So why overthrow the Taliban?

It takes a bit for me to agree with both Peter Dunne and Idiot Savant, but the case of Afghan student Sayed Parwez Kambakhsh is compelling.

One reason I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and overthrow of the Taliban was to liberate the Afghani people from Islamist oppression. Unfortunately, instead of invading, occupying and introducing open liberal values and government, the coalition, including New Zealand, allowed a less radical form of Islamism to take over.

That is where Sayed Parwez Kambakhsh comes in. He faces the death penalty for blasphemy, for the simple act of writing an article questioning the treatment of women in the Koran. Afghanis should have free speech and should be able to debate matters of religion and morality. It is abhorrent and unconscionable for Afghanistan to murder someone for saying something that offends many.

What is worse is that New Zealand has troops there, defending the current regime. As Idiot Savant says "We wouldn't support Iran's rabid theocracy with troops; why are we supporting Afghanistan's?"

Indeed. It is time for all of the New Zealand Parliament to condemn this, for the government to raise this with the Afghani government, and demand that the sentence be commuted. Indeed apparently Condoleezza Rice and David Miliband have both raised the issue on behalf of the US and the UK.

Otherwise, all we have done is gotten rid of a set of aggressors against the West in favour of a set of aggressors against their own people.

Muldoon's back with more subsidies

Back in the bad old days of Rob Muldoon, industries would clamour for a subsidy or a tariff or import quota, to protect them, promote exports or help “encourage jobs and innovation”. Those days were largely gone after the fourth Labour government, which ruthlessly purged corporate welfare partly to save taxpayers’ money, but also to ensure a “level playing field” with the government not “picking winners”.

After an initial shock, most businesses accepted that with the government out of the game of dishing out subsidies and protectionism there was no longer the need to lobby for such things and business could get on with producing and selling.

However, this started to be eroded with Jim Anderton converting the largely policy advisory Ministry of Commerce into the more interventionist subsidy Ministry of Economic Development. The “winners” picked by Jim Anderton’s subsidy machine – NZ Trade and Enterprise – are probably not worth looking at too closely, when you write off the losers. Of course since you didn’t want to “invest” in those businesses anyway, you were the loser either way.

Now according to the NZ Herald Labour is throwing $700 million of your money away on the food and pastoral sectors to promote innovation. Business NZ Chief Executive Phil O’Reilly responds to this by saying “This is an excellent model for commercialising research, based on research-industry collaboration”.

Commercialising? Since when it is commercial to use taxpayers’ money, which might otherwise have been used by OTHER businesses for their innovation?

Nobody would argue with innovation by business, but wouldn’t it be simpler to just forget subsidies and cut company tax some more? For starters, how about a company tax rate of 15% (half that of Australia, and lets bring income taxes down to match)? How much innovation might THAT bring?

Meanwhile National, showing a growing pattern of "me to" ism, has a press release saying "National Party Leader John Key says National will make a significant increase in funding for agricultural research and development, but it does not support the model announced by Labour today.... We will make long-term funding commitments that provide certainty to the sector because we see it as a way of lifting productivity and helping to make New Zealand a smarter nation."

Um, how about letting businesses keep more of their own money? "knock knock" any policy innovation at the National Party?

Easter Sunday is for individuals not politicians

As is far too often the case, the Greens show their flagrant hypocrisy regarding their principle of "non violence" . You see, violence is ok for the Greens, as long as it is performed by the state pushing people around the way THEY like it.

My response to Sue Bradford's press release saying "Easter Sunday is for families not finance" is "Easter Sunday is for individuals not politicians".

Sue wants to prosecute shopkeepers, including sole proprietorships, that open on Easter Sunday - because she thinks the shopkeepers should "be with their families". How dare she!

Sue wants Labour Department goons, which taxpayers are forced to pay for, to WORK on a Sunday (what about their families Sue?) to find businesses - private businesses - not ones Sue owns, risks money on, works on - to charge, prosecute and fine. Non-violence? Bullshit!

Of course Sue isn't concerned about businesses, they only create jobs. She pours out concern for employees she claims are "forced" to work on Easter Sunday. How are they forced Sue? Would someone arrest them if they didn't work then? How many employees WANT to work then so they can have a different day off during the week? Doesn't matter to Sue, she knows best.

Here are some simple points Sue, which chop through your weasel words about "community" which are just about you imposing your will on peaceful people:

1. Owning a business means having the right to control when it is open for business and when it is not. That is because owners risk their own money, and don't expect anyone else to bail them out when they lose. It's private property.

2. Nobody forces any businesses to open on Easter Sunday. By contrast, YOU want to force them to be closed.

3. Nobody forces people to be customers for businesses on Easter Sunday. In fact, thousands of people do that. Funnily enough apparently their view of community and what should happen on Easter Sunday isn't yours - but you ignore them, and want to force your view on them indirectly. Nice.

4. Nobody forces people to work on Easter Sunday. Employees take up employment understanding the terms and conditions of that employment.

Sue is apparently at ease letting airline pilots, nurses, police, power station workers, farmers, bus drivers, customs inspectors, service station workers, television presenters etc etc work on Easter Sunday and do business. She is happy for state owned airline Air New Zealand to fly thousands of people across the country on Easter Sunday, but not for a gardening shop to sell some pot plants.

She is a hypocrite, and a bully - and she shouldn't decide what you do on Easter Sunday, either with your business, your family or yourself. You should. It would be nice to have a day a year when politicians just left us all alone.

Fat chance with the likes of socialist Sue.

Strategic assets

For all those on the left (and Muldoonist right) who fear strategic assets, like airports, run by foreigners. Consider these airports with at least 40% of the shares owned NOT by nationals of the country they are in:

- London Heathrow Airport
- London Gatwick Airport
- London Stansted Airport
- Glasgow International Airport
- Glasgow Prestwick Airport (owned by New Zealanders no less)
- Athens International Airport
- Hamburg Airport
- Tirana Airport

- Copenhagen International Airport

SMS surveillance

For some years the Police wanted the right to tap internet communications like they could phone conversations, that right was granted after 9/11. Now the NZ Police want telcos to archive all text messages, so that, on the off chance any might be "suspect", they would all be stored.

.

As Idiot Savant points out at No Right Turn:

.

"our police want to archive everything we say, just on the oft-chance that one day they might be interested in it. But we don't let them force NZPost to photocopy every letter which goes through the mail, and we don't let them force Telecom to secretly record every phone conversation we have. We recognise and reject these as Orwellian demands, grossly invasive of privacy, and hugely open to abuse. Their demand that all TXTs be recorded and archived should be treated the same way."

.

The Police quite clearly think we are all guilty till proven innocent, or more importantly the old adage "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear". Yes, that's what totalitarian regimes say when they raid homes, arrest without charge and interrogate. It's what the Stasi in East Germany thought.

.

Don't forget the next will be emails. The Police will want all emails, all records of all internet communications to be archived forever. Besides being a gross imposition upon telcos, this suggestion is a grotesque invasion of the state into personal privacy.

.

The Police needs warrants to enter private property, to tap phone lines and to open mail. They should need warrants to intercept text messages and emails too.

.

Fighting crime is the core duty and role of the Police - but it is not something to be carried out at ANY cost. Yes it would be easier if the cops could access anything of ours without a warrant. More criminals would be caught. More would be caught still if the police could arrest without charge, but one hallmark of a free society is that we accept that some criminals will be free, in order for us to all have some measure of freedom and privacy. North Korea has precious little crime.

.

According to Stuff "Police national crime manager Win van der Velde said that, though phone companies were private businesses, they also had a role as good corporate citizens."

.

Respecting the privacy of its customers is being a good corporate citizen. Warrants are they right way for the Police to start intercepting the communications of suspects.

.

However, see how quickly Labour or National hops on this bandwagon.... on the wrong side