I have read his article on "Outsourcing security" (thanks DPF) where he makes a strong case for allowing mercenaries to be contracted to protect civilians in the midst of a civil war, or governments seeking to terrorise a local population. He also wrote "outsourcing war" which continues on a similar vein
Imagine, for example, if such a group were placed to protect Tamils in Sri Lanka, or the people of Darfur? Indeed, what good they could do in protecting ships from Somali pirates!
The man seems to have character, indeed far more than any other Labour candidate, and dare I say most National candidates. John Key's cheap shot that "he wants to privatise the army" is nonsense, and unfair. He no more wants to privatise the army than National wants to privatise ACC.
David Farrar appears to be supporting the guy, quite right too, although is also publicising his pro-mercenary views more to "foment happy mischief" I suspect.
Of course Labour passed legislation banning New Zealand mercenaries, led by Phil Goff himself. The Greens, supported it (why let civilians defend themselves? war is bad no matter what).
National opposed the Bill, so I would have thought the right thing for National to do is support his candidacy, on one level anyway.
However, his views on many other topics are unknown, and so he can't be judged, good or bad, without knowing those. Being a member of the Labour Party of course, instantly raises some obvious suspicions, but I haven't heard any substantive reason to be against him yet.
If National opposes him, because he has a policy National implicitly supported in the past, then you have to wonder whether National regards politics to be just a game of point scoring, or is about principles? (Then again, isn't that question just tautological?)
Imagine, for example, if such a group were placed to protect Tamils in Sri Lanka, or the people of Darfur? Indeed, what good they could do in protecting ships from Somali pirates!
The man seems to have character, indeed far more than any other Labour candidate, and dare I say most National candidates. John Key's cheap shot that "he wants to privatise the army" is nonsense, and unfair. He no more wants to privatise the army than National wants to privatise ACC.
David Farrar appears to be supporting the guy, quite right too, although is also publicising his pro-mercenary views more to "foment happy mischief" I suspect.
Of course Labour passed legislation banning New Zealand mercenaries, led by Phil Goff himself. The Greens, supported it (why let civilians defend themselves? war is bad no matter what).
National opposed the Bill, so I would have thought the right thing for National to do is support his candidacy, on one level anyway.
However, his views on many other topics are unknown, and so he can't be judged, good or bad, without knowing those. Being a member of the Labour Party of course, instantly raises some obvious suspicions, but I haven't heard any substantive reason to be against him yet.
If National opposes him, because he has a policy National implicitly supported in the past, then you have to wonder whether National regards politics to be just a game of point scoring, or is about principles? (Then again, isn't that question just tautological?)
2 comments:
Indeed Liberty Scott.
I joined in a little mischiefmaking last night concerning David Shearer.
I guess the trouble stems from him having strong beliefs that contradict strongly with the party and its leadership.
Shearer does sound like he could be a great asset to many a party.
The trouble is, he has chosen the wrong one.
Perhaps, but we know nothing about his views on almost everything.
I am going to reserve judgment until I hear him talk about the economy, education, welfare, justice etc.
He appears to be pro-market, but who knows? Surely he's not been out of the country so long that he only remembers Labour in the 1980s?
Post a Comment