The West should treat Islam the way it wants Islam to treat the West

Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi said so.

.

Indeed. We want an open and free debate and exchange of views - without violence, without threats against our citizens, and without threats to wipe Israel off the map. I haven't noticed Westerners using terrorism against Muslims - or indeed

.

He also said "Muslims for their part had to avoid "sweeping denunciation of Christians, Jews and the West". As my post a few days ago on the anti semitic cartoons, there is still some way to go on that one.

.

Mr Abdullah is a moderate - that's why he shut down a newspaper that now said it made an "editorial oversight" for publishing the cartoons, and he declared that possession of them was now banned.

.

That's the difference - so Malaysians, particularly the 40% who are NOT Muslim, here are the cartoons. Judge for yourselves - after all, they are not meant to offend you and I think you are all adult enough to make your own mind up.

Boo to you Yahoo

The reports that Yahoo may have supplied information to Chinese authorities that led to the arrest of a dissident journalist shows a disjunct between legality and morality among that is utterly reprehensible. A company that flourished due to the freedom of the USA is willing to actively participate in repression.

.

Reporters Without Borders claims that Mr Li Zhi received an eight year prison sentence for attempting to join a banned political party and Yahoo China gave the government details of his online registration. Yahoo is to look into this, as it is to appear before the US Congress to discuss its policies in relation to human rights in China.

.

Of course it is well known that Google has a censored version of its search engine for the Chinese market, but Google at least has kept its email server outside China. Microsoft also has shut down an anti-government blog in China.

.

The companies concerned don't want the Chinese market to be taken by someone else, by ignoring it they claim they are not helping Chinese freedom (the internet is probably on balance a liberator even when it is partially censored, than not) and that it will simply mean others will enter and take market share.

.

However it is one thing to operate within the laws of a country in how you provide a service - another to gather information and supply it so that country's government can oppress its citizens. Yahoo may have blood on its hands - for shame!.

.

Note if you search yahoo China for tiananmen massacre, you get nothing. If you search for BBC news or Voice of America, you get sites that have nothing to do with it. Back to shortwave radios in China then is it?

Worthless MP

.
Remember Richard Worthless?
.
The header on his website claims he is the MP for Epsom, look at the VERY top of your browser to see what it says. He just doesn't get it does he? The man who was convinced that, somehow, National had a better chance governing with him winning the Eden seat, rather than a list place, rather than National ALSO getting Rodney Hide and whoever ACT could bring along, has shown more of his true colours.
.
He doesn’t believe in free speech any more than Tariana Turia does.
.
In his virtually audience less newsletter “Newsworthy” he said:
.
“The media defence of "freedom of speech" overlooks two important points:
* Freedom of speech is not an unconstrained right. Whilst the New Zealand Bill of Rights in section 14 refers to the right of freedom of expression, there are a raft of laws which impinge dramatically on that right.The laws of criminal contempt and defamation are clear illustrations of that.
* We still have our on statute books the crime of blasphemous libel which carries a maximum jail term of one year. “
.
Nice to raise that point, as if he was a prefect pointing out that "it's illegal" like some arrogant little do-gooder! When Richard Worth was at school was he hated because he told teacher whenever kids broke a rule? If he were a cop would he have given you a ticket for going at 101km/h (it’s the law!)?
.
The law of blasphemous libel does exist, Worth fails to point out that the Crimes Act S.123(4) points out that no one shall be prosecuted for this offence without leave of the Attorney General. This demonstrates that it exists for exceptional cases – though it should not exist at all – it should not be a crime to blaspheme against any religion.
.
Worth wasn’t just pointing out the law, he was effectively endorsing it by saying:
.
“Comments and caricature ridiculing or attacking the religious beliefs of others are dangerously divisive in any community. Such comments bring unpredictable response actions from extremists and often the tacit support of more moderate adherents.”
.
On one level he is right. Imagine if you lived in a society where your beliefs and opinions were typically considered extreme, ridiculous and stupid. Ever been a libertarian? Ever been an atheist in an avowedly Christian or Muslim town? Think the law should protect me, Not PC, Lindsay Perigo from ridicule? No. We wont threaten to burn down your buildings or behead you.
.
"Comments attacking the religious belief of others" should be suppressed because someone will lose the plot and give an "unpredictable response action". So free speech now must have permission from people who tend to act violently when their belief in ghosts is attacked. So we must shut up because some psychotics will murder us due to the offence caused. There are plenty of reasons to criticise religions because they are ridiculous - that is different from harassing people.
.
Rodney Hide (the real MP for Epsom) said, “we must be respectful of other people’s cultures and beliefs. That’s a simple matter of politeness and a pragmatic recognition of what it takes to live in a diverse and tolerant world.” You don’t go around and tell your Muslim neighbour everyday his religion is stupid or tell the local priest how evil you think Catholicism is.
.
However, Worth is not saying that - he separates lampooning from ridicule and attack - because making fun of religion is not ridicule? How does he write this sort of vapid nonsense?
.
Worth deserves the ridicule of the title Worthless - not as an insult, but because he is worthless in a party that nominally supports personal freedom. Presumably he is seeking the religious minority vote at the next election, given that the MP for Epsom has staked his colours to the mast of freedom on this issue.

Labour bought the election?

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

.

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

.

Are they BOLLOCKS.

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

Morales makes sense on one point

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

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

.

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

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