What Winston should say to North Korea

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

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

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

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

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

^

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

^

and

^

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

^

and

^

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

^

set your people free!

Time to give Harawira a lesson

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

^

He's either an idiot or willfully blind.

^

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

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

So consider this

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

^

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

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

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

^

The website says the campaign has 5 goals:

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

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

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

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

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

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

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

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

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

Young people rebel against Nanny State

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

Herald on Sunday is a post-modernist Marxist rag

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

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

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

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

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

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

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

Maybe CYFS CEO can be asked about that?

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

^

So what is really going on here?

^

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

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

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

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

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

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

^

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

^

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

^

So what should be done?

^

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

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

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

Sicko

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

^

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

^

Funny that.

^

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

^

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

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

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

^

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

^

So what could the Nats have said?

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

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

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

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

- Second time murderers get life - meaning life;

- A renewed emphasis on pursuing property offences;

- Zero-tolerance for minor offences.

^

so, i might yawn....

Judith Tizard's eroding career

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

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

- Not particularly keen on hard work.

^

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

^

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

Africa's number one problem - corruption

Listening to Bob Geldof you might be excused of thinking that the reason so many Africans are poor are because you've been too self-centred and not given money to charities, or that evil nasty Western governments haven't wiped debts of those well intended poor African governments. In fact anyone who has had much to do with African governments will know that this is far from the truth. In my dealings with representatives from Africa they were always better paid than their Western counterparts, stayed in the best hotels, had chauffeured limos to drive them around, flew first class everywhere - and then pleaded poverty and how life was for their countryfolk.

^

Sure there are some issues the West can help with, primarily removing barriers to trade and abolishing subsidies for agriculture and other industries - something that can be aimed clearly at Brussels, Washington and Tokyo for being the biggest offenders. However, this wont achieve much unless Africa governs itself well - and it doesn't. The bigger issue is that too many fear offence by declaring the truth - many African governments are corrupt ridden, unaccountable and are simply international recognised racketeering gangs.

^

So the Channel 4 documentary this week - Dispatches - How to Get Ahead in Africa - tells all. Set in Kenya, it shows how people must bribe receptionists to get hospital appointments, bribe all sorts of strongmen to get "permits" to build a shack on public land, bribe neighbours to not appeal it to higher up corrupt officials, bribe policemen to allow taxis to travel, bribe to get a job interview. Furthermore, it showed how easy it was to bribe a licence to be a charity, that had no accountable but could claim a share of foreign aid funds. Charities with vague addresses - that don't exist - get funding through the government, from foreign aid. It's fraud on a grand scale, and it keeps Africa back. Sierra Leone was visited also, where aid to supply electricity to a town was effectively siphoned off to officials requiring bribes before allowing homes to be connected. More disturbingly, school children were required to bribe teachers for lessons - given excuses such as payment for copying papers and the like. Corruption agencies were themselves little more than show ponies, which dealt with a handful of high profile low level cases, but did nothing.

^

The solution to Africa's governance problems is complex, it is partially cultural, but clearly any aid to governments is likely to risk being siphoned off to corrupt officials. Africans are poorly served by post-colonial governments, but the best way to deal with them is for private aid to be provided to private efforts on the ground. This means that education should be provided by agencies that have the money, and take the power to avoid corruption - which means using force to defend themselves. It means being somewhat colonial, and Africans want it - they vote in governments on anti-corruption tickets, only to be bitterly disappointed.

^

As one man on the show said, the best way to "make poverty history" in Africa is not aid, indeed he dismissed Bob Geldof's efforts entirely, but to help end corruption. So I say to Oxfam, indeed all those who try to place guilt in our hands for African poverty - start spreading a new philosophy to Africa - not one of "give me money for nothing" of socialism, but earn money and be accountable if you don't perform.

^

Accountability for government, and prison for those who are corrupt - which means having rather efficient effective small governments that do the bare necessities - police, law and order and defending personal and property rights. You see, as a libertarian I DO believe government is essential. The rule of law and transparent, accountable and corruption free enforcement of law, defence of individual freedoms, property rights and enforceability of contracts - Africa's governments do all this very badly - it's about time they shed everything else they try to do, and be taught to be small good governments - not corrupt tinpot rusting hulks of post colonial Marxist fantasies.

Immigration to Britain

So David Cameron is hot on immigration – again, and so is Labour. Apparently there is “too much” as David Cameron says, with no substance behind it other than it imposes "pressure on services and society". Bullshit. It increases property prices and migrants pay their own way, or if they don't it's because of government policies.
^
The government says immigration imposes pressure on crime (so let's deport criminal migrants), housing, health and education (well who should pay for that?), but has no answers.
^
Clearly people like me who are skilled and earning well above the average wage are a problem for Britain – but no, that can’t be true can it? Is it the huge number of Poles who have filled the service sector? Well, no and besides the EU means you can’t debate such things. The truth is that the problem is caused by poorly educated, poorly skilled people from different cultures who seek to claim taxpayer funded services - but nobody will admit that.
^
The reasons given why immigration is an issue comes down to:
- Risk of overpopulation; and
- Unsustainability of taxpayer funded social services.
^
Both arguments are complete nonsense, and moreover any politician honestly talking about immigration in Britain knows that the primary reason Britons are concerned about it is race and religion. Is it racism? Well to a point yes. Moreso seen in working class communities, and reflected in the occasional boost the BNP gets in local elections as the proletariat claim the “Pakis” or “blacks” are taking our jobs, and other nonsense. The deep suspicion and fear of those who “look different” has been exploited by politicians worldwide.
^
However, there is a more substantive concern about immigration of those who don’t adopt the values of British liberal democratic society. Most obviously is the migration of Muslims who seek sharia law, although as many of those are born in the UK as immigrants. It is a genuine concern that people come to live in Britain, ignoring that “honour killings” are unacceptable, or female circumcision are unacceptable.
^
Significant migration to Britain from outside the EU actually comes from the USA, Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, and let’s face it, most Britons aren’t the slightest bit concerned about that at all. Though I remember before I got permanent residency, how appallingly I was treated at Heathrow every time I visited – quizzed by a petty fascist about whether I would be looking for work here, and when I was living and who I was staying with.
^
Unfortunately, intelligent discussion about this is virtually impossible in Britain. This is why Malthusian nonsense is brought out as the reason, when what it boils down to is concern about race and culture.
^
Britain faces no risk of “overpopulation”, it has extensive rural land, London is far from built out to the M25, even allowing for much open space. The population density of the Netherlands is substantially higher, and there are vast tracts of towns and cities across the UK with housing and room for more housing. So let’s dismiss such rubbish for what it is.
^
The bigger concern is “funding social services”, but this also does not bear close scrutiny. Housing, for example, should be a private sector activity. Indeed, the notion that the taxpayer should be paying to house new migrants is a complete nonsense. The more rational approach should be to remove restrictions on land use that prevent private investment in housing, but more importantly prohibit new migrants from having access to taxpayer subsidised housing for at least five years.
^
Health care similarly is constrained not by migrants, but the sclerotic bureaucracy of the NHS which is virtually without any price signals to ration demand or allocate resources where demand is greatest. New migrants should simply be required to pay the full cost of their health care requirements, or buy insurance to cover it. In exchange they should not have to pay social security tax. The same restrictions should apply to welfare and education, prohibiting new migrants from claiming taxpayer funding for either for a minimum of five years.
^
Of course I’d argue that all new migrants should be able to opt out of all such services in exchange for paying less tax, and then be able to choose to opt in after five years. Then nobody can accuse migrants of not paying their way or public services being “unable to cope”. The flipside is that existing British residents might also want to opt out – then we will see how much true support there is for the “beloved public services”.
^
The Tories wont advocate this, as it is far too Thatcherite and radical, but it would be hard to argue against. Why oppose non-EU migration if the migrants have to pay their way?
^
Labour of course couldn’t stomach the welfare state not being offered to so many potential voters, given Labour’s great love for using the state to take from the successful and give to others.
^
So the immigration itch is being scratched by the Conservatives and Labour not for reasons that are rational, but to scratch an itch that nobody admits is partly racist, but which is also discomfort about high numbers of people from African, Caribbean, Middle and South Asian origin with limited skills and funds. The concern is cultural and concern about funding welfare.
^
The answer to that problem is not to put a cap on immigration from outside the EU, but to cease claims by new immigrants on the state. When being an economic migrant to Britain means get a job, set up a business, look after yourself or get out – then the problem will reduce. When one of the key requirements to migrate to Britain is proving you have the means to return to your home country, when you sign away any right to claim the welfare state for five years, and demonstrate a clean criminal record (and deportation when you commit a violent offence), then maybe the problems attributed to immigration may be addressed.
^
Meanwhile, politicians will dance around this inconvenient truth – the immigration problem is a problem of the welfare state and allowing migration from those who want others to pay for them.

Racism means what then... the only argument the Maori Party has

Yes you know what it means - it means bigotry against someone because of their race, including in favour of someone because of race. In the context of politics it should not exist, because it is banal. Only knuckle dragging losers advance racism.

^

Racism is sometimes used as an accusation simply to provoke. The left threw it about flagrantly in the 2005 election against Don Brash, who was purely advancing the view that the state should be colourblind. The idea that somehow, given the existence of MMP, that the Maori seats could be abolished and that the state should fund according to need not race, was racism - because the racists who supported the opposing view find the use of language powerful. Marxist writer Antonio Gramsci was a strong advocate of using language as a weapon - and the left is good at it. It is called propaganda pure and simple.

^

There is little doubt that the charges against militants of Tuhoe and other descent is not about racism - but the Maori Party will use this term because frankly it has nothing else left.

^

You will lose count the number of times the Maori Party will call any government or political party policy racist in the next year - it's an easy catchphrase designed to inflame Maori voters to thinking "oh these bastards are doing something aimed AGAINST us, fuck em, let's vote Maori Party", rather than something slightly more intelligent. You know, like arguing philosophy or policy - because the Maori Party is a lot like the Green party in being clearly on the left, but is more a party of protest and identity.

^

All that ties the Maori Party together is a desire to oppose Labour and to be identified by the collective term Maori - which is not something inherent to an individual, but group identity - tribalism. It could be socialist, but that would alienate some of the more conservative elements, in reality the Maori Party is a "dog's breakfast" of pragmatists (Sharples), socialists (Harawira and Turia) and conservatives, united by a desire to keep Labour out of the Maori seats.

^

The appropriate response is to take Don Brash's idea - let the Maori Party fight on the same basis as every other party in Parliament - win a non-racist constituency seat or 5% of the vote.

^

Not PC is dead right that Winston is right about this. Winston said "New Zealanders are sick and tired of being called racists by those who are clearly the most militant racists in the country. New Zealanders wonder why a political party based solely on race is held up as the moral compass for the country. In South Africa, we called that apartheid."

^

As true as it is that Winston is seeking new support from ex.National voters alienated by the Labour Lite of John Key - he is correct- which may be why he still will have a political future after the next election!

90 years on - repent, apologise and be wary

25 October 1917 and the left worldwide got perhaps one of its biggest boosts with Lenin's revolution, overthrowing the embryonic liberal democracy in Russia to create one of the most bloodthirsty and imperialist governments in history. The Soviet Union murdered and starved over 30 million of its own, and spawned the murder and starvation of 10s of millions more - but it was cheered by Western advocates of the "dictatorship of the proletariat".

^

Invariably working either as academics or trade unionists they enjoyed the personal freedom of the West to campaign for its overthrow, treating the stories that came from dissidents of the horrors of Lenin's murderous adventures as being "propaganda". Others denied the stories of horror from Maoist China, or simply ignored them, like Green MPs Keith Locke and Sue Bradford, both of whom have pasts of ignorantly sympathising with brutal dictatorships.

^

Some signs came in the 1930s when tales of the horrors under Stalin were floating out, but, like Hitler, Stalin was seen by far too many in academia as showing a new way - a strong creative state marshalling the energy of the population for the greater good. Sympathisers for Hitler quickly shut up following the war, albeit ignoring that National Socialism and Marxism-Leninism had far too much in common - both being socialist, both demanding total state control and complete intolerance for any hint of dissent. However, Stalin still had a following.

^

Some of that following was eroded following the suppression of the popular revolts in Budapest and Prague in 1956 and 1968 respectively, but around the same time there was also the swallowing of Maoist propaganda, seeing Red China as a great model for a new society - again treating the tales of misery as Western propaganda, and even the likes of Noam Chomsky, being a sceptic of the murders of the Khmer Rouge.

^

However, right through till the end of the Cold War, the West remained filled with those who looked east, so to speak, and smiled - who at best ignored the blood of those tortured, murdered, starved by the Marxist-Leninist experiment in Orwellian social reconstruction, or at worst cheered it on. Some of those the Maori Party now defends are part of this ilk.

^

Trevor Loudon, much criticised by those on the left, has so much on his blog about today's defenders of the murderers of communism that I cannot hope to rival it.

^
Those who have glorified, sympathised with or cheered on the USSR, Red China, the former Eastern Bloc, Democratic Kampuchea, North Korea, Cuba (I'm looking at you Matt Robson) can only today claim one of three reasons for their support for such vileness:
- Stupidity ("I was wrong");
- Shame ("I was immoral"); or
- Pride ("I believe in the violent overthrow of free liberal democracies and suppression of dissent").
^
The cheerleaders for bullying Marxism live on today and are seen in power in Zimbabwe, Venezuela and Bolivia, as well as the tired old regimes of Cuba and North Korea (whilst China and Vietnam transform into one-party corporatist capitalist states).
^

Neil Lyndon in the Sunday Times has said "We were all deluded. We were all mistaken. We were all - to varying degrees - off or out of our heads. We owe the world an apology and some acts of contrition. " He comments how when visiting Prague in the 1960s he "had sensed the presence of the secret police in shadows and of informers among the neighbours."

^

"Leninism has been defeated almost everywhere in the world, but the postwar generation of baby boomers who went so far left in the 1960s now control this country’s leading institutions. Their taste for totalitarian simplicities and weakness for millenarian terrors has been digested into modern feminism, environmentalism and global warming. Many remain absolutely unrepentant about their past because they have been so successful in the present (one of the sweeter fruits of victory is never having to apologise).

^

Indeed it says it all that "While the Daily Mail is routinely vilified for its prewar support for the Nazis, The Guardian’s role in cheer-leading for a succession of Marxist tyrants from Mao and Pol Pot to Cas-tro and Mugabe is rarely questioned"

^

Almost teasingly, the Guardian on Saturday had an interview with Castro, where he denies the torture or imprisonment of political dissidents - just those under the command of a "foreign power". Teach me for buying the Guardian doesn't it?

^

So, as Neil Lyndon has suggested, on the 90th anniversary of Lenin's revolution, is it not time to those who cuddled up to murderous brutality to repent and apologise for what is at best a mistake, a worst colluding with oppressors who rivalled and surpassed the Nazis in their violence and totalitarianism.

^

oh and while your at it, point a finger at those who aren't ashamed, and as what they would do with our freedoms given half a chance?

Maori Party Marxism

Well it shouldn't be a surprise since the avowedly racist party of Parliament - you know - the one not only having representation because of a racist electoral system and the only party in Parliament enjoying substantial over representation because it won more racist seats than it would have got through party vote - believes in state collectivism.

^

Hone Harawira, of that great family of peace loving, law abiding, advocates of tolerance said:

^

"Mr Speaker, the Maori Party takes this opportunity to raise again, the injustice of poor people being penalised for crimes of need, while the white-collar boys continue to get away with their crimes of greed, we condemn the system of injustice which continues to brutalise and traumatise Maori communities, while those who commit crimes against the whole of society, don't just get more lenient treatment, some even get knighthoods for their acts of financial piracy, and destruction of whole communities."

^

Nothing like major reality distortion is there, a great Marxist technique, and then put up a straw man - "the white collar boys" without identifying them, accusing them of "financial piracy" something you'd really only believe if you're an avowed Marxist who believes that anyone involved in successful business is stealing - ignoring of course, that what he earns in his "job" is money taken by force. He wont identify whole communities destroyed by anything - except of course the removal of privilege.

^

Nothing like the reality evasion that says that the brutalisation and traumatisation of Maori communities is due to external reasons, not the violence and abuse perpetuated primarily by men within them.

^

So of course he supports Tame Iti and all the other opponents of Western civilisation, because he also opposes it - and you're all paying for it.

^

Another reason to simply get rid of the racist seats, let the Maori Party win seats on the same basis as every other party - but don't worry, they call treating them the same as everyone else as racist!

Quote of the week from Lech Walesa

The best things about life are "good food, good wine and women"
^
heard on Michael Palin's New Europe showing on the BBC.
^
That's what separates Walesa from his opponents, who, don't forget, were the ideological/literal mates of those now accused of terrorism!
^
Yes don't forget those who Tame Iti, his supporter Annette Sykes and their mates are aligned with:
- Mao Tse Tung;
- Pol Pot;
- Kim Il Sung;
- Enver Hoxha;
- Nicolae Ceaucescu... among others.
^
and no, none of this is a surprise to any of us who have known this for years, you know, while the so-called journalists remain as braindead as the medium they try to emulate - television.

Lying bastards

Foxton's estate agents

but then, if you live in the UK you ought to know that - especially if you work for them.

Lib dems rudderless

The Liberal Democrats as far as third parties is concerned, is an odd grouping. Formed from the Liberal Party (which genuinely was a believer in less government) and the Social Democrats (a breakaway from Labour in its truly Marxist days - which means the 1980s!), it was at first a bridge between Thatcherism and the isolationist loony left of old Labour - with New Labour it has swung to the left. All very well, except that with Gordon Brown taking over, New Labour has swung a little back to the left- plus the Tories rejected Thatcherism now in favour of a green agenda.

^

The Liberal Democrats are hardly liberal, they subscribe to the intolerant environmental politics as personified by Al Gore - the deliberate lies in order to get attention, the selective application of science, and preferring government intervention to achieve environmental goals, rather than getting government out of the way. They also want more government, like surrendering more powers and laws to Brussels. The Liberal Democrats are the new socialists- utopian dreamers whose best hope of getting power is local government (meddling petty fascism) or hoping neither Labour nor the Tories win an absolute majority - so they can form a coalition and blackmail Britain into electoral reform. There is a chance of that happening next time, although both major parties would much rather try to form a government and fail, than let electoral reform be foisted on them - unlike Jim Bolger

^

So now they are at around 11% in the polls, you have to ask "why bother". The only major policy they have different from the two major parties is their cut and run policy with Iraq - but besides that they have an old fashioned agenda of pouring tax money into the state sector, which continues to fail - and more taxes. The Independent is effectively the newspaper of the Lib Dems.

^

So they are a yawn, I am hoping that Labour voters might return to Labour and the Tories attract enough to squeeze the Lib Dems into a smaller party. They might find there is a part of the political spectrum ignored in the UK - it's called being Liberal!

^

Oh and Menzies Campbell (pronounced Mingus) has resigned... as they try to find their way. The problem is that it is appearing the Tories are a potential incoming government - the Lib Dems offer little new

Returned from the land of censorship

Well I hadn't disappeared, more I was unable to blog whilst behind the firewall of an authoritarian state. Now I'm in central Europe and "free" again.

^

Mainland China is invigorating, it is absolutely astounding - and is so incredibly different from Hong Kong. Setting aside the choking pollution (at times), the selective censorship (which frankly is subtle enough to not be apparent to those who wouldn't think different) and the usual handful of those wanting to cheat you, it is full of life, people who throng the streets at 7am on a Sunday! The spectrum of humanity from the friendly and ever helpful, to the grumpy, lying and remarkably poor, the cheerful families with cute kids, the helpful policeman (yes really!), the annoying salespeople, the joking taxi drivers - well and the driving.

^

Take a taxi in Beijing, in fact take dozens - you will learn to develop a fearlessness that will put you in good stead for life - you'll see that the way to cope with traffic jams is to cut in, to pull across, to push in, to overtake, and everyone does it. In fact, walk around. If you walk you'll learn you get nowhere obeying the signals, in fact it could kill you to rely on them - just look out and walk, walk fast, be prepared to stop fast, and you'll be fine.

^

I'll say more about China, how there is much reason to be optimistic about it - and how difficult it is to understand. If the capital has very few who know English outside shops in the main shopping street, then figure out how easily they understand the world.

^

China's Communist Party Congress will, secretly, be debating across the political spectrum about reforms either to have more socialism and state control on the one hand, or to separate state and party, have the party accountable to the law and party discipline not equivalent to criminal law. Meanwhile, those in the centre are increasingly aware of the corruption that their own "free market" capitalism engenders without an independent judiciary, guaranteed individual freedoms and property rights.

^

It's worth understanding China, to see confucianism, Marxism-Leninism and entrepreneurialism co-exist - and because by the end of the decade its economy will be second is size only to the United States.

Propaganda victory

So a South Korean President visits Kim Jong Il for the second time. Kim Jong Il is clearly too scared to make the return trip as what was originally intended. Significant?

^

No, not really. You see President Roh Moo-hyun of South Korea is seeking re-election in December (something Kim Jong Il no doubt thinks is awfully quaint), and trying for a peace treaty in advance is meant to gain him popular support. He almost certainly wont raise the plight of the tens of thousands of men, women and children providing slave labour in the gulags. His policy of engagement is not about making North Korea lose face - and the North Korean media monopoly is making a huge deal out of the visit (although frankly the news item about the frogs making "good drug stuff" is funnier).

^

Kim Jong Il wants to split South Korea's loyalty from the USA - the only country seriously deterring a North Korean invasion, and he wants money, in one form or another, to keep propping up his slave state. There has been peace on the Korean peninsula since 1953, and the relative prosperity and freedom of South Korea (with a GDP 12 times the north when it was once about two thirds the size of the north) speaks volumes about the difference between capitalism and anti-capitalism.

^
As i said before, any compromise between good and evil can only benefit evil - North Korea can not be trusted to reduce military tension - it is too well armed and secretive to be honest, and is addicted to lying (given it does so profusely to its own people). All you can trust North Korea to do is oppress its citizens and seek to undermine defence of South Korea.
^
South Korea should simply engage on fairly simple terms. Normalisation of relations when:
- North Korea verifiably destroys its nuclear programme;
- End to imprisonment of children, end to imprisonment of political prisoners by both sides, Red Cross monitoring of operation of all remaining prisons;
- A framework to allow divided families to be reunited by free choice in both directions, and return to their relative sides if they so wish.
^
of course North Korea wont allow any of this, remember North Korea and Burma get on very well too.

So why should good compromise?

Most supporters of the United Nations see it as a way of sorting out peaceful disputes between countries, to avoid war, and to promote dialogue rather than violence. On the surface, and in a vast range of cases that is a good thing. However, the United Nations was created as part of a idealistic view that it is better for countries to bicker within an international organisation than to use arms - it was specifically designed to oppose traditional initiation of war - that is one country invading another.

As much of a despicable action as that is, it doesn't take much thought to consider how much less bloodthirsty the 1930s and 1940s would have been had Hitler NOT been expansionist, or indeed had Japan not been expansionist beyond Korea (which the rest of the world effectively handed to Japan in 1910). German Jewry would still have been wiped out, Stalin would have continued to slaughter his own people, and Japan continued to treat Koreans as slaves and useful for chemical and biological weapons experiments.

The UN's supporters present it as an arbiter of morality. However any organisation is only a function of its members, and its members are the very worst members of the international community. You see the UN sends an envoy into Burma to seek peace and a compromise -a compromise between those with guns and bullets and their victims shot in the back and left to die. It mirrors the view of China, which seeks restraint from BOTH sides - imagine calling for restraint from Jews in Hitler's Germany in 1940, or those sent to Year Zero by the Khmer Rouge, or the Kurds gassed by Saddam Hussein.

What the Burmese deserve is uncompromising support to overthrow their murderous regime. If the Burmese government did what it does in any Western country its perpetrators would be locked up. Of course if someone could arm the monks...

Boris not Ken

It was announced in the past hour that Boris Johnson, Conservative MP for Henley, former editor of The Spectator and basically a witty toff who is best being a TV presenter, sometimes brilliant, sometimes a cringeworthy clown, has been selected to be the Conservative candidate for the Mayoralty of London.

^

Unlike in NZ, the Mayor of London has wide ranging powers, these include setting the budget for the Greater London Authority (GLA) , the Metropolitan Police, Fire Brigade, Transport for London, London Development Agency. These roles are being extended to include planning powers, strategic policy on waste, culture and sport (!), climate change and board appointments for GLA bodies. In other words, a helluva lot.

^

Ken Livingstone is a Marxist who does deals with foreign wanna dictators, eagerly wastes Londoners money and essentially despises the productive and well off, treating the GLA as a vehicle to apply socialism to London as best he can. He sees himself as knowing what's best for Londoners in housing, business and transport - he hates the private car, but has little interest in dealing with the chronic overcrowding on public transport, he hates traffic congestion but runs the congestion charge more as a penalty system than traffic management - he wants more housing, but wants to specify and dictate what he wants - he wants less crime, but doesn't want to confront the public housing ghettos that both breed crime and destroy property values.

^

In short, he should go, and sadly Boris is the best alternative. Boris's thoughts so far are somewhat encouraging. He wants to be tougher on crime, closer to a New York model to be intolerant of small offences that add to fear of crime and insecurity. He wants to change the way buses are funded so that companies who run them are incentivised to give good service and generate fares, not just operate a route. Beyond that he is seeking ideas, and wants to spend the money collected for the GLA more efficiently. So I have a few ideas:

1. Pay the Police based on how local residents perceive safety for themselves and their property, which means tackling all crime that matters to people - assault, vandalism and theft. A zero tolerance approach may take a lot of courage, but it could change much of London.

2. Get out of the way of housing, and don't encourage more public housing ghettos. Much valuable land is taken up by appalling council housing operations that have essentially abandoned families in environments of squalor, it is time to seriously confront this and consider options for selling or demolishing them, and opening up more land for construction.

3. Be courageous on transport. The buses can run at a profit if you get rid of politically correct concessions and charge people more to use them at peak times. The tube could have significant investment in it if it cost significantly more to use at peak times (pricing the tourists onto off peaks). Make operating and maintaining London streets a separate corporate activity and demand a comprehensive study into best practice maintenance and traffic management, which by the way probably wont reside in anything done by UK local authorities including TfL - Ken virtually ignores street management. Open up investment into new roads in London to the private sector, you might be amazed at how and where some new toll highways might make a huge difference to traffic in London - if Crossrail can be a multi-billion pound tunnel, you can do the same to complete ring routes.

4. Treat waste management on an objective cost/benefit basis. Encourage recycling to be a privatised activity and waste collection to be on a competitive cost recovery basis.

5. Don't do anything on culture and sport, cheerlead the Olympics, but people don't need politicians to help them to play, just stay out of their way.

Local government - choosing your local petty fascists

It's a good sign that I am paying next to no attention to the NZ local government elections (a good sign that I have better things to think about in the UK). Last time I was IN NZ and I could vote.

^

What is remarkable is the contrast between how enthused some people are for local government and what almost everyone else thinks about it. Even postal voting has made little difference, and what I find even more remarkable is how so many in local government DON'T understand.

^

The point is simple - for most people the best they can say about local government is that it is unobtrusive and boring - you don't give a damn about what happens with most things councils do as long as the roads aren't potholed, the rubbish is collected, the water/sewers work and there isn't flooding due to incompetent management of waterways/floodbanks. Choosing people to be what are effectively board members for utility administration is uninspiring.

^

Unfortunately, the worst that can be said about local government is what I see in almost all candidates for these roles. Yes, most who stand for councils are well-meaning, but they tend to hold one of two sets of political philosophies:

- Ambitious, change the world (and you) leftwing ideologues who think they can make things better (from their perspective) by force using your money, telling you what to do with your land, your business, and generally being busybodies; or

- Philosophy-less benevolent do-gooders who have a few views of how to make things better, but basically just want to "make a difference". Blank slates who don't care how big or small council is, just that it can do some good.

^

In other words, hopeless. Local government is loved by the left - Labour, the Greens and the Alliance passed the current legislation governing local government, which removed almost all of the restrictions on councils that had built up over the years - you see Sandra Lee, as local government Minister, had great visions of councils enabling the welfare of communities - this was strongly supported by the Labour left, including Judith Tizard (a former petty fascist herself) and the PM. You see to the left, local government is just another level of the state - it gives a chance to develop strategies, redistribute (steal and spend) money from ratepayers, and regulate and control people at the local level. It is also a chance (when the inevitable change in central government occurs) for local government to pursue leftwing policies to counter what central government does. Plenty of those in central government cut their teeth at local government, they just about wet themselves with enthusiasm to push people about.

^

You see, why would most people enter into local government if they didn't want to push people around? It pays poorly, it is interminably bureaucratic, is proscribed by government to perform a range of far reaching and intrusive activities (RMA for example), and has very little prestige outside the big city mayoralties (no this doesn't include Waitakere or Hamilton).

^

So I have some advice for the local body elections where you are. Since you get a little voting guide this should help you a lot, but here are some very important points:

^

1. The Mayor matters less than the media or the candidates claim. Mayors have no power beyond chairing the council, and having a casting vote in councils when they are hung. They have little budget, do not decide what roads are upgraded. Figurehead and promoter, but that is about it.

^

2. Most candidates use catchphrases to attract voters. Most of these are code for "I want to tell you what to do, use more ratepayers' money, ban activities, compel activities and tinker with activities that people don't actually want to pay for". Here they are:

- Sustainability (in other words, make you pay for uneconomic recycling, projects that look environmentally friendly but have had no objective appraisal, road transport is bad, public transport is good, protect trees, tell you what to do with your land, your house, your business, all because if you don't you're contributing to armageddon, by implication);

- Communities (in other words, thinks collectively. Doesn't respect private property rights, listens to busybody groups of activists, prepared to believe in groups above individuals, tribalist. Community making decisions about your business, home, how you play, travel - great!);

- Renewable, climate change, peak oil (Green party supporter, believes in armageddon and taxing/regulating subsidising anything that environmentalists think is good for the world - regardless of the evidence, in fact resists cost/benefit analysis)

- Free (you'll be forced to pay for it, rather than pay for it if you want to use it. Anyone suggesting anything that someone has to pay for must be free, is an advocate of socialism);

- Partnership (council will get together with other councils, central government or a corrupt symbiotic relationship with businesses that want favours to disadvantage you. You are excluded from any partnerships by definition);

- Accessibility (you'll be forced to pay to make it easier for people to work with the council or move about);

- Foreign (nobody standing for local government likes foreigners or money from overseas - anyone raising this is another isolationist luddite who thinks you can keep your head in the sand and make you pay for it. Should like North Korea);

- Public ownership (you bear the costs of poor decisions through rates, the councillors who make the decisions bear none of them.).

^

In essence, avoid anyone saying these things - they're after your money. When was the last time you saw a council candidate who said that if elected LESS would be done?

^

Simply - Bernard Darnton for Wellington Regional Council. If elected two things would be sure, he'd oppose rates increases and any growth in council activity, and he'd be mighty pissed off that he has to do it. What could be better than someone in council who is suspicious of councils, who wishes they would disappear and wants them to do less? Remember, HE was the one who took Labour to court over spending YOUR money on the pledge card campaign out of government funds for administration.

^

Besides Bernard, see if anyone else challenges the size of councils to be smaller - if so, a vote might be earned - as far as the rest? Ignore them, and think about what parties NEXT year want for local government. I wouldn't be enthused about the Nats though, Mark Blumsky is giving up, he doesn't know WHAT he could be doing - in which case we'd all be happier if he went back to shoes.

Mugabe should be no surprise

With the exception of South Africa's chief of corruption, scientific fraud and accessory to murder, Thabo Mbeki (or rather the ANC), and most other African kleptocrats political leaders, and some other gangsters (and Jacque Chirac), few disagree that Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe is a regime characterised by murder, political violence, use of starvation and theft as political tools, and must go. Few can fail to be moved by the despair of most Zimbabweans, of every colour (though many closed their eyes when only white Zimbabweans were victims of theft, assault, rape and even murder), especially now that Bulawayo now has people drinking sewer water, as Mugabe refuses to fix the water supply or assist that town - dominated by supporters of the opposition.

^

Even China has been withdrawing support (if only it would do the same for Burma then it might win respect, after all a new Burmese government is not going to want to turn its back on Chinese investment).

^

Setting aside the need to hold the disgraceful South African government to account (which is something the Western media and certainly few governments internationally are willing to do, as if Mbeki somehow basks in the glow of post-apartheid South Africa under Nelson Mandela) or indeed the legions of African regimes which, by and large, let their people down (not all, but many), it is worth noting that many noted right from the start that Mugabe was bad news. After all, Zimbabwe has been every bit the one-party authoritarian state since it was founded, New Zealand opened an embassy there under the Lange government, and sent the (allegedly very lazy) Chris Laidlaw to be High Commissioner. Every time I have heard him speaking about Mugabe it is as if things went wrong in the last few years, that there was so much hope - in the days when he banned political opposition and locked up and tortured opponents.

^

Now before the usual childish political trick of saying that criticising one government automatically means you support the previous one, it should be clear that Ian Smith's regime had to go - disenfranchising the majority of the population and operating a "benign" version of apartheid doesn't make it right. However, my case is that Mugabe has been worse and it was clear from the very start.

^

Mugabe is a Marxist-Leninist, and Marxist-Leninists have spilt the blood of over 100 million people in the last century. Mao and Stalin being by far the worst, but Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung and Mengistu did their best as well. Of course Mugabe is friends with North Korea, and Mengistu - the man responsible for converting Ethiopia from a food exporter in the 1970s to a famine ridden hell hole in the 1980s (not that you'd have learnt that from Bob Geldof) - is now one of Mugabe's chief advisors.

^

As Judith Todd has said in her forthcoming book "Through the Darkness: A Life in Zimbabwe" "Torture, corruption and disregard for the rule of law were the norm right away". As the Sunday Times reports:

^

"Mugabe broke all the rules – his guerrillas roamed the villages when they should have been at assembly camps, there was widespread intimidation and open violence against many opposition candidates: one such candidate was last seen pinned to the ground having red hot coals rammed down his throat. What fooled many people was that once Mugabe had forcibly incorporated Joshua Nkomo’s Zapu into his ruling Zanu-PF the country was so close to a one-party state that Mugabe simply didn’t need to show the iron fist, but it was always there. “As I try to show, there were a few people, like the guerrilla veteran, Aaron Mutiti, who understood Mugabe from the start. Aaron said in 1980, ‘Family life, religious life and economic life as we know it will progressively disappear if Mugabe gets to power’. "

^

Judith Todd's father was PM of Southern Rhodesia, but would be stateless if the NZ government hadn't granted her citizenship (certainly a bouquet for the Clark government for granting this, perhaps helping to make up for the fawning the previous Labour government issued to Mugabe's dictatorship).

^

What particularly grates is the likes of John Minto, who blames what Mugabe is doing on the West for "forcing" him to not implement Marxist economic policies at the time which has (get this) created the impoverishment of black Zimbabweans which is what he is responding to. However, Minto, as all members of the new left, are economic illiterates - they think Zimbabwe's economic disaster has something to do with holding onto capitalism, when the Mugabe regime has done progressively the opposite for years. Minto's Marxist credentials are well summarised by Trevor Loudon (and no, opposing apartheid is not a socialist position, it is a position of supporting individual freedom).

^

Of course the Maori Party did refuse to condemn Zimbabwe two years ago, refusing to back a Parliamentary resolution damning the regime - a position it has expunged Orwellian style from its website - and which tells you a lot about the racism that lies at the heart of those who founded the Maori Party. Solidarity with a despotic, kleptocratic murderer because he is African is vile, I hope Pita Sharples flies to Zimbabwe to go tell the starving, AIDS ridden, desperate Zimbabweans that it is a "bit of rough and tumble".

^

As Phil Goff has said "Zimbabwe has been independent now for 25 years, and was the richest country in Southern Africa. It has been destroyed by incompetence, greed, corruption and authoritarianism to the extent that life expectancy has dropped from 61 to 33 years."

^

The only point I'd add is why should we be surprised - and watch South Africa, it could very well be next.

Bravery in Rangoon

As Burmese monks and civilians continue to protest against the bullying military dictatorship, I can only hope that troops don't turn on them. Burma has long suffered under a bizarre regime of corrupt authoritarian thugs, funding themselves through pillaging Burma's forests, oil and gas supplies and its relationship with China.

^

Of course Western sanctions on Burma are increasingly weakened, thanks to China's bloodthirsty bullies cozying up to Rangoon, selling arms and investing in its client state - but then you wont see many people criticising Chinese imperialism will you?

^

The BBC has reported a curfew has been called, and the regime is not shy of opening fire on civilians, having killed 3000 in 1988 during previous protests.

^

Of course don't forget that if you and your friends wanted to be mercenaries to help confront Burma (or Zimbabwe or Syria) as dictatorships, Helen Clark and the Labour government banned that, supported by the Greens who always oppose violence, unless it is the state imposing its own law upon its own people. After all, the state is sovereign isn't it?