Abandon Saddam's trial - execute him

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

Iraqi chemical weapons shipped to Syria before war?

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

Insulting religions is a right

Yes it is.

.

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

.

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

.

So go on, declare a fatwa on me.

.

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

.

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

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

The End of Celebrity Big Brother UK

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

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

So, for Big Brother those that are left are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toll existing Auckland roads?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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