Labour bought the election?

Well of course it didn't - it isn't as simple as that, but it doesn't look like it played by the rules or the law.

.

David Farrar has reported here and here on the Electoral Commission referring the Labour Party to the Police for an alleged overspend of $446,815 over and above the limit of $2,380,000. This is because Labour believes that the pledge card should be a government not a party electoral expense - because policy pledges are not about getting elected are they?

.

Are they BOLLOCKS.

.

Had National done this, Labour would have given it enormous grief - and would have claimed taxpayers bought National the election - well I don't think amount of spending is as important as the nature of the spending. What IS wrong is taxpayers helping fund party campaigns, particularly just one party - that is corrupt.

.

The lame excuse is that "the electoral law was outdated and unclear". Oh dear, that's what to use in court - sorry judge, the law is outdated and unclear, I wouldn't have broken it otherwise, I'd like it to change. Outdated? So it should be legal for governments to spend taxpayers money on promoting the encumbent party in power?

.

If Peter Dunne and Winston Peters have any conscience, they will pull support if Labour is found guilty - the election was too close a race to make this NOT worth pursuing. Labour has played on an uneven pitch - and kiwis don't like unfair play. If things pan out, then there will be prosecutions and the issue remains as to whether Parliament in its current form should continue.

.

As much as the cost is something to baulk at, for Labour to retain any shred of credibility in this government, Parliament should be dissolved and another election called within 6 weeks. If Labour wont do it, National should call a no confidence motion and every party in Parliament should (Labour excepted) support it. What's a bet even the Greens and the Maori Party might even support it.

.

Labour has handed National a gift horse on a plate, heated it and served it with cutlery - now is National smart enough to know how to carve it?

Morales makes sense on one point

.
New Bolivian President Evo Morales sides with Castro and Venezuelan socialist strongman Hugo Chavez, and is rabidly anti-capitalist, but he has made sense on one point. Legalising the international sale of Coca.
.
He said to The Guardian: .

“You have to realise that, for us, the coca leaf is not cocaine and as such growing coca is not narco-trafficking," he says. "Neither is chewing coca nor making products from it that are separate from narcotics. The coca leaf has had an important role to play in our culture for thousands of years. It is used in many rituals. If, for example, you want to ask someone to marry you, you carry a coca leaf to them. It plays an important role in many aspects of life."
.
"I want to industrialise the production of coca and we will be asking the United Nations to remove coca leaf as a banned substance for export," he says. "That way, we can create markets in legal products such as tea, medicines and herbal treatments. There has even been research in Germany which shows that toothpaste made from coca is good for the teeth.

.

Coca-colgate? Maybe Coca Cola should have kept some in it for dental hygiene? Seriously though, this should be supported. I don't like Morales cuddling up to socialist dictators and his anti-capitalism, and I don't agree with them that cocaine should remain illegal, but it would be a good step forward to give Bolivia this carrot.

If the US legalised coca products, it would improve relations with Bolivia and help to nullify the new Latin American socialist alliance developing between Bolivia, Venezuela and Cuba.
.
Sadly, I doubt if it will. The US commitment to the war on drugs is only matched by the degree to which it has failed to stem the demand and supply.

£100 parking ticket!

Annoyed about a parking ticket you recently got? Think your council is screwing money out of you? Well you're probably not in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. British local government likes screwing the public for cash to pay for their petty planning, whilst still being incapable of maintaining high standards of street maintenance (most NZ councils have far better local road surfaces because the funding is tied to performance).

I was in a pay and display park on the street on Saturday morning in Chelsea – I was ticketed for being six minutes over the displayed time. I found this out about eight minutes over (when I went to check to buy another hour at the standard rate of £3 an hour). I couldn't find the fascist parking cop who did it - although K&C has a reputation for being strict on this, and I suspect it finds it easy to get fascists by hiring people outside the Borough who can't wait to punish the "evil rich people" who have cars in Chelsea.

So anyone in New Zealand ever got a £100 parking ticket for being six minutes over time (that you paid for) on a quiet back street?

Whither Iran

.

The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been most vocal in the discussion about the cartoons and has tastelessly announced a Holocaust cartoon competition.
.
As if comparing the belief of a religion (which is supernatural) to a historically documented genocide is equivalent. However, education in some Islamic societies teaches that the Holocaust didn’t happen.
.
It looks, on the face of it, given the intransigence of Iran on its nuclear programme, its desire to destroy Israel, its ongoing support, training and funding of terrorism, that it is looking for conflict.
.
The problem is that Iran is deeply divided. One argument made is that much of the Iranian population, particularly the 50% under 30, are pro-Western and have little time for Islamic fundamentalist. The fire of the Islamic revolution has by and large gone for that population. Don’t forget that Iranians are NOT Arabs and most do not speak Arabic, and the affinity that Ahmadinejad has with the Palestinians is not one that Iranians ethnically share. Iran’s political system does not provide a particularly good outlet for alternative views.
.
At the top is the Supreme Leader, who is the religious and state head of the country, selected from an Assembly of Experts (pope style). He then appoints the religious members of the Council of Guardians, who with members selected by the Parliament, vet political candidates for their consistency with the Islamic constitution.
.
So for starters, you can’t be a non-Islamic candidate or a Muslim candidate who does not believe that Islam should be the deciding factor in government. As a result, turnout at elections has varied. Only 10% turned out for the Tehran local elections, so Ahmadinejad was a Mayor with very little support.
.
Reformists have called for those opposing the regime to boycott the elections, but still 59.6% turnout for the 2005 Presidential election was reported, with Ahmadinejad getting 61.69% of the vote against more moderate reformist candidate Akbar Hāschemī Rafsanjānī. While not an overwhelming endorsement, it is still one that George Bush would have been very happy with. Democracy is, after all, the counting of heads, not what is in them.
.
So what does this mean? It means that given half the chance, a lot of Iranians would cheer the downfall of the Islamic Republic, particularly citizens of Tehran, and that by sheer demographics this will occur. The problem is it wont be soon enough.
.
You see Iran has a nuclear programme – one ironically that was started with the help of the USA in 1975 under President Gerald Ford. The objective was to help Iran develop nuclear power in order to free up its oil reserves for export to North America. Of course back then, Iran was governed by the Shah Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, who was overthrown an alliance of opposition groups (liberal and conservative), which was subsequently overtaken by the Islamic revolution. A Siemens/AEG Telefunken joint venture had signed a contract to build a nuclear power plant which was terminated after the revolution.
.
Iran’s nuclear programme was in abeyance during the 80s, due to the war with Iraq and a lack of interested western partners. In the 1990s Russia helped Iran develop the Bushehr facilities, under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections.
.
Iran under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty has the international legal right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, as long as it accepts inspections by the IAEA to ensure it is not developing a military capability. In 2002, an Iranian dissident pointed out there are secret nuclear facilities at two locations not subject to these inspections. By 2004, the IAEA is not convinced that Iran has responded adequately to these allegations, in response the Iranian government breaks seals of the IAEA on its equipment, and resumes building nuclear centifuges. By September 2004, the IAEA calls on Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment programme. By November 2005, following the Iranian elections, the IAEA is impatient, rightfully so, as Iran still refuses to allow inspections it is treaty bound to comply with.
.
So now the IAEA has voted 27-3 to submit its concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme to the UN Security Council. The Council can impose economic sanctions on Iran. Iran meanwhile has said it will resume uranium enrichment, denies it is pursuing nuclear weapons (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons on August 9, 2005, while its President sabre rattles against Israel.
.
Iran must not gain nuclear weapons. If it wanted to prove it had no such intent, it could do so by opening up its facilities to inspection. The fact that it refuses to do speaks volumes. Iran has several motives for gaining nuclear weapons:
.
1. Regime survival: Having been branded as part of the Axis of Evil by George Bush and seen the regime change the US implemented in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is reason to believe it could be next. Having a nuclear capability would deter the US, the sooner it gets it the better.
.
2. Threaten Israel: Iran would want to deter any possible Israeli strike of Iranian facilities and to use a nuclear capability as a bargaining chip for its proxies (Hizbullah) in the region. At worst, it could supply terrorists with a small device to explode at an Israeli target, dramatically raising the stakes of the Palestinian conflict.
.
3. Status in the region: With neighbours Pakistan, India and China all nuclear, Iran will feel it can have a greater say in regional affairs with a nuclear capability.
.
So what now? Dialogues, sanctions, war, overthrow of the regime? Are enough Iranians disenchanted that they will deal to the government if it goes too far, or do words need to be backed up by action? More to follow tomorrow.

Cheers Rodney, shame on Brash

.

Rodney Hide has come out solidly in favour of free speech – which I thoroughly commend. He said:
.
“Prime Minister Helen Clark should unequivocally stand up for New Zealanders’ freedom and that includes the freedom of our press. Instead, she is undermining it. She should not condemn our media for reporting the news. She should instead condemn attempts by violent groups to bully and to censor our news. Of course, we must be respectful of other people’s cultures and beliefs. That’s a simple matter of politeness and a pragmatic recognition of what it takes to live in a diverse and tolerant world. But we must never surrender our freedom and the freedom of our press out of a misplaced respect for another culture or set of beliefs. To do that is to trade away our culture of an open and free society where we can debate the issues of the day both seriously and with humour as free citizens in a free country. That means that people will on occasions be offended. In an open and free society we accept that.”

.

Too right Rodney. Encouraging words indeed, of course he was only following the Libertarianz press release from Leader Bernard Darnton :)

.
NZ First has expressed a view (beyond Winston’s statement which may or may not represent NZ First, as he is part of the government, but his party isn’t .. whatever that means).
.
Doug Woollerton is concerned about the trade impacts, but has at least taken a sensible approach saying:
.
“The rights or wrongs of editorial decisions to publish the cartoons will undoubtedly be debated for some time to come, and that is healthy and will hopefully lead to greater understanding and tolerance on both sides of the debate.”
.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of free speech, but at least acknowledgement that having the debate is better than shutting it down.
.
Meanwhile, as has already been noted, the Maori Party is now the new party of censorship.
.
As Not PC has pointed out, it would help if Tariana Turia had a sense of humour. Her own belief in ghosts that speak to her is utterly hilarious. She asks “what’s the joke?” the answer is – it doesn’t matter.
.
In addition, Pita Sharples said:
.
“It's one thing to promote freedom of the press and freedom of expression, but quite another to use those rights to justify the decision to insult religions and beliefs”
.
So I cannot insult the belief that homosexuals are sinners, are that of their own free will and should burn in hell for that? I cannot insult the belief that women who expose any part of their body to men and are then raped are partially responsible for the rape and deserve some punishment over and above that? I cannot insult the belief that people of dark skin were made by God to be slaves? I cannot insult the belief that rats were Jews?
.
Well Tariana Turia and Dr Sharples can just fuck off – sincerely. I don't apologise for that language - I find their sensitivities over religion to be pathetic. I find religion to be insulting, as it is irrational and often contradictory to life. I find many beliefs to be either hilarious funny or downright insulting.
.
Of course, try making jokes about Maori religions or myths in New Zealand, and see how much free speech we REALLY have.
.
Everyone in New Zealand ought to bear in mind that there are ALREADY LAWS prohibiting insulting people on colour, racial, ethnic or national origins. The Human Rights Commission (Human Wrongs Commissariat in Libz speak) states:
.
It is unlawful for any person:
To publish or distribute written matter which is threatening, abusive, or insulting, or to broadcast by means of radio or television words which are threatening, abusive or insulting; or
To use in any public place as defined in s.2(1) of the Summary Offences Act 1981, or within the hearing of persons in any such public place, or at any meeting to which the public are invited or have access, words which are threatening, abusive, or insulting; or
To use in any place words which are threatening, abusive, or insulting if the person using the words knew or ought to have known that the words were reasonably likely to be published in a newspaper, magazine, or periodical or broadcast by means of radio or television,
Being matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons in or who may be coming to New Zealand on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national origins of that group of persons.
.
Now this is not within the scope of the Human Rights Acts, which the Race Relations Commissioner has pointed out – as being Muslim isn’t ethnic. The argument sometimes made is that religion is a matter of choice, but ethnicity is not. Well, really?
.
If a newspaper published jokes about taniwhas, tapu and other Maori supernatural beliefs, would this be tolerated? The Maori Party clearly wouldn’t, but how would the Human Wrongs Commissariat react?
.
So what of National? On the one hand Murray McCully has rightfully said that he respected the decision by the Press and Dominion Post to publish the cartoons as they had the right to do so. Whereas Brash deplored the publication and essentially agreed with the PM’s approach. He said it was reportedly “irresponsible, insensitive and in bad taste”.
.
Well sorry Don, you are wrong – and frankly this approach means you no longer deserve to be leader of the National Party.
.
The two newspapers concerned have reported on a news story and reported about what was published to cause an outcry of violence and intimidation in many countries. Peaceful people have been threatened because of the reaction, yet you say nothing about this – this vile appeasement is beneath you.

.
Why does a Muslim have a moral right to religion, but we don't have the right to freedom of speech? Why defend those who are insulted against those who stand up for what you, reportedly, believe in?

.

Why, when journalists uphold free speech and those offended respond with death threats, do you censure the journalists? Then again, National was the party that brought us the Human Wrongs Act in the first place, the party that toughened up censorship laws across the board in 1993 and voted for the toughening up introduced by Labour last term (yes it was motivated by child pornography which is fine, but it also covered magazines on cannabis and erotic letters).
.
As Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute said:
.
Blasphemy violates no one's rights; whoever finds such cartoons offensive, can avert his gaze. To cave in to intimidation and not publish anything Muslims (or any other group) feel is offensive is to surrender the crucial principle of free speech.
.
Ultimately, this clash is about respecting man’s right to express his views, however unpopular, in the face of religious attempts to subordinate that right to mystical dogmas.

.

The free speech so many of us want to defend isn't that free when the leaders of the two major parties regard it as less important than ensuring people aren't offended. Free speech as long as you don't offend anyone is not free speech.

God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh

So said Voltaire, of course there is no god. It is also sad that the audience includes most New Zealand politicians. Helen Clark, Chris Carter, Winston Peters, Don Brash, Rodney Hide, Peter Dunne, Keith Locke - all too afraid to laugh, in public at least, all too afraid to stand up against the violence now being perpetrated against Danish, Norwegian and other European targets. Testicularly challenged the lot of them.

.

Libertarianz is the only NZ political party to have supported the right to publish the Danish cartoons. ACT and National should hang their heads in shame, gutless in defending values against the mindlessness of religion fueled hatred.

.

Well we know what the government thinks - Chris Carter saying:

.

"It is hard to see why the publication of cartoons known to be deeply offensive to Muslim communities is such an important point of principle to the New Zealand media who have published them." This coming from a man who played North Korean propaganda songs when he hosted the Labour Party show on Radio Liberty on Sundays when it existed in the mid 1990s.

.

Helen Clark expresses an opinion, when she should have just shut up - it is inappropriate for the government to express a view on what newspapers publish. She isn't expressing outrage at embassies being torched, she should simply have said the papers have a right to publish what they wish, New Zealand is an open an tolerant society and debate on this issue should proceed without the interference of politicians. That is broadly what the Australian Labour Party Foreign Affairs spokesman, Kevin Rudd said:

.

"These decisions should be made on their journalistic merit by Australia's news media, we should not be kowtowing to anybody when it comes to freedom in this country."

.

What the HELL is it going to take for the National Party to speak up?

.

The National Party remains silent - probably trying to figure out whether or not to follow the populist view of supporting freedom of speech or fearing being branded racist and bigoted for doing so. United Future is also doing so, given that it incorporated an immigrant party some years ago, Peter Dunne wouldn't dare saying anything. DPF reported Winston talking about how the Arab world had been insulted, showing his difficulty in comprehending that Islam is bigger than the Arab world, and the Arab world is more diverse than Islam. ACT, well I would hope Rodney Hide would have said something by now.

.

Pita Sharples has shown the Maori Party's preciousness about insults by saying:

.

"It's one thing to promote freedom of the press and freedom of expression, but quite another to use those rights to justify the decision to insult religions and beliefs"

.

In other words, freedom of the press does not exist. Why can I not insult anyone believing that there is a teapot orbiting the earth where there is a genie who is a god? Why is Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or any other form of ghost worshipping different?

.

Keith Locke on the other hand showed that the Greens are with Labour in its hand wringing, mealy mouthed appeasement of bigots and violence mongering. Although the Frogblog comments show Green supporters more split on this than you may think:

.

"Rather than blame Muslims for their reaction, we should strive to make our community more tolerant of Islam, and see it as a peaceful religion. We can’t judge Islam, or any other world religion, by the small minority of extremists within its ranks."

.

Ok let's not blame Muslims? Why not? If one of the thugs who protested in London calling for the beheading of anyone who offended Islam (are you on that list?) actually carries out this act will it be because he has a psychotic commitment to his religion, or is it the fault of the USA and global capitalism, or did I do it? This is akin to blaming a rape victim for looking too sexy for the rapist - he's peaceful usually, just you provoked him!

.

Some on the far left are claiming the cartoons are a fascist conspiracy because the newspaper that first published them was pro Nazi in the 1930s. They also claim this is part of an anti-immigrant agenda in Denmark. This may be true, but it has unlocked a belief in violence that the cartoons could never demonstrate. As far as fascist credentials are concerned you may as well talk about those on the left who defended Mao, the USSR, Pol Pot, Ceausescu and other evils. Keith Locke's youthful exuberance for Pol Pot and the USSR are well known.

.

This "small minority of extremists" that Locke claims exist - are enough for 14 governments to officially condemn it and call for action - enough for the Syrian government to sit back and let embassies be torched - in a totalitarian state where dissent is not tolerated. While he is right that you cannot judge all Muslims according to what a small number say, I dont see protests in Muslim countries defending freedom of speech and calling for debate about Islam - you wont, it isn't allowed. I don't see Arab Muslim run newspapers agreeing to stop printing antisemitic cartoons.

.

If there was a cartoon lampooning the National Front and National Front members torched the publisher of the cartoon - the Greens would not say "you can't judge the National Front by this". Similarly, the Greens would be the first to claim that environmentalist Volkert van der Graaf who murdered semi libertarian gay Dutch politician Pym Fortuyn, did not represent how peaceful environmentalists are.

.

The Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand naturally want the cartoons withdrawn and apologies made, saying that freedom of expression does not include mocking other religions and their beliefs. Well actually it does!

.

Beyond all that, I thought some quotes from Voltaire would be enlightening at this point:

.

"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too."

.

"One hundred years from my day there will not be a Bible in the earth except one that is looked upon by an antiquarian curiosity seeker." (if only he were right and that goes for the Koran too).

.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

.

Finally, Lindsay Perigo has called for Islam (as a belief system) to be put to death by shaming - not its adherents put to death - but the religion and the ideas it promulgates. He calls on Muslims to discover rationality and decency, and for those who defend the values of Western civilisation to do the very same.

Moving on beyond Te Tiriti o Waitangi

Good on Julian Pistorius (who blogged it), Tim Wikiriwhi, Helen Hughes (all 2005 Libz candidates) and other Libz members and supporters who went to Waitangi to protest – against those who advocate using the Treaty as a means of separating New Zealand politically into two states.
.
As PC has pointed out, the Treaty was not the basis for a future constitution. I like Stephen Frank’s interpretation which states that the Treaty essentially was Maori ceding overall governance of New Zealand to the British Crown (which later devolved virtually all of that to a New Zealand government), while Maori were guaranteed property rights over what they owned. A good starting point at best, where you have full control over your body and your property, while the government exists to protect that and arbitrate on disputes between you and your neighbours.
.
Unfortunately the Treaty has come to mean many things to different people – the partnership it embodies for some was relevant in 1840 – when there were two representative collectives – the tribes that signed the Treaty and the British Crown. However, today all New Zealand citizens elect representatives at the central and local government level, and everyone’s views through that system have relatively equal merit (democracy then being a head counting exercise). To say that I as a New Zealanders born not of Maori descent (I think. I was adopted so have no idea about one side of my ancestry) have less right to be consulted or have my views considered that one who is, is sheer racist nonsense. Nobody is special because of their ancestry – Hitler believed people were – so does Slobodan Milosevic.

.

All who wish should use, promote and sustain the Maori language and cultural traditions - New Zealand would be worse off if this did not happen - but it should thrive because people want it, and get a sense of life from it, not because they feel obligated to do so. Most of all, as long as a language, traditions, culture and beliefs are consistent with people being able to live their lives happily, and make choices about how they want to live, let it live. It would be mundane indeed if we were monolingual and had the same tastes and traditions. With the explicit and implicit racism of the past behind us, it is time to look forward. We are not one people, we are 4 million people, there should not be homogenisation, because all individuals are different and will live in different ways. Being Maori or Chinese or being a New Zealander is one expression of this, but it is not THE expression.

.

The main grievance claimed under the Treaty is the theft of property in the name of the Crown mainly in the 19th century. It is appropriate that this be investigated and, if the Crown still owns the property concerned, that it be returned. It is also appropriate that the Crown consider whether state or council held land could be in better stewardship by local iwi, especially if there is regular iwi or hapu usage. As long as private property rights of others are protected and recognised, the rights of those who had their land stolen should be. Having said that, the laws of evidence must be upheld. The High Court should undertake this task, instead of the Waitangi Tribunal, which should be wound up. This will ensure objectivity and politics around settling claims are avoided, but also mean that decisions can be appealed and the court rulings are binding – unlike the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal. It will mean claims for satellite orbital slots become irrelevant – but claims over fisheries and lands are not. It will give iwi the incentive to get it right and courts to be fair, and not political. The traditional left will fear the court system as much as the traditional right fears binding rulings on land claims - but this is about doing right against state theft.
.
I will not repeat what others have said, but I believe New Zealand should become a constitutional republic – IF (and it is a BIG if), it protects the life, bodies, liberty and property of adults, and restricts the state to acting to protect those goals. However, nobody in the republican movement in New Zealand believes in this, at all.

Now who is being offensive?

The cartoon image on the left comes from Al Ahram, an Egyptian newspaper, which published this on 21 April 2001, though not in its English language edition.

.

The cartoon image on the right is from Arab News, of Saudi Arabia, published 10 April 2002. Interestingly, opinions supporting freedom of speech against Islam are absent in both papers.
.
This and other images depicting Jews, Americans or the west as being murderous, carrying out the 9/11 attacks and part of some insane conspiracy are a matter of course across the Arab world. Not only are these undoubtedly offensive to those portrayed, but are blood thirsty with violence – something that is comparatively rare in western newspapers. There are plenty more here and here.
.
So continuing that theme and following on from the protests and condemnations of governments of some predominantly Muslim countries, we now have armed thugs (Islamic Jihad and the Yasser Arafat brigades) surrounding EU offices in Gaza demanding apologies from the governments of Denmark, Norway, Germany and France, about the comic strips satirising Islam published in newspapers in their respective countries. They are threatening to attack civilians from those countries in Gaza if there are not official apologies.
.
Evil fuckers.
.
How dare they believe that the actions of privately owned newspapers are the business of the government or that doing violence to people who happen to come from the same place, is somehow a just reaction to being offended? Well, look at September 11 – that is how they believe it.
.
So are there double standards here? Not by the West – Christianity is satirised constantly in Western press, music and television. The BBC comedy Father Ted being one example, where priests are depicted as being incompetent, really stupid or drunk and lecherous.
.
The hypocrisy lies with the Muslim Arab world in particular which tolerates the depictions seen above - but then again, with total state control over media and education, any lies or slander about the rest of the world has little chance to be challenged.

.
EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson said that any trade sanctions against Denmark must be considered as sanctions against the whole EU, and that action will be taken at the WTO if WTO member states impose such restrictions. However, many of the states protesting are not WTO members, such as Saudi Arabia and Syria – they don’t have the rule of law to achieve membership, but others such as Indonesia and Malaysia do.
.
Charles Bremner, Paris Correspondent for The Times congratulates France Soir for having the balls to print all 12 of the Danish cartoons across two pages.

.
The online edition of the Spectator is publishing one of the images, but none of the British newspapers has the courage to do so, although plenty Daily Telegraph readers are encouraging it – you can understand the Telegraph’s editor wondering whether it is worth risking the lives of his staff for it, given London remains a high profile terrorist target. New Zealand newspapers have far less to fear, and I hope one prints them. In fact, I dare the NZ Herald, Dominion Post, the Press and the ODT to print them all.
.
The editor of the Danish Jyllands-Posten, Carsten Juste, apologised for the offence caused but is not saying sorry for the publication. “the dark dictatorships have won” he said.
.
No they have not.
.
The final words are an extract from France Soir, published in the Guardian. Don't let anyone tell you that French people can lack courage when their freedoms are fundamentally under attack.
.
“It is necessary to crush once again the infamous thing, as Voltaire liked to say. This religious intolerance that accepts no mockery, no satire, no ridicule. We citizens of secular and democratic societies are summoned to condemn a dozen caricatures judged offensive to Islam. Summoned by who? By the Muslim Brotherhood, by Syria, the Islamic Jihad, the interior ministers of Arab countries, the Islamic Conferences - all paragons of tolerance, humanism and democracy.
.
So, we must apologise to them because the freedom of expression they refuse, day after day, to each of their citizens, faithful or militant, is exercised in a society that is not subject to their iron rule. It's the world upside down. No, we will never apologise for being free to speak, to think and to believe.

.
Because these self-proclaimed doctors of law have made this a point of principle, we have to be firm. They can claim whatever they like but we have the right to caricature Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha, Yahve and all forms of theism. It's called freedom of expression in a secular country ...

.
For centuries the Catholic church was little better than this fanaticism. But the French Revolution solved that, rendering to God that which came from him and to Caesar what was due to him.”

.

Now it is time for the Muslim world which is so outraged personally to stop for a second, and instead of looking at themselves, shut up, listen and learn four points:

.

1. We in the West are not all Christians and most of us couldn't care less what religion you follow. It is your business, why not let whether or not we follow Islam (or any religion) be our business. With the exception of a minority of nutters, we don't want to convert you.

.

2. We in the West have limited the power of governments to regulate what is published in newspapers, since they are almost always privately owned and anyone can set up their own newspaper or magazine to spread the ideas they wish. Our governments have not got the power to interfere in the publication of a newspaper or the lives of our citizens unless laws have been passed, by democratically elected parliaments, to allow it. Politicians are subservient to the law - something that most of your societies do not yet have, where Kings and Presidents have unlimited powers.

.

3. We in the West do not fear Islam. Unlike your societies where Islam is taught from birth, and schools, media and publishing do not contradict it - ours lets people choose their religion or not to have a religion. Yes there are social problems involving crime and poverty, but you are not without those yourself - on average, people in our societies have higher standards of living and more ability to live life and be happy than those in yours. You may find a lot of it offensive, but you have no more right to tell others what to do, that we have to tell you. Ask yourself why you fear your religion being challenged - if you have been convinced of the wisdom and justice of Islam, why do you think that alternative views could change that? Are your arguments strong enough to stand scrutiny? Surely they must be!

.

4. We in the West get offended all the time, by different religions, politicians, businesses, individuals, and we do not resort to violence to respond to it. We have learnt that there is no right to not be offended. Many of us are offended by your traditions, and the stories and images portraying Europeans, Americans and Israelis in your media. We wont threaten violence against Muslims in our countries because your newspapers print such images, so why should you? Why are you so ready to use violence instead of engage in discussion?

.

I am so sick of religion - it IS the root of so much evil.

Abandon Saddam's trial - execute him

Elan Journo of the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) has proposed that Saddam's trial be scrapped, because it is manifestly injust.

.

His arguments are that Saddam is not like any private citizen, who has the right to be presumed innocent and for whom culpability for crimes should be proven objectively by a court. Saddam was a dictator, who was responsible for the tens of thousands of murders perpetrated by the regime he led - a regime that did not have the consent of the governed and granted no rights to them. Presuming him innocent is absurd, since he is indisputably guilty.

.

He also claims that the court is farcical, by giving Hussein a stage to condemn his political enemies, the USA and to encourage terrorist insurgency.

.

Journo suggests there be a public hearing to document the evil acts of his regime, and then he be summarily executed.

.

He also argues that the existing court is not much better than courts under Hussein's regime. Only members of Saddam's tribe were seen fit to judge him "Whatever the tribal group feels is just--regardless of evidence or logic--is just. A trial conducted on this premise is a repudiation of justice asan objective principle."

.

He is right - in fact a better (though not ideal) model for this is Romania, where the crimes of Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu were clear - and they were executed after a brief trial, when their crimes were outlined. Having been disposed of appropriately, Romanians could start picking up the pieces of their country.

.

Saddam Hussein is responsible for waging war against his own people, against Iran and Kuwait, and murdering and torturing political opponents. He is responsible for running a totalitarian dictatorship that ran roughshod over the rights of his citizens.

.

I oppose the death penalty - because I do not believe the state has the right to kill civilians when convicted of crimes - and because the state getting that wrong is a far greater evil than it letting the guilty go free.

.

Saddam Hussein is not a private citizen, he was a ruthless tyrant. There will never be any question of his guilt and the atrocities he is responsible for. He lost the right to live when he ran a state committed to brutal thuggery.

.

The United States should not support this trial and withdraw any assistance it has provided to it - no man with any sense of honour should be defending this thug.

.

Saddam should be executed, following a public hearing of evidence of those who were witness to the crimes of the regime - that deserves publicity and a reminder of the evil that has been overthrown.

Iraqi chemical weapons shipped to Syria before war?

Hat tip to Teenage Pundit for linking to an article at the New York Sun where former Iraqi general Georges Sada claims that Iraqi chemical weapons were flown to Syria in advance of the coalition invasion. His book “Saddam’s Secrets” makes the claim and he says that they need to be found. Syria did not sign the Chemical Weapon’s Convention, and has long been suspected of having chemical weapons.
.
The CIA has been unable to verify these claims, but they could explain why nothing was found in Iraq after the invasion. Iraq had chemical weapons, it used them at least twice, it was unlikely to have destroyed them. Both Iraq and Syria have been ruled by Baathist Party regimes, although they were not always allied – Hafez El Assad (former Syrian dictator) was no friend of Saddam.
.
Of course that, plus President George Bush’s declaration that the US is addicted to oil and needs to find alternatives to Middle East sourced oil (including biofuels and hydrogen), wont dent the left’s conspiracy theories that the Iraqi war was just to bolster the oil industry.

Insulting religions is a right

Yes it is.

.

Islam (Shia, Sunni), Judaism (Orthodox, Hasidic, Conservative, Reform, Karaite), Christianity (Orthodox, Catholic, Presbyterian, Anglican, Evangelical, Baptist, Methodist, Seventh Day Adventist), Hinduism, Shintoism and all other worshipping of the supernatural is the denial of the mind and offensive to me - and anyone of any faith who wants to persecute me because I am an atheist can get fucked - and I will use all reasonable means to defend myself against it.

.

The Koran, Bible, Torah, Shruti and other religious texts are books to me - stories, with no spiritual status. I have the freedom to burn them if I desire or throw them away in the rubbish. Fundamentalist Islam and the brainless drones that worshop Brian Tamaki are the same - much like the this-wordly religions of political fanatacism that Hitler, Stalin, Mao and others cultivated.

.

So go on, declare a fatwa on me.

.

Meanwhile, the House of Lords is earning its keep defending these freedoms. First it defeated the ID card bill, by insisting that it be explicitly voluntary. Now it has referred the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill back to the House of Commons, after removing the element that would have prohibited “insulting or abusive” speech against religions, and inserting “intent” as a critical part of offences under the Bill. What the Bill intends to do is to prohibit the spreading of hatred against religions, with the emphasis being to target Muslims and Christians who incite holy war against each other. In fact, a coalition of comedians, Christians, Muslims, libertarians, humanists and other atheists have been opposing the Bill.
.
Of course the Bill should be defeated. There is no right to “not be offended”. I find Islam and Christianity both quite offensive, and freedom of speech demands that you have the right to criticise or blaspheme against them. I think the world would be a better place without either religion, but that does not mean I want to do violence against those who believe or spread the beliefs. Far from it. I want to convince people that believing in ghosts who you should sacrifice your life to is at best a waste of time and energy, and at worst is self destructive, destructive to others and delusional. The age of persecuting people because of what they think of your religion belongs in the dark ages.
.
It is also encouraging that blogs on the right (Sir Humphreys and DPF) and left (No Right Turn) have both celebrated this. Like I have said before, I like Tony Blair a lot, but the insidious political correctness and willingness to override civil liberties short sightedly is a major drawback. Fortunately David Davis has confirmed the Tories opposed this move – though I wonder how much the Conservative party opposed it because it was a Labour bill, rather than any solid commitment to freedom – but it is at least a start.
.
An example is the dispute caused by the Danish newspaper which was blogged by DPF. The newspaper – Morgenavisen Jyllands- Posten - published cartoons depicting Muslim men wearing bombs instead of turbans. See them all here, and the response from the newspaper (in English) to criticism and the jihad placed upon them. One could hardly find a better example of the “Clash of Civilisations” predicted by Samuel Huntington in the early 1990s. Western liberal constitutional democracy vs. Islamic authoritarian theocracy.
.
Ambassadors and Foreign Ministers from predominantly Islamic countries have called for the Danish government to act against the newspaper. None of them understand that in the free world, governments do not censor on command, nor do they have the legal powers to do so. Constitutional democracies in western Europe have limits on the power of the executive and parliament – limits that leaders in Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan do not have.
.
It was also reported that in Belgium, a young Muslim immigrant published a poster of the Virgin Mary with naked breasts seen here, as promotion for a play . However, will Muslims see that in a predominantly Christian nation, this is not only allowed, but was even subsidised by the state (which, of course, I would oppose - Muslims shouldn't fund what is offensive to them through the state). The treatment of the Danish newspaper is akin to that of the Dutch artist who was murdered for publishing photos of naked women with words from the Koran on their backs, reported in the earlier story.
.
It is one thing to be offended, another thing to call for a boycott of a newspaper, but to boycott all of the goods from a country where a newspaper is published and demand that the government of that country do something – when it has no legal powers to act, and when doing so would be grossly offensive to THAT country’s way of life and culture, shows a primitive attitude to people, nations and culture. The newspaper is responsible, Danes are not, many Danes do not buy the newspaper, and the government has nothing to do with it. Government in Denmark does not control every aspect of your life, and does not have the power to do so – individual Danes act on their own volition, not as an amorphous unified whole. This is why far more people from the Middle East emigrate to western Europe than vice versa and why the standard of living in western Europe is higher than in the theocracies complaining about the cartoon. People in the west can be creative, productive, innovative and be free, without some mullah overseeing whether it is offensive or not.
.
More importantly, the violent reaction by a minority of Muslims (and the acquiescence by more) to anything which offends their religion is stone age barbarity – where there is no argument, just the gun. The use of violence to respond to an insult is the tool of the uncivilised thug.
.
Danes should remain defiant – what that newspaper is doing is fighting for the freedoms we all have to criticise religions. A freedom that much of the Islamic world does not have – because Islam’s defenders fear it. They fear reason, they fear the debate, the moral critique which comes from responding to other beliefs with talk and reason, not threats and bombs.
.
A clear message has to be given to Muslims and governments from Islamic countries – there is another way of looking at the world – one where there is a right to freedom of speech, including freedom to offend. Many of your traditions are offensive to us – we find your treatment of women to be degrading, treating them as less than men, and we find your intolerance of different points of view and different forms of cultural expression to be insulting to our intelligence.
.
Either the Islamic world catches up with the enlightenment and looks in on itself, or it will get offended time and time again – and if any Muslims take the law into their own hands in western countries, they can expect the consequences.

.

By the way, check out Ask the Imam website, with its proclamations of what is legal under Islam - don't be plucking those eyebrows now girls!

UPDATE: and good on The Whig for publishing these blasphemous images. I wonder if the Iranian Embassy will be asking Winston Peters as Minister of Foreign Affairs to act against the blog.

The End of Celebrity Big Brother UK

I am SOO bloody thrilled that George “I miss the USSR” Galloway got booted from Celebrity Big Brother here in the UK on Wednesday night. So did Dennis Rodman, although that is probably more because he blew up at Chantelle – the dizzy blonde Essex girl who I think will end up winning.

So the final is tonight, and in penance for my sin in watching such tripe, I wont be watching any TV after Saturday – as I am moving flats this weekend, from a furnished flat to an unfurnished bigger one with my girlfriend. As a result, I wont have a TV till the one I have ordered appears next weekend.

So, for Big Brother those that are left are:

Michael Barrymore: A rather sad and wornout man, who is obsessive about cleaning, cooking and keeping busy. He blows up about control over cigarettes, but generally has a heart of gold. You can see why he fled to NZ, and the British tabloid media will have another fieldday with him. He wont win, unless there are more older British viewers than I think.

Traci Bingham: Known for being a Baywatch babe, she studied psychology at Harvard, though it is unclear whether she graduated. She has been notable mainly for her Californian expressions of “loving” this and that, and “oh wow”, and for having big tits. She wont win because she is American.

Samuel Preston: Lead Singer of the band “Ordinary Boys”, who has come across as the young pretty nice guy. He hasn’t shown much else, other than defending Barrymore from an attack by Galloway, and his pent up sexual frustration with Chantelle. That is the main issue, as apparently his French girlfriend outside the Big Brother house is less than amused by him fondling Chantelle’s bum in the house. Having said that, he has a fair chance of winning – girls like him.

Maggot: A Welsh “hip hop artist” from the band “Goldie Lookin’ Chain” which is a piss take of gangsta rap – which is a good thing, since gangsta rap (or Negro chanting as Bob Jones calls it) is not music, but basically inane rhythmic poetry at best. Maggot isn’t the best looking guy, so he wont win, but he is largely a nice guy.

Pete Burns: Dead or Alive’s diva, who showed himself to be the bitchiest in the room, but also the person who was very WYSIWYG. You know where you stood with him, and he would get angry and then get over it. His appearance is notable for involving much cosmetic surgery, including lip enhancement which has gone horribly wrong (and which he is suing for), but also dressing rather spectacularly (and explicitly). Skirt which show half his bum cheeks off have been common. He claims to not be a transvestite nor transsexual, but that he simply likes wearing the clothes he wears – and that nobody criticises women for wearing trousers and shirts. He has been a polarising figure – many hate him for his cruel comments to many in the house, and for his possession of a monkey skin coat, others find him hilariously entertaining. There have been allusions to him having a beastly childhood, which could explain his character and nature, but he is definitely a star in his own right.

Chantelle Houghton (see pic): She describes herself as a bright (as in happy not intelligent), blonde bimbo. A Paris Hilton lookalike (largely by accident), she came across as being not very bright, but sweet and naïve. She acts very young, has the naivety of a girl ten years younger than herself, and is genuinely polite and thoughtful. She backed off Preston when it was clear he was worried about what his girlfriend would think, and she is the clear favourite to win. She is not famous for anything except this show – a nonebrity – she can’t sing, she can’t do anything besides look like Paris Hilton and say very ditzy things. Classic phrases like “what’s a gynaecologist”, “are you from Dundee” (to Maggot who is Welsh) .

So that is that – my money is on Chantelle to win. Britain loved Jade Goody, another nobody from Big Brother. A woman who has made a fortune being common, speaking explicitly and being ignorant (she once said “I thought Portugal was in Spain”). They will love Chantelle, she doesn’t make them feel stupid, she hasn’t done much – which most locals will relate to – and she is pretty and sweet, and not arrogant about it, which is hard to find unpleasant. She is sweet, but she isn’t special. She will make a small fortune out of doing nothing – that is way of culture today.

Those in NZ who care who wins can read it on the UK Channel 4 website.

Toll existing Auckland roads?

The call by the Mayors in Auckland to toll existing roads is a healthy one. They want to do it to raise more money to build roads, but it will have a number of impacts when it eventually happens – and I believe it is inevitable. It will cut demand at peak times sufficiently that there wont be a need to build many new roads – this should please the Greens, as well as the economists. You see with road pricing, if done properly, everyone wins. The loony leftwing populist Residents Action Movement (RAM) which won some seats at the local body elections two years ago opposes it, and frankly it is a bunch of conspiracy theory driven lunatic rabid slobbering at the mouth old fashioned socialists.

The Auckland Mayors want road pricing to get additional money (to build more roads), rather than replace existing charges – it should replace rates and mean a cut in petrol tax – that is the main argument for it. Then at off peak times you pay next to nothing, compared to peak times – on average, the same amount of money is collected to pay for road maintenance and construction.

With road pricing, done properly and on a commercial basis, the motorist wins because roads are no longer congested – you can pretty much guarantee that if you pay for the road, you’ll get to where you are going on time. In addition, instead of a tax you pay with petrol, the money you pay goes to whoever runs the roads, so your roads are better maintained and there is money to pay for new roads when they are really needed. Public transport wins, because buses and taxis wont be on congested roads and pricing means that they are more competitive with cars (as the price of road space can be more readily spread among many passengers). Residents win because there is less traffic and less pollution. Environmentalists like it because it reduces congestion, reduces emissions and improves the attractiveness of modes other than driving. People in uncongested parts of the country win because they can no longer complain about paying for Auckland’s roads (which they never actually did anyway) – Aucklanders would be paying for their roads explicitly. Businesses like it because they have certainty of journey time.

and who can argue against paying for what you use - well plenty...

The problem is that as long as roads are run through socialist central planning with flat rate pricing, we don’t KNOW if there aren’t enough roads, too much roads or if it is about right. If a company ran all of the state highways and main arterial roads in Auckland, it would price vehicles to pay for the cost of maintaining those roads (and non-state highways are about half funded from rates) and to keep traffic flowing. Why? Because stationery traffic doesn’t pass a toll point or generate many kilometres of travel – some toll roads overseas do this, and it works. Yes revenue is high at peak times, but for about a third of the day the roads are underutilised – and the price is very low at those times. The price would be higher in the peak direction flow in the morning (to the city) than in the other direction. Just like airlines, phone companies, hotels and other services. Peak demand would be suppressed by pricing, but if there was sufficient high demand spread out during the day, a road company may pay for more lanes or a new road. Another company may build another road. At peak times, people who drive would choose to pay to get a fast trip, or catch the bus or train, or businesses may shift to less congested areas, which is surely a good thing. In addition, telecommuting and other more innovative ways of working would get an enormous boost – because the resource that is run like a Polish shipyard (the roads) are now priced properly.

So what about the arguments against it? I thought I should go through RAM’s “facts” on its press release and see how true they are (note RAM has no website):

1. “tolls will likely have a negative impact on those who can least afford them, being - low and middle income earners, students, the elderly, those who do not live close to work and those who are not close to public transportation. In addition, tolls will probably cause house prices to rise near work centres.” Well this is called pricing, but lets think about this rationally. Road pricing will match congestion, and be targeted at peak times (when unemployed people and the elderly never travel, or shouldn’t travel!), on routes to the central city (where most low income earners don’t work). It will mainly impact on people middle to upper income with jobs in the central city – but regardless, this is about people paying for what they use. Road space is at a premium on certain routes at certain times, at those times you pay for the privilege.

2. “Low income workers tend to travel greater distances across Auckland than other groups and will be most disadvantaged if tolls, cordon or other, are introduced.” This depends entirely how a scheme is developed, but most of these workers aren’t working downtown – they don’t use the most congested routes as much as others and at the moment they pay the most petrol tax. Besides, if you use more road space than anyone else, why shouldn’t you pay for it?

3. “Tolls will likely have serious consequences for families with children and those with high overheads such as mortgages “ Since when are the children taken downtown at peak times, unless they are going to school there? This is raving nonsense. This same organisation tends to support higher taxes, but only on the hated rich – this has serious consequences for this group.

4. “The CEO of the MoT and Secretary of Transport Dr Robin Dunlop, has strongly advocated for tolls in the past - as co-author of Road Reform, The Way Forward (1997), and a few years ago within an opinion paper to the World Bank suggesting that New Zealand roads will probably be tolled in the future" So? It is up to Parliament to pass the legislation, the Ministry only provides advice, and the existing legislation to allow tolling on new roads was passed before Dr Dunlop became Secretary for Transport. This is probably some claim there is some World Bank conspiracy to introduce tolling - since these are the claims that RAM has made in the past.

5. “A visiting professor said last year, that it was almost impossible to conduct an audit on Britain's toll regime. Issues involve the deliberate lack of transparency and accountability on the part of Government and private sector investors.” Notice how RAM wont quote the person by name, so the source cannot be checked. Britain has no toll regime, but there are a handful of toll roads and two congestion pricing schemes operating. This claim is arrant nonsense in relation to the London scheme, which does not have private sector investors involved and is under very close observation. Ken Livingstone (hardly a pro-capitalist big business friend) introduced it and got re-elected – the London public obviously are reasonably happy with him.

6. “The Mayors are pushing for a toll regime that potentially will line the pockets of Councils, Government and private sector corporations and interests. Predictably, the Government study on tolls due for publication this year will show tolls to be a viable means of raising funds for land transport. Officials are key stakeholders with a vested interest.” This is very close to defamation, accusing your political opponents of corruption. The government study on Auckland road pricing will say what it says when it is completed, but it probably WILL say road pricing is a viable way of raising funds – it works elsewhere, it is not a conspiracy. To further accuse officials of promoting this because they may get some backhand deal of money is simply wrong – this is New Zealand, not Africa. Maybe road pricing will be supported because it makes rational economic sense!

7. “I organised and was a representative at a public meeting with ACC, ARC, Transit, Transfund and local iwi (invited) on the Victoria Park Tunnel (SH1) issue in 2003. It was at this meeting that Transit agreed to a tunnel given adequate funding. At the time, Auckland's Mayors, Councils and Government were working on tolls to pay for new roads and changes to the Resource Management Act, behind doors closed to the public.” Actually no, the Land Transport Management Bill went to Select Committee, it was quite public, Labour announced the policy of tolling new roads in 2002. You’ll find that every single step of public policy is not open to the general public, because nothing would happen.

8. “Over the last 20 years, the New Zealand public demanded successive governments pay for land transport infrastructure using existing road user charges which are petrol taxes. For 20 years, successive governments have ignored the public's request and used around half the billions of dollars collected in petrol excise taxes for other expenditure.” Yes, that’s true. Although all road user charges, which are a form of road pricing (licensing distance, weight and axle configuration, paying for the use of the roads) have been around for 27 years and all of that money goes on roads. Labour, National, NZ First, United Future, the Alliance and Greens all supported governments that maintained this. See my post below that explains that Labour has been using more petrol tax money than any other government for land transport.

9. “Mayors Dick Hubbard (ACC), Sir Barry Curtis (MCC) and Bob Harvey (WCC) seem to have no idea about the toll-trap that New Zealanders will fall into if they go about fund-raising as they propose. Mayors without common sense are useless leaders at best, and at worst, will likely lead us into a financial quagmire from which we cannot escape.” Meaningless drivel. If done properly (by privatising the highways), it wont be a financial quagmire. Even the public sector has done it well in Norway and Singapore, but still, I am not convinced that Auckland local authorities could do road pricing well. Look at some of the people elected to it from RAM!

10. "Do the Mayors of ACC, MCC and WCC know that government is investigating getting overseas companies (countries?) to manage New Zealand's toll accounts? If not, then why not and what other facts have they missed before pushing tolls onto the innocent public? Serious factors such as New Zealanders' rights and civil liberties must come into play." Well it isn’t looking at getting government to do it, it is looking at whether financial institutions can manage the transactions and accounts for tolling. You know, like Visa/Mastercard, American Express, the banks. This is positive, as they are all far more accountable and efficient than any government agency, and are far less likely to abuse information than the government. If you think your rights and civil liberties are at threat because you might pay to use a toll road with your credit card then you need serious psychiatric help.

RAM wants free buses -well, paid for from your rates and taxes, while other people use them. This doesn't work, it doesn't reduce traffic congestion, just costs a lot of people more in taxes and sees a dramatic decline in walking and cycling (which costs taxpayers nothing).

So, beyond that inane drivel, there are serious issues about road pricing:

1. Who should do it? (not local government, it is just as likely to divert the money to other purposes. Preferably privatise the roads, or have an SOE do it)
2. How should it be done? (preferably across the network of the road owner, so you don’t get distortions by tolling some routes but not others)
3. What about existing charges? (if road pricing is introduced nationwide, scrap petrol tax – it shouldn’t be about raising additional money, unless the company running the highways needs it to build new ones).

There is a study underway commissioned by central government into whether to price Auckland roads. When it is concluded, the government will consider what to do – and it wont be easy. Technology currently allows single point pricing to be easily introduced, using tags you install in your car with a gantry or beacon to pick up the signal as you drive by. This would be easy. It is more complicated to charge distance across the network, varying by route and time of day, especially just for one region (Auckland). So, expect things to not go much further for now – especially since NZ First is rabidly opposed to tolls.

However, road pricing is a good idea - it is about the market working, on something run by governments. As I may paraphrase a quote by Andrew Galambos (hat tip Not PC) he said "A traffic jam is a collision between free enterprise and socialism. Free enterprise produces automobiles faster than socialism can build roads and road capacity. " I would say free enterprise produces automobiles faster than socialism can build AND MANAGE roads and road capacity.

Are we being fleeced by petrol tax?

Following on from Auckland mayors calling for the law to be changed to allow tolling on existing roads – in effect, road pricing, one argument against this is “we are already paying enough, this would be a new tax”.
.
The AA has consistently argued against congestion pricing, believing that tolling should only exist where there is an untolled alternative route and that priority should be to complete Auckland’s motorway network before considering pricing existing roads.
.
The AA simply fears that road pricing would be an additional tax, given the amount of money motorists already pay in petrol tax – but it ignores two very important points. The first point is that petrol tax is a very poor way of charging roads to manage the network – unlike pricing, it is a very blunt mechanism. At times of peak demand, when pricing should be high to ensure the level of service of the road (speed of traffic flow) is maintained, the road congests – Soviet style. Like queuing for bread, because everyone pays the same, it takes too long – and then people complain that there aren’t enough roads. The AA secretly knows congestion pricing works, London, Singapore and now Stockholm are examples of it working – it just fears that motorists will be fleeced more. However, are they being fleeced?

.

Setting aside GST (which is placed on top of everything else, so if you fixed petrol tax, GST would fix itself), the ACC component of petrol tax (which should be replaced by being able to choose your accident insurance provider) and a couple of tiny other taxes (which come to around 1c/l), it is petrol excise that is the bulk of the tax on petrol. I mean petrol, not diesel, not LPG.

.
If you are in a diesel or LPG vehicle all the money collected from your road user charges and LPG tax goes to the National Land Transport Fund, of which 85% or so goes on roads (the rest almost entirely on public transport). There is no tax on diesel, besides GST and a tiny local authority tax of 0.33c/l. So, except for GST, you’re not contributing towards other state spending from your road use. So buy a diesel or LPG vehicle if you want to deny Dr Cullen some tax.
.
Of the current petrol tax, 22.5c/l goes into the National Land Transport Fund, and another 18.7c/l (rounded to the nearest 0.1c) goes into the Crown Account. However – this is where it gets complicated.
.
Dr Cullen has pledged a good deal of that money for roads and public transport in Auckland, Bay of Plenty and Wellington. $900 million for Auckland, $885 for Wellington (assuming it can sort out the Transmission Gully vs. coastal highway argument) and $150 million for the Bay of Plenty. In addition, Dr Cullen has pumped another $800 million of Crown money into road spending nationwide at the last budget, $300 million over three years and the remainder over a longer period. This was surplus money that he didn’t want lying over for a tax cut or to be soaked up by wasteful spending down the black hole of health. In all, $2.735 billion of Crown funding for land transport, and most of it is likely to go on roads (Land Transport NZ ultimately decides).
.
These figures are spread over a period of 12 years, (some is already spent) so you get $228 million per annum approximately in Crown funding for (mostly) roads. 1c/l petrol tax produces about $33 million p.a. in revenue. Now ignoring that a good third of that money comes in a five year blip in the middle (assuming that can be smoothed out over 12 years), you can assume that around 7c/l of petrol tax revenue that goes to the Crown is now being reinvested in land transport. So that means around 30c/l of your petrol tax is being spent mostly on roads and about 11c/l is not.
.
You are still paying more in petrol tax than gets reinvested in roads, but it is a lot less than it has been for 25 years. A feather in the cap for Dr Cullen on that one, but that still means 11c/l is not going on roads. The AA is right, but it is clear that this Labour government is the biggest road building government New Zealand has seen since the early 1970s – so much so, that Dr Cullen has been voting extra money for roads time and time again in the last couple of years, beyond the growth in petrol tax revenue.
.
In short, you are being fleeced at the petrol pump, but about a third less than you were under previous governments - although the 22.5c/l dedicated to land transport is going to increase annually according to the Consumer Price Index. It isn't as transparent as it would be if Dr Cullen simply changed the rate at which petrol tax went to the National Land Transport Fund, but it is still better than it was in the 80s and 90s.

.

It is too much to hope that Dr Cullen will spend the other 11c/l on land transport, I don't think the budget would cope!

Celebrity Big Brother continues

George "I miss the Soviet Union" Galloway is my top pick for the next eviction - he has tried too long to be the fatherly figure of the Celebrity Big Brother household, and nauseatingly wears a Cuba tracksuit jacket while he works out -because Cuba is such a great role model for Britain or the world.

I used to listen to Radio Havana Cuba on shortwave in English some years ago, as the signal could be received well in New Zealand on a Sunday morning and I was studying international relations at the time. It sounded all friendly and nice, and Cuba loved how all of its health and education statistics were better than those in the US. As if anyone can verify them!

Galloway is evil and I will be (horrors) text voting him out tonight.

The other two, Dennis Rodman (who is far more sensible and level headed than I had ever thought) and Chantelle Essex (well don't know her surname and she isn't famous for anything other than being on this show) don't deserve to go - yet.

Michael Barrymore on the other hand, seems to have lost it, flaring up at opportunities to get upset at what really is nothing.

The real disappointment is no real scandal - nobody has snogged anyone, and the most likely paring (Chantelle and Preston) wont happen because Preston has a girlfriend on the "outside" and Chantelle is too nice a girl to do anything while she is reminded of that (and Preston is too). However, they are both clearly gagging for it and avoiding being too close most of the time.

However, for me, the star remains Pete Burns. An individual through and through, who can be nasty and critical, but also encouraging and thought provoking. He has had to put up with the fur police barging into the Big Brother household and confiscating his "monkey coat" secretly to check if it was legal. Apparently it is made of an endangered monkey, but could be so old that it doesn't matter - nevertheless, the "cuddly animal lobby" apparently clamoured for something to be done about it and about him. Yes, there is a law against it, but what good is done by prosecution over the possession of a coat that exists? Endangered species protection is best done by other means, but that is another issue.

What is most shocking of all is how my girlfriend and I are addicted to this damned show!

Homeless, welfare and labour laws

One of the less desirable facts of living in Europe are the homeless people. Despite protestations about how socially inclusive and fair Helen Clark’s model societies are, there are more homeless people or beggars (who knows who is homeless and who isn’t) per kilometre in London, Paris, Zurich and other major cities in Europe than there are in New Zealand cities. So why is that?

One reason could be the population is huge – therefore more poor people. Well, maybe so, but that doesn’t explain why they congregate in central London and Chelsea (where I am usually at). What explains that is something very simple – the homeless aren’t entirely stupid. They target commuters because with the million plus people entering central London every morning, even if you get 1% of all those walking past you giving you some change, you wont be too badly off. Secondly, sitting on Kings Road in Chelsea means that you can target the guilty wealthy who live there and tourists who are shopping. You don’t find the homeless hanging out so frequently in High Barnet or Wimbledon. Let’s not forget that if you were homeless and seeking somewhere affordable to live, the LAST part of London you’d be in would be Chelsea – see a one bedroom flat there costs between £300-£450 easily a WEEK. The £300 one would be noisy, small and unbearable, whereas £450 would be pleasant. If you were homeless and serious about finding somewhere to live, you’d go to Hounslow, Brixton or somewhere else where not so many wanted to live.

However, you say, they probably don’t have a job. That is where the government is partly responsible – for pricing jobs out of the market.

One thing that is sadly lacking in the UK compared to New Zealand is service. You don’t know how lucky you are to go to a supermarket and find that someone on NZ$10 an hour (or less) is filling your shopping bag with your groceries as everything is being passed over the barcode reader and scales. These are jobs that anyone without serious physical or mental handicaps can perform – but they don’t in many supermarkets in the UK. You do it, unless you specifically ask for it to be done – which the entire British population should do because it would bring the absurdity of packing your own groceries to an end, and give a nearly unemployable person a job.

However, there is, no doubt, minimum wage laws and other socialist inspired restrictions that stop this. So there are people begging on the streets instead of being “exploited”. I am sure that the supermarkets would happily pay someone £5 an hour to fill shopping bags, partly because customers hate having to do it, but it also slows things up immensely – as the checkout person (not chicks – but then it could be that Chelsea teens wouldn’t be seen DEAD working in a supermarket) has to wait for you to finish packing before serving the next customer.

The same thing happens in other sectors. Furniture removalists work on Saturdays grudgingly with a massive surcharge. Why? Well, you see, this is considered overtime – when flexible labour laws should mean that Gary Upminster can work Wednesday to Sunday, and his employer doesn’t need to pay him more to work weekends, because HIS weekend is Monday and Tuesday. I’d LOVE to not work Mondays and Tuesdays, when the shops are open but quiet. Supermarkets are not open beyond 5pm on Sundays.

Now I could be wrong – maybe people in London don’t want the level of service that people in New Zealand expect. Somehow I doubt it. More liberal labour laws and abolition of the minimum wage may give homeless people a chance to get jobs. The left may say this people would be exploited earning low wages - but I don't see too many of THEM giving money to the homeless. I'd rather work 4-8 hours a day for low wages that sit in the cold begging for money - there is at least a chance I could do better if I was working. More inexplicable is the huge amount of local authority housing that remains in Britain, yet there are homeless people.

Overall the homeless are rather sad – but when I see the tax and national insurance confiscated from my pay packet, that really pisses me off. I don’t owe the homeless anything and it is preying on consciences (and frightening to some) to sit in a blanket in Chelsea beside an ATM and ask people for money. If I didn’t have so much of my income confiscated by central and local government, much of it dedicated to helping those “less well off” (because being well off is a matter of luck to most of us, not hard work), then I might feel more inclined to give some change to people begging.

People selling the Big Issue, on the other hand, are doing something useful. Albeit the only ones I consider are those who are friendly and making an effort, the drone like man staring into space mumbling “big issue” isn’t going to get my attention, when there is a guy on the Strand who is full of life and greets everyone with a smile and thanks them whether or not they buy a copy.

Yes, there are similar people in Paris – in fact I saw a boy of around 15 begging outside a bakery in Paris. Homelessness is seen throughout Western Europe, and although I have not done research into it, I suspect that much can be done in changing labour laws and other restrictions on business that would give such people a chance. However, for too many of them, they have psychologically given up - and the welfare state does nothing for them.

Victim of sex offender witchhunt

Lloyd Walsh, a Dunedin bus driver is a single father of two kids, he is 50. He is a convicted sex offender.
.
As a result, he has lost his licence, because the law denies sex offenders the right to drive buses.
.
Quite right too, I hear many of you say. The National Party, ACT and even Labour all support a tough stance on sex offenders. Many even believe a public register with his name on it, so everyone knows that he committed a "sex offence" (whatever that may be, they're all dirty perverts!) and when he moves the local community should be warned. I bet some even wonder whether he should be allowed to have custody of his children – a man, alone with two children, who knows what he might do! Terrifying really. After all, once a man commits a sexual offence, he is a danger to children and women everywhere.
.
Particularly when the offence was to have sexual intercourse with a girl under 16. That’s it, he’s a pedophile, a pervert, hang him high by his testicles. There is nothing lower than a sex offender is there? I can see the MPs nodding their heads and tut tutting, Lloyd Walsh needs ostracising and nobody need forget what he has done.
.
Really?

.

Well it was his first and only offence, he was 16 at the time and his girlfriend was 15, in fact two days away from her 16th birthday. You might still think – who cares!! It’s wrong. Well tell that to him and his kids. He is out of a job now, because so many supported Nanny State used an elephant to crack a nut. He committed a victimless crime, there was no rape, there was no exploitation - he is no pedophile, but the witchhunt about sex crimes now has its latest victims - Lloyd and his children.
.
Labour had legislation to amend the Crimes Act to remove such an offence, it would have meant that a 16yo with a 14yo was legal, and would have seen a two year exemption from the age of consent, largely because there was some recognition that young people of similar age experimenting sexually and consensually. More importantly, the criminal law is there to protect them from rapists and predators, not from their peers engaging in consensual activity. It is not the business of the law to criminalise consensual teenage sexual experimentation.

.

However, it didn’t matter, the Victorian era outcry and caterwauling from the interfering do-gooders was that this was perverted and would encourage teenagers to have sex, despite the evidence to the contrary. Tony Ryall, in a vile display of scaremongering claimed that keeping the law as he claimed "the law should protect children from sexual pressure and support families in their efforts to provide boundaries for their young people" As if a teenage couple think about the law before they get intimate, as if hormone ridden teenagers get encouragement from a law change? Ryall wasn't thinking about policy - he was thinking about scaring parents away from voting Labour and voting National. It is not Ryall's business whether or not a teenage couple get intimate. Well Lloyd Walsh's children don't have a father with a job anymore, that's Ryall's family values as he pandered to the Christian Heritage/Destiny NZ voter.

.
So when you next think about cracking down on sex offenders – decide what you mean. Do you mean rapists? Do you mean adults that molest children, not teenagers fooling around together? And ask, why don’t you care about violent offenders? The ones who beat up children, stab adults, attack old ladies – why does it matter whether or not it is sexual?
.
And ask yourself, did you really mean that Lloyd Walsh can’t be a bus driver because he had sex with his similar age girlfriend when he was 16?

Privately owned river?

In New Zealand - there is one, at least according to government highways agency Transit New Zealand which states on its site:
.

"The Arahura River is unique as it is the only privately owned river in New Zealand"

.

In case you didn't know, the Arahura river is on the South Island's West Coast. Transit's only interest is that it is responsible for the single lane State Highway 6 bridge over the river, which it shares with OnTrack - as the branch railway line between Greymouth and Hokitika shares the bridge with the road, causing a few headaches for motorists when they have to give way to trains. Transit has some of your petrol tax money to investigate options for replacing the bridge, but that is not my issue and there is no claim that the fact the river is privately owned is causing any difficulties with this project.

.

What IS important is that, if true, the Arahura River is an example of what can be done with other rivers. The world has not fallen in, Grey District Council has not foretold disaster and nobody seems to notice. A bit of research uncovered that Mawhera Incorporation owns the river according to Trade and Enterprise NZ. In essence, a company owned by a local Runaka (subset of Ngai Tahu). Nothing wrong with that. I would presume the Maori Party would support this being maintained, as does the Libertarianz, as should ACT.

It is one response to concern about libertarians privatising what is seen as "the commons". Would anyone notice if all the rivers were privately owned? Who would want to nationalise it?

How to deal with yob culture?

Social misfits, like the young cretin I saw the other day, who threw away his McDonalds thickshake across the footpath on Kings Road the other day, to impress the girls he was with to some extent, are repulsive. I wish I could have dumped rubbish on his bed and made him clean up the street.

.

Britain has more than its fair share of them. Essentially there is a lack of respect, of others and their property, and a lauding of a culture of looking and acting tough and threatening, and not caring how obnoxious you are. It is about attention seeking and rebellion, and its vile. It scares older people, and sometimes involves intimidating people for a laugh or vandalism. It comes from regarding all around you as demanding your attention, and you not needing to take responsibility for you or your actions.
.
Tony Blair is declaring war on it. Having already introduced ASBOs (Anti Social Behaviour Orders) which can be taken out on anyone down to the age of 10 for consistent behaviour that can be considered a nuisance or comprises low level criminality such as vandalism, tagging and the sort. It is effectively a fast track prosecution, without actually being one – it prohibits people from being out at certain times or being in certain locations. Unfortunately, they are often broken.
.
Blair’s concern is understandable. The Guardian reported him saying:
.
"In practice, the person who spits at an old lady on her way to the shops is not prosecuted because to do so takes many police hours, much resource and if all that is overcome, the outcome is a fine. The result is the police do not think it is worth it; and so it doesn't happen."
.
Unfortunately his response is a mixed bag. Some have value, such as increasing some fines, lowering the threshold for seizure of proceeds of crime, providing an option for requiring offenders to undertake unpaid work to make good damage (such as cleaning tagging off of properties), a national non-emergency police contact number and orders that be sought against parents for serious misbehaviour by children.
.
Others are either silly or disturbing. Silly, like paying teenage parents to attend parenting classes – disturbing such as the suggestion that the burden of proof be reversed in some cases. That is a dangerous precedent, that could lead to false accusations by those who are the problem – what if an obnoxious 14yo told the Police you spat on her and made a lewd comment and you had to prove your innocence? Trust the Police isn’t good enough.
.
So what IS the answer? Longer term, it is about cultural change, about decrying the nihilistic, do what you want, have no responsibility, blame everyone else for your problems culture that has grown in the last few decades. It is about celebrating excellence, and not snarling at it, and about genuine benevolence for those in need, not as a right, but because people care about people who genuinely show effort and desire to look after themselves. This means not glorifying the stupid, vapid, obnoxious, tough and unproductive. It means a culture where entrepreneurs, inventors, scientists, surgeons, shopkeepers and others who create are what people aspire to – rather than aspire to be rich, rude and otherwise useless, as the glorification of fame for the sake of it, rather than due to talent, continues to grow.
.
Shorter term, it is about giving those who CAN deal with obnoxious people the means to act, and about not subsidising the obnoxious at all.
.
This means:
.
1. Abolishing victimless crimes, so the Police can concentrate on offences of the person and property. Leaving peaceful people alone so that those who are not can be targeted, and then the Police themselves may be respected more, and have a greater presence in public places as a deterrent;
.
2. Asserting the right of people to defend themselves and their property. This means not banning pepper sprays, allowing peaceful people to own firearms and making it clear that you have the right to use reasonable force to respond to any attack;
.
3. Defending private property rights – which means ensuring landlords can evict tenants who damage property and harass other people, and shopkeepers can ban people from their shops and impose whatever restrictions they wish upon who enters or not. Private property is not a public place – people may learn than entering malls, shops, railway stations is not a right;
.
4. Stop subsidising failure. At the very least, convicted criminals (offences against the body or property) should be prohibited from receiving any state welfare or state/council housing. As long as welfare remains, parents who do not control their children’s behaviour should have their benefits cut off after a warning, and face eviction from state provided housing. The public should not be forced to subsidise the lives of those who damage the lives of others. This should be the first step towards abolishing compulsory social welfare.
.
Blair has a point that many Brits will agree on, but it needs people to act and for parents to be held accountable. There are many reasons why a segment of young people spit, vandalism and disturb people – the change in families, erosion of fear of parental authority for starters, but it needs a concerted effort to turn back over time.

Changing the burden of proof for any criminal offences removes a fundamental freedom, that will be exploited by a segment of the public and the police - and should be resisted.