Winston concludes his visit to North Korea

Winston's back from the "Workers' Paradise" and while I give him kudos for raising human rights, I do seriously wonder what good he has done. Will he incentivise North Korea to move forward, do these contacts plant seeds in the minds of high ranking officials and politicians that the outside world isn't so scary? You see these are the only positive things that could come of this - that eventually Kim Jong Il will die/be toppled, and those who work as part of this nightmare system will want help.

^

The significance of Winston's visit isn't just about New Zealand reaching out to North Korea, according to Stuff it is the FIRST Western Ministerial visit since North Korea tested a nuclear weapon. Oh, the irony that the nuclear-phobic New Zealand is first to send a Minister to a totalitarian nuclear proliferator.

^

According to Stuff, Winston said that 'Kim Jong Il's regime was making good progress on denuclearisation. North Korea had doubled the number of people working on projects such as the dismantling of its main nuclear facility, and was committed to the success of the six-party talks on the issue.'

^

Honestly, how does he know this? North Korea is a habitual liar, as anyone who spends time reading its press releases should know. What is "good progress"? How will anyone ever be able to verify that it has destroyed its nuclear arsenal, or dismantled all of its nuclear facilities? Seriously, how can you trust a totalitarian dictatorship that remains in denial that it started the war in 1950, that doesn't tell its population that men have landed on the moon and that claims South Korea is a starving chaotic hellhole of dictatorship and despair (yes the irony!). North Korea lied about pursuing a nuclear weaponry programme for many years, denied it wanted them - then "boom".

^

North Korea is committed to convincing the rest of the world to bail out its bankrupt economy from its bankrupt system - that is what is wants - and it blackmailed the world into doing so.

^

However, give Winston some modest credit:

^

'His visit included stops at a garment factory and farm, but Mr Peters was cautious about giving an overall assessment of life in a country few foreigners are permitted to visit, "I don't like to give my impressions after only three days. I came with certain impressions from my reading of background information. It is clearly a society that is unusual in most respects with the freedom of movement and information, but I saw glimmers of enough change to believe that we could be seeing a change going on here."

^

I would have thought the impressions are obvious. Unusual is a great euphemism for totalitarian control. However glimmers of change are curious. There have been glimmers of change for years, but there have always been children incarcerated, tortured and enslaved in gulags. It should have been made clear to North Korea that this is unacceptable - New Zealand has penalised Zimbabwe, Fiji, Burma and South Africa for far far less than this. Why change now?

^

Meanwhile North Korea reports on Winston leaving with a casual statement of fact . We shall wait to see if it makes any serious propaganda about his trip.

Dear Dr Kiro, most people are not the problem

Dr Cindy Kiro - Children's Commissar (which is a title she will continue to get from me as long as she seeks Orwellian monitoring and surveillance of all families) is, according to Stuff, concerned about a "wall of silence" surrounding child abuse. She cites a rather disconcerting example of a girl of 11 who became pregnant and gave birth at age 12. It isn't clear what has happened in this case, but the girl is not naming the father, and the whole family denies any knowledge.

^

There are two likely explanations for her early pregnancy. Either someone older, influential and threatening within the extended family has effectively raped her (and she is too scared to point the finger because she wont be supported by her family), or she has had a boyfriend - transitory or otherwise - and they did what some adolescents do, without protection, and she is protecting him from prosecution. The family silence is far less likely in the latter category, unless she was often away from home and what she got up to was not monitored or even noticed by the family. Dr. Kiro is betting it's the former because of the wall of silence.

^

Now the concern being shown is laudable, but what does disturb me is how Dr. Kiro paints a broadbrush over everyone with her statements. She makes it everyone's responsibility.

^

For starters she seems to indicate that there is only just now starting to be a cultural change to reject child abuse. Stuff quotes her saying "New Zealand is at a tipping point where communities are making it clear they will not tolerate child abuse and every adult needs to take responsibility for the physical, emotional and sexual abuse and abuse through neglect of our children,". Notice the phrase "communities are making it clear". She likes to collectivise, I tend to think that individuals express themselves, but that is a diversion. The clear implication of this is twofold:

^

1. Up until today, people DID tolerate child abuse. This of course will be remarkable news to the vast majority of parents and adults who are appalled by anyone who abuses children. It is counter-intuitive for almost all adults to inflict harm or hurt children. It's not news, it has been a publicly expressed serious concern for at least a generation, and even before that there is little doubt that most people never tolerated child abuse, for as long as the concept of "children" has really existed in Western civilisation (which really does only go back to the early 19th century).

^

2. There is consensus that EVERYONE has to take responsibility for the abuse and neglect of children. Not just those who commit it, but you who don't. Where did she get this from? Of course if anyone I knew was abusing a child, it would concern me and I would be likely to take steps to intervene - quite simply I couldn't tolerate it. However, the state can't legislate for this, you can't make people talk, and all you can do is have particularly high standards for those cohabiting with children. A mother who repeatedly stands by while her child is abused by another is effectively an accessory to the crime and is grossly negligent by not protecting the child. In such cases, custody should be removed from her.

^

Dr Kiro also said that "New Zealanders had to change their attitudes and behaviour to become more child-focused." Well hold on, most parents do this. Most children are raised in abuse free, loving households. There is a small minority who abuse, and the appropriate response is for the criminal justice system to punish those who do, to protect the victims and to deny welfare (and if necessary custody) from those who commit these offences.

^

Underlying all this is, of course, a serious point. There are families which are large, and not so linked by relations as relationships, and in those circumstances it is convenient/lazy for the real parents to let others perform functions "in loco parentis". In other words, many adults have access to the children. Because the children are being watched over by a whole group, it means no two people are paying inordinate attention towards them, providing an opportunity for abuse through fear to be carried out. The rewards of having many adult role models (although sometimes a lot of those are questionable at best) are outweighed by not having two solid ones who protect, provide and monitor those kids. Indeed such large extended families risk there being nobody a child can turn to, because some bonds between adults are greater than those where families are not so closely interlinked. Children need adults they can turn to, trust and who wont respond erratically if they need to tell them something scary or awful - like how a relative, teacher or family friend has threatened them or sexually abused them. It's clear who Dr. Kiro needs to aim her message at, it is those who share the family raising among many adults. In short, the parents need to watch - and be their children's first defence, AND be prepared to turn against any close relatives who may be abusing their kids. The problem is, clearly, disproportionately Maori. Something else Dr. Kiro wont say.

^

Like I have said before, why not completely deny welfare benefits from anyone who is convicted of brutality or gross negligence against a child? Or indeed, how about denying welfare from anyone convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence (something above common assault or indecent exposure). Permanently. Stop forcing other New Zealanders to pay for those who are violent to survive. Granted, it would save little money, but it would make an important point.

^

and you can watch the socialists whine and defend violent criminals' right to welfare, because they might do it again - so because they will hurt you, you have to be forced to pay for them to live?

Winston in North Korea - we have much to learn from you

Who said that?

^

Why it's the pensioners' friend - Winston Peters! It must be true as the Korean Central News Agency said so "Winston Raymond Peters said in his speech that it was not long since the two countries established diplomatic ties, but there are a lot of things to learn from each other, hoping that the good relations between New Zealand and the DPRK would go on".

^

Hopefully when Winston returns from North Korea, he might be asked by the NZ Media, what exactly are the "lot of things" we can learn from North Korea? Here's some suggestions:

- Nuclear processing and weapons development? (hardly in a nuclear phobic NZ);

- Immigration policy? (stop people from leaving by force);

- Agriculture? (collectivise all farms and let produce be given to the state in exchange for a wage);

- Law and Order? (have 1/12th of the population spying on the rest, have internal passports, gulags, executions, summary judgments, torture)

- Disability policy? (kill all disabled newborns, have none living in the capital, mental patients virtually ignored)

- Culture policy? (have nothing but paeans to the leader, the party and the nation, censoring internal bad news and showing almost nothing but bad news about the outside world);

- Education policy? (take children from infancy and place into childcare where they are taught Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il are their fathers, and they should be loyal to them and the nation above their parents?)

- Health policy? (the elite get first class healthcare, whilst everyone else takes their chances with ancient medicine and antiquated equipment)

I can't wait.

What might North Korea want to learn? Well it is clear from the same report that Foreign Minister "Pak Ui Chun, said in his speech at the reception that it would be in the interests of the two countries to boost the bilateral ties of friendship and cooperation on the principle of respect for sovereignty, non-interference in each other's internal affairs, mutual benefit and equality".

^

That's the key, you see North Korea sees imprisoning children in gulags as an internal affair. However, don't believe everything (or indeed almost everything) the Korean Central News Agency reports, you see Winston did say something right.

^

He has raised human rights as a concern, as reported by TVNZ and Radio NZ. So he has played a careful diplomatic trick, by not mentioning it in advance - he mentioned in Pyongyang what North Koreans would get imprisoned and executed for mentioning. Good on you Winston. Hopefully we''ll find out exactly what you did say!

Electoral law reform

So can anyone tell me, plain and simple, what is wrong with letting free people decide how the express their views in campaigning in election year, as long as it isn't defamatory?

^

Is your vote bought by someone's elaborate political campaigning? Or do you think before you vote?

^

Or do you think that the vast majority of voters are stupid, and that spending lots of money on electoral advertising influences them in ways you don't like - and that there aren't enough people on your side of the argument willing to spend money to counter that?

^

You see my political views are almost always only represented by one party, which is small, has no Parliamentary funding and only modest levels of fundraising itself. I don't whinge and moan that most donations go to the main two parties.

^

So why would anyone want to establish rules on this, unless they were simply envious of those political parties and perspectives that they don't agree with? Labour supporters couldn't possibly be envious of National supporters being wealthier could they? Never!

Winston in North Korea

The Korean Central News Agency, which has a complete monopoly on all news publishing in North Korea has finally reported on Winston's trip. You'll be astounded at how little it says:

"Pyongyang, November 14 (KCNA) -- DPRK Foreign Minister Pak Ui Chun met and had a friendly conversation with Foreign Minister of New Zealand Winston Raymond Peters and his party at the Mansudae Assembly Hall Wednesday when they paid a courtesy call on him. "

^

The very same bulletin of news had such interesting points such as:

"New books came off the press recently. They tell that the Japanese imperialists are the sworn enemy of the Korean people and the aggressive nature of the Japanese reactionaries will never change."

^

Very peace loving.

^

or..."Capitalism was restored in some socialist countries in the 1990s. The US-led imperialists took the opportunity to focus the arrow of attack on the DPRK. The Korean people were compelled to undergo the "Arduous March" and forced march due to the unprecedented moves of the imperialists to isolate and stifle the DPRK and the natural disasters for successive years. "

^

oh it wasn't because Soviet aid dried up, the entire socialist system is bankrupt and stifling the population, and the refusal of the regime to let aid agencies to operate freely?

^

Maybe Winston will tell us what he really thinks of the place when he returns? He can tell us about how he gave honour to Kim Il Sung by visiting his Mausoleum as he is planned to do.

^

Yes, the New Zealand Minister of Foreign Affairs is going to pay respects to the tomb of one of the most Orwellian dictators of the 20th century. How can Peters ever look RSA veterans of the Korean War in the face again? Kim Il Sung's record is one of being an elaborate liar about his revolutionary past, of ruthlessly suppressing all dissent, of running Stalinist gulags which exist to this day and placing half of the Korean peninsula in virtual imprisonment. Then HE led an attack on South Korea, sparking the Korean War.

^

Nice one Winston. I know you can't refuse the visit to the mausoleum if you go to North Korea, but why did you have to go? Is the nuclear moral fetish of the government that important that you have to bow to murderers, operators of gulags with children in them and visit the tomb of one of the most bloodthirsty warmongering dictators of the 20th century?

Those disgusted by sex are fascinated by it

It started with David Farrar's largely agreeable post about the Department of Internal Affairs supplying lists of known child porn websites to NZ ISPs so they can block access to them. In and of itself this is fine, although the law as it is makes it illegal for anyone to check what this covers - as you risk prosecution yourself. Indeed, censorship laws are strict liability - you can break them without even intending to do so, but I digress.

^

The Society for the Promotion of Community Standards (it even has a blog) has for many many years been at the forefront of advocating the prohibition of any form of publications that depict sexuality or nudity. It is dominated by fundamentalist Christians, has a clear anti-homosexual bent (having waged a campaign against Chief Censor Bill Hastings because of his sexuality showing not the slightest respect for his privacy), and responded to the Kiwiblog post. Not only does it want all "objectionable" content blocked on the internet (which given that NZ bans content which is legal in the USA, most of Europe and Japan, would be an enormous and almost futile task), but it called for:

^

"all New Zealand ISPs (Internet Service Providers) to block ALL overseas based websites that host child pornography AND hard core pornography (NZ-based websites containing “objectionable content” including child porn are illegal under NZ censorship laws)."

^

Hardcore pornography is more than that of course. Material depicting BDSM, groupsex and all sorts of adult consensual fetishes is clearly hardcore. However, objectionable content includes urophilia under the law - which is not an illegal practice. It is not a crime to use urine for sexual purposes, but inexplicably it is a crime to photograph or own a photograph of people doing so.

^

Of course SPCS has a curious view of those who reject this. We're all perverts, but check out the language used - it's almost rabid in a certain obsession about homosexuality:

^

"Gay rights activists, paedophiles, homosexuals wanting to ‘hook up’ with underage school boys or view ‘bare-backing’ films, those addicted to hardcore pornography and all those who make a living from marketing such moral filth, have rubbished the Society’s call for the implementation of such controls to prevent injury to the “public good”."

^

I'm none of those.

^

Libertarianz presented a submission on the censorship laws calling for, at the very least, the laws to only prohibit material which was produced through the commission of a criminal act. In other words, if someone was being murdered, raped, sexually abused and being filmed in the act, then it would be an objectionable publication. However, if people were engaging in consentual legal acts, it is absolutely absurd for it to be a crime to film them or even write an account of what they were doing.

^

You see, it is crime to even possess an erotic story about watersports in New Zealand. It is not in the USA, and it would take little for anyone to find hundreds of such stories. I don't care for watersports myself, but there is something inherently vile about people risking police action because they read a story about something they can legally do!

^

So I responded to the SPCS response with my own concern that proposing child porn sites to be banned is one thing, but extending to all objectionable categories is another - and that SPCS has another agenda. It frankly finds any depictions of nudity and sexuality to be offensive. I simply believe that it is absurd that NZ censorship law bans publications of acts that are legal for adults to participate in. That's my point pure and simple.

^

So SPCS went on its long tirade, talking about "rimming" and "So-called “sexual fetish material” (DVDs, videos etc) involving urination (referred to as “water sports in hardcore porn publications) is imported into New Zealand by homosexuals and other sexual pervets (many heterosexual) via the internet." SPCS knows a lot about pornography, odd for a group which hates it so much. Check out the descriptions in this post. SPCS wondered at my motivation, implying that i might sell porn or get off on watersports. Sorry to disappoint guys, I'm not as obsessed with it as you are - I don't sell porn, and watersports aren't my thing, and I'm not gay. I believe in freedom - you know, leaving peaceful adults to get on with their lives, and not having a psychotic obsession with what other people do with their bodies?

^

SPCS, with some cheerleading from NZ First, would probably imprison homosexuals, would probably cheerlead on the banning of all erotic material visual and written, and would encourage the spread of their own bigotry against those who have a different view of how they want to use their own bodies sexually. I simply want consenting adults to have freedom.

French turn against the unionists

Nicolas Sarkozy is having what some have called his "Thatcher" moment, when confronting the old fashioned privileges of socialist France he is standing steady. As the first high speed Eurostar train from St. Pancras arrived at Gare du Nord - almost the entire French national rail network, and the Paris Metro were strikebound, along with bus services and cuts in gas and power due to energy worker strikes. Add in postal workers, teachers and judges, and you're in for the typical French socialist union attitude - go on strike if anyone dares suggest you get something less than the generous terms and conditions currently offered. There will be weeks of strikes in France, it is the final showdown between liberalism and socialism.

^

However, something has changed in France. You see, the trains aren't running because the government is demanding that locomotive drivers retire later than 50. 50 was the retirement age when driving a locomotive meant shovelling coal - now it means sitting and moving a throttle. Similar ridiculous feather bedding has cost France, and the vast majority of French people who are NOT in such industries or the state sector are sick of it all. They are fighting back. With state debt at 70% of GDP, calls to keep this bloated public sector are looking unsustainable, and calls by unions to increase taxes to pay for it are not kidding most people.

^

You see, while the trains are on strike, there were hundreds of commuters handing out anti-strike leaflets opposing the unions, confronting them. After all, Sarkozy won the last election - something the left kind of forgets, and no doubt thinks he somehow cheated his way there, but the reality is this - the majority of French voters chose Sarkozy over Royale the socialist candidate. He has a popular mandate to change France, and the public are standing beside him,

^

84% of those polled say the government will not surrender to the unions, but more importantly 71% think it should NOT surrender. Something for John Key and David Cameron to think about - Sarkozy has a pair of what neither of these men seem to display. May he hold firm, because we are all better off if France's economy can be saved, freed and allow to grow.

St. Pancras to Europe

Today a new era in travel between the UK and Europe has begun with the shifting of the Eurostar rail service from Waterloo Station to St. Pancras. This change is the culmination of two integrated projects, the refurbishment and upgrade of St.Pancras station into an international rail terminal, and the completion of the fastest high speed rail link in the UK, allowing 186mph rail journeys from the Channel Tunnel to St. Pancras.

^

The upgrade knocks around 20 minutes off of the rail trip from London to Paris. Frankly, air travel between London and Paris, and Brussels has become increasingly pointless. Not least because the need to check in, the tightening of security at airports (not that security is absent on Eurostar), and the distance of Heathrow and Charles De Gaulle airports from London and Paris city centres - means rail travel is simply faster and more pleasant than being boxed in on a short flight, that may be delayed for ages at either airport due to congestion. The cost of this line is an incredible £5.2 billion - astronomical, not least because it involves a 19km tunnel under east London.

^

However, today was not the day to debate the questionable value of this investment, only undertaken through convaluted financial arrangements with essentially the British taxpayer supporting it - and today was not the day to remind people that the line is expected only to be used to one-quarter of its capacity, and only half the trains are actually needed. Today was the day of St. Pancras.

^

St. Pancras is now, once again, London's premier station. Built by the Midland Railway Company back when Britain's railways were being built and run by the unfettered private sector, it was designed to be (and succeeded in being) grander than the Kings Cross and Euston stations of the competing railway companies of the age - Great Northern Railway and London and North Western Railway. Following the demolition of the original Euston for functional yet uninspiring current terminal, St. Pancras was saved from demolition under British Rail (after nationalisation by the Atlee Labour Government) by the efforts of John Betjemen the poet.

^

So now the Gothic wonder of grand old St. Pancras has been painstakingly restored, and I have yet to see it for myself. However, it promises to be grander, and a far more alluring gateway than the overcrowded Waterloo. In a few months time I hope to be able to test this. Meanwhile, judge for yourselves from the website or Eurostar's website.

Peacemakers

Stuff reports "If I had a can, I'd throw it at you" says one Tuhoe protestor, who doesn't respect the freedom of speech of those who disagree with them. Another says " "Why are you supporting the police? You just want to get us angry here." That's right, others can't have a different point of view without the angry mob coming out.

^

Imagine if the country was run by them, imagine how much freedom you'd have to protest, to keep your private property, to criticise and ridicule them - imagine how peaceful their law and order policy would be, how impartial their courts would be.

^

You know Tuhoe may have a point, but walking around town being intimidating and threatening doesn't win them any prizes - I think they should get self-government, over their own land with the agreement of landowners. Then the money from Wellington can dry up. Self determination is not fed from the money of others.

Socialist economics - the land of the simple minded

The BBC reports that Hugo Chavez has called on OPEC to charge a lower price for oil exports to poor countries, say US$20 a barrel, compared to rich countries (he suggests US$100).

^

Of course he expects this will ease the burden of the poor countries, because then they can buy and use oil cheaply.

^

It's so clever, I'm sure he doesn't know what arbitrage means. You see, I'd set up an oil importing company in say, Tonga. I'd then start importing as much as I can, and reselling my $20 oil to "rich" countries at say $90, (maybe $80 if I want to break through). Don't worry about storage, as a Tongan importer I happen to use storage facilities in New Zealand and Australia - thanks.

^

OPEC is cleverer than that, so will dismiss Chavez as the charlatan he claims to be, but hopefully Venezuela will flood the developing world with cheap oil, that can be resold on at a lower price. Let's watch socialist economics fail once more!

Why don’t they condemn it, if it were true?

The Green Party has nailed it’s colours to the mast – and they are dripping red, the red of Maoism and the red of the blood lust from the Police affidavits which they refuse to condemn in content.

^
Instead, Keith Locke is waging war against the Dom Post on the grounds that it jeopardizes the right to a fair trial by those facing the firearms charges. The affidavits do not reveal individuals, but there is an argument to be made on this – and again, it will be up the judicial system to decide.
^
However, to claim the Greens are neutral on this is a lie. The desire for an independent inquiry implies a belief the Police acted wrongly and excessively. The affidavit reported by the Dom Post indicates that there is, at least prima facie, cause for concern.
^
The real eye opener is the stony eyed silence of Locke and the Green Party on the allegations. Would it hurt to say “if the evidence in the affidavit is true, then it is disturbing and the Green Party wholeheartedly condemns those willing to use violence for political ends”. Apparently so. After given the Greens already called them “Maori, peace and environmental activists”, it would appear there is evidence that being a peace activist may also mean cheering about murder.

^

Idiot Savant simply condemns the publishing for the same reason as Keith Locke, but although he doesn't roundly condemn the content of the evidence, his comment on Jamie Lockett does indicate that view.

^

The Maori Party remains silent. Big surprise given how they nailed their colours to those accused being angels.

^

So, once again - will those who have roundly condemned the Police for the raids, those who have supported those arrested, condemn the sentiments in the affidavits? Will the Green Party and Maori Party in particular wholeheartedly declare abhorrence to anyone who wants to bring political violence to New Zealand?

^

or is this about supporting your mates?

^

On a final note, would you counter protest the "peaceful" looking Tuhoe hikoi? Do they look as if they would quietly and peacefully tolerate views expressed on this blog, or by other advocates of western capitalist liberal democracy? Or is looking tough, intimidating and threatening just a coincidence? and when the far left (which this lot clearly represent) protest in an intimidating manner, why aren't they condemned as much as Brian Tamaki and his goons when they do something not that far different? I don't agree with Idiot Savant that the Hikoi is just another public protest. It isn't Grey Power, they are intimidating - and it wouldn't be a surprise if any in the Hikoi possessed a firearm. In fact, I do think if it were an all caucasian protest by white supremacists the Police would and should respond in kind. Let's face it, what are the far left of Maori nationalists if not just a bunch of racist thugs?

^

UPDATE 1. Pita Sharples has at least said "Make no mistake - we are absolutely and categorically horrified by the threatening language we have read in the paper today" . However, he is more often a voice of some reason than others in the party.

Peace loving people of the Tuhoe "peace movement"

The Dominion Post's report on the evidence amassed against those arrested on firearms charges makes sobering reading. All of the claims that the police investigation was anti-Maori and the like look like what they are - the opportunistic kneejerk reaction of those who sympathise with the far left. The 156 page affidavit submitted to Manukau District Court includes all sorts of delightful statements. How about the bugged phone conversation on 17 August that went "Get someone to assassinate the prime minister, the new one, next year's one. Just been in office five days, bang ... Yeah, John Key ... just drop a bomb ... Just wait till he visits somewhere and just blow them ... They won't even find you."

^

Lovely types them, I guess it wouldn't matter if he was democratically elected, and wouldn't matter what innocent civilians were near them eh?

^

If this cannot be universally condemned, then those who refuse to condemn do not deserve to be in Parliament or part of the democratic process. They are friends of those willing to murder for political ends.

^

So besides assassinating John Key, bugged conversations told of:

• Calls to kill police and evict non-Maori farmers;
• Talk of using a sniper's rifle to assassinate US President Bush;
• Making nail bombs and napalm;
• How to throw Molotov cocktails;
• Blowing up power stations, gas plants, Telecom, petrol stations and the Waihopai Spy Station.

^

The Dom Post lists of many more of the bugged conversations tells us even more:

• "Kill Pakehas" for practice;
• Wanting to emulate the IRA;
• Using the "Al Qaeda manual" on terror tactics.

^

It's all bloody frightening, and indicates a desire to engage in an orchestrated campaign of killings, bombings and to create enormous economic damage and carnage. The motive is clear, to divide the country - to try to lead a sectarian Maori uprising against the entire liberal democratic system and capitalist economy. Indeed, sectarian is the word - this is Tuhoe against New Zealand. The Maoist background of Tame Iti doesn't look too out of place here, and those uttering those statements are thugs, the same sort of thugs that wouldn't look twice at shooting you if you got in the way.

^

Now the bigger question is this. Do those who have thrown around their slogans and accusations that the police action was racist, fascist, unjustified and politically motivated sympathise with what their "friends" said, or are they too going to react with horror and dismay. After all, this Labour Government is hardly a tool of the liberal right, and Helen Clark has fairly solid leftwing credentials. If HER government can be appalled, then you might ask exactly how the Maori Party, the Green Party and the sycophants of the far left who automatically assumed the Police were being racist and fascist feel about it now?

^

The Dom Post editorial clearly points out:

"The police have been accused of over-reacting, and of being racist. Supporters of those accused have argued there is nothing to justify the operation the police mounted, that notions of domestic terrorism are as insubstantial as the Urewera mist, and that those arrested are the victims of some sort of vendetta. They argue that those the police arrested are blameless. Their claims have not been tested in any meaningful way till now. "

^

As the editorial further points out, the Police had a duty to act " Police needed to treat that seriously and needed to investigate. To do anything less would have been to fail in their duty to protect New Zealanders. We believe that the police were right to act. "

^

Go on, it's time for Keith Locke to express his view, as a self proclaimed peace campaigner now that evidence is out. It is time for the Maori Party to decide what it believes in - do you oppose political violence? Do you oppose murder? Do you oppose mass vandalism to destroy the economy? Do you oppose violent evictions of farmers from their private property? Or is your support for peace about as skindeep as your support for freedom? At least Maia inadvertently may be quite true in her post, as a friend of the fascist left.

^

oh and when you see the hikoi supporting those who support terrorism, you might tell them what you think of them. Methinks those on the hikoi might go home and reflect on who their friends are.

Government department boycotts advertising

So MED - the personal department of Jim Anderton has boycotted buying TV advertising during TV3's viewing of the show "Californication" because it's naughty, according to the NZ Herald.

^

Here's an idea, MED should stop buying TV advertising. Meanwhile ratings for Californication will no doubt improve as a result - as telling anyone something is naughty, just makes it all the more attractive.

Gordon Brown's "hard headed" internationalism

Gordon Brown's speech at the Lord Mayor of London's banquet yesterday was about foreign policy. The Times reports the highlights were:

• Giving Iran a clear choice, stop pursuing its nuclear programme without IAEA inspections and stop supporting terrorism, and transform its relationship with the world, or face tougher sanctions, including bans on investment in its energy sector and financial sanctions. He will lead for tougher EU and UN sanctions. (not quite military action, but he didn't rule it out);
• The USA is the UK's most important bilateral relationship "I have no truck with anti-Americanism in Britain or elsewhere" he said (good!);
• Urged President Musharraf of Pakistan to respect the constitution, free political prisoners and step down as army chief (good);
• Proposed an international standby civilian intervention force, of police and judges to restore civil law and order in failed states (good luck on that one!).

He also wants to reform the UN Security Council, which of course is a perennial, but which nobody can ever agree on. So what does this all mean? A clear message that there is business as usual from the UK as regards terrorism, Iran and the USA. However, a call for an international civilian intervention force is an interesting one - and where would you stop!! Imagine being a cop in Iraq, you better be fluent in Arabic for starters, but while perhaps laudable it is - in fact, a form of temporary colonisation. This is not necessarily a bad thing, and would be useful for Iraq, but where else? Are British taxpayers and soldiers going to be mercenaries to save states all over the place?

Pacific Blue's domestic launch sees others raise the bar

Good on them, more competition on domestic air routes. It reminds me again of the debates in the 1980s when old Labour (yes before 1984) fought AGAINST deregulating the domestic airline market - and then in power opened it up to 100% foreign owned competition.

^

Something Jim Anderton and Winston Peters opposed vehemently, because they loved old fashioned state owned Air NZ. Of course Air NZ is new fashioned mostly state owned now (albeit a publicly listed one).

^

The domestic airline market has gone through a full cycle. Before 1987 and Ansett NZ, there was next to no service and fares were expensive. Ansett saw more discount fares, but also saw airline lounges, airbridges, business/first class and hot meals appear on domestic flights. I recall a column by Chris Trotter who saw domestic business class being some sort of class divider between the "haves" and "have nots". I never figured why people who flew were ever "have nots". On top of that, who the hell ever flew domestic business class unless they were:

a. Connecting to a long haul business class flight, so it was part of the ticket;

b. Using a free upgrade voucher which you got as a Gold/Gold Elite airpoints member; or

c. A politician (Rodney Hide used to say he had to fly Business Class to meet his constituents, but Laila Harre also regularly flew business class between Auckland and Wellington).

^

Then Ansett became Qantas NZ, then Qantas before Air NZ dropped business class and hot meals a few years ago, to go no frills. Qantas followed suit. Now Pacific Blue is coming in with no frills, Air NZ is responding by introducing a few rows in the front with around 4-5 inches more legroom for "premium customers " (likely Gold Elite/Gold status frequent flyers, full fare passengers and passengers connecting to business class international flights). Qantas has also announced it is upgrading NZ domestic lounges and installing upgraded interiors, more food service and a free evening bar service on flights.

^

S0 you might get a good deal on Pacific Blue, but frankly I'm looking forward to sitting at the front end of Air NZ with international long haul economy class legroom, or getting fed for free again on domestic flights. No doubt Chris Trotter will bemoan this as representing a new bastion of the class struggle!

"Big Money" envy

The left uses language carefully when it talks about issues. The term "Big Money" in most countries wouldn't refer to a peculiar small religious group spending a 5 figure sum campaigning against a particular electoral outcome. It usually means businesses funding politics. However, for Labour it is the new "bogey man", and Labour is used to creating language based bogeymen.

^

The word "nuclear" is one. The 1984-1990 Labour Government and the Party before the 1984 election eagerly took the word to be a byword for war and pollution. The first big scaremongering messages associated with "nuclear" were that anything "nuclear" would make NZ a target for Soviet nuclear weapons - something that was ok for Australia, the UK and the US in the event that the then communist bloc wanted to destroy free Western liberal democracy, but not NZ - which wanted to distance itself from that. That of course spoke volumes about who was behind being "anti-nuclear", as it was about being neutral between liberty and Marxist-Leninist dictatorship - as if you could be. The second scare is that "nuclear" meant Three Mile Island, Chernobyl - there were visions of fallout, Hiroshima and the like from nuclear propelled ships - despite the evidence to the contrary. The numbers who voted Labour because of this fear are difficult to determine.

^

Another is "privatisation", which is associated with people being ripped off, or services being cut, or "flogging off the family silver" -instead of flogging off the fools gold and the mythology around how good state owned monopolies really were. It's a bogey word - which too many of those who are economically illiterate in the media find easy to throw out there, when close scrutiny reveals most of the claims made make little sense.

^

So now we have "big money". Visions of Montgomery Burns from the Simpsons scheming with John Key to find ways to send children down salt mines (Winston Peters can get advice on this from North Korea of course), to find ways to poison the population, cut wages and ensure old people shiver in the streets. Visions that those who are successful and well off are only that way because they have taken from the less well off, or cheated them, or been greedy. The idea that wealth is a pie magically baked by "society" and those with "big money" have been so mean as to cut a big slice for themselves. This all forgetting that everyone bakes their own pies - their own pies - you know it's called property, and almost all of those who bake big pies did so from their own initiative and use of reason. The government at best exists to stop people stealing from each others' pies - although it does a good job of confiscating different amounts from most people's pies. OK enough of the pies.

^

Helen Clark is now painting a world where you, the voter, is actually quite gullible. You don't know what is good for you, let alone the country - and you can be bought by political parties which get large donations, or by "big money" campaigning for who THEY want. Those parties can dazzle you with flash ads, slogans and advertising and you wont vote for who you want. Her solution is simple, she will ban anyone from campaigning outside a political party. She also wants you to be made to pay for political parties too, even if you despise them all, she likes forcing you to pay for people who well, force you to pay. Nice that. She is hiding all this under the auspices of a threat from "big money".

^

So what is "big money"? It is organisations, made up of individuals, who want to spend their own money - remember that phrase "their own money" on political campaigns. They don't want to force you to pay for it, but they want you to vote a particular way. Labour believes, with good reason, that in sum, it will get less money from voluntary donations than National. It thinks this is unfair, so it wants to ban the spending of such money, and force you to pay for political parties to be equal.

^

Well not all political parties. The big ones would be nearly equal, the small ones would get bits and bobs - because, after all, Labour finds it hard enough competing with National, to have to worry about those annoying small parties "stealing" votes from their left and right flanks.

^

So let's not forget what Helen Clark means when she says "the National Party benefits enormously from big money in New Zealand politics." She means "I wish we did too, and if we can't attract it, they are not allowed it." It's naked party political self interest, and it is, as the Herald has said, all about keeping Labour in power. The last major electoral reform carried out was MMP - by National - and nobody can ever accuse that move of being about keeping the National Party in power!

In the "no shit Sherlock" files

Stuff reports "A family's fatal attempt to drive out a Maori curse may have been performed by charlatans, an expert in Maori culture says."

^

Perhaps those who are not claimed to be charlatans will participate in double blind experiments on this

Trust NZPA to give you the "facts"

According to NZPA, which has given us "facts about North Korea" on the end of an article included on Stuff.

^

"National legislature – Supreme People's Assembly, unicameral, 687 members elected directly for five-year terms.
Last election – September 2003, Next election due – 2008."

^

Oh you'd think there are elections, just like us, especially if the term one-party state confused you, you'd now be relaxed. It is just another country, a bit like all the others really. Of course let's not say the elections have one candidate, the choice is yes and no, and turnout and majorities are 100% respectively for both pretty much. No. Let's not list the estimated 150,000 political prisoners in gulags. No.

^

Can't have Winston asking about the children in gulags, or the most abominable human rights record in the world now can we?

The immoral plead to the amoral

Notwithstanding the blunders involving the arrest of extreme leftwing activists for firearms offences and claims of terrorism, one of New Zealand's highest profile cheerleaders for Al Qaeda's greatest attack is now wanting to go to a body that puts Cuba and Syria on its Human Rights Council.

^

In other words a woman who clapped and cheered when the World Trade Center was attacked and destroyed is now running to an international body that treats North Korea, New Zealand, Syria, Sweden and Burma as moral equivalents.

^

According to Stuff, Annette Sykes (who for some inexplicable reason can still command some respect in the media) is going to go to the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Peoples. A body which has as its full time, Western taxpayer funded job, to criticise Western governments for treatment of Indigenous peoples, whilst treating the corrupt ridden tinpot quasi-democracies of Africa as being great models of decolonised empowerment. You know, the type of body that throws stones at New Zealand but ignores Zimbabwe, because (after all) Robert Mugabe is indigenous and we all know indigenous people are peaceful and kind to their own people.

^

Besides Annette makes odd statements which seem to indicate that Tuhoe didn't have a community before the 1990s "When are the computers and the cell phones that have actually made this whole community absolutely impossible to communicate with going to be returned to this community", it does raise the question as to why Tame Iti says they have nothing to hide when of course they DID try to hide evidence, as Not PC points out.

^

The braindead media of course will do next to no investigation into the philosophies and ideologies of those charged, or even question Tame Iti on his Maoist background, you know like real interviewers do. Or maybe they are a bit scared of him?

^

Of course now there is going to be a Hikoi - curious of course for those of us with jobs, or who own businesses that one can afford to spend a week ambling down the countryside. I for one wouldn't really mind if Tuhoe declared independence over the vast tracts of publicly owned land, and their own private land in the Ureweras. Good luck to them, but the money from Wellington would come to a grinding halt. Let them have self-determination.

Liberal democracy under further attack?

The NZ Herald reports that a deal between Labour, the Greens and NZ First may mean that spending by government departments on advertising are to be exempt from electoral spending limits - and no amount of two-faced swarminess by the government or its sycophants is going to disguise what this will mean - more government department advertising promoting the benefits of policies of the government.

^

Labour has already started using government department activities to promote "the government". I noticed it on signs used by Transit New Zealand associated with road projects, no longer is it simply a fact that project X is underway costing $xxxxxxx, it now has a sign saying "a project funded by the New Zealand Government" as if it is directly linked to Ministers and MPs. Ads for Working for Families also are contentious.

^

However as the Herald editorial reports, there is one point that Labour and its supporters don't get " When is the Government going to get this message: democracy is not a device to keep the Labour Party in power."

^

The Electoral Finance Bill has been criticised by plenty who would otherwise be supportive of Labour politically - the Human Rights Commission and PPTA are unlikely opponents of a Labour government measure. As the Herald says:

^

"It was staggering enough last year that Helen Clark and her lieutenants could not understand why nobody else regarded their electoral pledge card as innocent information. Now, having grudgingly repaid the public purse, they are hell-bent on giving themselves the right to raid it again."

^

It is this complete disconnect with the truth that is the hallmark of the ruthlessness of Labour to remain in power. Elections should be campaigned on the basis of people voluntarily promoting and supporting political parties.

^

The Herald concludes:

^

"Parties have different advantages. If National has more well-heeled donors, Labour probably has the more committed and articulate foot soldiers. National's supposed advantages were of less urgent concern to Labour when it was polling well. Now in desperation it wants to screw the scrum. It has succumbed to the old conceit of the Left that the interests of the people are identical with its own. The interests of any healthy democracy lie in unrestricted debate, not laws that favour incumbents with public finance and suppression of free speech. If these bills pass, they will be Labour's epitaph."

^

One can only hope, and it will put paid to any claim of neutrality and belief in democracy that the Greens and NZ First purport to support. What it would show by all those parties is that power is more important than principle.