"Lazy frogs go back to work" says airline CEO

The Daily Telegraph reports Philip Meeson, chief executive of jet2.com, a low cost British airline based in Leeds, has called for the French air traffic controllers by asking“lazy frogs to get back to work” on the airline website. He has also complained about French police not clearing away students lying on the runway at Chambery.
.
He’s justifiably expressing anger at a monopoly (French air traffic controllers) holding others to ransom, and says they should get back to work or get another job if they don’t like it.
.
While disagreeing with the language, a Liberal Democrats MEP has said that France and Italy are in a headlong economic race to be the sick man of Europe. Quite right.
.
France is slowly stagnating under the enormous economic millstone of socialism, which means that companies cannot fire staff unless the company is losing money, will lose money for an ongoing period and there are no other positions for the people the company wants to fire. Imagine that – you can’t cut staff until you are unprofitable, so you could be losing money in several areas of your business, but since you are profitable overall you must cross-subsidise those other jobs.
.
One final note, noticed how few low-cost French airlines there are? There are none, compared to ten in the UK last time I counted. Fortunately the open internal European market means non-French EU airlines have the right to fly to and from France as they wish – fortunately for French consumers that is.

UN scum judge New Zealand

The UN Special Rapporteur for promoting racist socialism and hating capitalism – or rather on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, Rodolfo Stavenhagen has written a report justifying a socialist view of government in New Zealand particularly in relation to Maori. Trevor Loudon rightfully damns it as its writer is a Marxist and therefore "it is entirely predictable that the report supports the Marxist based "Maori Sovereignty" agenda that has done so much to damage race relations in this country".

.

It justifies racist pro-Maori policies, but interestingly also states:
.
“ return to the assimilationist model appears increasingly in public discourse, redirecting concern about collective rights and the place of Maori as a people within the wider society, to emphasis on the protection of the individual rights of all New Zealanders, including the rights to equal opportunity, due process of law and freedom from illegal discrimination on any grounds, including ethnicity or race.”
.
This implies that there are “models” for people treating Maori, instead of simply treating people as individuals. Once the state has no policy for Maori in particular, but treats everyone equally and gives equal respect to individuals of all cultural backgrounds, then all can get on.
.
However, as Louden explained Stavenhagen is a right socialist busybody. He recommends:
.
“The Treaty of Waitangi should be entrenched constitutionally in a form that
respects the pluralism of New Zealand society, creating positive recognition and
meaningful provision for Maori as a distinct people, possessing an alternative system of knowledge, philosophy and law.”
.
Besides being vacuous cultural relativism, what stops Maori using traditional knowledge (though most like using all knowledge at their disposal) and philosophy to act as they wish? As far as law is concerned, if laws are limited to those to protect people from each other and the state – then Maori can choose to sign up to any further provisions that they want socially – but they cannot be “laws” that apply to anyone else. Objective law is not something up for debate.
.
He also wants iwi and hapu to be able to claim legal aid, regardless presumably, of their wealth. Companies also ought to be able to claim it at this rate, for they are no different, as should incorporated societies. In fact, legal aid should be abolished except for individuals in criminal cases. He also wants more socialist education funding and an independent commission to monitor the media being non-racist – in other words, an attack on free speech.
.
So what is this all about, besides an insidious interference in New Zealand’s domestic politics?

.

Well, it comes from the Commission on Human Rights of ECOSOC, the UN Economic and Social Council - a body established originally. The Commission includes among its members China, Cuba, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe. A bit like having rapists and murderers coming round to your house and telling you that you should vacuum more and it would be nice if you dusted the mantelpiece.
.
Why should we listen to a body that is so morally bankrupt that it lets systematic violators of basic individual rights judge New Zealand on its race relations? Unlike many libertarians, I believe the UN should exist -but bodies like the ECOSOC Commission on Human Rights are virtually useless as long as they accept as legitimate members the vilest abusers of human rights in the world. Of course, cultural relativists like the Greens love the UN and think Marxists can teach us something, because the UN almost always supports a socialist state collectivist agenda.

Greens want more democracy for Maori only

Green MP Metiria Turei has called for the Maori electoral option to always be available for Maori voters. She said:
.
“A Maori voter might make the decision to move to the Maori roll might because they are unsatisfied with the representation they are getting from candidates on the general roll. Yet because the option only opens every five years, they are forced to stay on the general roll for the next election. This seriously undermines the democratic process and highlights the structural inequalities for Maori of the Westminster system we operate under.”
.
What? So you should be able to shift electoral rolls if you don't like your candidates. Wonderful stuff

.

The Greens regard Don Brash’s approach to the Maori seats as racist, but what the hell is Metiria on about? What happens if I am unsatisfied with the representation I get from candidates on the general roll?
.
I don’t have Maori ancestry (I think) so I’m not entitled to a second option according to Metiria. According to her, it’s just fine that 85% or so of New Zealanders can just put up and shut up if they don’t like representation, but Maori shouldn’t. Furthermore, what are the “structural inequalities” that mean that Maori get two electoral options but everyone else gets one? What sort of Orwellian doublespeak is Metiria going on about? It is unequal and unfair if one group (Maori) get a second option nobody else gets, but can only exercise it every five years?
.
What unadulterated racist nonsense. Democracy means one person one vote. To suggest that Maori deserve extra is elevating them and denigrating others, and to suggest they need it for democracy is suggesting Maori when they vote on the general roll don’t really count.
.
This demonstrates the Green Party view of democracy is not all votes counting equally. The Maori seats should go – debates about democracy when just over half of Maori are represented by Maori seats, with MPs who claim to speak for Maori, when Maori views are represented across several parties (and the Green Party is a poor performer in the Maori seat). Don Brash is right - the Maori Party after all, is over-represented in this Parliament because of the Maori seats.
.
It is not racist to call for separate representation to be abolished, it is the opposite. Don’t let any Orwellian post-modernist cultural relativist socialist convince you otherwise.

.

Libertarianz called for the Maori seats to go since 1996, ACT since 1999 and National since 2004.

Human Rights Act shows up its failings again

So there is an issue about a bar prohibiting people under 20 from entering it because it might breach the Human Rights Act. So the arguments about the drinking age become arguments about passing laws, rather than about people regulating their own behaviour. Such nonsense! Bars should be able to ban people of any age they like, indeed they should be able to stop anyone entering on any grounds - after all, bars are private property. If you don't want anyone entering your home you have the right to stop them, right?
.
I am opposed to the Human Rights Act applying to private activities. If a person wants to discriminate on the grounds of race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, disability, hair colour, musical tastes, politics or body odour it is nobody else's business. After all, it is a private contract between two adults. If I am an employer I should be able to choose the employee I want, similarly if if I am a landlord or a shopkeeper.
.
What? You're racist or sexist? No.

.

Just someone who believes in private property rights and that you can't force people to engage with others, regardless of how stupid their reasons to discriminate. You see we all discriminate all of the time in different areas of life - you judge people according to their clothes, their bodies, their hair and many other factors. You do so because you instinctively associate with those who you are more comfortable with - and all sorts of incidents in life leave you stereotyping people according to many factors, and often you are wrong.

.

However, does this mean people should be able to "get away with" being racist or sexist with everyone who is offended having no come back? No.

.

Freedom works both ways. If there was a shop that was owned by a racist shopkeeper, would you shop there? Would you tell your friends about the racism? Would you (if you sold good to the shop) not trade with the shop at all? Freedom to contract and freedom of speech are powerful tools. Someone who acts racist or sexist may deter some customers, and some of those customers may be prepared to publish the embarrassing fact of the bigotry. Consumer boycotts can be powerful.

.

Back to the drinking age. There is no need to do anything about this. Leave it at 18 (some countries have no drinking age and don't appear to be worse off than NZ in alcohol related conditions) and let the market decide what people want.

New York University appeases Muslim bullies

With support from the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI), a New York University (NYU) approved Objectivist student group publicised that it was going to show the notorious Danish cartoons (don't need to say what they are) in a panel discussion called "Unveiling the Danish Cartoons" on Wednesday 29 March. According to ARI:
.
"A day before the panel discussion was to take place, NYU gave the student event organizers a non-negotiable ultimatum: if you display the cartoons we will close the event to non-NYU guests. This was in spite of the fact that NYU's own rules leave this decision to the student sponsoring organization."
.
Furthermore:
.
"And even though the students opted for not showing the cartoons, NYU barred entry to at least two journalists and more than 30 registered guests. Even after learning that Muslim students had sabotaged the event by acquiring and destroying two hundred tickets to leave as many seats empty, NYU officials still refused to allow non-NYU guests to enter."
.
ARI is furious, understandably so. It has said:
.
"Why did NYU trample the rights of the Objectivist student group?Because it chose appeasement; it chose, out of fear, to avoid the consequences of taking a principled stand to protect everystudent's freedom of speech on campus. And so next time, the mobs will know that to get whatever they want, they need only screamand threaten more stridently."
.
Indeed - NYU would rather capitulate to threats and not upset those who call for violence, than to defend those who are implacably opposed to it. How dare it call itself a university - such an attitude puts it back with the book burners of the dark ages!
.
Read the full ARI press release and letter to the editor of the NY times here.

.

However, there is a far more interesting dialogue about this on Diana Hsieh's blog entry on this. She goes into more detail, explaining that the Islamic centre describes that:

.

"These cartoons have lead to riots, protests, beatings, and even deaths on an international level"

.

Yes, only by their deranged Muslim "brothers". Drawings do nothing at all - why should anyone attack anyone else because they are offended, unless they are savages?

.

Moreover, the Islamic centre has no understanding of context - these anti-reason censors of debate claim:

.

"Remember that this same type of manifestation of hatred has lead to the murder of many innocent people. We can look as far back as the 1930's in the years prior to the Holocaust when Nazi Germany circulated hate-filled images of our Jewish brothers and sisters throughout society. Contemporary situations such as Rwanda have also caused bloody genocides. It is necessary for all of us to stand together and speak out against this, as hatred does not discriminate against any color, race, creed, or religion; all it does is hate."

.

To claim that an objectivist group is engaging in mindless hate is ludicrous, to claim the newspaper that published the cartoons was engaging in hate akin to Nazi Germany is utterly vile. In fact, it was in response to the ultra-violent anti-semitic cartoons the Arab world is not ashamed of publishing regularly. However, they wouldn't dare criticise their "brothers" in totalitarian Arab regimes, only Americans using free speech to debate the point of free speech. ARI was not engaging in hatred against Muslims, but the Islamic League doesn't even want to listen.

.

Diana wrote to NYU saying:

.

"Consider the consequences of your decision. By capitulating this time, you've forsaken the principle necessary to withstand pressure from other groups to withdraw some speaker deemed offensive. What ground can you stand upon when the Campus Republicans attempt to bar Michael Moore from speaking? Or when the Christian groups band together to bar an atheist? If those groups threaten trouble, will you demand concessions from those speakers too, like that Michael Moore can't say anything mean about President Bush or that the atheist must refrain from arguing his full case against God? Soon, no speech would be permitted, lest even innocuous comments about the sunny weather offend the depressed or mentions of a good grade on an exam offend those who chose not to study. Once speech is limited on the grounds that it might offend some people, the principle of free speech is destroyed."

.

I couldn't agree more.