorts of other changes to governance and funding that were largely ignored and dismissed by those more sensible and in power as being another mad idea from Judith - Pete Hodgson and Paul Swain were both adept as Transport Ministers at giving her things to do to keep her away from what really mattered.

^

So now she has fallen out of favour, despite her close friendship with the PM. One can only speculate why, but she may wish to decide whether she resigns as an MP, and seeks a local body career to enable her to keep feeding the cats. One thing is for sure, Judith wont be remembered as a mover and shaker, but as one of those odd MPs who is really there because of family heritage, and being close to someone who is very intelligent and very hard working and focused - that is why Helen Clark and her are not two of a kind.