Iran or Israel, how are they equals?

I fully agree with the sentiments of Not PC on the simply brilliant speech by Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

The video is here (in 4 parts)

However, the text is here.

He refutes the ridiculous Holocaust denial claims of the dictator buffoon Ahmadinejad, he describes the Islamic fundamentalism of Iran correctly as follows:

"Though it is comprised of different offshoots, the adherents of this unforgiving creed seek to return humanity to medieval times.

Wherever they can, they impose a backward regimented society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated. The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization.

It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death."

He points out the wonder of human achievement, the application of free minds to the world:

"The allure of freedom, the power of technology, the reach of communications should surely win the day. Ultimately, the past cannot triumph over the future. And the future offers all nations magnificent bounties of hope. The pace of progress is growing exponentially.

It took us centuries to get from the printing press to the telephone, decades to get from the telephone to the personal computer, and only a few years to get from the personal computer to the internet.

What seemed impossible a few years ago is already outdated, and we can scarcely fathom the changes that are yet to come. We will crack the genetic code. We will cure the incurable. We will lengthen our lives. We will find a cheap alternative to fossil fuels and clean up the planet."

He describes how Israel withdrew, unilaterally from Gaza, in the hope it would bring the advancement of peace but:

"In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza. It dismantled 21 settlements and uprooted over 8,000 Israelis. We didn't get peace. Instead we got an Iranian backed terror base fifty miles from Tel Aviv. Life in Israeli towns and cities next to Gaza became a nightmare. You see, the Hamas rocket attacks not only continued, they increased tenfold. Again, the UN was silent."

Meanwhile, far too many think Iran can't be pursuing nuclear weapons, or if it is, it is "ok", because Israel has them. Israel has had them for some years, but hasn't threatened to ever use them, except in retaliation for use against Israel. Iran's recent military coup and election rigging is "ok", because after all, it has to be better than the USA, what with George Bush invading Iraq (another "legitimate" state perhaps) and Afghanistan. The very same cover their eyes when told of the execution of political prisoners in Iran, the second highest execution rate in the world after China, and ignore the execution of homosexuals or minors for sex crimes - being consensual sex. The very same people ignore the persecution of those who want to choose to reject Islam, and ignore the systematic oppression of free press and media.

The same who claim to give a damn about freedom of speech, about womens' rights, supporting gay and lesbian rights, but are happy to let Iranians live with none of the above.

It reminds me of the wilful blindness of the old left who wanted to "listen" to the men who rewarded snipers who shot desperate East Germans trying to cross the Berlin Wall, or "understand" what Nicolae Ceausescu's new way for Romania, without Soviet troops, or recognise the advantages that the Soviet Union brought for education, employment and in housing. The same lickspittles and sycophants who regard Western claims of militarism and human rights abuses with disdain, so denying the victims of dictatorial regimes the legitimacy of their experiences.

In which case I say this.

If you think Iran has a legitimate government with rights, then why do you not endorse a similar government for your own country? If it is good enough for Iranians to get political candidates chosen for them by a theocratic council, to have election results gerrymandered by the incumbent, for political protests to be put down by a state security agency that arrests and imprisons, for newspapers, radio and TV to be fully state controlled to prevent messages "unwelcome" to the regime being distributed, and for bloggers and others online to be persecuted and arrested for criticising the regime, then why not for YOUR country?

If you think it's ok for a theocratic dictatorship to acquire nuclear weapons, then presumably you embrace widespread nuclear proliferation.

If you think it's ok for a theocratic dictatorship to call for Israel to be erased from the map, then presumably you think so too. So go on, explain how you'd propose that be achieved? Explain how little bloodshed that would entail and how that would promote freedom, human rights and secularism in the Middle East? How would it be compatible with your opposition to the invasion of Iraq?

Kiwirail's illiterate and foolish fanatics

The NZ Herald report that the government expects Kiwirail to be financially self sustaining is a relief rather than a joy. It's the bare minimum I should hope for.

Meanwhile, the Labour Party, which destroyed $330 million of taxpayers wealth by buying this ailing business, after already letting it off the hook for not paying all track access charges that were owed, is desperately wanting you to pay more of your money to subsidise the freight movements of businesses. Labour can't give a single good reason why the users of rail freight deserve privileged treatment, and besides which, farmers are NOT dependent on Kiwirail. Fertiliser can go by road, and the milk that goes by rail is for Fonterra.

The economically illiterate lobby group "Campaign for Better Transport", which is largely aligned to the Green Party in terms of policies, goes further.

It is a relentless assault on the English language, that combines illiteracy of the language and punctuation with economic illiteracy and a strong hint of paranoid conspiracy theories. It is so damned ignorant that it is no surprise it isn't taken seriously by transport policy makers. I know, since I used to be one.

For starters, who can take seriously the following failures at English:

"Steven Joyce has come out swinging today against Kiwirail, as he says it will loose $1 million per day." Loose what??

"the Campaign For Better Transport (CBT) is questioning the Ministers figures" How many Ministers?

"Recently Joyce said KiwiRail was worth around $360 million dollars which we all know is unbelieveable" Unbelieveable? No, this preteen English standard is unbelievable.

"If I was a business owner I certainly would not put Steven Joyce incharge of quotations, Reeves said." incharge? Another new word. Comma missing too.

"In recent months is has become clear" is what?

"some unusal right wing groups have been producing reports with unusal facts and figures against Kiwirail" unusal? How creative, another new unusual word.

"yet it moves over 15% of the countries freight" What are all the countries?

"the nations rail network" Again, what are the other nations?

"The Campaign For Better Transport would like the Minister of Transport like" Like, whatever?

Poor Jon Reeves, he obviously did so badly at English at school (and CBT doesn't do spell checking) but wait, there's more. He can't even get his facts right.

He claims it is "ridiculous" to value Kiwirail at $360 million. Why? Because he puts forward the ludicrous implication that it be valued at replacement cost. As if anyone would pay replacement cost for it. As if Telecom, or any power lines company could be sold at replacement cost. Jon, it is called a "sunk cost". Money has been put into Kiwirail's assets that can never be recovered. You're no market analyst or businessman. By implication, Toll Rail was stupid to sell it at such a low cost and the sharemarket so badly wrong at undervaluing it, except for one point. It is worth $360 million because that's the value it might generate either in net revenues over time, and by implication, if sold on the open market.

Oh the Kaimai Tunnel? It is 8.879 km long, not 9.5 km long. Doesn't take much to check that fact, but then you're as good with facts as you are with spelling and grammar.

You wouldn't put Steven Joyce in charge of quotations if you were a business owner? Well he was a business owner, he was a millionaire at age 38 thanks to a business he set up at age 21. I don't think he really could give a damn what you think about his business acumen. Do you?

You claim that unusal (sic) right wing groups have been producing unusal (sic) facts and figures against Kiwirail. Who are these? What evidence do you have that the trucking lobby has been "working hard" on him, when he rejected their call to abolish road user charges?

You say "The Minister is throwing $8.8 billion dollars at roads so trucks can take away rail freight business", which is a complete non sequitur. The money for roads came from road users, who pay for road maintenance and capital expenditure, and besides, most roads don't compete with railways. Besides it isn't $8.8 billion a year yet you then say "giving Kiwirail only $90 million per year yet it moves over 15% of the countries freight"(sic). The money Kiwirail gets does NOT come from rail users, but from taxpayers. The link is illogical. Coastal shipping moves a fair proportion of freight but gets no subsidy, so what?

I might suggest that besides getting some literate spokespeople, the CBT might start having even a paucity of knowledge about economics and how the transport system is funded and financed, and throw away the paranoid conspiracy theories.

A better approach would be to read this article by Luke Malpass from the Centre for Independent Studies where he says:

"the present Government has only one policy option - the reform, rationalisation and resale of KiwiRail. The difficult reality is that many of the unprofitable lines must be closed while the Government prepares to sell off separate parts of rail to interested parties in the private sector. The rail system needs to shrink substantially to become viable in the long term. Only then will taxpayers be insulated from further political expediency and foolishness.

Without such bold action, rail is going to continue to be a drag on the economy and a constant cost for taxpayers, who have already spent a billion dollars on the business in the past year."

A new low on Kennedy

Mary Jo Kopechne might have thought her death by drowning was "worth it", given the career of Ted Kennedy.

So says Melissa Lafsky in the Huffington Post.

Given she said "Disabled? Poor? A member of any minority group? Then chances are your life is at least somewhat better because of Ted Kennedy." Yes, you all owe him so much, because he wanted to take more of your taxes and regulate the world so people like you had a chance, because without the services of a wealthy morally bankrupt politician, your life wouldn't have been so good.

Is it not so disgustingly evil to think you might speak on behalf of a dead woman to say her death at the hands of a drunken lech was worth it because of what he did with his life?

Should Melissa now offer herself on the altar of some politician so she can be left to die somewhere and someone else speak on her behalf and say "never mind, she'll think it was worth it given what the guy who left her to die did with his life".

Herald on Sunday's patronising racism

How much nonsense can be packed into an editorial?

"Rodney Hide, who has vowed to resign as Local Government Minister if National agrees to Maori representation on the Super-City Auckland Council. He believes an advisory board should provide the voice for Maori, and says he intends to stand by that"

No. It isn't for the government to decide on Maori representation, it is for voters. Voters in a liberal democracy decide who they want to represent them, they choose councillors. It isn't and shouldn't be for the government to decide that some of them must be of one certain race. Hide doesn't believe an advisory board should provide the voice for Maori, he isn't taking away the votes of Maori. Who represents non-Maori if they don't have advisory boards?

"Ever since the rush-of-blood decision to exclude Maori, Mr Key has, quite correctly, been seeking to fashion a compromise."

How are Maori excluded by having one person one vote and candidacy open to all? Are Maori less likely to vote, are Aucklanders (your customers) racist and wont vote for Maori councillors? The government is not planning to exclude Maori from the council, they aren't excluded now.

"Mr Hide's absence would allow a more reasoned analysis, notably of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance's recommendation in favour of Maori seats. Maori, a community of distinctive character and interest, should be represented on the Auckland Council."

The Royal Commission was called by a government that was voted out. Are Samoans of a distinctive character and interest? Are gay and lesbian Aucklanders? How about the young? How about the elderly? How about entrepreneurs? How about Chinese Aucklanders? Do you believe in liberal democracy or in collectivised sectarian democracy? Do Maori share the same view on politics? Noticed they all vote for what party? Reasoned analysis? Oh please.

"Dedicated seats, preferably two in number and elected by Auckland residents on the rolls of the Maori parliamentary electorates covering the Super City, are the obvious means of ensuring this." Because Maori wont vote for Maori councillors, but most of all neither will Aucklanders - apparently you think without some 19th century era patronising, Aucklanders wont elect Maori. Indeed, if they don't think Maori representation is important, you want to legislate over them.

So the Herald believes Maori are more important as a group, than anyone else in Auckland, more importantly, that Aucklanders are too racist to elect any Maori councillors (or that if they don't do so, the judgment of voters that the Maori candidates are not good enough should be overriden by reserving seats).

The supercity is a dog of an idea, conceived by a Royal Commission born of a government that believes local government should do whatever councillors think it should. The almost complete absence of any policy from this government on the role of local government is the real damning indictment of the supercity.

If Maori seats are created for Auckland, what's to stop the Maori political gravytrain seekers wanting the same for all councils?

Trevor Mallard shows backbone

Following on from extensive comments in support of my view on Simon France's sentencing of five torturers comes Trevor Mallard, using the word torture (what are YOU reading Trevor?) to describe what these people did. He did it on the Labour Party blog. Good on him.

So what will the Minister of Justice, one Simon Power, say? Undoubtedly the standard line of not wanting to get involved in judicial decisionmaking. In fact, Simon Power was lectured by Simon France, when France was a lecturer at the law school of Victoria University of Wellington. Power was distinctly conservative at the time, so it will be interesting to see if Trevor Mallard has a better sense of what is nonsense than Power.

The Maori Party after all undoubtedly wont be speaking out about this, given Tariana Turia's own belief in anciest ghosts. No doubt, anyone thinking Maori who torture their relatives due to irrational religious beliefs should get a harsher punishment are Maori bashing - a label, ironically, that far too Maori could appropriately and sadly wear.

Torture isn't serious in New Zealand

Picture this.

A gang of your relatives believe in "goblins, ghosts and demons". They believe you contain a "demon". No doubt the more you resist, the more they are convinced you have one.

They imprison you in a flat against your will. Assault and restrain you. Engage in the systematic water torture of you, to try to “exorcise” the “demon”. It is forced down your throat and nose repeatedly while you remain inprisoned by this gang.

In other words, Guantanamo Bay treated Islamist terrorist suspects better. Waterboarding is childs' play in comparison.

Ultimately your tired body, fed up with resisting, has its lungs fill with enough water that you drown. Remember drowning? That's when you can't breathe, because every time you do, you go into an enormous cough reflex and eventually pass out in desperation, all the while this gang force feeds you water.

What do these loving relatives do? They don’t phone for an ambulance, don’t try to resuscitate you. You see they probably don’t believe in modern medicine. They grab your 14yo cousin and start the same process on her.

What are the reasonable conclusions?

1. They are sadistic murderers, out to dispose of you, but not very efficiently (unlikely in this case)
2. They are clinically insane. Seriously mentally ill and dangerous.
3. They are stupid and mindless. Not quite insane, but very very stupid and incapable of empathy when they convinced a person is a “demon”.

Note the difference between 2 and 3 is a matter of degree and legal definition.

So what should a judge do with them?

According to the NZ Herald, High Court Justice Simon France says "community based sentences". Stuff reports that this includes this horrible penalty "Under the community detention order Rawiri and Wright will be curfewed to their homes between the hours of 9pm and 6am daily for six months." How rough is that? They will have to - watch TV and sleep then!!

Yes, it is the dark ages. So all you need to do to get rid of someone you know who you don’t like is to claim you’re exorcising a demon, demonstrate it as a truly held belief, and go for it. As Cactus Kate says, “Look for the "Makutu" mitigation of sentence to pop up in child-bashing cases from now on” and don’t expect the Greens, who care so much about child abuse, to express interest in this. These people will walk free and be able to practice their mindless violent techniques again.

Yes they didn’t intend to kill her, or harm her. However, how many other crimes can be justified by that? Can a child rapist claim “I wanted her to enjoy it, I wanted it to be positive for her, I didn’t intend to hurt her”? No.

However, presumably because it is Maori religious mumbo-jumbo it is ok. I suspect had a Catholic priest engaged in such techniques for an exorcism and the result was death, that he wouldn’t be getting a community based sentence.

So in New Zealand, torturing and accidentally killing someone isn't a reason to imprison, as long as you do it under the aegis of Maori supernatural beliefs. This wont, of course, be an issue for most New Zealanders - but woe betide the children or young adults of families full of these sorts of cretins. If auntie or uncle or mum and dad talk about worrying about demons in the family, get far away, there is precious little deterrent to them torturing you to get it out.

UPDATE: Oswald Bastable agrees "these fuckers are all barking mad"

Another funny week from Catherine Delahunty

From the funniest REAL Twitter account of an MP

"Lots of laughing and shouting in The house today but no food labelling commitments or healthy food in schools for tamariki"

No that's right Catherine, all the healthy food has been taken away, if it isn't compulsory it isn't there!

"Mad scientists at select commitee read my blog later"

That's incomprehensible, but she'd know mad.

"We just spent a week on hold trying to get a new phone isnt the free market efficient?"

Why didn't she just pop down to a shop and buy one? Who sits on the phone for a week? Of course if it is about phone lines and she lives in the boondocks it isn't a free market, as Telecom is forced to supply lines to remote places at a fraction of cost - so it is socialism at work.

Everyone is equal but?

Idiot Savant has said that it is a "fundamental principle that everyone is born equal and should be treated as such" in damning Kevin Rudd's opposition to gay marriage or civil unions.

I agree, the state should treat everyone equally, the state should be blind to race, sex and (NIOF*) sexual orientation.

However, he doesn't carry that view consistently.

He has called abolition of the Maori seats (without the "consent of Maori") racism, although Maori seats do not treat everyone equally by definition.

He supports government policies requiring the state and private sector to give preferential treatment to women in employment;

He supports government policies to spend more on Maori health proportionately than other citizens, because Maori do not “choose” unhealthy lifestyles

He damned Don Brash for promoting equality before the law saying “Brash is just the latest in a long tradition of beneficiaries of unequal status quos using egalitarian arguments to defend their advantages. But the sort of formal, legal equality that they espouse is about as useful as the formal, legal guarantees of human rights in the old Soviet constitution.”

So formal, legal equality is useless then. The state should treat individuals differently on the basis of race and sex. If you're born Maori, you have guaranteed political representation, but not if you're born gay, or become a Muslim, or are a libertarian. If you're born Maori, the state should spend more money on your healthcare, not because YOU'RE unhealthy, but because on average others like you are.

Are redheads more likely to suffer mental illness? Blondes more likely to catch STDs? Brunettes more likely to be hired to managerial positions? Maybe someone should investigate and get the state to interfere to "fix" this.

So treating everyone equally isn't much of a "fundamental principle" then is it?

* Non Initiation of Force. Rapists of adults and children are not entitled to equal treatment on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Prince of Wales hypocrisy continues

It's not really news that Prince Charles is a Royal hypocrite on environmental matters.

So his latest antics say it all - according to the Mail on Sunday he decided to embark on a five day tour of Europe to promote environmental issues. He, with an entourage of 11 are flying to Rome, Venice and Berlin. For a man who is "so concerned" about climate change, you might think he'd avoid flying all over the place.

To top it off, he has a chartered a plane for the trip instead of booking commercial flights. Apparently 52.95 tons of carbon will be emitted by his trip, "nearly five times the average person's 11-ton footprint for an entire year".

Really, it does demonstrate how clearly having this man as a head of state is ridiculous. Of course he does a wonderful service is discrediting almost everything he says by his own actions.

UN Racism conference was a farce before it started

While most of the focus on the UN Racism Conference (Durban Review Conference) has been on Ahmadinejad, the signs were there well before that this would be a farce. Islamic countries all wanted the conference to be an effort to prohibit defamation of religion, and to slam Israel. Cuba also wanted anything to do with freedom of speech removed. Iran sought to overwhelmingly dominate the conference proceedings.

Even more sinister is the effort by China, Cuba and South Africa to promote the idea that victims of Trans-Atlantic slave trade should be compensated - i.e. implying the old call that African-Americans should be compensated for what their distant ancestors suffered. That all fell flat.

UN Watch has excellent coverage of the background meetings before the Conference, showing just what rogues so many attendees were looking to be:

In the Intercessional Working Group for the Durban Review Conference, Pakistan, speaking for the group of Islamic states (OIC), objected to paragraph 56, which “Stresses that the right to freedom of opinion and expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic, pluralistic society,” saying that it did not see how this relates to the conference’s focus on racism.

(In which case what harm does it do? Yes you can guess).

Cuba argued that paragraphs about freedom of speech and expression should be moved to the more passive Section 1, which reviews progress of states rather than demanding action from them.

(Funny that, you don't get freedom of speech and expression in Cuba)

Cuba also endorsed mention of the ad hoc committee on complementary standards, an Algerian-chaired U.N. committee that is seeking to add an additional protocol to the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) that would define criticism of religion as a violation.

(In other words, trying to say criticising a religion is a form of racism - what nonsense).

China, Cuba, and South Africa argued that there needs to be more work on paragraphs 60-62 on the trans-Atlantic slave trade. China said these paragraphs should be more “victims oriented,” implying support for the African-led effort to demand that Western countries pay reparations for the past injustice.

(In other words, the US government should pay African-Americans compensation for the suffering of their ancestors - even though Africans in Africa today almost all have lower standards of living than African-Americans).

In a meeting of the Durban II working group at the U.N. Human Rights Council, Iran was extremely active, proposing amendments and language changes in more paragraphs than any other state, and in a few instances, ignoring the Chair’s plea to hold off on certain paragraphs for the time being and engage in a constructive manner.

The closing session of the working group on the draft Durban II declaration:

Iran asked that the paragraph on Holocaust remembrance be deleted;

(because of course, it mind never have happened right?)

The Czech Republic for the EU requested an amendment to the controversial paragraph 30, which “Takes note with appreciation that the Ad hoc Committee on the Elaboration of International Complementary Standards convened its first session,” proposing to delete, “with appreciation.” The ad hoc committee is primarily responsible for promoting the campaign to criminalize the “defamation of religions” within U.N. human rights law. Nigeria lashed back at the EU, proposing to keep “appreciation,” while adding, “and commends” the committee. The paragraph was then tabled and skipped.

(Czechs bravely wanted to dismiss the Islamic driven attempt to restrict religious criticism, while Nigeria endorses Islamofascism).

Cuba proposed the deletion of paragraphs 55 and 56, which emphasize the importance of freedom of expression, saying, “There is no reason why we should single out one right, which is not even associated with the fight against racism.”

Iran proposed a new paragraph 56 that calls for “permissible restrictions to freedom of expression.” It also suggested integration of the “defamation of religions” concept into article 66, which deals with incitement to hatred.

(Both being great opponents to freedom of expression).

So is it any surprise that New Zealand felt that there was no point going to fight a gallery of rogues that were uninterested in racism, and driven more by fear of their own appalling standards of free speech and openness being scrutinised?

Rudman gets much wrong on transport, again!

Oh dear, after doing quite well lately, Brian Rudman has it badly wrong.

On Auckland he claims "That Aucklanders were willing to pay an extra regional fuel tax on top of the fuel tax the rest of the country paid".

Um Brian, the government that passed the legislation for this tax was voted out, rather comprehensively, by Aucklanders as well as the rest of the country. I wouldn't have thought that meant "Aucklanders were willing to pay".

Then he says...

"It's not that Auckland wants special treatment. It just wants an equitable share of the budgetary cake.

In the past I have given examples of how Auckland was for years ripped off by the state road builder Transit New Zealand when it came to the distribution of road-user levies."

Brian has an interesting view of "equitable" being that Auckland gets money taken from road users, but he wants it spent on public transport. He doesn't mind road users being pillaged to pay for public transport, but don't let fuel tax paid in Auckland get spend on roads in Southland. Equity for Brian is geographical, but not modal.

Moreover, he doesn't even understand that Transit New Zealand (which doesn't exist now) hasn't been responsible for distributing road taxes since 1996. Not good for a man who writes so frequently about transport to not even understand the funding framework. Transit used to bid for funds, it did not distribute them - and in fact the public transport projects Brian likes never went far for so long because they have such poor returns - Labour had to change the funding framework to allow poor value projects to proceed.

Then he quotes the Green Party Transport Research Unit!! Wonderful stuff, people who evade facts that there is little difference between trucks and trains in environmental impact, people who lie about the nature of road projects (witness the nonsense about the Basin Reserve flyover in Wellington). The Greens claim Auckland got 40% of what it paid in road taxes. Now I don't know the basis for that (Brian doesn't publish the documents so we can actually determine if mistakes have been made), as it could simply be the fact that the majority of fuel tax until this year went to the Crown anyway.

Then he makes the fantastic non-sequiter "Imagine the wonderful rapid rail system, complete with spur lines to the airport, Aucklanders could be enjoying now if that money had already been spent here." Yes imagine Brian, because until Labour got re-elected, the rapid rail system would NEVER have been funded because it has always been an inefficient project. The money would have gone on roads.

Furthermore, Brian avoids confronting you with the truth that IF such a system existed, Auckland ratepayers would have had to pay 40% of the capital costs and the ongoing operating subsidies. Road users don't pay all of the subsidies paid out by the ARC, nor should they.

Finally he says "Over the last couple of years, the progress was there for all to see. Double tracking of the rail lines was under way, Spaghetti Junction was expanded, the Northern Connection was completed." Yes, the double tracking was funded by former Infrastructure Auckland money. Spaghetti Junction expansion came from road users and was accelerated at the cost of the "Northern Connection" (I guess he means the Northern Gateway toll road).

Sorry Brian - you can't claim it is inequitable to spend Auckland motoring taxes outside Auckland, but somehow fair that economically questionable rail projects get subsidised by those who don't use them (and don't pretend it makes a jot of difference to congestion).

Moreover, don't pretend that if motorists were pillaged to pay their "share" of the costs of a rapid rail system that Auckland ratepayers would pay "their share". It's a nonsense, Aucklanders have proven they don't want to pay - stop trying to find non-users to pay for your expensive rail fetish, when there is no evidence that it will do anything besides gold plate the commutes of maybe 5% of Aucklanders.

UN Racism conference proven to be a farce

The vile speech by Iran's homophobic warmongering racist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has previously damned liberal democracy as a failure, has provoked a walk out by many delegates at the UN Conference on Racism according to the BBC.

He claimed Israel was created to "make an entire nation homeless", which is historical nonsense.
He claimed Israel existed to create a "totally racist government".
He claimed Israel existed on the "pretext of Jewish suffering", as he denies the Holocaust once again.

CNN says he was jeered at and cheered at, but the cheers were from Iran and the Palestinian delegations it appears.

New Zealand can be glad it isn't a party to a forum for this vile bigoted thug to express his idiotic views. Of course, I expect Green MPs to send a note of protest to the Iranian Embassy about Ahmadinejad's views, like the Greens did when he denied there were homosexuals in Iran - remember that? It must have happened surely, I mean they always claim the moral high ground!

Racism is mindless, but to hijack this forum to talk only of the Palestinians, to engage in historical denial, to point a finger at one but not others, shows little real interest in racism.

Reuters report

UPDATE: Colin Espiner in the Press reports that Chief Human Rights Commissioner (and long standing leftwing Labour Party stalwark) Ros Noonan claims "I've been through the programme and I can't find anything that smacks of anti-Semitism quite the reverse". I guess the fact Ahmadinejad would use the conference as a platform for it, didn't matter did it?

Espiner basically takes the Labour and the Green view, by not stating until halfway through his article that only the Labour and Greens are questioning whether foreign policy is independent, and he doesn't list all the countries boycotting the conference. Yep, good independent unbiased MSM journalism there Colin.

UPDATE 2: Keeping Stock reports that Joris de Bres is attending the Geneva conference, despite it being boycotted by the government.

Shouldn't this supercilious little man arrive home to find a letter advising him of the termination of his employment, with the bill for this unauthorised trip removed from his salary?

I used to like child abuse

until Cindy Kiro came along. So implies Lynne Pillay Labour list MP in saying "Cindy Kiro played an important role in opening our eyes to the detrimental effects of bullying and child abuse".

Child abuse was such a joke beforehand, and bullying? Hey it toughened you up - it was all good until the sagacious Cindy Kiro came along.

Please - she meant well, but she did nothing besides promote a nanny state and more welfarism.

Children don't need very highly paid bureaucrats being their advocates - they need families who give a damn and the state to enforce the law on lowlife parents and guardians who abuse and neglect. Dr Kiro widened the net of her concern to all parents, she thought her role was to ensure all kids did better - letting down those kids living in hellholes of terror and abuse.

Metiria Turei messaged me on my twitter account to say "Completely disagree with you view of Cindy Kiro. best child advocate this country has seen ever". Respect the fact she responded to me, but what has been the record in the last 9 years, what remains the tragic truth that too many kids, particularly in Maori families, are being ignored or abused. Cindy Kiro did precious little to target this.

It IS about race

Merata Kawharu’s column in the NZ Herald this morning is an attempt to justify separate Maori political representation on the Auckland mega stadt rat.

She claims “Maori deserve their own voice”, well who doesn't? Nobody is seeking to stop it - the issue is whether Maori voting themselves is generating a voice, or whether it should be guaranteed, but others get no guaranteed voice. Moreover it implies that Maori have one voice - as if all the individuals of a race have one opinion. A rather nonsensical and sinister notion.

Quite how New Zealand got through local body restructuring in 1989, the Local Government Act 2002 without “honouring existing agreements” is beyond me – I didn’t notice Hikois then, so this “agreement” must be recent.

She then lies about what has happened “The abolition of Maori seats on the governing Auckland body must rank among the greatest challenges. It is, in short, premature and flawed.” There has been no abolition, as there are no such seats. The idea is new. You can’t abolish something that doesn’t exist.

She repeats Metiria’s call for mana whenua which she says includes “offering protection where relevant to those who may visit or live within the tribe's traditional domain.”. Hold on, protection where? On the tribe’s land, it need not have anything to do with local government. Elsewhere, it is the role of the state to offer protect from the initiation of force – the tribe is not excluded from that as all of its members have equal participation rights.

So she talks of a long history of Ngati Whatua wanting participation in governance of Auckland, but largely ignoring that for around three generations it didn’t have any special role.

However, how does she respond to the point that mana whenua IS about race? After all, Ngati Whatua is a tribe of people of one race. Maori representation is about Maori voters, Maori candidates and Maori representation. It is not about other races.

She doesn’t. She said it isn’t about race – but then talks about it being exactly about – not race, but a subgroup of a race.

Saying it isn’t about race, doesn’t change the fact that it is. It doesn’t change the fact that Maori have as much right to representation in local government as anyone else – nobody blocks it or restricts it. I am not represented just because someone of my race is elected (whatever that truly means), and I can be represented by people of other races.

Oh, and if you think belonging to a tribe should give you special privileges in government over others, then you haven’t learnt that nepotism is a dirty word in government in the civilised world. Setting aside any political representation on a basis that excludes people because of who their parents are is simply wrong.

If Maori seats are not about race, they would be seats open to anyone to get representation by whoever wishes to stand - which of course, they are not.

Geneva racist conference should be boycotted

The UN is often seen by many as an organisation with lofty goals of getting the world together to agree on what is right and wrong, and have collaboration, co-operation, compromise all to make the world a better place.

The Durban Review Conference in Geneva is meant to be like that. Its stated goal is “evaluate progress towards the goals set by the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban, South Africa, in 2001.”

Racism is bad right? What’s wrong with eliminating racism, xenophobia and “related intolerance”? Nothing of course, until you find out what is really behind it.

You see a real conference would look at what has happened at Darfur, and how so many countries have provided succuour to the Sudanese government and be dismayed. It would look at the blatant racism in the media of many in the Middle East, not just what happens in the Israeli occupied territories.

So what is wrong with the conference? For starters, Islamic countries are seeking religion to be put on the same level as race. The Netherlands is boycotting the conference for that reason. While people have a right to freedom of religion (and no religion, which none of the conference documents acknowledge), it is NOT about race. Religion is a choice. Funnily enough, precious few Islamic countries allow Muslims to commit apostasy without severe punishment. Many countries are seeking this conference to pass resolutions banning offence against religion - which is an attack on free speech and open debate.

The United States is boycotting it because Islamic countries are seeking to return to the “Zionism is racism” focus, making it predominantly about Israel.

Australia is boycotting it for similar reasons, as delegates from some countries used it as a forum to declare anti-semitic views.

Canada, Italy and Israel are also boycotting.

So for Green MP Keith Locke to say boycotting would be “just to follow the US”, is a lie. It would be following many Western countries that share our values, values of free speech, freedom of religion (and to have no religion), and to be committed against racism as a whole, not to single out Israel on dubious grounds.

It speaks volumes about the immaturity of the Green Party’s foreign policy that it rejects a boycott because the US - and we are talking about the Obama Administration – is boycotting, along with many others. Of course given the Greens support race based politics in New Zealand why should one be surprised.

New Zealand should stand against the hijacking of this conference by countries that practice vile racism in their media against Jews, that ignore the racist based genocide in Sudan (why is that not mentioned but Israel is) and want to suppress religious dissent.

Murray McCully is considering New Zealand’s position – it is right to stand alongside our friends in opposing the doggerel that will come from Geneva.

The UN for decades was a forum for brutal dictatorships and autocracies to pontificate about South Africa and Israel, ignoring their own murderous records - it should not now be the forum for the Muslim dominated autocracies that span from the Maghreb to Malaysia.

UPDATE: Associated Press is reporting that Germany is boycotting now too - and that is a country that knows only too much from history about racism, and moving on beyond it.

UPDATE 2: Foreign Affairs MinisterMurray McCully has announced New Zealand is NOT attending. He said it needed to responsibly and productively address racism

“It would also need to avoid circumscribing freedom of expression, such as in the contentious area of ‘defamation of religion’.

“I am not satisfied that the wording emerging from preparatory discussions will prevent the Review Conference from descending into the same kind of rancorous and unproductive debate that took place in 2001.

“It is a pity that this should have been the case. Combating racism and related intolerance is an important cause, and one to which New Zealand attaches the highest importance.

“However the Review Conference in Geneva is not likely to advance the cause of race relations at the international level, and so New Zealand, like many other countries, will not be represented at it"

GOOD!

Greens don't get the idea of choice

Foodstuffs' decision to charge for plastic bags at its New World, Four Square and South Island Pak 'n' Save is being hailed by the Greens.

It is, of course, a clever move to boost the firm's environmental credentials, whilst making a comfortable profit on bags that cost a fraction of that to buy (even if some money is donated to "environmental causes"). It's been widely done in the UK, and customers seem to have started taking their own bags, while supermarkets can charge for a marginal cost input.

However, the Greens don't get it. Foodstuffs' is doing this as a commercial decision, it believes its customers will pay, and use less bags as a result - and it will be a winner, and presumably there will be less plastic bags used (which is the goal of the Greens, although the environmental impact is negligible).

It is done by free will, choice, voluntary agreement, option, conscious decision.

So what do the Greens say?

Forget choice, you can stick that up where a bag isn't comfortable, the Greens don't just encourage others to do the same. They don't even encourage the public to use Foodstuffs' supermarkets and bring their own bags.

No.

Green Co-Leader Russel Norman says "What we need now is for the Government to back up Foodstuffs' good initiative by introducing mandatory product stewardship for plastic bags".

So we need the "government" to force people to do it, even though it has been proven that you can convince people to do it. Russel gets out the truncheon of state force. State violence needed when people do something by choice.

WHY don't they get it?

Russel says "we don't want the good guys to be disadvantaged by other companies freeloading or refusing to do something about their bags." What? HOW is Foodstuffs disadvantaged when it is making money out of deterring what you don't like? If you WANT it to do well, go SHOP there, encourage people to shop there.

Then he contradicts himself again "They are also easy to do something about, and the public is overwhelmingly behind bold moves to reduce plastic bag use. Foodstuffs' move is an important recognition of this."

So why do you need to force people if they want to reduce plastic bag use? Foodstuffs will be successful, and others will follow.

Or maybe, just maybe you don't believe what you say. Maybe you think most people don't care, will want free plastic bags, and it will fail - which is why you want to force them.

In which case be honest - you want plastic bags taxed or banned regardless of what people think, because the Greens are wedded to statism, to authoritarian bullying - to nanny state regulating, taxing and pushing people around to fit your world view.

According to the Greens, if people really want something, you have to force them to do it.

The party of non violence? Ha!

So if it isn't about race... then what Metiria?

Metiria Turei claims on her Twitter account that the call for dedicated separate Maori seats on the Uber Alles Auckland Stadrat is NOT about race.

"Not about race. Its about being tangata whenua and manawhenua. The Treaty creates the right to structures for representation." she said at 9:14 AM Apr 15th from txt.

Is this just Orwellian doublespeak? I wanted to get to the bottom of it. After all, the Treaty doesn't say there should be parallel political structures, each one reserved by race. However, there are clearly two very distinct views of what is going on here, and I want to know why some Maori think this is not about race, when to everyone else it so clearly is.

Tangata whenua is literally “people of the land” which is a mystical concept based on the idea that “land is regarded as a mother to the people”. Some people believe this, but it is hardly helpful for an objective definition to be based on whether you believe in something supernatural. That would be ridiculous surely.

So what makes someone a “person of the land”. I was born in New Zealand, which surely makes me a “person of the land”, why wouldn’t I be? Well, apparently I am not. In fact nobody who does not claim "Maori identity" can be "tangata whenua". Am I wrong?

I can never be tangata whenua, neither can my offspring or their offspring. It IS about race. Race DEFINES “tangata whenua”. Metiria Turei IS engaging in Orwellian doublespeak to justify a race based definition of political separatism – it’s just HER race that benefits.

What about manawhenua then?

According to TPK it means “the exercise of traditional authority over an area of land [whenua]”. So what is “traditional authority”? If you own land, or are part of a collective that owns land (which is Iwi or Hapu owned Maori land), then of course you should authority over it. That is about property rights, and is protected by the Treaty of Waitangi, as are the property rights of others. However, you don’t need special representation on a local authority to do this.

Maori should have traditional authority over their land, but then so should we all over our own land. Local authorities should not be a tool for Maori to have special representation to also exercise control over other people’s property. Unless, of course, you believe that YOUR property rights are subject to mana whenua by "Maori".

Is that what you expect from the Green Party or the Maori Party, that you should have consent from Maori politicians for what you do on your land?

Metiria presumably believes that local authorities should have authority over everyone’s property, it is, after all, Green policy to use the RMA to control land use. However, she also believes that ethnic Maori have some special right to be guaranteed to be part of that political control.

How can this NOT be about race? Well, if you believe you can inherit rights over others because of who your parents are then what she says is legitimate - but hold a second, isn't that very concept wrong? Why SHOULD anyone have different civil and political rights because of their parentage?

That IS what this is about. It IS the source of the difference. If I am born in New Zealand, and own land in New Zealand, why is it that my neighbour, who has some ancestors of different racial origin gets different political representation and rights from me? Why is HE special? Why should HE assume that because most councillors look like they are of a similar race to me, that they somehow "represent my interests", when they vote to increase my rates, regulate my land use and have contrary political views to me?

It's because those advocating for separate Maori representation identify race with political power. It is the idea that there is a "Maori world view", you know like there is a "Serb world view" to Serb nationalists. I have a world view, you have yours, we only share one if you give your express consent for it. Race does not give you a "world view". Your brain does. It is an individual choice.

Conclusion

So when Metiria says it is not about race, but about tangata whenua and manawhenua what is she saying?

She is saying it is about “people of the land”, which doesn’t mean people born locally, but people who have a “spiritual connection” to the land – and the only ones she recognises as doing so ares Maori. She is saying it is about “exercising traditional authority over land”, she means Maori being guaranteed representation at council level to have authority over everyone’s land.

So if the only people who can be “people of the land” (a concept not unlike how virtually all racist-nationalist groups see themselves) are one race, and if they have a right to guaranteed political representation so they can exercise control over land that isn’t there’s, then what is it if it isn’t about race?

Nobody I have seen who opposes race based local government representation wants to deny Maori any political rights, none want to deny Maori political candidates being successful if they can convince sufficient voters to select them. They particularly reject being called "racist" because they want all political institutions to be non-racial.

If the Green Party, Maori Party and others want race based representation for Maori, then they should first be honest about it, secondly admit that in granting race based political privilege, it is racist, but then justify it on objective terms. Not having enough Maori in councils is not a reason, because there are probably not enough people of a vast range of backgrounds, in some councils women, in others Pacific Islanders or Chinese. The list can go on and on about types of identity not represented.

Individualists want race to be irrevelant and unimportant in politics, for it to be something personal, private and a matter of voluntary association, rather than have anything to do with the state. Why should it be any other way?

Catherine Delahunty is clearly quite mad

On Catherine Delahunty's Twitter account her views are simply too bizarre. Is it the appalling use of English, or the evasion of reality, or is someone doing a remarkably good job of poking fun at her?

Yet it seems serious!

Take her Twitter posts:

"greencatherine: Despite the pretty words and new clothes am hoping new puppy at white house will stop killing afghanis and funding Israel wars on Palestine"

The Obama puppy has been killing afghanis and funding Israel? What a wonderdog!

"Awesome Tairawhiti sunshine a good to start our own banks instead of trusting the white boy club"

Yep it's sunny so set up your own bank Catherine. Good luck with that. Banking with sea shells as currency are you?

"Ten thousand families per day lose their home in USA capitallists can fix this?"

No of course not Catherine, socialists can. Go on, make something out of nothing. Support people who borrowed beyond their means to speculate on property prices going up forever.

"If it wasnt for almonds and dark chocolate I would go crazy here."

Clearly not enough almonds and dark chocolate around.

"Iin a beige hotel after some good meetings trying not eat the chocolate as people lose their jobs"

Yep, those magic chocolates that fire people from each one you eat. Must have been made by magic witch doctor indigenous people who can cast spells on the chocolates to punish capitalists!

"Am experiencing a weird desire not to make a speech about nothing in the House, but met some amazing rangatahi yesterday at Challenge 2000"

Wanting to not make a speech about nothing, but doesn't matter I met some kids?

Come on, it must be someone making this stuff up. Surely.

Keep it up Catherine, you're the Green Party's greatest new electoral liability - Jeanette embraced reason by comparison.

Greens promote racist representation

Metiria Turei is upset that the government isn't going to introduce guaranteed race based Maori seats for the Auckland planners' wet dream megacouncil.

What evasion of the truth is it to say "The biggest Maori urban population shut out from their own city"? How are Maori residents shut out?

Have they lesser voting rights? No.
Have they lesser rights to make submissions on consultations? No.
Have they lesser rights to stand for office? No.
Have they lesser rights to apply for and be considered for employment? No.
Are Maori residents treated in any way differently from those of the many dozens of ethnic backgrounds in Auckland? No.

So why make it up? Why lie? Maori will NOT be shut out. Nor would they let themselves be shut out. Metiria is confusing South African apartheid with New Zealand local government. Why?

Because it suits her post-modernist identity politics based worldview of Maori as perpetual victims that can never be equal under systems that are not ethnically defined.

She links the lack of Maori city councillors to meaning Maori are not represented. This is presumably because the brain and views and experiences of a Maori individual can only be adequately represented by another Maori individual - NOTWITHSTANDING, any difference in philosophy, ideology or experience. In other words, your views are not something consciously chosen, but you inherit them from your ethnicity and identity.

This is why the left eschews the likes of Margaret Thatcher and Ruth Richardson, because as women they SHOULD have certain political views - but they don't.

It classifies all Maori as shut out, because even though thousands vote for non-Maori council candidates (and Maori candidates), it can't mean anything. They must feel "disenfranchised".

This is like saying that if my local councillor happened to be a Chinese lesbian, I wouldn't feel represented. It is reality evasion, and by evading the truth (Maori vote for non-Maori candidates, and less Maori are interested in becoming control freaks on councils than non-Maori), you create a proposal that evades reality too.

Separate Maori seats are racist - they discriminate and distinguish on the basis of race. However, Metiria would say they are the opposite - evading reality.

So a non-race based system is racist, and a race based system is not - as long as the selected race is identified as "victim" not "oppressor". A glimpse into the mindset of the radical left.

UPDATE: Some are "angry" at not getting special political privileges based on who their ancestors are. Easier to moan and demand apartheid than to actually encourage Maori voter turnout and put up candidates isn't it?

Greens support racist local government

Why be surprised? Green MP Catherine Delahunty, who treats Maori almost as if they are closer to some god than non-Maori, thinks the model for separatist Maori representation in an Auckland megacity is a possible "good model for others".

Her specious claim is "The elephant in the room is the way tangata whenua are marginalised in decision making structures."

How is this? All have a vote, all can stand for council, all can make submissions to Council. Most non-Maori New Zealanders don't do any of those. Aren't they marginalised? Aren't most ratepayers marginalised by consultation processes they can't participate in because they are too busy working to pay rates and taxes?

No - Delahunty's structuralist post-modernist mental retardation prevents her from seeing how local government marginalises everyone. Or if it doesn't, maybe the tangata whenua don't care that much about roads, libraries, rubbish collection or the like (contrary to Catherine's idealistic vision of the noble native).

Furthemore, she treats existing non-racial based government as inherently racist - a kind of Orwellian doublespeak. Take this "A couple of seats at the Päkehä table ain’t the enactment of Te Tiriti o Waitangi but it might increase the number of voices dedicated to that vision."

"Päkehä table"? Who said it was? Why is it? I am sure Ray Ahipene-Mercer (Wellington councillor who ran for Mayor in 2007) doesn't think so.

Why does Catherine Delahunty insist of pigeonholing everyone into cultural/ethnic categories like some banal Balkan nationalist politician? Do Maori need her patronising hand holding to participate how they wish in local government?