Not when you've run deficits and borrowed the country into the ground.
The Daily Telegraph reports a massive swing to the Conservatives in the latest Yougov poll.
45% Conservative
27% Labour
18% Liberal Democrats
David Cameron has a 56% approval rating, vs Gordon Brown with a 69% disapproval rating. Not that the Tories have earnt it, they are just very lucky they didn't win the 2005 election.
Expect Labour to get a pounding in the forthcoming MEP elections for the European Parliament and the selection of local body elections that are run at the same time.
Meanwhile, the FT reports the new 50% tax rate will drive talent from the City of London.
The head of one City institution with a strong private client business fumed, “What are they trying to do, drive all the high-earners out of London?”
New York must be rubbing its hands with glee, and ready to welcome an influx of talent in a year's time.
Of course the knuckle dragging tracksuit wearing "werking peeepill" will think it's fair - and as a result the Tories are not promising to remove the new tax. Oh well, let the UK get what it votes for - and watch the talent leave.
24 April 2009
Be nice if the left were honest
Idiot Savant's two clangers this week:
1). How fair is it to increase taxes on those who don't actually cost the state money? The UK is introducing a new 50% tax rate on earnings over £150,000, he says New Zealand could "do the same" by introducing a 45% rate on earnings over NZ$100,000. Wait a second, did you see that? NZ$100,000 is only £38,000. The new tax rate in the UK is cutting in at NZ$393,000, which in NZ would mean very few taxpayers indeed, because NZ is a low wage (and largely low cost of living) country.
He says "This move would not be contractionary, because the rich tend to stick their money in the bank (or in a housing bubble) rather than spending it." Really? Not term deposits or buying shares or investing in businesses or buying high end consumer goods or travel? What nonsense, where does he get this?
"it will help balance the books while helping to reduce the inequality which is fundamentally harmful to everyone in our society" he says. Why does that inequality exist? Oh yes is it because some people are more successful and entrepreneurial than others, or maybe because a lot of people come out of state schools barely literate, get paid to breed or be lazy, and get sold a philosophy that people get rich unfairly, or that someone owes them a living?
Higher tax rates and this attitude about "equality" sells the philosophy that people who are richer owe everyone else, through the state, more of their income than those who are fiscal failures in life. The real unfairness is the vast underclass of people who spend their lives from unearnt income off the hard work and risks taken by others, ungrateful, expecting more every year, and voting to thieve more from those who pay to keep them alive.
2.) Seeing Sweden as a great example to New Zealand, forgetting of course that its education system is based on vouchers, based on ANYONE being able to set up a school, including private businesses to run them for PROFIT, and parents being able to send their children to any of them, with their tax money flowing to their chosen school.
In other words ACT policy, and far more liberal and competitive than the centrally planned, bureaucratic system he often clamours for.
He ignores criticism of the Swedish health system for chronic waiting lists. A Swedish study in 2004 reports that 77 out of 5,800 heart surgery patients died on the waiting list.
For a bouquet though, he was dead right regarding Damian Green, the Conservative MP who had his office raided and was arrested because he received leaked information that embarrassed the Labour government. The UK Labour government is beyond a joke, is tired, stinking and should go as soon as possible. My only question is whether I'll go before I get a chance to vote the bastards out.
1). How fair is it to increase taxes on those who don't actually cost the state money? The UK is introducing a new 50% tax rate on earnings over £150,000, he says New Zealand could "do the same" by introducing a 45% rate on earnings over NZ$100,000. Wait a second, did you see that? NZ$100,000 is only £38,000. The new tax rate in the UK is cutting in at NZ$393,000, which in NZ would mean very few taxpayers indeed, because NZ is a low wage (and largely low cost of living) country.
He says "This move would not be contractionary, because the rich tend to stick their money in the bank (or in a housing bubble) rather than spending it." Really? Not term deposits or buying shares or investing in businesses or buying high end consumer goods or travel? What nonsense, where does he get this?
"it will help balance the books while helping to reduce the inequality which is fundamentally harmful to everyone in our society" he says. Why does that inequality exist? Oh yes is it because some people are more successful and entrepreneurial than others, or maybe because a lot of people come out of state schools barely literate, get paid to breed or be lazy, and get sold a philosophy that people get rich unfairly, or that someone owes them a living?
Higher tax rates and this attitude about "equality" sells the philosophy that people who are richer owe everyone else, through the state, more of their income than those who are fiscal failures in life. The real unfairness is the vast underclass of people who spend their lives from unearnt income off the hard work and risks taken by others, ungrateful, expecting more every year, and voting to thieve more from those who pay to keep them alive.
2.) Seeing Sweden as a great example to New Zealand, forgetting of course that its education system is based on vouchers, based on ANYONE being able to set up a school, including private businesses to run them for PROFIT, and parents being able to send their children to any of them, with their tax money flowing to their chosen school.
In other words ACT policy, and far more liberal and competitive than the centrally planned, bureaucratic system he often clamours for.
He ignores criticism of the Swedish health system for chronic waiting lists. A Swedish study in 2004 reports that 77 out of 5,800 heart surgery patients died on the waiting list.
For a bouquet though, he was dead right regarding Damian Green, the Conservative MP who had his office raided and was arrested because he received leaked information that embarrassed the Labour government. The UK Labour government is beyond a joke, is tired, stinking and should go as soon as possible. My only question is whether I'll go before I get a chance to vote the bastards out.
More air security for what?
Airlines and airports think it's unnecessary, but it doesn't matter. Government security goons are keen on it, because it will mean they get more money and more power, growing in influence.
According to the NZ Herald up to 14 extra airports could get security screening, but it isn't for terrorists. No. It is to cover drunk people (who surely can be dealt with without everyone being screened), the mentally ill (who airlines should be able to discriminate against, if it weren't for the Human Rights Act) and the disaffected.
I called for a serious cost/benefit analysis of the measure, if only because I believe the delays, and inconvenience to travellers (simple things like stopping people taking water on flights) will outweigh the risk, particularly if other options are selected.
Take this comment from Ray Dumble, chief executive of Tauranga Airport Authority, who said the government is "using a boulder to crush an ant".
According to the NZ Herald up to 14 extra airports could get security screening, but it isn't for terrorists. No. It is to cover drunk people (who surely can be dealt with without everyone being screened), the mentally ill (who airlines should be able to discriminate against, if it weren't for the Human Rights Act) and the disaffected.
I called for a serious cost/benefit analysis of the measure, if only because I believe the delays, and inconvenience to travellers (simple things like stopping people taking water on flights) will outweigh the risk, particularly if other options are selected.
Take this comment from Ray Dumble, chief executive of Tauranga Airport Authority, who said the government is "using a boulder to crush an ant".
"To me the action is potentially disproportionate to the actual problem. But, like anything, it's a business cost which will be passed on ... in the end it will be the poor old passenger who pays."
It's simple. In the UK thousands of trains travel every day without ANY security screening, some go up to 125 mph carrying over 250 passengers at a time - and passengers are screened for nothing. If this can be sustained every day in a country with far more serious terrorism (and domestic anti-social behaviour) problems than NZ, then we can let people fly from Napier, New Plymouth, Tauranga and Nelson without being harassed because 1 in 10,000 people who fly are mad or drunk.What business should run for free?
The news from the NZ Herald that TV3 faces fines of up to NZ$300,000 because it broadcast advertising - its primary source of revenue on a Sunday morning should raise a more serious question.
Why should any privately owned broadcasters broadcast for free?
The laws restricting when TV broadcasters can broadcast advertising are a little recognised but very real limit on free speech. Why should the government dictate when a broadcaster can sell the only thing that broadcaster has to make money? Advertising.
Imagine a cinema that had to offer free tickets on a Sunday morning, or any other business that was told if it opened on a Sunday morning, everything would be free. Indeed, imagine the internet without ads on Sunday morning - um yes, got the point?
Of course look at who brought the case - the cheerless Ministry of Culture and the Arts. People who produce nothing, who risk nothing, but use your money to promote their view of what culture and arts should be subsidised. Not the culture and arts you consume and want, no. You're forced to pay for a statist view of the world. It's wrong, and the Ministry of Culture and the Arts should be disbanded.
Meanwhile, a small step forward would be to end restrictions on advertising on Sunday mornings, as well as Good Friday and Christmas Day (the only days radio stations cannot broadcast advertisements, but I doubt most of you even notice).
If you don't like advertising on TV on certain days then you can avoid it - do something else, turn it off.
Why should any privately owned broadcasters broadcast for free?
The laws restricting when TV broadcasters can broadcast advertising are a little recognised but very real limit on free speech. Why should the government dictate when a broadcaster can sell the only thing that broadcaster has to make money? Advertising.
Imagine a cinema that had to offer free tickets on a Sunday morning, or any other business that was told if it opened on a Sunday morning, everything would be free. Indeed, imagine the internet without ads on Sunday morning - um yes, got the point?
Of course look at who brought the case - the cheerless Ministry of Culture and the Arts. People who produce nothing, who risk nothing, but use your money to promote their view of what culture and arts should be subsidised. Not the culture and arts you consume and want, no. You're forced to pay for a statist view of the world. It's wrong, and the Ministry of Culture and the Arts should be disbanded.
Meanwhile, a small step forward would be to end restrictions on advertising on Sunday mornings, as well as Good Friday and Christmas Day (the only days radio stations cannot broadcast advertisements, but I doubt most of you even notice).
If you don't like advertising on TV on certain days then you can avoid it - do something else, turn it off.
What do you want councils to do then?
Given this news
You might ask why National and ACT are doing nothing to constrain the powers of the new Auckland mega city.
You want the new mega city to get involved in promoting shows with your money?
Well National and ACT don't care if it does.
So if the council will do what it likes
Wont reduce rates
It wont fix transport
What's the point? Especially when it makes some on the left get excited about the possibilities.
You might ask why National and ACT are doing nothing to constrain the powers of the new Auckland mega city.
You want the new mega city to get involved in promoting shows with your money?
Well National and ACT don't care if it does.
So if the council will do what it likes
Wont reduce rates
It wont fix transport
What's the point? Especially when it makes some on the left get excited about the possibilities.
23 April 2009
Iran's benign proxy?
Leave it to Trevor Loudon to post to remind us how an Imam from Hamas calls for extermination of all Jews.
Then wonder why, with this rhetoric, Israelis and Jews generally should "get over" the Holocaust, as so many leftwing commentators say.
While Palestinians support the likes of this, is it any wonder Israel wont compromise?
Oh and Iran funds and arms Hamas. However, you never hear calls for Iran to end its imperialist ambitions do you?
Then wonder why, with this rhetoric, Israelis and Jews generally should "get over" the Holocaust, as so many leftwing commentators say.
While Palestinians support the likes of this, is it any wonder Israel wont compromise?
Oh and Iran funds and arms Hamas. However, you never hear calls for Iran to end its imperialist ambitions do you?
IRD cuts seen differently by Labour
250 jobs to be axed from the Department of Legalised Theft - which can only help boost the economy, as there are less claws trying to clasp money from the productive.
However, I found it funny that Wellington Central MP Grant Robertson on Twitter said:
"250 jobs to go at IRD. apparently its a good time to ask people to take voluntary redundancy! services we get from IRD will suffer."
Services? What are they Grant?
IRD is the state institution that says you're guilty and you have to prove your innocence to it. It harasses people to pay for what they never asked for, for services whether they deliver what you want or not, all without asking - it takes.
I've never understood the mindset of someone who would work for IRD - what joy is there is forcing people to pay for government? What joy is there is forcing people to surrender between 20 and 40% of their income for monopoly education, health and pension schemes which are never accountable if they fail you, and which you can't opt out of?
However, I found it funny that Wellington Central MP Grant Robertson on Twitter said:
"250 jobs to go at IRD. apparently its a good time to ask people to take voluntary redundancy! services we get from IRD will suffer."
Services? What are they Grant?
IRD is the state institution that says you're guilty and you have to prove your innocence to it. It harasses people to pay for what they never asked for, for services whether they deliver what you want or not, all without asking - it takes.
I've never understood the mindset of someone who would work for IRD - what joy is there is forcing people to pay for government? What joy is there is forcing people to surrender between 20 and 40% of their income for monopoly education, health and pension schemes which are never accountable if they fail you, and which you can't opt out of?
Taliban rolls further in Pakistan
First it was Swat Valley. I blogged about this tragedy here, here (the consequences of Taliban rule shutting down so much freedom) and here.
Just like the 1930s in Europe, the Taliban did not stop there. It didn't say "thanks we'll be good now", the Taliban have used Swat as a base, to fight onwards and now capturing Buner District, nearer to Islamabad.
CNN reports:
Just like the 1930s in Europe, the Taliban did not stop there. It didn't say "thanks we'll be good now", the Taliban have used Swat as a base, to fight onwards and now capturing Buner District, nearer to Islamabad.
CNN reports:
"The Pakistani government appears unable or unwilling to stop the Taliban's steady advance deeper into the territory of this nuclear-armed country"
Is Pakistan a failing state? What will it take for the West to be worried about Pakistan's apparent impotence against the Taliban? Will it take Islamabad to be surrounded before governments wake up and realise that the Taliban is taking over a state that holds nuclear weapons - and if you think a nuclear armed Iran is scary....
UK government hikes up taxes and subsidies
Alastair Darling has read his (hopefully) last budget, what a fizzer.
The same government that wants to borrow and spend, in order to boost the economy, is now raising taxes at the same time.
A new top tax rate of 50% is to be introduced from 1 April at a threshold of £150,000. So the UK is back to discouraging the best and brightest to remain, back to penalising success to pillage for the bloated public sector, and welfare for the underclass. It is a breach of Labour's 2005 manifesto pledge "We will not raise the basic or top rates of income tax in the next parliament".
Alcohol and tobacco duty increase by 2% today - the typical sin tax.
Fuel duty goes up 2p a litre in September, don't pretend it is about anything other than pillaging the motorist, as 5x as much is generated from fuel tax in the UK than is spent on roads.
Government debt is going to be 79% of GDP by 2013/2014 because Darling and Brown before him have wasted the good years, constantly running deficits. Now borrowing an additional £175 billion. Fiscal child abuse on a grand scale, because Gordon Brown refuses to cut unproductive government spending.
It's Gordon Brown's huge fiscal "gift" to an incoming Tory government, which will find it difficult to cut taxes easily without massive cuts to spending - and at the same time Labour will accuse the Tories of being heartless, when Labour has been stealing from future generations to buy itself power.
He is subsidising those with cars more than 10 years old by paying £1,000 subsidies to those buying a new car who already have an old one. Nice that, so those without cars get nothing and those already with newer cleaner cars get nothing. A nice subsidy to Labour voting knuckle draggers in the north.
250,000 jobs will be "created" through subsidies, and everyone under 25 who has been unemployed for 12 months or more will get training.
£500 million to "kick start stalled housing projects", great when you already have a deflated housing sector. Nothing like government to help further deflate a sector in decline.
The bloated Scottish Executive is to get another £104m, which upset the socialist SNP government which sees government jobs being cut there - good. The Welsh are similarly unimpressed with a reported £400m cut. Good. This is all part of reducing growth in state spending to 0.7%.
Tax credits for breeding are to increase, when the UK already has a massive problem of people on low incomes breeding when they can't afford to house, educate or provide healthcare for those kids.
£1 billion to subsidise low carbon businesses. £750 million to subsidise "emerging technologies". £525 million for offshore wind generation, because presumably it isn't efficient for users to pay for that electricity.
Pensioners get a 2.5% increase even though there is no inflation - Labour's bribe to pensioners taken from their grandchildren.
Leader of the Opposition David Cameron is unimpressed according to the Daily Telegraph “the worst peacetime public finances ever known. Any claim to economic competence is over, dead, finished.” He added: “With debt like that, our children are going to be in poverty for decades.”
It's appalling. The British governnment squandered years of prosperity, milked the increases in the speculation of the housing market, and ran deficits, poured money down the black hole of the NHS, boosted welfare and kept subsidising the criminal underclass through housing, welfare, health and education, and now it is squandering more.
This budget wont boost the economy, as it borrows to subsidise some industries, and means that future budgets mean more tax increases and tougher spending cuts just to get a balanced budget.
What's most insidious is the philosophy behind it. It is class warfare returning. Labour is saying:
- If you're wealthy and successful, you owe it to the country to have more of your money taken to prop up the government's past failures;
- If you're a pensioner or a welfare beneficiary, don't worry, we'll improve your standard of living so you can vote for us to borrow and hope some more;
- If you run a business that bureaucrats decide is "new technology" or "low carbon" expect money that was taken from other businesses.
It is a return to the old Labour borrow, tax and spend. There is so much wasteful pointless government spending in the UK, tinkering here and there, subsidies here and there, schemes, projects and other nonsense that could be cut - but no, Labour wouldn't hear of it.
So the message is clear- from April 2010, the best and brightest can either be taxed in the UK more heavily, rearrange their affairs to avoid it, or just fuck off.
Why would you stay to get half of every pound you earn to pay for the UK government?
ALL budget documents here
The same government that wants to borrow and spend, in order to boost the economy, is now raising taxes at the same time.
A new top tax rate of 50% is to be introduced from 1 April at a threshold of £150,000. So the UK is back to discouraging the best and brightest to remain, back to penalising success to pillage for the bloated public sector, and welfare for the underclass. It is a breach of Labour's 2005 manifesto pledge "We will not raise the basic or top rates of income tax in the next parliament".
Alcohol and tobacco duty increase by 2% today - the typical sin tax.
Fuel duty goes up 2p a litre in September, don't pretend it is about anything other than pillaging the motorist, as 5x as much is generated from fuel tax in the UK than is spent on roads.
Government debt is going to be 79% of GDP by 2013/2014 because Darling and Brown before him have wasted the good years, constantly running deficits. Now borrowing an additional £175 billion. Fiscal child abuse on a grand scale, because Gordon Brown refuses to cut unproductive government spending.
It's Gordon Brown's huge fiscal "gift" to an incoming Tory government, which will find it difficult to cut taxes easily without massive cuts to spending - and at the same time Labour will accuse the Tories of being heartless, when Labour has been stealing from future generations to buy itself power.
He is subsidising those with cars more than 10 years old by paying £1,000 subsidies to those buying a new car who already have an old one. Nice that, so those without cars get nothing and those already with newer cleaner cars get nothing. A nice subsidy to Labour voting knuckle draggers in the north.
250,000 jobs will be "created" through subsidies, and everyone under 25 who has been unemployed for 12 months or more will get training.
£500 million to "kick start stalled housing projects", great when you already have a deflated housing sector. Nothing like government to help further deflate a sector in decline.
The bloated Scottish Executive is to get another £104m, which upset the socialist SNP government which sees government jobs being cut there - good. The Welsh are similarly unimpressed with a reported £400m cut. Good. This is all part of reducing growth in state spending to 0.7%.
Tax credits for breeding are to increase, when the UK already has a massive problem of people on low incomes breeding when they can't afford to house, educate or provide healthcare for those kids.
£1 billion to subsidise low carbon businesses. £750 million to subsidise "emerging technologies". £525 million for offshore wind generation, because presumably it isn't efficient for users to pay for that electricity.
Pensioners get a 2.5% increase even though there is no inflation - Labour's bribe to pensioners taken from their grandchildren.
Leader of the Opposition David Cameron is unimpressed according to the Daily Telegraph “the worst peacetime public finances ever known. Any claim to economic competence is over, dead, finished.” He added: “With debt like that, our children are going to be in poverty for decades.”
It's appalling. The British governnment squandered years of prosperity, milked the increases in the speculation of the housing market, and ran deficits, poured money down the black hole of the NHS, boosted welfare and kept subsidising the criminal underclass through housing, welfare, health and education, and now it is squandering more.
This budget wont boost the economy, as it borrows to subsidise some industries, and means that future budgets mean more tax increases and tougher spending cuts just to get a balanced budget.
What's most insidious is the philosophy behind it. It is class warfare returning. Labour is saying:
- If you're wealthy and successful, you owe it to the country to have more of your money taken to prop up the government's past failures;
- If you're a pensioner or a welfare beneficiary, don't worry, we'll improve your standard of living so you can vote for us to borrow and hope some more;
- If you run a business that bureaucrats decide is "new technology" or "low carbon" expect money that was taken from other businesses.
It is a return to the old Labour borrow, tax and spend. There is so much wasteful pointless government spending in the UK, tinkering here and there, subsidies here and there, schemes, projects and other nonsense that could be cut - but no, Labour wouldn't hear of it.
So the message is clear- from April 2010, the best and brightest can either be taxed in the UK more heavily, rearrange their affairs to avoid it, or just fuck off.
Why would you stay to get half of every pound you earn to pay for the UK government?
ALL budget documents here
22 April 2009
UN Racism conference farce continues
UN Watch continues with highlights of the Durban Review Conference, to show the madness did NOT end with Ahmadinejad's tyrade against Israel.
Testimony presented at the conference challenged the Libyan chair by exposing Libya's own racism (remember the foreign nurses imprisoned in Libya for spreading HIV?). Most poignantly presented by a Palestinian, who was one of those nurses imprisoned.
"Thank you, Madame Chair.
Testimony presented at the conference challenged the Libyan chair by exposing Libya's own racism (remember the foreign nurses imprisoned in Libya for spreading HIV?). Most poignantly presented by a Palestinian, who was one of those nurses imprisoned.
"Thank you, Madame Chair.
I don’t know if you recognize me. I am the Palestinian medical intern who was scapegoated by your country, Libya, in the HIV case in the Benghazi hospital, together with five Bulgarian nurses.
Section 1 of the draft declaration for this conference speaks about victims of racism, discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance. Based on my own suffering, I wish to offer some proposals.
Starting in 1999, as you know, the five nurses and I were falsely arrested, prosecuted, imprisoned, brutally tortured, convicted, and sentenced to death. All of this, which lasted for nearly a decade, was for only one reason: because the Libyan government was looking to scapegoat foreigners."
Watch the France 24 news coverage (in English) here.
A racism conference chaired by a representative from a totalitarian dictatorship that randomly villifies foreigners.
UN Watch also notes a side event which included Iranian political dissidents, including a representative of the Azeri minority in Iran, which claims persecution by the Iranian regime.
Meanwhile the Palestinian delegate used the conference to accuse Israel of being the worst human rights violator (hardly surprising). Syria's delegate echoed this damning Israel, and saying all foreign occupation is racism. (Turkey would be a bit worried about this, China might be less keen on this, as would Pakistan and Russia, since all have some territory claimed by others).
Gee is there no racism elsewhere? Besides, can you really trust delegates from authoritarian states to give an objective view of racism in their states?
A racism conference chaired by a representative from a totalitarian dictatorship that randomly villifies foreigners.
UN Watch also notes a side event which included Iranian political dissidents, including a representative of the Azeri minority in Iran, which claims persecution by the Iranian regime.
Meanwhile the Palestinian delegate used the conference to accuse Israel of being the worst human rights violator (hardly surprising). Syria's delegate echoed this damning Israel, and saying all foreign occupation is racism. (Turkey would be a bit worried about this, China might be less keen on this, as would Pakistan and Russia, since all have some territory claimed by others).
Gee is there no racism elsewhere? Besides, can you really trust delegates from authoritarian states to give an objective view of racism in their states?
UN Racism conference was a farce before it started
While most of the focus on the UN Racism Conference (Durban Review Conference) has been on Ahmadinejad, the signs were there well before that this would be a farce. Islamic countries all wanted the conference to be an effort to prohibit defamation of religion, and to slam Israel. Cuba also wanted anything to do with freedom of speech removed. Iran sought to overwhelmingly dominate the conference proceedings.
Even more sinister is the effort by China, Cuba and South Africa to promote the idea that victims of Trans-Atlantic slave trade should be compensated - i.e. implying the old call that African-Americans should be compensated for what their distant ancestors suffered. That all fell flat.
UN Watch has excellent coverage of the background meetings before the Conference, showing just what rogues so many attendees were looking to be:
In the Intercessional Working Group for the Durban Review Conference, Pakistan, speaking for the group of Islamic states (OIC), objected to paragraph 56, which “Stresses that the right to freedom of opinion and expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic, pluralistic society,” saying that it did not see how this relates to the conference’s focus on racism.
(In which case what harm does it do? Yes you can guess).
Cuba argued that paragraphs about freedom of speech and expression should be moved to the more passive Section 1, which reviews progress of states rather than demanding action from them.
(Funny that, you don't get freedom of speech and expression in Cuba)
Cuba also endorsed mention of the ad hoc committee on complementary standards, an Algerian-chaired U.N. committee that is seeking to add an additional protocol to the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) that would define criticism of religion as a violation.
(In other words, trying to say criticising a religion is a form of racism - what nonsense).
China, Cuba, and South Africa argued that there needs to be more work on paragraphs 60-62 on the trans-Atlantic slave trade. China said these paragraphs should be more “victims oriented,” implying support for the African-led effort to demand that Western countries pay reparations for the past injustice.
(In other words, the US government should pay African-Americans compensation for the suffering of their ancestors - even though Africans in Africa today almost all have lower standards of living than African-Americans).
In a meeting of the Durban II working group at the U.N. Human Rights Council, Iran was extremely active, proposing amendments and language changes in more paragraphs than any other state, and in a few instances, ignoring the Chair’s plea to hold off on certain paragraphs for the time being and engage in a constructive manner.
Even more sinister is the effort by China, Cuba and South Africa to promote the idea that victims of Trans-Atlantic slave trade should be compensated - i.e. implying the old call that African-Americans should be compensated for what their distant ancestors suffered. That all fell flat.
UN Watch has excellent coverage of the background meetings before the Conference, showing just what rogues so many attendees were looking to be:
In the Intercessional Working Group for the Durban Review Conference, Pakistan, speaking for the group of Islamic states (OIC), objected to paragraph 56, which “Stresses that the right to freedom of opinion and expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic, pluralistic society,” saying that it did not see how this relates to the conference’s focus on racism.
(In which case what harm does it do? Yes you can guess).
Cuba argued that paragraphs about freedom of speech and expression should be moved to the more passive Section 1, which reviews progress of states rather than demanding action from them.
(Funny that, you don't get freedom of speech and expression in Cuba)
Cuba also endorsed mention of the ad hoc committee on complementary standards, an Algerian-chaired U.N. committee that is seeking to add an additional protocol to the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) that would define criticism of religion as a violation.
(In other words, trying to say criticising a religion is a form of racism - what nonsense).
China, Cuba, and South Africa argued that there needs to be more work on paragraphs 60-62 on the trans-Atlantic slave trade. China said these paragraphs should be more “victims oriented,” implying support for the African-led effort to demand that Western countries pay reparations for the past injustice.
(In other words, the US government should pay African-Americans compensation for the suffering of their ancestors - even though Africans in Africa today almost all have lower standards of living than African-Americans).
In a meeting of the Durban II working group at the U.N. Human Rights Council, Iran was extremely active, proposing amendments and language changes in more paragraphs than any other state, and in a few instances, ignoring the Chair’s plea to hold off on certain paragraphs for the time being and engage in a constructive manner.
The closing session of the working group on the draft Durban II declaration:
Iran asked that the paragraph on Holocaust remembrance be deleted;
(because of course, it mind never have happened right?)
The Czech Republic for the EU requested an amendment to the controversial paragraph 30, which “Takes note with appreciation that the Ad hoc Committee on the Elaboration of International Complementary Standards convened its first session,” proposing to delete, “with appreciation.” The ad hoc committee is primarily responsible for promoting the campaign to criminalize the “defamation of religions” within U.N. human rights law. Nigeria lashed back at the EU, proposing to keep “appreciation,” while adding, “and commends” the committee. The paragraph was then tabled and skipped.
(Czechs bravely wanted to dismiss the Islamic driven attempt to restrict religious criticism, while Nigeria endorses Islamofascism).
Cuba proposed the deletion of paragraphs 55 and 56, which emphasize the importance of freedom of expression, saying, “There is no reason why we should single out one right, which is not even associated with the fight against racism.”
Iran proposed a new paragraph 56 that calls for “permissible restrictions to freedom of expression.” It also suggested integration of the “defamation of religions” concept into article 66, which deals with incitement to hatred.
(Both being great opponents to freedom of expression).
Single Auckland council wont fix transport
"There will be an integrated single authority for Auckland's roads and public transport"
Wrong.
There will be three.
Megacouncil will look after local roads and contracting public transport, kind of like ARTA is meant to do now, but doesn't do a good job of local roads. You might reflect on why that is.
NZ Transport Agency will continue to look after the state highways. Ministers don't trust the Auckland Megacouncil to do that. Who would blame them? So the busiest most strategically important roads in Auckland wont be a matter of the Megacouncil.
Ontrack will continue to look after the rail network. Ministers also don't trust the Auckland Megacouncil to do that. Again, key routes for freight (set aside the unprofitable low frequency low density passenger services) are too important to leave to a local authority.
If you want to see how poorly a local authority can perform on transport planning and management you need only look at Auckland's past, which is littered with several planning screw ups. Here are a couple.
1. SH20: Land was designated for the so-called "South Western Motorway" in the 1960s, to link the Southern Motorway to the North Western Motorway. The land was empty at the time, so placing a designation on it meant anyone using the land would know it would one day be acquired for a motorway, so short term leases were the order of the day. However, the ARA and Auckland City Council decided in 1974 that the route beyond Richardson Road to the northwest was not well defined, and so the designation should be dropped from there. As a result the designation only comprises the sections now being built - from the Southern Motorway to Mt Roskill. The Waterview Extension debate is purely because previous Auckland councils decided the South Western Motorway need end at Mt Roskill. Well done. Cost of that decision now runs at least to $1 billion.
2. South Eastern Arterial: Auckland City Council decided in the 1980s that there were inadequate connections between Pakuranga, Mt Wellington and the Southdown areas so decided to revive plans for the "South Eastern Motorway" to link Church St to Mt Wellington Highway and the Pakuranga Motorway, with on and off ramps to the Southern Motorway. It did so on the cheap. The resulting road has few shoulders to accommodate breakdowns, and traffic lights on multiple busy intersections when it should be a proper motorway with flyovers. Ultimately this will need perhaps $100 million of improvements to bring it up to standard to relieve the bottlenecks on this important road.
The Auckland mega council wont change that - and in fact the government doesn't even trust it to manage its own networks.
So let's stop hearing arguments that a single council will be good for transport in Auckland - when there isn't any evidence for that.
Wrong.
There will be three.
Megacouncil will look after local roads and contracting public transport, kind of like ARTA is meant to do now, but doesn't do a good job of local roads. You might reflect on why that is.
NZ Transport Agency will continue to look after the state highways. Ministers don't trust the Auckland Megacouncil to do that. Who would blame them? So the busiest most strategically important roads in Auckland wont be a matter of the Megacouncil.
Ontrack will continue to look after the rail network. Ministers also don't trust the Auckland Megacouncil to do that. Again, key routes for freight (set aside the unprofitable low frequency low density passenger services) are too important to leave to a local authority.
If you want to see how poorly a local authority can perform on transport planning and management you need only look at Auckland's past, which is littered with several planning screw ups. Here are a couple.
1. SH20: Land was designated for the so-called "South Western Motorway" in the 1960s, to link the Southern Motorway to the North Western Motorway. The land was empty at the time, so placing a designation on it meant anyone using the land would know it would one day be acquired for a motorway, so short term leases were the order of the day. However, the ARA and Auckland City Council decided in 1974 that the route beyond Richardson Road to the northwest was not well defined, and so the designation should be dropped from there. As a result the designation only comprises the sections now being built - from the Southern Motorway to Mt Roskill. The Waterview Extension debate is purely because previous Auckland councils decided the South Western Motorway need end at Mt Roskill. Well done. Cost of that decision now runs at least to $1 billion.
2. South Eastern Arterial: Auckland City Council decided in the 1980s that there were inadequate connections between Pakuranga, Mt Wellington and the Southdown areas so decided to revive plans for the "South Eastern Motorway" to link Church St to Mt Wellington Highway and the Pakuranga Motorway, with on and off ramps to the Southern Motorway. It did so on the cheap. The resulting road has few shoulders to accommodate breakdowns, and traffic lights on multiple busy intersections when it should be a proper motorway with flyovers. Ultimately this will need perhaps $100 million of improvements to bring it up to standard to relieve the bottlenecks on this important road.
The Auckland mega council wont change that - and in fact the government doesn't even trust it to manage its own networks.
So let's stop hearing arguments that a single council will be good for transport in Auckland - when there isn't any evidence for that.
When is an official independent?
Joris de Bres thinks that the government should continue to pay him to be a critic of it. It raises the issue as to when state sector employees are meant to be independent and when they can effectively lobby politically.
He went to the Geneva Racism Conference, in his "independent capacity" then criticised the government, parroting the Labour Party point of view.
Foreign Minister Murray McCully said "I am not sure whether he is there is an official capacity or as a representative of the Labour Party". Of course de Bres's boss, Rosslyn Noonan is herself a card carrying member of the Labour Party, and saw nothing wrong with it.
The Human Rights Commission is meant to be independent, in terms of enforcing the hideous law that created it. In that respect its independence is justified. It must be able to criticise politicians when they break the law. Ros Noonan did so on the Electoral Finance Bill.
However, for paid employees at the level of de Bres to attend international conferences in a private capacity (we have yet to find out who paid for the trip), and then use the trip as a platform to do politicking when it is NOT part of his job, is outrageous.
Imagine if a National Party member, was a government official, and went to the US to complain about NZ's nuclear ban - how would the Labour Party welcome that?
Exactly. De Bres should go, Noonan should be warned.
No Minister agrees.
Of course, I'd abolish the Human Rights Commission, but that's another story.
He went to the Geneva Racism Conference, in his "independent capacity" then criticised the government, parroting the Labour Party point of view.
Foreign Minister Murray McCully said "I am not sure whether he is there is an official capacity or as a representative of the Labour Party". Of course de Bres's boss, Rosslyn Noonan is herself a card carrying member of the Labour Party, and saw nothing wrong with it.
The Human Rights Commission is meant to be independent, in terms of enforcing the hideous law that created it. In that respect its independence is justified. It must be able to criticise politicians when they break the law. Ros Noonan did so on the Electoral Finance Bill.
However, for paid employees at the level of de Bres to attend international conferences in a private capacity (we have yet to find out who paid for the trip), and then use the trip as a platform to do politicking when it is NOT part of his job, is outrageous.
Imagine if a National Party member, was a government official, and went to the US to complain about NZ's nuclear ban - how would the Labour Party welcome that?
Exactly. De Bres should go, Noonan should be warned.
No Minister agrees.
Of course, I'd abolish the Human Rights Commission, but that's another story.
Exploit the earth or die
It's today! The Greens will hate it, because it runs counter to the philosophy so many have had rammed down them for the last two decades - that the best way nature can be is left alone.Capitalism magazine says:
Capitalism is the only social system that recognizes and protects each individual's right to act in accordance with his basic means of living: the judgment of his mind. Environmentalism, of course, does not and cannot advocate capitalism, because if people are free to act on their judgment, they will strive to produce and prosper; they will transform the raw materials of nature onto the requirements of human life; they will exploit the Earth and live.
Environmentalism rejects the basic moral premise of capitalism—the idea that people should be free to act on their judgment—because it rejects a more fundamental idea on which capitalism rests: the idea that the requirements of human life constitute the standard of moral value. While the standard of value underlying capitalism is human life (meaning, that which is necessary for human beings to live and prosper), the standard of value underlying environmentalism is nature untouched by man.
Oh and it doesn't mean polluted air, water and the end to parks, forests and lakes. It means recognising that human beings survive by using the earth. It means acknowledging that people worldwide survive by exploiting the earth and applying their minds to it.(Hat Tip: Not PC)
Obama's boondoggle of "fast rail"
The Obama Administration is pouring US$13 billion of money into developing a high speed passenger rail system. Sounds great doesn't it? Obama talked of how countries like Japan and France have been doing it for decades, but the US hasn't, and it is about time that it did.
Sadly this money is going to be wasted, and it isn't going to deliver anything remotely like a high speed rail system for the USA. Why?
The USA is vastly different from France, Japan, Italy, South Korea and other countries with high speed rail systems for one obvious point - size! Japan has profitably developed high speed rail because it has tens of millions of people living very short distances down densely packed corridors. With the exception of the Boston-New York-Washington DC Northeast Corridor, the distances in the US are too vast for rail to begin to compete with aviation for travel time. That rail route in itself is profitable, but sadly under the Federal Government owned AMTRAK is milked to cross subsidise other politically driven routes.
Obama's money will be bad money after bad. It wont build any high speed rail routes because it isn't enough money. The money will go to improve existing lines, at best upgrading lines as fast as the Northeast Corridor, which is nothing like lines in Japan and France. Speeds in Japan and France are In the US it is 145 km/h, in France it is 320 km/h, in Japan 300km/h. High speed rail in the US is slower than most main lines in the UK, which are at least at 160 km/h and typically faster.
Obama has basically lied that this money will deliver the US high speed rail like in those countries. A country that is far bigger will get trains less than half the speed of the countries where high speed rail works. It isn't enough money, and what it will do is next to nothing.
More importantly, rail can never be competitive with aviation over medium to long distances, and the diversity of origin/destination patterns means it wont be useful over short distances in most cases. Obama wont set it free to be profitable and slash all of the politically driven loss making routes that excite far too many members of Congress.
In short, he's wasting money on a feel good project, lying about what it will deliver and pretending it will make any noticeable change in the US economy or the environmental impacts of transport.
It's not change - it's the same failed policy of the Carter Administration on transport.
I'll leave to Sam Staley of the Reason Foundation to explain further. As Randall O'Toole says "Taxpayers and politicians should be wary of any transportation projects that cannot be paid for out of user fees."
Aucklanders are about to get something just like that.
Sadly this money is going to be wasted, and it isn't going to deliver anything remotely like a high speed rail system for the USA. Why?
The USA is vastly different from France, Japan, Italy, South Korea and other countries with high speed rail systems for one obvious point - size! Japan has profitably developed high speed rail because it has tens of millions of people living very short distances down densely packed corridors. With the exception of the Boston-New York-Washington DC Northeast Corridor, the distances in the US are too vast for rail to begin to compete with aviation for travel time. That rail route in itself is profitable, but sadly under the Federal Government owned AMTRAK is milked to cross subsidise other politically driven routes.
Obama's money will be bad money after bad. It wont build any high speed rail routes because it isn't enough money. The money will go to improve existing lines, at best upgrading lines as fast as the Northeast Corridor, which is nothing like lines in Japan and France. Speeds in Japan and France are In the US it is 145 km/h, in France it is 320 km/h, in Japan 300km/h. High speed rail in the US is slower than most main lines in the UK, which are at least at 160 km/h and typically faster.
Obama has basically lied that this money will deliver the US high speed rail like in those countries. A country that is far bigger will get trains less than half the speed of the countries where high speed rail works. It isn't enough money, and what it will do is next to nothing.
More importantly, rail can never be competitive with aviation over medium to long distances, and the diversity of origin/destination patterns means it wont be useful over short distances in most cases. Obama wont set it free to be profitable and slash all of the politically driven loss making routes that excite far too many members of Congress.
In short, he's wasting money on a feel good project, lying about what it will deliver and pretending it will make any noticeable change in the US economy or the environmental impacts of transport.
It's not change - it's the same failed policy of the Carter Administration on transport.
I'll leave to Sam Staley of the Reason Foundation to explain further. As Randall O'Toole says "Taxpayers and politicians should be wary of any transportation projects that cannot be paid for out of user fees."
Aucklanders are about to get something just like that.
South Africa's election - rewards for corruption
The ANC is predicted to win another landslide in the South African elections. Although you could be excused for wondering why it could deserve it. ANC President Jacob Zuma has already proven that the ANC is willing to corrupt the judicial system when one of its own are threatened.
That in itself should deny it power. The separation of party and state, and the independence of the judiciary are clearly threatened in South Africa.
The party of Nelson Mandela who conducted himself admirably when power was handed over after the first non-racial election, dropped far under Thabo Mbeki. Mbeki on one hand evaded science and contributed to the deaths of thousands as he embraced quackery on HIV, and on the other hand has his hands bloodied by his embrace of Robert Mugabe. Jacob Zuma shows signs of being worse still. Blocking a visa for the Dalai Lama, because China wanted it, shows how the anti-imperialist credentials of the ANC look rather rusty.
The ANC has the arrogance of the single governing party it long wanted to be – after all, it never ever really wanted liberal democracy. In South Africa, it still doesn’t need to give a damn, as so many black South Africans are grateful for liberation from racist rule. That sadly is enough to maintain the ANC’s arrogance.
The ANC has used the government owned media to push its own platform disproportionately. It has also been profoundly corrupt, with government contracts going to friends of Ministers, and politicians enriching themselves from the state.
More generally, South Africa is a mess in several dimensions. The economy is suffering from the global recession, crime has not receded with a murder rate the second highest in the world, and the highest reported assault and rape rate. South Africans have largely had to take things into their own hands to protect themselves. Riots a couple of years ago don't mean the majority have turned on the ANC. Bishop Desmond Tutu has been critical of the government, saying bureaucrats act with little regard for citizens, much like under apartheid. Electricity is severely rationed, because the government refused to privatise or allow the state monopoly to be challenged.
This has seen a new breakaway party emerge called COPE (Congress of the People)– which blames the ANC for opposing the rule of law and for corruption. The Democratic Alliance has long been the party of Opposition, even when apartheid existed, the Democratic Party was the liberal opposition, with recently deceased leader Helen Suzman. It has a long proud tradition of opposing apartheid and is now lead by Helen Zille. Suzman expressed concern before her death that democracy was more vibrant under apartheid than it is today, a sad legacy.
The best result would be for the ANC to be defeated, for a coalition of the Democratic Alliance and COPE to purge South Africa of the corruption and kleptocracy of the ANC years. However, the South African government media portrays the Democratic Alliance as a party of “white interests”, and the vast majority of poor barely literate black South Africans believe the cargo cult the ANC pulls out to have them vote for it – that only the ANC is looking after them, despite precious little evidence of the sort.
The most likely outcome is the ANC wins less than the 66% needed to change the constitution. The ANC will gloat and cheer, and continue to look after itself over holding itself accountable.
We can only hope that it wont threaten South Africa’s open liberal democracy as the party that believes it exists to rule increasingly sees its majorities eroded away. The sooner South Africa tells the ANC "thanks for the revolution, now we want good governance" the better.
That in itself should deny it power. The separation of party and state, and the independence of the judiciary are clearly threatened in South Africa.
The party of Nelson Mandela who conducted himself admirably when power was handed over after the first non-racial election, dropped far under Thabo Mbeki. Mbeki on one hand evaded science and contributed to the deaths of thousands as he embraced quackery on HIV, and on the other hand has his hands bloodied by his embrace of Robert Mugabe. Jacob Zuma shows signs of being worse still. Blocking a visa for the Dalai Lama, because China wanted it, shows how the anti-imperialist credentials of the ANC look rather rusty.
The ANC has the arrogance of the single governing party it long wanted to be – after all, it never ever really wanted liberal democracy. In South Africa, it still doesn’t need to give a damn, as so many black South Africans are grateful for liberation from racist rule. That sadly is enough to maintain the ANC’s arrogance.
The ANC has used the government owned media to push its own platform disproportionately. It has also been profoundly corrupt, with government contracts going to friends of Ministers, and politicians enriching themselves from the state.
More generally, South Africa is a mess in several dimensions. The economy is suffering from the global recession, crime has not receded with a murder rate the second highest in the world, and the highest reported assault and rape rate. South Africans have largely had to take things into their own hands to protect themselves. Riots a couple of years ago don't mean the majority have turned on the ANC. Bishop Desmond Tutu has been critical of the government, saying bureaucrats act with little regard for citizens, much like under apartheid. Electricity is severely rationed, because the government refused to privatise or allow the state monopoly to be challenged.
This has seen a new breakaway party emerge called COPE (Congress of the People)– which blames the ANC for opposing the rule of law and for corruption. The Democratic Alliance has long been the party of Opposition, even when apartheid existed, the Democratic Party was the liberal opposition, with recently deceased leader Helen Suzman. It has a long proud tradition of opposing apartheid and is now lead by Helen Zille. Suzman expressed concern before her death that democracy was more vibrant under apartheid than it is today, a sad legacy.
The best result would be for the ANC to be defeated, for a coalition of the Democratic Alliance and COPE to purge South Africa of the corruption and kleptocracy of the ANC years. However, the South African government media portrays the Democratic Alliance as a party of “white interests”, and the vast majority of poor barely literate black South Africans believe the cargo cult the ANC pulls out to have them vote for it – that only the ANC is looking after them, despite precious little evidence of the sort.
The most likely outcome is the ANC wins less than the 66% needed to change the constitution. The ANC will gloat and cheer, and continue to look after itself over holding itself accountable.
We can only hope that it wont threaten South Africa’s open liberal democracy as the party that believes it exists to rule increasingly sees its majorities eroded away. The sooner South Africa tells the ANC "thanks for the revolution, now we want good governance" the better.
21 April 2009
Rudman gets much wrong on transport, again!
Oh dear, after doing quite well lately, Brian Rudman has it badly wrong.
On Auckland he claims "That Aucklanders were willing to pay an extra regional fuel tax on top of the fuel tax the rest of the country paid".
Um Brian, the government that passed the legislation for this tax was voted out, rather comprehensively, by Aucklanders as well as the rest of the country. I wouldn't have thought that meant "Aucklanders were willing to pay".
Then he says...
"It's not that Auckland wants special treatment. It just wants an equitable share of the budgetary cake.
On Auckland he claims "That Aucklanders were willing to pay an extra regional fuel tax on top of the fuel tax the rest of the country paid".
Um Brian, the government that passed the legislation for this tax was voted out, rather comprehensively, by Aucklanders as well as the rest of the country. I wouldn't have thought that meant "Aucklanders were willing to pay".
Then he says...
"It's not that Auckland wants special treatment. It just wants an equitable share of the budgetary cake.
In the past I have given examples of how Auckland was for years ripped off by the state road builder Transit New Zealand when it came to the distribution of road-user levies."
Brian has an interesting view of "equitable" being that Auckland gets money taken from road users, but he wants it spent on public transport. He doesn't mind road users being pillaged to pay for public transport, but don't let fuel tax paid in Auckland get spend on roads in Southland. Equity for Brian is geographical, but not modal.
Moreover, he doesn't even understand that Transit New Zealand (which doesn't exist now) hasn't been responsible for distributing road taxes since 1996. Not good for a man who writes so frequently about transport to not even understand the funding framework. Transit used to bid for funds, it did not distribute them - and in fact the public transport projects Brian likes never went far for so long because they have such poor returns - Labour had to change the funding framework to allow poor value projects to proceed.
Then he quotes the Green Party Transport Research Unit!! Wonderful stuff, people who evade facts that there is little difference between trucks and trains in environmental impact, people who lie about the nature of road projects (witness the nonsense about the Basin Reserve flyover in Wellington). The Greens claim Auckland got 40% of what it paid in road taxes. Now I don't know the basis for that (Brian doesn't publish the documents so we can actually determine if mistakes have been made), as it could simply be the fact that the majority of fuel tax until this year went to the Crown anyway.
Then he makes the fantastic non-sequiter "Imagine the wonderful rapid rail system, complete with spur lines to the airport, Aucklanders could be enjoying now if that money had already been spent here." Yes imagine Brian, because until Labour got re-elected, the rapid rail system would NEVER have been funded because it has always been an inefficient project. The money would have gone on roads.
Furthermore, Brian avoids confronting you with the truth that IF such a system existed, Auckland ratepayers would have had to pay 40% of the capital costs and the ongoing operating subsidies. Road users don't pay all of the subsidies paid out by the ARC, nor should they.
Finally he says "Over the last couple of years, the progress was there for all to see. Double tracking of the rail lines was under way, Spaghetti Junction was expanded, the Northern Connection was completed." Yes, the double tracking was funded by former Infrastructure Auckland money. Spaghetti Junction expansion came from road users and was accelerated at the cost of the "Northern Connection" (I guess he means the Northern Gateway toll road).
Sorry Brian - you can't claim it is inequitable to spend Auckland motoring taxes outside Auckland, but somehow fair that economically questionable rail projects get subsidised by those who don't use them (and don't pretend it makes a jot of difference to congestion).
Moreover, don't pretend that if motorists were pillaged to pay their "share" of the costs of a rapid rail system that Auckland ratepayers would pay "their share". It's a nonsense, Aucklanders have proven they don't want to pay - stop trying to find non-users to pay for your expensive rail fetish, when there is no evidence that it will do anything besides gold plate the commutes of maybe 5% of Aucklanders.
UN Racism conference proven to be a farce
The vile speech by Iran's homophobic warmongering racist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has previously damned liberal democracy as a failure, has provoked a walk out by many delegates at the UN Conference on Racism according to the BBC.
He claimed Israel was created to "make an entire nation homeless", which is historical nonsense.
He claimed Israel existed to create a "totally racist government".
He claimed Israel existed on the "pretext of Jewish suffering", as he denies the Holocaust once again.
CNN says he was jeered at and cheered at, but the cheers were from Iran and the Palestinian delegations it appears.
New Zealand can be glad it isn't a party to a forum for this vile bigoted thug to express his idiotic views. Of course, I expect Green MPs to send a note of protest to the Iranian Embassy about Ahmadinejad's views, like the Greens did when he denied there were homosexuals in Iran - remember that? It must have happened surely, I mean they always claim the moral high ground!
Racism is mindless, but to hijack this forum to talk only of the Palestinians, to engage in historical denial, to point a finger at one but not others, shows little real interest in racism.
He claimed Israel was created to "make an entire nation homeless", which is historical nonsense.
He claimed Israel existed to create a "totally racist government".
He claimed Israel existed on the "pretext of Jewish suffering", as he denies the Holocaust once again.
CNN says he was jeered at and cheered at, but the cheers were from Iran and the Palestinian delegations it appears.
New Zealand can be glad it isn't a party to a forum for this vile bigoted thug to express his idiotic views. Of course, I expect Green MPs to send a note of protest to the Iranian Embassy about Ahmadinejad's views, like the Greens did when he denied there were homosexuals in Iran - remember that? It must have happened surely, I mean they always claim the moral high ground!
Racism is mindless, but to hijack this forum to talk only of the Palestinians, to engage in historical denial, to point a finger at one but not others, shows little real interest in racism.
Reuters report
UPDATE: Colin Espiner in the Press reports that Chief Human Rights Commissioner (and long standing leftwing Labour Party stalwark) Ros Noonan claims "I've been through the programme and I can't find anything that smacks of anti-Semitism quite the reverse". I guess the fact Ahmadinejad would use the conference as a platform for it, didn't matter did it?
Espiner basically takes the Labour and the Green view, by not stating until halfway through his article that only the Labour and Greens are questioning whether foreign policy is independent, and he doesn't list all the countries boycotting the conference. Yep, good independent unbiased MSM journalism there Colin.
UPDATE 2: Keeping Stock reports that Joris de Bres is attending the Geneva conference, despite it being boycotted by the government.
Shouldn't this supercilious little man arrive home to find a letter advising him of the termination of his employment, with the bill for this unauthorised trip removed from his salary?
Condoms too big for Indian men
This is an old report I happened to find listed in the top 10 on the BBC website.
A new stereotype to go alongside the one for black men and for east Asian men.
Nothing more to say on this.
A new stereotype to go alongside the one for black men and for east Asian men.
Nothing more to say on this.
20 April 2009
Labour and the Greens think their side is "independent"
Presumably if New Zealand "followed" the Arab world, Africa and the developing world, known for being scrupulously anti-racist, pro-individual rights and pro-liberal democracy, that would be an "independent foreign policy". However "following" the developed world, of countries that prohibit racism at the government level, that actually do let the judiciary hold the executive and legislature to account, that constitutionally and factually embrace free speech and individual rights to a relatively high level, is "following others".
Grant Robertson and Keith Locke mistake choosing to agree with the likes of the US, Australia, Germany and the Netherlands as being "not independent" which is frankly insulting. However, they wouldn't dare suggest that choosing to agree with South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Iran and China means you are "not independent".
It's just their own bigoted anti-Western scepticism over individual rights and the West coming to the fore - trying to paint the government as slavishly following the United States, even though the US has Barack Obama as President - who I don't doubt was the preference of both Robertson and Locke.
Keith Locke moreover supports this conference singling out the Palestinian issue, but happily lets the genocide in Darfur remain unmentioned, not least because Muslim states don't want to point a finger at a fellow Islamic regime committing racist murder, supported by China. Locke likes to see the UN as a meeting of equals, when it is a gallery from the relatively free to murderous butchering tyrants.
New Zealand attending this conference would imply its endorsement and being a party to an one sided set of resolutions - or it would be fighting hard to make it different.
Grant Robertson and Keith Locke mistake choosing to agree with the likes of the US, Australia, Germany and the Netherlands as being "not independent" which is frankly insulting. However, they wouldn't dare suggest that choosing to agree with South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Iran and China means you are "not independent".
It's just their own bigoted anti-Western scepticism over individual rights and the West coming to the fore - trying to paint the government as slavishly following the United States, even though the US has Barack Obama as President - who I don't doubt was the preference of both Robertson and Locke.
Keith Locke moreover supports this conference singling out the Palestinian issue, but happily lets the genocide in Darfur remain unmentioned, not least because Muslim states don't want to point a finger at a fellow Islamic regime committing racist murder, supported by China. Locke likes to see the UN as a meeting of equals, when it is a gallery from the relatively free to murderous butchering tyrants.
New Zealand attending this conference would imply its endorsement and being a party to an one sided set of resolutions - or it would be fighting hard to make it different.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)