Secular state/secular society

One of the great advantages of the UK over the US is that is can discuss secularism far more easily, without the shrill voices of evangelical conservatism drowning it out. The Sunday Times in London has its editorial today merely raising the question "Time for a Secular State" calling for debate on whether the last vestiges of state involvement in religion should be scrapped, and I agree they should - as they have been in the US (although that has been under threat for a while). The editorial asks:

*

Should we carry go on, hoping the curiosity of an established church — to which the majority is attached, but only very loosely — can continue to co-exist with other religions, whose followers are more committed? Or is it time to move to the American or French models with their formal separation of church and state?

*

Indeed, I would say speed the day to separate church and state. The Sunday Times has a long feature on this matter. Religious freedom means the state is blind about what religion people believe in, or whether they do at all. In fact one of the healthiest discussion now is to consider whether religion has any validity at all. Minette Marin in the Sunday Times argues that there should be no religious schools. She says:

*

"It should be possible to agree that for various reasons, many of which are politically embarrassing, the time of state-funded faith schools is past. Faith is no better a criterion for attending or running a state school than race. No new ones should be created; the old ones should gradually lose their religious identity as many have done already and as they probably will do naturally. Religious indoctrination and observance don’t belong in state schools, in a multifaith society, not any more"

*

Absolutely, it is outrageous that the state should have anything to do with education whatsoever, certainly not religious based education. However, in a free society parents should have the right to send their children to a religious school, if one exists - and pay for it themselves. Any more than that, and you have the state engaging in parenting. Although Richard Dawkins argues that giving children religious education is as bad as political education - that saying a child is Catholic or Muslim is as bad as saying they are socialist, conservative or indeed libertarian before they are old and mature enough to decide for themselves. Imagine how much religion would exist if children were kept from religion until their teens? Then if given lessons on each religion and atheism, were allowed to choose which one made the most sense for them.

*

I would argue that it is wrong to indoctrinate children about religion, but that it isn't a state matter. Parents indoctrinate children about all sorts of things, and as long as there isn't neglect and physical/sexual abuse, the state should err on the side of non-intervention. The state is not a better parent, it is a protector of last resort.

*

Nevertheless it is encouraging that Dawkins latest book The God Delusion is a best seller in the UK. If only our friends from the Middle East got a chance to read such a book or even be allowed to debate the non-existence of ghosts!

We have our meeting in the trailer park kids!

I find this so funny. The party that isn't (it isn't registered with the Electoral Commission because its membership falls far short of the 500 minimum needed) shows itself to be pathetic beyond words.
*
Stuff reports that "The National Front gathering coincided with its annual meeting, which is being held this weekend at a Hutt Valley motor camp. "
*
Sure helps to have a meeting where many of you live! Hope afterwards they had a good night with sister-mommy and brother-daddy while reading their combat comics.
*
By the way, the NZ Herald confirms that the motor camp is the Hutt Park Holiday Camp (there aren't any others) and reports that the motor camp staff have received abusive phone calls for hosting it. It is unclear whether the owners knew the National Front was coming, but it doesn't matter - the Human Rights Act would likely prevent the Hutt Park Holiday Camp from banning the National Front, as it is discrimination on the basis of political belief.
*
This is just another reason why the Human Rights Commission and Human Rights Act should go.

50 years ago – brave people of Budapest

This Monday the 23rd of October will be the 50th anniversary of a key moment in the Hungarian revolution of 1956. In Budapest 20,000 protestors convened and sang the forbidden former national anthem including the line "We vow, we vow, we will no longer remain slaves.".
*
You see Hungary was on the wrong side as the war ended. Instead of receiving US aid under the Marshal Plan, it was forced by the USSR to grant reparations equal to around 20% of its GDP in 1946. Instead of developing as a free liberal democracy, political dissent was crushed as Stalin installed one of the most oppressive post-war communist leaders in Europe Mátyás Rákosi. Rákosi arrested, imprisoned, tortured and executed political dissidents at will. He nationalised industries and private property, and by 1952 average disposable incomes had dropped to two-thirds of the pre-war level, 50% of that decline had been in the previous three years. The communists impoverished Hungary more than the war did, and imprisoned the country.
*
However, there was some hope, which came with the death of Stalin in 1953 and three years later Khrushchev’s famous “secret speech” denouncing Stalin, resulting in Rákosi being removed. This encouraged students and the Writers’ Union to hold forums in Budapest discussing politics many calling for reforms and liberalisation. Disgraced Hungarian communist politician László Rajk, who had been executed six years before was reburied in an elaborate ceremony, as the party rehabilited purged officials.
*
On 16 October the banned Union of Hungarian University and Academy Students was re-established by students (ignoring the official pro-communist student union) and within days had a list of national demands for reform. The “sixteen demands” included:

- Immediate evacuation of Soviet troops, in conformation with the Peace Treaty;
- Secret ballot of all communist party members to elect new officials, a new central committee;
- Immediate institution of a new government under deposed reformer Imre Nagy and dismissal of all leaders from the Rákosi regime;
- Free universal elections by secret ballot allowing all political parties to participate (liberal democracy);
- Complete recognition of freedom of the press, radio and freedom of speech.
*
On 23 October, 200000 peaceful protestors had gathered outside the Parliament in Budapest. Communist Party First Secretary Ernő Gerő denounced the protestors on radio, after which the protestors moved to topple a statue of Stalin. Flags started appearing with the communist insignia in the centre cut out. The protestors went to the studios of Radio Budapest, where tear gas was thrown at them and shots were fired into the crowd. Gero requested Soviet military intervention and the next day Soviet tanks rolled into Budapest. Violence grew as increasingly the Hungarian State Security Police were willing to open fire on protestors, but some protestors were armed, some had defected from the army. The shooting of many protestors outside the Parliament cost the regime dearly. Gero resigned and fled to the USSR. Reformist Imre Nagy became First Secretary and protestors starting directing their ire at Soviet troops and remnants of the security police. Local revolutionary groups emerged in other towns. Eventually a ceasefire was negotiated, with Soviet troops withdrawing from Budapest by 30 October.
*
Nagy announced a “broad democratic mass movement” had called for reform. He disbanded the security police and created a government including non-communist Ministers, and he called for the abolition of the one-party state. Hungary was, for now, moving to be a multiparty democracy. Hungary also declared it would leave the Warsaw Pact, seeking the neutrality of its neighbour – Austria. Subsequently, the USSR decided to intervene on the pretext that a "Provisional Revolutionary Government" under János Kádár had called for Soviet support.

*

Premier Imre Nagy received assurances from ambassador and later to be Soviet Premier, Yuri Andropov, that there would be no Soviet intervention. A Hungarian delegation to negotiations in Budapest on the Soviet withdrawal was arrested by the NKVD (KGB’s predecessor). By 3 November, Soviet troops had surrounded Budapest and the next day, Imre Nagy begged for international assistance to protect his new reformist government. It was not forthcoming. The USSR vetoed a proposed UN Security Council resolution on the matter, and tens of thousands of Hungarians would be arrested and imprisoned, and hundreds executed, for supporting this liberal revolution.
*
Of course today Hungary can look back at this and remember with open minds. Hungary is a member of the European Union and NATO, never again threatened with foreign occupation without support. There is a House of Terror which is a museum for the totalitarian horrors committed under communism and the fascist regime that briefly ruled in the early 1940s.
*
Communists and socialists around the world became divided. Many communists, sycophantic of the USSR and communist China accepted the propaganda of the new regime and the USSR – tolerating Soviet imperialism. However, others were shaken – seeing the truth of the USSR and Marxism-Leninism, as a force that doesn’t tolerate dissent, and has little interest in what its subjects want. It was the first widespread challenge by people in a communist country that was seen and heard around the world – and it was crushed with little mercy. Those who died 50 years ago were vindicated in 1989, when the communist run Parliament agreed to freedom of association, freedom of the press and a multiparty electoral system. Hungarians today can see what Marxism-Leninism cost them – the just have to look next door at western Europe to see they are a generation behind in standard of living. They endured an experiment of 55 years, one that should be a lesson to us all.

*

A Victims of Communism Memorial is being built in Washington D.C. Dr Paula Dobriansky of the US State Department spoke at the groundbreaking of the memorial. She spoke eloquently of what this memorial means, and how important it is to recognise the murderous legacy of communism as a movement and philosophy.
*
“Communism corroded the human experience of the 20th century. The sheer number of victims staggers and chastens us. Over a hundred million people died as a direct, and often intended, consequence of decisions made by Communist rulers. The innocent lost their lives in Katyn Forest; in the frozen gulag; on the streets of Budapest; in the fields of Cambodia. Those who did not die at the hands of Communist rulers suffered terribly under totalitarian regimes. They could not speak their minds; they could not travel freely; they could not realize their inherent potential; they had no say in the direction of their nation. "

Retroactive legislation

The comfort that so many on the left of the political spectrum have with Parliament legalising a past event when it was illegal is curious, and has everything to do with the knuckle dragging tribalism of two party politics. Make no mistake, there are plenty on the right who would take a similar approach if this had happened to them.
.
However, if we look around the world we’ll find while this is accepted practice in Westminster style parliamentary democracies, it is not so accepted in constitutional democracies. Certainly in terms of criminal laws, few countries tolerate retroactively making actions or omissions criminal. Even in the UK, the European Convention on Human Rights binds Parliament on this.
.
So how does the NZ legislation meet the test internationally?
.
The US Constitution states in Sections 9 and 10 that Congress and State Legislatures are prohibited from instituting ex post facto laws. So that’s it, it would likely be unconstitutional in the USA.
.
Sweden’s constitution allows retroactive non-criminal legislation that can only apply from the date that the bill was proposed by government. Hardly applicable given the breach was before the bill was proposed.
.
France’s constitution only prohibits retroactive non-criminal legislation (is silent on this but explicitly prohibits retroactive criminal legislation unless it benefits the accused). So France may allow it.
.
Norway’s constitution prohibits any laws from having retroactive force.
.
Canada’s constitution only prohibits retroactive criminal laws.
.
So you can see, it is a patchwork. However, the real reason there is compliance about this law, mainly from Labour, NZ First and United Future supporters (both of them), is tribalism in politics and NZ has now entered the most tribal phase in party politics that it has seen in some years. National sees power close and Labour is anxious to hold onto it.

NZ left and the passion for power

The left have traditionally always thought they had the right to power in a democracy, this coming from the inherent belief that because they think they represent the poor and the working middle classes, that they represent the majority of citizens. They see the world as a battle between those who “have” and those who want to help the “have nots”, the meanies and the kind ones – and the meanies are always in a minority, by definition. So from the point of view of a socialist, in a liberal democracy they should always be in power. The look fondly upon Sweden, which despite having just voted out a leftwing government, has been socialist with only one interruption since World War 2.
.
Leftwing governments started and expanded the welfare state, state funded healthcare and education, the 40 hour working week and the rest, that it is the foundation stone upon which the modern polity is built. It sees that it alone represents those that do what is important in society, from nurses to teachers, to firefighters and bus drivers. The term “workers” is not just a term for describing the “salt of the earth” but exclusionary – you see the implication is that managers and businesspeople don’t work. They may risk their property, attend meetings, write reports, make major decisions that can risk thousands or millions – but this isn’t worth the honest sweat of a man digging out coal. The inventors, innovators, entrepreneurs and ideas people are not as important as people undertaking manual or semi-skilled work. Taken to extremes you see the Khmer Rouge, which sought to eradicate anyone who was not an unskilled manual worker.

.

Labour also sees itself as the family party representing parents, particularly mothers. This is part of its emancipatory self-belief system, Labour sees itself as the emancipators of Maori and Pacific Islanders, and that it earns the 20% of the vote from those quarters. It sees itself as the advocate for women, and entitled to have 50%, and then it sees itself as the liberators of gay and lesbian people, perhaps 5%. It represents university students, “the nation’s future” and bureaucrats as the foot soldiers of the left, telling people what to do and what not to do. Of course under Labour, university students all want education for free and allowances and are represented by student unions (mostly leftwing). Student unions are, after all, the training ground for leftwing politicians. Weaned on student unions and supported by the leftwing tendency of many social sciences lecturers, young Labourites are taught to understand Labour’s role in emancipatory politics. The highlights being the anti-nuclear fight, Treaty of Waitangi and the Springbok tour among others. These are all cause celebres for which there is no room for debate about their merits in the NZ political left.
.
So believing you represent the aspirations of people who are ethnic minorities, gay/lesbian, women, students, “workers” means that under those circumstances, you can see how perplexed, disturbed and frustrated it is for the left to be in opposition – it seems unnatural, unfair and it means “their people” (who are the clear majority in the leftwing mind) are let down.
.
However, things aren’t as simple as that. Yes, there are those who fall outside these categories. The “wealthy”, farmers, business owners and managers are of little interest to the left – indeed many parents aren’t socialists. They want to decide what is best for their children. Small businesspeople often aren’t socialists either, they get tired of being told about the rights of their employees, when they themselves face up to state organisations with little sympathy for the hard work and risks involved in business, such as OSH, IRD or local government bureaucrats. A significant number of people don’t appreciate being told what to do when they are not hurting anyone else, or seeing their own taxes going to pay for other people to have families, noticing the uncanny number of violent criminals or burglars on “sickness benefits”. The left doesn’t win too many friends of those who see beneficiaries refusing work, neglecting their kids or committing crimes. Those for whom earning money follows hard work and risk taking, for whom bureaucrats are less than civil and want them to serve, and who increasingly pay more and more money and get apparently little back. Those who wonder why the daughter of their boss gets a state scholarship because she has a Maori grandfather, but their daughter doesn’t.
.
Nevertheless, the left has titles for those who oppose them. It becomes easy to dismiss when you use such titles, because they shock and disarm, but also show the true lack of depth in the arguments of those who use them. The opponents of the left are “racist”, because they don’t support the whole agenda of preferential funding and legal treatment for Maori, they presumably would prefer Maori had no vote, no citizenship and Treaty claims were ignored. Proportionally more Maori are in prison because the system is “racist”, not because they committed more crimes. Opponents of the left can also be called “sexist”, because you think the Ministry of Women’s Affairs is a waste of money, or you think that the reason many women earn less than men on average is due to their lifestyle choices. The favourite though is for the left to call the opponents “greedy and selfish”, because your wealth is due to you “sitting on your arse exploiting the workers” or “being an unproductive investor” whilst “Labour’s people” are poor when sitting in the state house watching Sky TV while their kids complain they don’t have the latest sneakers.

.

You see, you’re greedy and selfish because you want to keep what you’ve earned and decide how you spend it, not give it up to the loving Labour government that always knows best – those artists need your money after all! The magic phrase “tax cuts for the rich” paints images of Uncle Scrooges in their money bins getting more money, whilst Dickensian images of children begging are outside – it is complete nonsense, but the media laps it up and the left loves it. The right – the ones who would take you back to Victorianism.
.
So the world to those on the left is rather simple. They represent the majority and when it is less than the majority, it is just because some working class folk are racist, sexist or greedy and selfish- never mind, Labour can change that.
.
So all the times Labour has not been in power have not been because people didn’t like them, but because the “system is stacked against” them. After all, democracy that doesn’t deliver a Labour government is democracy that has been corrupted through lies and deception of “their people”. The current crop of Labour MPs remember in their youth Rob Muldoon “robbing” Bill Rowling of victory in 1975, because, after all, National only got 47.6% of the vote. That’s unfair, they cry! However nothing beats 1978 and 1981 when Labour got more votes than National – bastards cheating them out of government! In 1984 when Labour won, they felt ready – but well, something else happened. You see the current Labour MPs tend to want to ignore that period, particularly those who were in Cabinet like Clark and Cullen. So we move to 1990, when National won (because Labour lost “its people” alienated by Roger Douglas and the free market), but by now the left was pursuing electoral reform, particularly as the Greens and New Labour together got 12% of the vote, which, if added onto Labour’s 35% would put them neck and neck with National. Besides, National “lied” to get into power in 1990 (which is true), bastards!
.
Labour thought it had another chance in 1993, but just missed out and again it was the “system” with National only getting 35% of the vote. You could see it in Mike Moore’s reaction on election night - bastards!
.
Fightback came with MMP, that would mean the left would be in power forever. However, you don’t have to say that- just say it is more democratic. Everyone is brainwashed that nothing is more fair than democracy – counting heads not what’s in them – so it sounds good, and anything that the “bastards” on the right don’t like must be good for us. So in 1996 the left anticipated victory, adding Labour and Alliance votes together would mean a majority coalition.
.
However it slipped out of their greasy little hands once more. Labour and National both lost votes, with Labour only getting 28% and Winston Peters – more naturally a conservative nationalist than a socialist, chose a coalition with National over one with Helen Clark and Jim Anderton. Cheated again!! Those NZ First voters wanted National out. Bastards!
.
So 1999, the time had come Labour got over 38% of the vote, and with the Alliance and the Greens a leftwing government could finally “undo the damage” and represent “the people”. Renewed confidence in the system was strong, as Labour was able to govern decisively. This was repeated again in 2002, with Labour increasing its vote to 41%, National plummeting to 21% and the left believing it was born to rule and Helen Clark saying she is a “victim of her success as a popular and competent PM”. They believed it too – the natural party of government found a winning formula.
.
Things were shaken up not long after. With Don Brash as leader, those opposing Labour saw a chance, especially since he started articulating the fears of many of Labour’s traditional supporters. Brash challenged the “don’t mention the special treatment for Maori” meme which was accepted by governments from 1985 onwards. He asked the question as to why state funding should follow race rather than need, and why legislation needed to treat people differently by race. He started challenging the ubiquity of the welfare state and questioning why NZ needed such massive budget surpluses every year, instead of giving the public back some tax. The polls were looking neck and neck, and the reign of the “popular and competent” Helen Clark looked threatened – so all stops were pulled out, as the Brash campaign had widespread momentum uniting those opposed to Labour. Calling them racist backfired somewhat, and Labour started backtracking – the Foreshore and Seabed Bill upset Maori voters enormously, but Labour felt secure that the Maori Party would either disappoint or that Maori voters would back Labour against a National Party that the Maori media painted as being “anti-Maori”. .. (to be continued)