Niqab, Islam and civilisation

Now as a libertarian I hold that individuals have the absolute right to decide what clothes they were on their own property or in conditions where there are no prescribed limits by the relevant property owner. This means that Muslim women have the right to wear the niqab which completely covers their face. The state should not limit that, except when it interferes with the state undertaking its legitimate duty (e.g. law and order, in identifying suspects to a crime).
*
However it does not mean that there is a right to wear it on any elses property, including at work, school or in a shop that is not yours. As a property owner I have every right to establish a dress code, and dress codes are common in workplaces, bars and aeroplanes among others.
*
So the current debate in the UK about the niqab should not be about having that choice – and few would deny that. It should be about what that choice means, which is not a matter for the state but a matter for society and culture. In other words, it is about declaring that the niqab is, as the Ayn Rand Institute states, “a demeaning, barbaric article of clothing that inculcates shame in women, depriving them of individuality and femininity."
*
Some feminists say it is wrong to tell women what they should or should not wear. Well it is wrong if you only tell women (not men) or advocate that the state should say. Freedom includes the choice to cover up, but the whole basis of the niqab is that women should be ashamed of their bodies and faces, and not only should they cover those parts of the body that men (remember lesbians and homosexuals are non persons in Islamic culture) typically find attractive, but faces – one of the key indicators of human identity.
*
Does it mean that one should harass women who wear the niqab? No. People have the right to wear what they wish without feeling threatened, but others also have the right to prohibit people wearing them on their property or to express disquiet and their own discomfort with women who would rather remain anonymous in public.
*
Let’s not forget what in Islam promotes the niqab. It is a misogynistic, homophobic, shame ridden view of humanity that depicts women as only having identity in relation to their husbands, sons and fathers. Women's success in Islam is only if they can hide their femininity, as if they will be judged as sex objects first and minds and hearts second. Feminists may sympathise with this, but it is more than that. It is the vapid notion that if a man sees a women's face, he will get an erection and be unable to control his "natural urges" and is distracted, and this is wrong. What utter nonsense. What an insult to women to say that the solution is for THEM to cover up, as if they are titillating prostitutes "asking for it" and what an insult to men to say they are judge knuckle dragging cavemen, who rape any women they find attractive. This is a culture that has seen over 4000 people executed in Iran for homosexual acts since the Islamic revolution. It is even allowed to beat women for sexual misconduct as long as no mark is left on them.
*
How can feminists in the West even start to defend this barbarity, this stone age backwardness that sees violence towards women as acceptable? If it were being promoted by Destiny NZ or the Catholic Church it would be considered intolerable. So why is it not intolerable when promoted in Kabul, Tehran, Riyadh or London?
*
Now there are scholars of Islam who reject the niqab and rightly so, and this may form the basis of a modernist critique of Islam in the same way as Christianity went through the Enlightenment. All I can say is speed the day! If Muslims were, by and large, modernists that accepted Islam on a personal level, but respected individual freedom, choice, personal and property rights of others then we would be light years ahead of where we are today – because there would be no Islamic governments.
*
The only way to confront the barbarism of Islamists is to do as the Ayn Rand Institute states which is to point out the superiority of Western civilisation. Its advice to Britons is:
*
“They must understand that what made the West great is individualism, reason, the pursuit of happiness--and that this is objectively superior to the tribalism, superstition, and earthly deprivation that many Muslims seek to live out and bring to Europe. Britons must reject the insidious idea of multiculturalism, which holds that all cultures are of equal value. Cultures are not of equal value: prosperity is superior to poverty, happiness is superior to misery, freedom is superior to slavery, and a visible face is superior to a slit revealing two anonymous eyes."

*

Islam can continue to survive under Western civilisation, if it is merely a set of religious beliefs to guide people's own private lives, not a diktat upon non-believers or an excuse for violence.

NZ left and the passion for power (part two)

Labour’s belief it was entitled to power had been shaken by National. A combination of major PR disasters had weakened Labour’s popularity. Clark’s arrogance as Prime Minister was seen in the “speeding convoy” incident, where many voters saw it was “ok” for the PM to be in a police convoy speeding to get to a rugby match, or that the PM “did not notice” the speeds she was going at. For voters who were only too aware of what speed cameras mean to them, it seemed the “popular and competent” PM thought she was above them and as someone who never drove and got speed camera ticket or needed to even care, it showed that she didn’t understand the point.

The belief in their inheritance to power was waivering. However, by far Labour’s biggest blunder was to underestimate the momentum of a number of messages about government waste, government surpluses and too much taxation. Every year, Dr Cullen got accolades for doing nothing and generating massive surpluses. Now every year he spent those on a combination of debt repayment, the super fund and capex on government owned infrastructure – and every year the demands of Ministers to pour more into their portfolios increased. However, as incomes rose so did people’s marginal tax rate. It became increasingly clear to the 35% plus of voters who were in the 33% tax rate that they were not rich, but paying a great deal for a system that had a lot of slack in it. Ongoing publicity about government waste, coupled with concern that core government activities, like police and roads were being neglected. Now the truth was that the police and roads were doing better than ever before in terms of funding, but what the public saw were blunders and ever growing traffic congestion.

With six years in government, Labour found it hard to respond to concerns about publicly funded services – blaming the past government doesn’t wash with a public that gave you two chances before. Moreso, saying tax cuts were for the rich didn’t wash with many either – especially when National, instead of weasel words, actually came out with a policy and a website, that enabled voters to check what they would get. Meanwhile, Dr Cullen’s budget, hyped up as being Labour’s chance to cut taxes did nothing of the sort. The “Working for Families” package which had already been announced was seen by many as a complicated bureaucrat system of getting tax refunds and an extension of welfare – whereas tax cuts meant government got less of your money. Labour added in abolishing interest on student loans while students study, to secure student votes from the Greens (and it largely worked), but now this smacked of electioneering. The budget did include tax cuts, a paltry increase in the thresholds for each income tax rate that would mean little in the pocket. The public were not impressed – and National’s poll ratings increased again.

Labour’s jibes about tax cuts being mainly for the rich only washed with beneficiaries and its core supporters, not the floating middle class who were evenly divided between those who supported Labour for pumping money into health and education, and those who saw Labour as wasteful and wanting some of the surplus back in their pockets.

So facing an electorate that believed in “one law for all” and tax cuts, it might have been all over had it not been for National’s own goals which Labour exploited extensively. For the slick campaigning billboards and clear messages, talking about “mainstream” New Zealanders made more voters uncomfortable than comfortable. It appealed to conservative country folk, but not sophisticated liberal urban New Zealand. However, Labour’s disgusting witchhunt of a minority religious group because of its political views would be the turning point.

The Exclusive Brethren informed the National Party that it sought its victory and while its members did not vote, they would fund a leaflet campaign slamming a government that included the Greens, with appropriate colours indicating a National victory was preferred.

While the CTU and its affiliated unions used extensive resources to distribute Labour electioneering propaganda, Labour smelt a rat and a target in the Exclusive Brethren. Ignoring any liberal tradition of defending the rights of religious minorities to do as they wish with their own money, it was time to declare war and the Exclusive Brethren were to be public enemy number one. Had it been Muslims or Hindus Labour might have felt less comfortable, but a very small religion that shuts itself off from the rest of the community was sufficiently “weird” for floating voters that Labour could get mileage raising doubts about National-Brethren links, although it was never clear what the effect on the public would be. Meanwhile, Labour had no hesitation in using the trade union movement to campaign on its behalf.

Nevertheless, Brash’s initial denial and confession about knowing of the Brethren’s interest in supporting National’s election cost National. It was a flip flop and sufficient voters were unimpressed and less willing to back a party supported by, as Labour put it, a weird group, that it probably cost National the election.

After essentially calling National voters racist, rich and greedy, now it had a perfect scapegoat “how much influence do the exclusive Brethren REALLY have?”, implying some dodgy weird group controlling the strings of the National Party. Labour knew how much this was nonsense, and at best the Brethren campaigning was seen as a positive additional contribution, but no more. A group that doesn’t vote or join the party has little sway. However, Labour milked it for its “weird” factor and succeeded.

Labour meanwhile worked hard, behind the scenes, to target votes of those who were its core. The message was clear – “you don’t want National do you?”. In South and West Auckland fear was spread, in Porirua, in Christchurch, Maori and Pacific Island voters were being told that National, the rich white man’s party, might win if they don’t vote.

The overall feeling on the side of the left was that, while non-Maori provincial New Zealand had abandoned Labour in large numbers, Labour would pull through with Maori (excluding the Maori seats themselves which were a tough race), Pacific Island and the low income beneficiacy/working class mobilised in the main centres, plus Wellington bureaucrats. Teachers, nurses, students and the unionised workforce could be taken for granted as largely not voting National, but the key was not how they voted but whether they voted – getting turnout up was what won Labour the election. National, on the other hand had rural and provincial non-Maori New Zealand, businesspeople and middle class families tired of the status quo.


To bolster its message, Labour used its pledge card – a key plank of its election campaign literature, promising what the next three years would bring. However this would be funded from the Prime Minister’s office. Whether this was simply accepted practice and nobody thought about it, or whether Labour thought that it was moral for taxpayers to fund Labour’s manifesto distribution is unclear, what is clear is that it was not seen as strange that the government should pay for its own electioneering.

So when the issue was raised in the Bernard Darnton court case and increasingly the media, Labour went through denial that there was a problem, to denial that it would pay it back to ultimately accepting that the whole affair had damaged it. There is little point going over that saga, because there are few better examples of the attitude and arrogance the left has towards democracy than seen by Chris Trotter and his patronising attitude towards those who voted National in the 1970s and early 1980s. In polar opposite to Labour, which assumes it is entitled to the votes of everyone who isn’t rich,

As with all conservative parties, National divides the community into those who "own" and those who "work". The "political nation" - people whose opinions and actions actually influence the National Party - is made up exclusively of "owners" or in McCormick's splendid shorthand, "farmers and businessmen".
Those who "work" - the rest of us, who must hire out our skills and muscle-power in order to pay the rent - simply don't count.“
Trotter, with his Das Kapital in one hand, thinks he knows how National Party members work. He thinks they divide the community like Marx, Lenin and, in fact, the Labour Party does. This is sheer nonsense. In fact, while from a libertarian view it would be desirable to consider producers separate from parasites (those who steal, defraud and seek the state to steal and defraud on their half), National doesn’t aspire to this.
However, remember that Trotter thinks that those who “work” are not farmers or businessmen (he uses the word “businessmen” deliberately, Trotter sees National as sexist) – farmers and businesspeople in his world sit on the chair with feet up on the desk smoking cigars while the “workers” grind away. There is no work in management, marketing, seeking investment, taking risks with your own property or establishing a new business – Trotter and his ilk despise the wealth creators with a vengeance, worshipping instead the institutions of state which are not tainted with “profit” – as if “workers” don’t receive wages that represent a profit over the time and effort they dedicate to their jobs.
Take it one step further. Remember that “workers” in the Labour Party sense are unionised – a non-unionised worker is, at best, someone to feel sorry for, at worst a “scab”. A “scab” is that repulsive term for a worker who values a job more than a unionised worker – someone who would rather work than strike, someone who is exercising his free will. The amount of unreported union based bullying is difficult to quantify, but the anecdotal reports of those who dared “rock the boat” is frightening.
Trotter’s view of those who have other opinions about the role of politics and sport is telling as well:

“The real scandal, of course, is so many New Zealanders keep forgetting to remember their rights and responsibilities as democratically empowered citizens. Like those hundreds of thousands of Kiwis who saw nothing wrong with welcoming apartheid to New Zealand in 1976 and 1981. “
You see Trotter and the left saw the Springbok tours as an official endorsement of apartheid – you know, like sports teams going to events in the communist bloc (oops remember that imprisoning and executing political prisoners in the eastern bloc wasn’t as bad as apartheid – you see, Chris turned a blind eye to the atrocities of Marxism-Leninism). So if you supported the state not intervening, then you were clearly a racist who happily supported apartheid. More disturbingly though, is that Trotter thinks so many of you “forget to remember your rights and responsibilities”. Your responsibilities!! You owe the left something – your vote.

Furthermore, you see, the right doesn’t like democracy. Ah this explains the times National wins elections:

“Conservatives detest democracy, because it establishes a new "political nation" based not on ownership, but citizenship; a nation which can, by acting through its sovereign parliament, impose restrictions on the rights of "farmers and businessmen".”
Ahh so you see, restrictions on the rights of farmers and businessmen are ok, but clearly not on the rights of “workers”.

Funny how the party of “farmers and businessmen” can command 39% of the vote in 2005 and over 40% in 1990 and before.

So you see, there is, deep down in the psyche of many on the left a dislike for democracy – when it goes against them. It is not because they actually represent a majority of citizens. They don’t. It is because they believe (with a smidgeon of good reason) that they are the “progressive” force for social change. The reason Maori, women, gay people and others have equal rights is because of the left. The left believes it is liberal, and inclusive of all views. However it is far from that, but neither is National. You see the problem with the National Party is that while Labour believes it is the majority, National believes it is born to rule.

The party of the people is losing the people

Labour - the party that believes it has the right to power in a democracy (because it represents the people) has dropped further in the latest poll, to 36%. This is now below where Labour was when it won in 1999, while National is on 49%.
*
If that isn't a resounding lack of confidence in the government I don't know what is. With that, National could govern alone and probably also get ACT for a coalition partner.
*
Don't worry though, it is still a long time till an election. United Future and NZ First don't want to half their number of seats either, so will continue to prop this government up - hopefully the people of Ohariu-Belmont will punish Dunne at the next election for his continued backing of a government that bought it way to power.

End Post Office subsidies

The Tories and the Daily Telegraph have tiresomely embarked on a campaign opposing large scale rural post office closures. Of the 6000 rural post offices, apparently 800 have less than 16 customers a week with per transaction subsidies of £16 each! It costs £150 million a year to subsidise them. For the Tories and the Daily Telegraph, bastions of the free market, to argue for special subsidies to prop up these inefficient enterprises is a nonsense. By contrast, Simon Jenkins in the Sunday Times says "stop wailing for the post office".

*

The answer is simple. The Royal Mail only just lost its statutory monopoly at the beginning of this year (NZ Post lost its monopoly in 1998), it should be privatised and the closed post offices sold to whoever wants to provide a service or use the building for something else more valuable. Postal services are not special, they can be offered by private stores which sell stamps and other means of paying bills are available to people - such as direct credit, cheques, internet payments and don't tell me the elderly will find it hard. After all, New Zealand survived with one-third of post offices closing in 1988. It survived and flourished, as society shifted from state run post offices being the front of the state - to a range of different outlets for postal services, banking, bill payment, motor vehicle licensing and the like.

*

So I say to the whingers and moaners in rural UK - you have a denser postal network than NZ - you get your agricultural sector subsidised heavily by the EU - stop asking for others to be forced to pay for services you use. Calls for post offices being the hub of the local community are bollocks. In the UK, pubs, shops and churches have been, and none of them are subsidised. Why should YOUR community be subsidised?

*

So sell off the Royal Mail - reduce UK government debt and by the way, it would be nice if National committed itself to selling off NZ Post too.

Secular state/secular society

One of the great advantages of the UK over the US is that is can discuss secularism far more easily, without the shrill voices of evangelical conservatism drowning it out. The Sunday Times in London has its editorial today merely raising the question "Time for a Secular State" calling for debate on whether the last vestiges of state involvement in religion should be scrapped, and I agree they should - as they have been in the US (although that has been under threat for a while). The editorial asks:

*

Should we carry go on, hoping the curiosity of an established church — to which the majority is attached, but only very loosely — can continue to co-exist with other religions, whose followers are more committed? Or is it time to move to the American or French models with their formal separation of church and state?

*

Indeed, I would say speed the day to separate church and state. The Sunday Times has a long feature on this matter. Religious freedom means the state is blind about what religion people believe in, or whether they do at all. In fact one of the healthiest discussion now is to consider whether religion has any validity at all. Minette Marin in the Sunday Times argues that there should be no religious schools. She says:

*

"It should be possible to agree that for various reasons, many of which are politically embarrassing, the time of state-funded faith schools is past. Faith is no better a criterion for attending or running a state school than race. No new ones should be created; the old ones should gradually lose their religious identity as many have done already and as they probably will do naturally. Religious indoctrination and observance don’t belong in state schools, in a multifaith society, not any more"

*

Absolutely, it is outrageous that the state should have anything to do with education whatsoever, certainly not religious based education. However, in a free society parents should have the right to send their children to a religious school, if one exists - and pay for it themselves. Any more than that, and you have the state engaging in parenting. Although Richard Dawkins argues that giving children religious education is as bad as political education - that saying a child is Catholic or Muslim is as bad as saying they are socialist, conservative or indeed libertarian before they are old and mature enough to decide for themselves. Imagine how much religion would exist if children were kept from religion until their teens? Then if given lessons on each religion and atheism, were allowed to choose which one made the most sense for them.

*

I would argue that it is wrong to indoctrinate children about religion, but that it isn't a state matter. Parents indoctrinate children about all sorts of things, and as long as there isn't neglect and physical/sexual abuse, the state should err on the side of non-intervention. The state is not a better parent, it is a protector of last resort.

*

Nevertheless it is encouraging that Dawkins latest book The God Delusion is a best seller in the UK. If only our friends from the Middle East got a chance to read such a book or even be allowed to debate the non-existence of ghosts!

We have our meeting in the trailer park kids!

I find this so funny. The party that isn't (it isn't registered with the Electoral Commission because its membership falls far short of the 500 minimum needed) shows itself to be pathetic beyond words.
*
Stuff reports that "The National Front gathering coincided with its annual meeting, which is being held this weekend at a Hutt Valley motor camp. "
*
Sure helps to have a meeting where many of you live! Hope afterwards they had a good night with sister-mommy and brother-daddy while reading their combat comics.
*
By the way, the NZ Herald confirms that the motor camp is the Hutt Park Holiday Camp (there aren't any others) and reports that the motor camp staff have received abusive phone calls for hosting it. It is unclear whether the owners knew the National Front was coming, but it doesn't matter - the Human Rights Act would likely prevent the Hutt Park Holiday Camp from banning the National Front, as it is discrimination on the basis of political belief.
*
This is just another reason why the Human Rights Commission and Human Rights Act should go.

50 years ago – brave people of Budapest

This Monday the 23rd of October will be the 50th anniversary of a key moment in the Hungarian revolution of 1956. In Budapest 20,000 protestors convened and sang the forbidden former national anthem including the line "We vow, we vow, we will no longer remain slaves.".
*
You see Hungary was on the wrong side as the war ended. Instead of receiving US aid under the Marshal Plan, it was forced by the USSR to grant reparations equal to around 20% of its GDP in 1946. Instead of developing as a free liberal democracy, political dissent was crushed as Stalin installed one of the most oppressive post-war communist leaders in Europe Mátyás Rákosi. Rákosi arrested, imprisoned, tortured and executed political dissidents at will. He nationalised industries and private property, and by 1952 average disposable incomes had dropped to two-thirds of the pre-war level, 50% of that decline had been in the previous three years. The communists impoverished Hungary more than the war did, and imprisoned the country.
*
However, there was some hope, which came with the death of Stalin in 1953 and three years later Khrushchev’s famous “secret speech” denouncing Stalin, resulting in Rákosi being removed. This encouraged students and the Writers’ Union to hold forums in Budapest discussing politics many calling for reforms and liberalisation. Disgraced Hungarian communist politician László Rajk, who had been executed six years before was reburied in an elaborate ceremony, as the party rehabilited purged officials.
*
On 16 October the banned Union of Hungarian University and Academy Students was re-established by students (ignoring the official pro-communist student union) and within days had a list of national demands for reform. The “sixteen demands” included:

- Immediate evacuation of Soviet troops, in conformation with the Peace Treaty;
- Secret ballot of all communist party members to elect new officials, a new central committee;
- Immediate institution of a new government under deposed reformer Imre Nagy and dismissal of all leaders from the Rákosi regime;
- Free universal elections by secret ballot allowing all political parties to participate (liberal democracy);
- Complete recognition of freedom of the press, radio and freedom of speech.
*
On 23 October, 200000 peaceful protestors had gathered outside the Parliament in Budapest. Communist Party First Secretary Ernő Gerő denounced the protestors on radio, after which the protestors moved to topple a statue of Stalin. Flags started appearing with the communist insignia in the centre cut out. The protestors went to the studios of Radio Budapest, where tear gas was thrown at them and shots were fired into the crowd. Gero requested Soviet military intervention and the next day Soviet tanks rolled into Budapest. Violence grew as increasingly the Hungarian State Security Police were willing to open fire on protestors, but some protestors were armed, some had defected from the army. The shooting of many protestors outside the Parliament cost the regime dearly. Gero resigned and fled to the USSR. Reformist Imre Nagy became First Secretary and protestors starting directing their ire at Soviet troops and remnants of the security police. Local revolutionary groups emerged in other towns. Eventually a ceasefire was negotiated, with Soviet troops withdrawing from Budapest by 30 October.
*
Nagy announced a “broad democratic mass movement” had called for reform. He disbanded the security police and created a government including non-communist Ministers, and he called for the abolition of the one-party state. Hungary was, for now, moving to be a multiparty democracy. Hungary also declared it would leave the Warsaw Pact, seeking the neutrality of its neighbour – Austria. Subsequently, the USSR decided to intervene on the pretext that a "Provisional Revolutionary Government" under János Kádár had called for Soviet support.

*

Premier Imre Nagy received assurances from ambassador and later to be Soviet Premier, Yuri Andropov, that there would be no Soviet intervention. A Hungarian delegation to negotiations in Budapest on the Soviet withdrawal was arrested by the NKVD (KGB’s predecessor). By 3 November, Soviet troops had surrounded Budapest and the next day, Imre Nagy begged for international assistance to protect his new reformist government. It was not forthcoming. The USSR vetoed a proposed UN Security Council resolution on the matter, and tens of thousands of Hungarians would be arrested and imprisoned, and hundreds executed, for supporting this liberal revolution.
*
Of course today Hungary can look back at this and remember with open minds. Hungary is a member of the European Union and NATO, never again threatened with foreign occupation without support. There is a House of Terror which is a museum for the totalitarian horrors committed under communism and the fascist regime that briefly ruled in the early 1940s.
*
Communists and socialists around the world became divided. Many communists, sycophantic of the USSR and communist China accepted the propaganda of the new regime and the USSR – tolerating Soviet imperialism. However, others were shaken – seeing the truth of the USSR and Marxism-Leninism, as a force that doesn’t tolerate dissent, and has little interest in what its subjects want. It was the first widespread challenge by people in a communist country that was seen and heard around the world – and it was crushed with little mercy. Those who died 50 years ago were vindicated in 1989, when the communist run Parliament agreed to freedom of association, freedom of the press and a multiparty electoral system. Hungarians today can see what Marxism-Leninism cost them – the just have to look next door at western Europe to see they are a generation behind in standard of living. They endured an experiment of 55 years, one that should be a lesson to us all.

*

A Victims of Communism Memorial is being built in Washington D.C. Dr Paula Dobriansky of the US State Department spoke at the groundbreaking of the memorial. She spoke eloquently of what this memorial means, and how important it is to recognise the murderous legacy of communism as a movement and philosophy.
*
“Communism corroded the human experience of the 20th century. The sheer number of victims staggers and chastens us. Over a hundred million people died as a direct, and often intended, consequence of decisions made by Communist rulers. The innocent lost their lives in Katyn Forest; in the frozen gulag; on the streets of Budapest; in the fields of Cambodia. Those who did not die at the hands of Communist rulers suffered terribly under totalitarian regimes. They could not speak their minds; they could not travel freely; they could not realize their inherent potential; they had no say in the direction of their nation. "

Retroactive legislation

The comfort that so many on the left of the political spectrum have with Parliament legalising a past event when it was illegal is curious, and has everything to do with the knuckle dragging tribalism of two party politics. Make no mistake, there are plenty on the right who would take a similar approach if this had happened to them.
.
However, if we look around the world we’ll find while this is accepted practice in Westminster style parliamentary democracies, it is not so accepted in constitutional democracies. Certainly in terms of criminal laws, few countries tolerate retroactively making actions or omissions criminal. Even in the UK, the European Convention on Human Rights binds Parliament on this.
.
So how does the NZ legislation meet the test internationally?
.
The US Constitution states in Sections 9 and 10 that Congress and State Legislatures are prohibited from instituting ex post facto laws. So that’s it, it would likely be unconstitutional in the USA.
.
Sweden’s constitution allows retroactive non-criminal legislation that can only apply from the date that the bill was proposed by government. Hardly applicable given the breach was before the bill was proposed.
.
France’s constitution only prohibits retroactive non-criminal legislation (is silent on this but explicitly prohibits retroactive criminal legislation unless it benefits the accused). So France may allow it.
.
Norway’s constitution prohibits any laws from having retroactive force.
.
Canada’s constitution only prohibits retroactive criminal laws.
.
So you can see, it is a patchwork. However, the real reason there is compliance about this law, mainly from Labour, NZ First and United Future supporters (both of them), is tribalism in politics and NZ has now entered the most tribal phase in party politics that it has seen in some years. National sees power close and Labour is anxious to hold onto it.

NZ left and the passion for power

The left have traditionally always thought they had the right to power in a democracy, this coming from the inherent belief that because they think they represent the poor and the working middle classes, that they represent the majority of citizens. They see the world as a battle between those who “have” and those who want to help the “have nots”, the meanies and the kind ones – and the meanies are always in a minority, by definition. So from the point of view of a socialist, in a liberal democracy they should always be in power. The look fondly upon Sweden, which despite having just voted out a leftwing government, has been socialist with only one interruption since World War 2.
.
Leftwing governments started and expanded the welfare state, state funded healthcare and education, the 40 hour working week and the rest, that it is the foundation stone upon which the modern polity is built. It sees that it alone represents those that do what is important in society, from nurses to teachers, to firefighters and bus drivers. The term “workers” is not just a term for describing the “salt of the earth” but exclusionary – you see the implication is that managers and businesspeople don’t work. They may risk their property, attend meetings, write reports, make major decisions that can risk thousands or millions – but this isn’t worth the honest sweat of a man digging out coal. The inventors, innovators, entrepreneurs and ideas people are not as important as people undertaking manual or semi-skilled work. Taken to extremes you see the Khmer Rouge, which sought to eradicate anyone who was not an unskilled manual worker.

.

Labour also sees itself as the family party representing parents, particularly mothers. This is part of its emancipatory self-belief system, Labour sees itself as the emancipators of Maori and Pacific Islanders, and that it earns the 20% of the vote from those quarters. It sees itself as the advocate for women, and entitled to have 50%, and then it sees itself as the liberators of gay and lesbian people, perhaps 5%. It represents university students, “the nation’s future” and bureaucrats as the foot soldiers of the left, telling people what to do and what not to do. Of course under Labour, university students all want education for free and allowances and are represented by student unions (mostly leftwing). Student unions are, after all, the training ground for leftwing politicians. Weaned on student unions and supported by the leftwing tendency of many social sciences lecturers, young Labourites are taught to understand Labour’s role in emancipatory politics. The highlights being the anti-nuclear fight, Treaty of Waitangi and the Springbok tour among others. These are all cause celebres for which there is no room for debate about their merits in the NZ political left.
.
So believing you represent the aspirations of people who are ethnic minorities, gay/lesbian, women, students, “workers” means that under those circumstances, you can see how perplexed, disturbed and frustrated it is for the left to be in opposition – it seems unnatural, unfair and it means “their people” (who are the clear majority in the leftwing mind) are let down.
.
However, things aren’t as simple as that. Yes, there are those who fall outside these categories. The “wealthy”, farmers, business owners and managers are of little interest to the left – indeed many parents aren’t socialists. They want to decide what is best for their children. Small businesspeople often aren’t socialists either, they get tired of being told about the rights of their employees, when they themselves face up to state organisations with little sympathy for the hard work and risks involved in business, such as OSH, IRD or local government bureaucrats. A significant number of people don’t appreciate being told what to do when they are not hurting anyone else, or seeing their own taxes going to pay for other people to have families, noticing the uncanny number of violent criminals or burglars on “sickness benefits”. The left doesn’t win too many friends of those who see beneficiaries refusing work, neglecting their kids or committing crimes. Those for whom earning money follows hard work and risk taking, for whom bureaucrats are less than civil and want them to serve, and who increasingly pay more and more money and get apparently little back. Those who wonder why the daughter of their boss gets a state scholarship because she has a Maori grandfather, but their daughter doesn’t.
.
Nevertheless, the left has titles for those who oppose them. It becomes easy to dismiss when you use such titles, because they shock and disarm, but also show the true lack of depth in the arguments of those who use them. The opponents of the left are “racist”, because they don’t support the whole agenda of preferential funding and legal treatment for Maori, they presumably would prefer Maori had no vote, no citizenship and Treaty claims were ignored. Proportionally more Maori are in prison because the system is “racist”, not because they committed more crimes. Opponents of the left can also be called “sexist”, because you think the Ministry of Women’s Affairs is a waste of money, or you think that the reason many women earn less than men on average is due to their lifestyle choices. The favourite though is for the left to call the opponents “greedy and selfish”, because your wealth is due to you “sitting on your arse exploiting the workers” or “being an unproductive investor” whilst “Labour’s people” are poor when sitting in the state house watching Sky TV while their kids complain they don’t have the latest sneakers.

.

You see, you’re greedy and selfish because you want to keep what you’ve earned and decide how you spend it, not give it up to the loving Labour government that always knows best – those artists need your money after all! The magic phrase “tax cuts for the rich” paints images of Uncle Scrooges in their money bins getting more money, whilst Dickensian images of children begging are outside – it is complete nonsense, but the media laps it up and the left loves it. The right – the ones who would take you back to Victorianism.
.
So the world to those on the left is rather simple. They represent the majority and when it is less than the majority, it is just because some working class folk are racist, sexist or greedy and selfish- never mind, Labour can change that.
.
So all the times Labour has not been in power have not been because people didn’t like them, but because the “system is stacked against” them. After all, democracy that doesn’t deliver a Labour government is democracy that has been corrupted through lies and deception of “their people”. The current crop of Labour MPs remember in their youth Rob Muldoon “robbing” Bill Rowling of victory in 1975, because, after all, National only got 47.6% of the vote. That’s unfair, they cry! However nothing beats 1978 and 1981 when Labour got more votes than National – bastards cheating them out of government! In 1984 when Labour won, they felt ready – but well, something else happened. You see the current Labour MPs tend to want to ignore that period, particularly those who were in Cabinet like Clark and Cullen. So we move to 1990, when National won (because Labour lost “its people” alienated by Roger Douglas and the free market), but by now the left was pursuing electoral reform, particularly as the Greens and New Labour together got 12% of the vote, which, if added onto Labour’s 35% would put them neck and neck with National. Besides, National “lied” to get into power in 1990 (which is true), bastards!
.
Labour thought it had another chance in 1993, but just missed out and again it was the “system” with National only getting 35% of the vote. You could see it in Mike Moore’s reaction on election night - bastards!
.
Fightback came with MMP, that would mean the left would be in power forever. However, you don’t have to say that- just say it is more democratic. Everyone is brainwashed that nothing is more fair than democracy – counting heads not what’s in them – so it sounds good, and anything that the “bastards” on the right don’t like must be good for us. So in 1996 the left anticipated victory, adding Labour and Alliance votes together would mean a majority coalition.
.
However it slipped out of their greasy little hands once more. Labour and National both lost votes, with Labour only getting 28% and Winston Peters – more naturally a conservative nationalist than a socialist, chose a coalition with National over one with Helen Clark and Jim Anderton. Cheated again!! Those NZ First voters wanted National out. Bastards!
.
So 1999, the time had come Labour got over 38% of the vote, and with the Alliance and the Greens a leftwing government could finally “undo the damage” and represent “the people”. Renewed confidence in the system was strong, as Labour was able to govern decisively. This was repeated again in 2002, with Labour increasing its vote to 41%, National plummeting to 21% and the left believing it was born to rule and Helen Clark saying she is a “victim of her success as a popular and competent PM”. They believed it too – the natural party of government found a winning formula.
.
Things were shaken up not long after. With Don Brash as leader, those opposing Labour saw a chance, especially since he started articulating the fears of many of Labour’s traditional supporters. Brash challenged the “don’t mention the special treatment for Maori” meme which was accepted by governments from 1985 onwards. He asked the question as to why state funding should follow race rather than need, and why legislation needed to treat people differently by race. He started challenging the ubiquity of the welfare state and questioning why NZ needed such massive budget surpluses every year, instead of giving the public back some tax. The polls were looking neck and neck, and the reign of the “popular and competent” Helen Clark looked threatened – so all stops were pulled out, as the Brash campaign had widespread momentum uniting those opposed to Labour. Calling them racist backfired somewhat, and Labour started backtracking – the Foreshore and Seabed Bill upset Maori voters enormously, but Labour felt secure that the Maori Party would either disappoint or that Maori voters would back Labour against a National Party that the Maori media painted as being “anti-Maori”. .. (to be continued)

Daily Telegraph - Saturday highlights

Nanny State to put health warnings on wine bottles. Because, you see, binge drinking lads and ladettes often have a glance at the label before downing the next bottle of Pinot Gris. The European Commission is in favour, adding to its reputation as one of the great statist forces in the world today. So incredibly absurd, the imagination of bureaucrats so totally removed from the culture of everyday Brits, from any understanding of why people drink to excess – thinking adding bureaucratic requirements to wine makers (and a cost to wine drinkers) will make a difference, and justifying it because “a little more regulation can’t hurt”. They think that people who drink a lot don't know it is bad for them, or don't know they can get drunk.

*

£10,000 and 12 months to investigate who said "baa". Havering Council has spent £10,000 on a 12 month investigation, including a 300 page report on identifying the man who kept saying “baa” during a planning meeting. Clearly someone was having a joke, but the joke is on the taxpayers of the council district, because a councillor complained to the Standards Board, who ordered an investigation be carried out by the council. Local government is a haven for petty fascists – and everywhere should be put on a leash to stop such nonsense. The list of suspects is now down to four – so the council hasn’t yet figured it out. Such competence, compulsorily funded.

*

Ryan Stupples: victim of Health Nazi Headmaster. A 10yo boy was banned from his school dining hall because his packed lunch “broke the government’s healthy eating guidelines” . His lunch consisted of a sandwich, fruit, fromage frais, cake, mini cheese biscuits and a bottle of water. Naturally, he would get heart disease and become the Michelin man on that diet! So what was wrong? The cake AND the mini cheese biscuits broke. The little pig, how outrageous!! He was made to eat his lunch in the head teacher’s office! The headmaster of Lunsford Primary School, Larkfield in Kent - an authoritarian prick called Malcolm Goddard said “We take healthy eating very seriously and everyone is aware of our new policies”. Zeig Heil would be appropriate except that Germany wouldn’t put up with such nonsense today. What sort of mindless little order followers does Goddard want kids to be? How rebellious are they going to be when they start thinking on their own? And what sort of joyless little fucktard is Malcolm Goddard? Getting off ordering kids about when they have more than zee allowed quota of schnacks! Or perhaps it is better to humiliate the child, as if it is his fault! As if this has anything to do with being healthy. Ryan Stupples may well be fit as can be and active. Frankly, unless he is clinically obese or suffering clearly from dietary related diseases that are of serious concern, it is none of Malcolm Goddard’s fucking business!! If I was Stupples’ dad I would have wanted to punch Goddard in the face for interfering in my decisions about my son and for humiliating him, but would have found a better way to humiliate the evil prick. And you wonder how hard it is for authoritarian governments to find people willing to carry out orders? They are the likes of Goddard.

*

Bush signs legislation banning another form of fun. Little more be said of this. It has destroyed US$8.8 billion in property as share prices for online gambling companies plummeted, with one firm World Gaming, entering administration. It is an absolute disgrace, and should be reversed by the next Congress and President. It simply shows that Conservatism, as Not PC has been blogging extensively about recently – is a philosophy corrupt when it comes to regard of individual freedom, or indeed joy. The addictions and weaknesses of the few are the excuse for prohibiting the joy of the many, and destroying the property of business people. It will fail – Americans will still gamble and many will gamble online, through operators who illegally will find ways around this legislation – some of which will, because gamblers will have no legal protection against fraud with illegal contracts, rip them off.

More on North Korea from one in Seoul

Stef has been Ranting about the ROK (Republic of Korea - the free one) for a while, and has some excellent posts about North Korea.

My favourite is the link to the video about the Mass Games, which if you have not heard about is an enormous waste of human resources in order to entertain Kim Jong Il. It is chilling to watch.

Others worth reading are:

Stef’s guide to the North Korean nuclear test

A view of North Korea from the south

Fisking the NZ apologists for the North Korean slave state

True to form, Trevor Loudon has done an excellent job of outing the band of NZers who stick their philosophical tongues up the arse of a regime that keeps millions in slavery while its leaders live in luxury - North Korea was Nicolae Ceausescu's role model - he visited it and went back to transform Romania into a similar system - the difference is that North Korea has a far tighter grip on information.

*

Trevor has written about 3 apologists for the regime that is closest to Orwell's nightmare. Go here to read about Don Borrie, a man who I once heard talking wistfully about the wonderful church in Pyongyang (he is a preacher himself), the great hospital, but how sad it was that they haven't "let him" visit a mental hospital - he's so stupid and evil at once to not explain why. Also Stuart Vogel and Tim Beal. I can understand wanting to reach out to individual North Koreans to explain the rest of the world, provide some way of getting them to understand that the world isn't the way they are told it is - but to defend the indefensible is disgusting. Pacific Empire also has more about the nature of this regime here.

*

For example, Borrie says here "We can stand alongside those countries supportive of the Korean right to self-determination." Apparently self determination means a totalitarian slave state. Beal says "there is so much more to be said about this inspiring, depressing, fascinating and bewildering society". If he didn't say inspiring, I'd have left him off the list - what is inspiring about a society of Orwellian control?

Richard Worth - A man who can't let it go

In the 2005 general election, Rodney Hide received 3102 more votes than Richard Worth for the Epsom electorate - giving him a healthy majority and electing him MP for the people of Epsom. Having said that, National received 21 310 party votes against ACT's 1237, so Richard Worth in some ways "won" the party vote for National in that seat - comprehensively. Labour was a poor second with only 9 915 party votes, 40% less than Rodney Hide got as candidate. Epsom was a resounding success for the "centre-right" - it pulled in a 58.4% party vote for National - well above the 39% average - helping to bring in National list MPs, including Richard Worth. It also voted for Rodney Hide, who himself, plus given ACT failed to cross the 5% threshold, also brought in Heather Roy - two centre right candidates on top of National's vote. Had Hide lost, then those two seats would have been split under the St.Lague formula between Labour and National. In other words, a net gain of one for the centre right.

*

However, Richard Worth has a major hangup about all of this - he can't get over losing, comprehensively, his electorate in the last election. He campaigned on the basis that a vote for him as local MP gave National an additional MP - which was bullshit - pure and simple. He was in already as the list vote was so overwhelmingly for National. ACT only got 3.4% of the party vote in Epsom, it couldn't even pull in 5% in its natural heartland. Worth was going to get in with the party vote. He was either stupid or a liar for pretending that winning an electorate seat gives a party extra seats when that party is both clearly above the 5% threshold, and also highly unlikely to win more electorate seats than its party vote (the latter is the Maori Party).

*

Now lots of sitting MPs in electorates lost their seats in 2005 - most of them Labour and most of them have gotten over it, and moved on. Their newsletters may criticise the Opposition, but they don't harp on about the local MP hoodwinking everyone - or if they do, it isn't a surprise when it is Labour vs. National.

*

Not Richard Worth - he is clearly bitter and can't let it go.

*

Let's take his rather boring newsletter. I can understand why, before the election, he slagged off Rodney Hide and ACT again and again, and was completely and utterly inaccurate about the effects of voting for Rodney Hide as local MP - but it is over a year.

*

Get over it Richard - life's too short. Get a fucking life and attack the REAL enemy - it isn't Rodney - you're just jealous that he is many times more interesting than you.

*

In the latest edition of "Newsworthy" he makes one mistake and clutches at straws to put the boot into ACT - the only seriously viable coalition partner National has (United Future has kept Labour in power for two terms, NZ First is in a terminal state and the Maori Party? Don't make me laugh).

*

Worth said:

*

"ACT made the claim that if Epsom voted for an ACT MP that would put the “ACT team back in Parliament”. That was a nonsense because the Party Vote of ACT was too low to permit that possibility. "

*

Um, so who are Rodney Hide and Heather Roy Richard? How stupid is that comment? Getting an ACT electorate MP when ACT is clearly below 5% helps guarantee that ACT party votes contribute towards getting between an additional 1 to 5 ACT MPs.

*

Richard - Hide won the seat, you won a list seat - get on with your job, which is being Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to this appalling Labour government. Have a drink, chill out and grow up. I'd be surprised if the people of Epsom ever give you a chance ever again with this incessant whining about the man THEY chose. 66% of Epsom voters didn't want you as their local electorate MP - why don't you swallow that figure and perform the job of a list Opposition MP - attack the government. 58% didn't vote National for you to attack ACT.

Redpeace - blaming the USA because anti-capitalism matters

There was once a time when Greenpeace could have been thought of as an organisation genuinely interested in highlighting environmental issues that have been part of the tragedy of the commons. A lot of good people with good intentions - albeit not the intentions and means that I agree with.

*

However now, it just shows itself as a mouthpiece for the loony left.

*

Greenpeace is now Redpeace - its press release on North Korea says it all:

*

""Greenpeace says outrage by the United States over North Korea's underground testing of a nuclear weapon is hypocritical given that country's nuclear arsenal."Nobody wants yet another country to have nuclear weapons, but with over 5,000 nuclear weapons in the arsenal of the United States of America, the relative balance of power has to be kept in mind," says Cindy Baxter, Greenpeace Campaign manager"

*

Relative balance of power? Yes Cindy, we need to accept a murderous warmongering dictatorship has the right to maintain a "balance of power" against its peaceful free neighbours.

*

Ms Baxter obviously thinks that a brutal dictatorship, with one of the largest standing armies in the world, that spends more than any other country on arms as a proportion of GDP, that runs a state of almost total slavery, that launches missile tests over its neighbours, that sells arms to whoever is willing to pay, that sponsors terrorism, that abducts innocent civilians abroad to meet the tastes of the Dear Leader – when the US has nuclear weapons saying “the relative balance of power has to be kept in mind”. I guess if nuclear weapons had existed ten years before they did, Nazi Germany or the USSR undertaking a test would be granted a similar response.

*

A world which resembled the political and economic system of the United State would be infinitely preferable to one resembling North Korea – North Korea is hell on earth. The USA may not be heaven, but it is free, prosperous and, by and large, the government does not operate an all pervasive state that directs, interferes with and punishes details of everyday life, and it does not control absolutely the flow of information or publication of information.
*
Perhaps Redpeace members could go to North Korea, ask to visit industrial sites, ask to test rivers and lakes for pollution, local air quality, visit prisons, visit psychiatric hospitals, ask about how people engage in protest marches on government policies, and learn for themselves why North Korea having nuclear weapons is potentially frightening, whilst no one has much to fear from the USA owning them. If Redpeace can’t see that moral equivalency between the US and North Korea is like equating Nazi Germany to the Allies, then it cares little about peace either between states or within states, and more about pandering to a tired old leftist anti-American diatribe. It will prove, once more, than Redpeace is no longer an apolitical organisation interested in raising awareness of environmental issues – but an apologist for any murderous regime that is against the USA, capitalism and Western liberal democracy.

*

So what about this Cindy Baxter, Greenpeace NZ campaign manager? I have two theories, given it is Friday the 13th and it is about time I rubbed people the wrong way. On the one hand she may be into her 30s or older, quite unattractive and craves the attention and socialisation that Redpeace gives her. She can "network" with like minded haters of success, technology and western civilisation - and feel better about herself by denigrating the USA - a country which is one of the pinnacles of human achievement, with an enormous number of bright, attractive, successful, creative people - while celebrating countries with oppressed, sad, "order-followers" made to be collective in thinking and terrified of doing anything that isn't politically correct (for good reason). She enjoys slagging off George Bush (so clever that) and saying how stupid so many Americans are, how they are selfish and different from everyone else - having known so few herself. She feeds on anti-American propaganda, secretly cheered on the 9/11 attacks (hey it was capitalists being attacked) and consumes Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore as her favourite Americans. The ones that hate freedom and capitalism, except when they themselves benefit from it. Her lack of astuteness in applied disciplines that would mean she could get a real job, and lack of physical attractiveness has meant that she has sought out attention with other losers who like to bring down the best and brightest, and increase the standing of those that crawl - kind of like what Christianity does. The armageddon view of the world inflames passions among these misfits and means they may end up shagging, but it doesn't bear thinking about too much - they enjoy sneering at those in expensive suits, hotels, business class and nice cars (cars bad remember - chant it fifty times) just as much.

*

On the other hand she may be very young, stupid and attractive - naively enjoying being a campaign manager, saving the "wurld" and feeling better about herself by being serious and so caring and thoughtful, and not liking that big bad man George Bush who she knows is bad, because all her friends say so, so do the books she reads and they can't be wrong can they? After all, join a leftwing movement and you have a whole philosophy to follow that involves hating America.

*

However I doubt it, the press releases are far too articulate. "Greenpeace condemned the test, saying that Pyongyang has underscored the dangerous connection between nuclear research, nuclear power and nuclear weapons." See, it is wrong - because dozens of countries have nuclear power and no nuclear weapons - but it is articulate. This suggests she is older and a more hardened anti-American ecologist. Stupid bitch. I suggest she goes to North Korea to protest about the nuclear test - seriously!

Labour paying it back, but..

This is very simply the "shit we got it wrong, let's avoid more political fallout" exercise.

*

Paying it back will be costly.

*

An "I'm sorry" would be nice too. It is morally wrong for a political party to use taxpayers' funds that were for government purposes, to campaign for election. All Parliamentary parties bar the smallest, are guilty of this - Labour the most.

*

Clark must now hope this all goes away, the public forgets and in 2008 it isn't an issue. Well it should be. Those who oppose this government should thank Bernard Darnton for putting his money and effort on the line on this, as he has been one of the figures responsible for raising the profile of the issue.

*

The apologists for making the rest of New Zealand pay for the campaign of their parties will evade reality because they have little alternative, but the fundamental point remains:

*

Labour, NZ First, Greens, United Future, ACT, National and the Maori Party were all caught using YOUR money, taken from YOU, to convince you to vote for them to spend more of your money. They didn't ask permission, they took it in proportions that vary wildly - the Labour Party - thinking it is ENTITLED to power - spent the most, and has performed appallingly in digging dirt and even accusing Libertarianz of being bankrolled by National.

*

If you want to see the instincts behind a politician who lies and cheats, try catching a thief - who will run away, hide and lie. That is what Labour has done - these people think they are entitled to run your life with your money, born to rule (and not just Labour).

*

How can it ever be right that politicians can vote your money to promote their election? The answer is never.

*

State funding of electioneering (including broadcasting) should be prohibited. Funding of government after an election is declared should be clearly separated, with strict accounting for expenditure for government administration and that undertaken as electioneering.

*

The next fight is against compulsory funding of voluntary political organisations. It is grossly unfair, benefits incumbents, discriminates against new parties - but most of all, makes you pay for organisations you haven't joined and may not even approve of. Political parties are not special - and you should never be forced to pay for people who, by and large, are out to gain the means to force you to do or not do what they want. I've blogged about this enough before.

Tolling Auckland not user pays

Aucklanders might ask the following questions about Transit’s plan to charge tolls to fund the Avondale motorway extension:
*
1. Whether it is right that users of three projects already fully funded by Land Transport NZ, from fuel tax/road user charges revenue, should pay tolls to pay for a different road. The Greenhithe Deviation (under construction for the last couple of years), Mt Roskill Extension (under construction for several months) and the Manukau extension (approved for funding over two years ago) are likely to be tolled to pay for the uneconomic Avondale extension. Why? Because tolling the Avondale extension would raise little funds in itself – in other words, the project doesn’t deliver enough value to road users for them to be willing to pay for it – so Transit wants to force others to pay for it. How do you benefit from the Avondale extension if you drive from North Shore to Waitakere?
*
2. Should the final part of the Western ring road - the Avondale extension (going to Waterview) should be so heavily greenplated (tunnelled) that its no longer economically efficient? Does it need to be in a tunnel, adding hundreds of millions of dollars to its total cost?
*
3. With that “greenplating” the project now has a benefit/cost ratio below 1:1 Why should a project that – dollar for dollar – generates less benefits for users that it costs – be such a high priority? Once the other segments are completed, it may become more economic as traffic queues between Mt Roskill and Waterview, but meanwhile instead of being tied up in this project, the money will have generated far higher benefits elsewhere. Can you think of better ways to spend that money – such as roads in Waikato that are accident prone?
*
4. Note that the private sector isn’t interested in financing and tolling this road as a viable proposition – unlike toll roads in Sydney and Melbourne. This tells you that it isn’t about user pays, there isn’t enough traffic willing to pay tolls to justify the exhorbitant cost. When the private sector stays away, doesn’t that give a message? No it isn't the legislation doing it, despite Opposition claims.
*
5. The government commissioned a report on road pricing in Auckland. It came out resoundingly against tolling existing and future Auckland motorways to reduce congestion because it would see large amounts of traffic diverted onto parallel roads, which cannot handle the traffic well and expose pedestrians and local residents to safety and pollution risks. The Ministry of Transport/Treasury commissioned report says it is a bad idea to do, on a large scale, something Transit is going to do on a smaller scale. What is the effect of tolling going to be on parallel local roads, and the economics of these projects which were originally appraised as untolled roads? Why is nobody saying anything about this?
*
6. Why is the billing system for toll roads in New Zealand being funded from your petrol tax and road user charges, and not from borrowing against the future income from toll roads, like it is in Australia?
*
Now I support tolling new lanes - that makes sense and is user pays (and increasingly being adopted in the USA), and have no problem with tolling new roads as long as tolling raises enough money to pay for the road (the road not needing to be subsidised). Simply, there are a lot of questions that need asking - and they should be asked. You're being consulted on this. If I were you, I'd ask these questions, and continue until you get straight answers. I suspect the answers are:
- Avondale (Waterview) Extension is not economic of itself, but is politically and strategically appealing because it finishes a line on a map.
- There is enough money to fund every other stage of the Western Ring Route untolled.
- Tolling Avondale (Waterview) Extension will divert traffic to parallel roads and generate little revenue to fund it.
- Government has told Transit to build this road come hell or high water.
- Avondale (Waterview) Extension could have at least 30% of its costs removed if it wasn't being "greenplated" to meet legislative requirements.

*

UPDATE 1 – Loony lefty Auckland City Councillor Dr. Cathy Casey is opposing tolls too, not because of the dodgy economics but because:
*
“We don’t want fast roads for the rich and slow roads for the poor. It is the government that should be funding roads, not the people of Auckland – they have already paid their taxes.”
*
The poor have cars? I suppose she likes poor people in Christchurch paying over the nose for road maintenance through petrol tax (it’s cheap to do it there) while rich people in Gisborne underpay? She also seems to think the government doesn’t take money from Aucklanders, and that taxes have “been paid”. The people that should be funding roads are those who use them – people without cars shouldn’t, and they are more likely to be poor.
*
“Dr Casey says that “user pays” is unfair and penalises people on low incomes.”

*
Well duh, because they aren’t earning enough and it is an incentive to get them to be innovative and work to do so, unlike Dr Casey who has the economic intelligence of an imbecilic squirrel. So food and clothing should be paid for communally – hey sounds like North Korea, that works a wonder. Let’s abolish user pays, everyone can pay for everyone else – or maybe it could all be free… (now all sing and pass the drugs so you can keep evading reality).

*
“There are many low-paid workers who drive across this city every day from outlying districts where they are forced to live because of escalating house prices. They already have to pay increased petrol and parking fees. Paying a toll on top of that is just not an option.”

*
“Forced to live”? Well no, they live where they can afford- they could live in Invercargill instead. House prices escalate because of the sort of planning policies reality-evading morons like yourself put in place restricting supply of land for housing, and housing people want – don’t forget the rates you like imposing on people as well. You might also wonder why Auckland City Council doesn’t reduce parking charges and abolish its small 0.66c/l petrol tax to “ease the burden”, but I guess you like tax because it isn’t user pays, it’s “force everyone”.

*
Remember, even with my doubts about the road, it still is a new road – people driving now could stay on the current routes instead of using the new one. What a foaming at the mouth socialist halfwit she is - but hey, some of you voted for her!

*

The Greens are opposing it because it is user pays too - sort of - they don't like people paying tolls if the money is used to pay for roads, because roads are bad m'kay? In other words, the Greens would love it if the tolls were used to pay for a NZ only TV channel or hip hop music videos.

North Korea's nuclear test

Well, hardly a surprise.

*

There are those blaming George Bush for this.

There are those calling for military action.

*

The real answer is China. China has its boot poised above the windpipe of North Korea. Unfortunately, North Korea has a string of grenades wrapped around itself.

*

China supplies North Korea with the oil and electricity that enables it to barely function. It could cut these off and the regime could not sustain itself for long.

*

However - North Korea would probably pull the pin out of its grenades if this was done and throw them - after all, what would it have to lose? Kim Jong Il and his lackies would face being overthrown and losing everything.

*

So it is Cold War - icy cold. Not that it has ever been much better since 1953, nothing much has changed and the nuclear deterrent against North Korea has worked well since then. North Korea will not launch an attack on South Korea or Japan - for China would firmly crush its windpipe making it impossible to sustain conventional warfare. China will do this in exchange for the US NOT using nuclear weapons against North Korea - and frankly, South Korea would agree. However, if North Korea released a nuclear weapon upon South Korea or Japan, there would have to be a similar response in kind to the North.

*

No Right Turn thinks the US may take an "idiot response" to this. Well military action against North Korea would be moral if it weren't for the effect of threatening the lives of millions of South Koreans and Japanese.

*

Tony Blair on BBC Breakfast TV this morning described North Korea "as a kind of oppression akin to slavery" and he is right. Unlike the BBC which constantly repeats the mantra "we don't really know what it is like there".

*

So we have more tension, and probable sanctions against North Korea on arms and trade. How can this end? Well:

*

- North Korea announces it is abandoning nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and reducing its military presence by 35% (to the same level as South Korea and US in Korea);

- North Korea announces it is embarking on economic reform to allow private investment and ownership, and "socialism with Korean characteristics";

- North Korea announces it is allowing liberalisation of internal political debate and discussion, and providing amnesty for those in gulags;

- North Korea announces it is seeking normalisation of relations with Japan, South Korea and the USA, in exchange for a formal ending of the Korean War and recognition of the Republic of Korea - this will include a further verifiable reduction in military capability;

- Kim Jong Il and family disappear and spend rest of their days in a compound in China in exchange for a transition of power to a fully elected Supreme People's Assembly.

*

OR:

*

- Kim Jong Il can be assassinated and succeeded by military generals who announce their intention to embark on a radical reform agenda ala China. You hope.

*

Since the US has been useless at political assassinations in recent history, I don't hold out hope for the latter.

*

UPDATE 1: The Maori Party's latent Marxism comes to fore again - lamblasting the USA for having a nuclear arsenal - as if it is the same as North Korea. The Maori Party gets its "intelligence" from Greenpeace:

*

“If we are to believe Greenpeace - and we have no reason not to - there are over five thousand nuclear weapons in the States alone” said Mr Flavell.

*

So does Russia Mr Flavell, but hey never mind, anti-Americanism is "cool" eh bro? I guess the USA should disarm now while North Korea, China and Russia have weapons, along with India and Pakistan, and while Iran is pursuing them.

*

Mr Flavell conveniently ignores the slave state conditions of North Korea, maybe because his party secretly admires something about it?

*

UPDATE 2 - Keith Locke gets his oar in too, can't resist beating up China and the USA because they haven't made moves to disarm. Is it any bloody wonder? The fact is the world nuclear weapon arsenal has dropped by about two-thirds since the end of the Cold War - because the Soviet Union and its evil empire collapsed. Something Keith Locke might, for once, celebrate as a major contribution to reducing global tensions.

*

As long as the means to develop nuclear weapons remains in the world and there remain states interested in aggression against their citizens and neighbours, nuclear weapons should remain. Peace comes from strength - those keen on wiping out the USA wont give up just because the USA has lost a means to deter them from wiping it out!

Telecom to cease funding politics

Well for Telecom shareholders this will be welcome. No more money being wasted on organisations that, with the exception of ACT, are uninterested or downright hostile when it comes to Telecom's property rights.

*

Presumably it will hit the Progressives the most, as the smallest party - but Labour will smart from losing $50,000. Telecom says it has nothing to do with government regulation, which may be true, but it should have everything to do with protecting the rights of shareholders. Telecom is hated by most parties in Parliament - National at best engages in economic analysis before considering regulation, ACT tends to oppose it. Of course Libertarianz is the most Telecom friendly political party - in that it supports an open free-market governed by private property, contract and tort law.

Ignore Toll's blackmail

Just a quick comment on the hysteria about Toll saying it will close lots of railway lines. Some very straightforward facts:
*
1. Toll can’t close railway lines. They are owned by the government, which bought them back for $1 under the agreement that it would spend $200 million to upgrade it (and paid $81 million for the Auckland network separately). So it is up to Ontrack.
2. If Toll withdraws services, then its agreement with the government means that other operators can provide services. Presumably they will have to acquire rolling stock, but then Toll will have a lot of rolling stock that is of low value on the international secondhand market (wrong gauge, small dimensions).
3. If Toll moves more freight onto the roads then the government will NOT be up for a higher road maintenance bill that comes out of your pocket. Trucks pay road user charges, which broadly pay enough to cover the cost of maintaining the state highway network, and the marginal cost of each additional truck. The extra wear and tear on the roads will be paid for.
4. If the Napier-Gisborne line saw no more freight trains, there would be, on average, an extra truck every hour in each direction on that highway at the most. I think nobody would notice that, and yes the road user charges paid for that truck would cover the cost of maintenance.
5. The Greens claim there is an imbalance between trucks and trains and what they are charged according to the Surface Transport Costs and Charges study. The marginal cost case studies in that report indicate that road freight has lower environmental costs than rail in two out of the three examples measured. It also indicates than in two examples the Road User Charges paid are more than the costs the trucks impose on government. In other words, it is far more complicated that the Greens will say.
6. The trucking industry is not interested in the main trunk line closing, and has said so. It rightfully has argued that if Toll doesn’t want to use it, others should, assuming they are willing to pay
*
Lincoln University Professor Chris Kissling wants you to be forced to pay for rail maintenance and presumably a tidy sum to buy the monopoly rights off of Toll. I’m unsure why he thinks that all New Zealanders and businesses should pay for a handful of businesses to get subsidised rail transport. However as he says the rail network is “incomplete”, he must be somewhat mad – given half the network isn’t economic to maintain now, how can it be “completed” and be efficient? Where should lines go? Kaitaia? Nelson? It wasn't economic in the 1960s when railways had a statutory monopoly!
*
The answer? Sell the rail network. Then whoever values it the most can use it and charge for its use as it sees fit. Then comes the highways.

Labour attacks free speech - again

Having already suggested prohibiting third parties from funding political parties anonymously, Labour is talking about banning legal companies that produce products that save lives, from advertising. This is even though the products cannot be sold without a prescription from a relevant health professional.
*
Labour has support from the Public Health Association, a left wing advocate of state funding and regulation of health care. Apparently the concern is that individuals – clearly too stupid in the eyes of the PHA and the Labour Party to decide what they put into their own bodies – are pressuring doctors to write out prescriptions for medication that may harm them. This ignores the fact that there are also plenty of individuals, who see an advert for medication that may relieve a complaint they have not bothered seeing a doctor about, and then go to the doctor to be checked to see if they are eligible for it.

*

Banoholic Sue Kedgley has been pushing this for ages. "prescription medicines, when taken inappropriately, can cause severe illness and even death" she says. Well so can petrol, rat poision, water and "natural remedies".
*
Gay Keating says “People may end up paying for medicines that they don't need, and that in the worst case scenario, may actually be harmful to them," well Gay, they might buy shoes they don’t need either, that may be harmful to them – or food, or a car. It is called choice for fuck’s sake.
*
Let’s break down the situation simply – there is no force involved, just busybodies who think that consenting adults can’t be trusted to look after themselves. David Farrar says it is an attack on free speech - indeed it is and he takes the line that one should be cautious about restricting it. No Right Turn thinks you need protection from big bad pharmaceutical companies trying to sell you something you might no need - because you're so incompetent. Oops, I mean there are incompetent people, you're not - but hey the state can't make a separate law for you.

*

Nevertheless, let's follow this chain of horror that Nanny State just has to stop:
*
1. Pharmaceutical company spends its own money developing a drug that has a positive effect upon a medical condition in some way.

2. Pharmaceutical company tests drug to the extent that it can then go through the regulatory hoops to allow it to be legally available in New Zealand.

3. Pharmaceutical company starts selling drug through licenced pharmacists who are competent in dispensing drugs on prescription.

4. Pharmaceutical company uses its own money to pay for advertising on TV channels, radio stations, websites, print media etc. to promote the product. The broadcast advertising is regulated by the Advertising Standards Authority.

5. The product is regulated both as medication and in general contract law.

6. A sane adult sees the advertisement and is interested in spending her own money on the drug because it may have positive effects. She wants to ingest it in her body.

7. The sane adult visits her GP and requests the drug. The GP makes an assessment as to whether it is a good idea or not, and either chooses not to write out a prescription (adult then either goes to another GP or gives up) or to write on out.

8. Sane adult go to pharmacy and requests the drug on prescription, receives and pays for it.

9. Pharmacist dispenses the drug and provides advice on how to safely use it.

10. Sane adult uses drug.
*
Who is forced here? What is going on except that failed head prefects want to interfere in stage 4.
*
National has thankfully said it will oppose moves to regulate such advertising even more. Tony Ryall said, in a rush of blood to his head "This is another example of nanny state 'Labour-knows-best"
*
"Consumers have a right to know that these pharmaceuticals are available, and can be accessed. Surely we want a health system where people can make choices and play a role in their own healthcare.”
*
Stone the crows, he’s got something right!

North Korea's announces nuclear test as New Zealanders donate farm assistance

North Korea's press statement on nuclear tests is out on its official news agency website. So is a press statement on the NZ-DPRK society donating "vehicles and books on agricultural science and technology". The NZ-DPRK society is the apologist society for the North Korean dictatorship - it ignores the enormity of human rights abuses, the totalitarian Orwellian state of North Korea. It would rather donate vehicles and books and engage in dialogue - I doubt if it condemned the gulags where children of political dissidents are kept and worked like slaves 7 days a week. It issued a statement earlier this year condemning the US-South Korean joint military exercises saying:

"These joint military maneuvers are aimed at breaking the will of the Korean people to advance towards a peaceful future, rejecting interference of foreign forces including the U.S., the bulletin noted. "

*

North Korea launched the Korean War in 1950 - the Kremlin archives prove it. What peaceful future is there when the state can arrest, detain, imprison, torture and kill you without a fair trial? What peaceful future is there when your relatives, including your children can also be imprisoned and tortured because you dared utter what might be construed as criticism of the "Democratic People's Republic"? However, the NZ-DPRK Society probably has the same view of North Korea's role in the Korean War as the Nazis have of Poland.

*

North Korea's nuclear statement contains some odd remarks such as:

*

"The DPRK was compelled to pull out of the NPT as the present U.S. administration scrapped the DPRK-U.S. Agreed Framework and seriously threatened the DPRK's sovereignty and right to existence. "

*

It threatened withdrawal in 1993, but suspended it while the world tried to bribe it with aid and assistance to develop a light water nuclear reactor. It started breaching the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty in 1992 by refusing permission for International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to visit all the sites they wished, and has persistently lied about its intentions.

*

It also said:

*

"The U.S., however, abused the idea of denuclearization set out by the DPRK for isolating and stifling the ideology and system chosen by its people, while systematically disregarding all its magnanimity and sincerity"

*

The fact that Bush senior announced the withdrawal of the presence of nuclear weapons from South Korea in the early 90s is ignored.

*

It has now said:

*

"The DPRK officially announced that it manufactured up-to-date nuclear weapons after going through transparent legitimate processes to cope with the U.S. escalated threat of a nuclear war and sanctions and pressure"

*

The US is not going to attack North Korea and never was - because the cost is enormous. It is a shame that it is so - North Korea deserves to be overthrown. It tests missiles that overshoot Japan, it possesses nuclear weapons and it is a state of mass slavery.

*

By the way, North Korea issued a press release congratulating Helen Clark on her re-election and Winston Peters on his appointment as Foreign Affair's Minister last year - nice to see how friendly we all are. MFAT's website says "It is difficult to get accurate information on the human rights situation in North Korea". Indeed it is true, although the website doesn't say it is dire. How dire it is can be seen in this book called the Aquariums of Pyongyang - a chilling story from a man who survived a North Korean gulag. If MFAT doesn't think this says enough to at least mention that human rights in North Korea are virtually non-existent, then it is a group of cold heartless bureaucrats.

*

North Korea is a warmongering slave state that is inexplicably evil. The New Zealanders who are apologists for it deserve to be outed - and publicly explain why they turn their back to those murdered, tortured and imprisoned by this slave state.

Pregnant women smoking to reduce baby size

If the report in the Daily Telegraph is true, then it is repulsive. Some teenage mothers smoke to have a smaller baby to make labour pains easier. In other works, who cares if the child is damaged.

*

Smoking, taking drugs or drinking alcohol when you know you are pregnant is child abuse if the pregnancy goes full term. Simple as that. Pregnant women who do this should lose custody of the child, as if they were giving it to the child after birth.

*

If you don't want to be pregnant then you have three options:

- Don't have sex;

- If you do have sex, make sure you and/or your bonk use contraception - if that fails or you forgot to "take it" use the morning after pill;

- Have an early term abortion;

- Have a hysterectomy (probably the best idea for many).

*

Of course none of this is very politically correct, because pregnant women who abuse their unborn children are seen as "victims" who aren't "understood". Well, it is rather simple - you have chosen to bring a child into the world - if you recklessly act in ways that damage that child it is abusive - it is violence of the same order as bashing its brain, except you are doing it chemically.

*

On top of that if you are that careless or stupid, you are hardly going to be much of a mother are you?

North Korea to undertake nuclear test

Alarming? yes. Surprising? No. What can be done about it? Nothing much – just simply impose strict sanctions upon trading with the regime and maintain the current deterrence by the US and South Korea. If you want an example of a modern day government that entirely enslaves its population, has no regard for whether its citizens live or die, and which strips the entire dignity of the individual to be sacrificed for the state – it is North Korea.
*
It is a hideous repulsive regime – one which should humiliated daily for being so utterly grotesque. If you think a nuclear test is bad, try the thousands in gulags – the men, women and children who work from dawn to midnight as slaves for this nightmare state. Try the public executions, the state promoted glorification of brutal violence against enemies of the state, the constant surveillance of work, street and home – the complete suppression of dissent.
*
Military attack against North Korea would result in the deaths of millions in South Korea and Japan – this price is too high to pay to try to confront a regime that, albeit noisy, is unlikely to take military action itself. Kim Jong Il knows the US is formidable, and he also is not a religious nutter - he has no wish to undertake jihad - just a wish to deter attack. The bigger risk is him selling a bomb to those who DO wish to undertake jihad - but I'd be watching Pakistan before North Korea on that score!

*

By the way, you might want to remember the $1 million or so of your money spent by current and past government to persuade North Korea to not develop nuclear weapons.

*

Oh and don't blame Bush - this started in 1994 when Clinton was President. Anyone who defends this murderous regime should wonder why they don't defend Hitler in 1938, and blame the rest of Europe for provoking him!