David Farrar has posted about how New Zealand is trying to join this club of the good, bad and despicable. The UN is meant to Human Rights Council, which is meant to be a forum to address human rights violations,replacing the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR). The USA opposed the set up of the Council because it didn't have enough safeguards to stop abusing regimes from the organisation. New Zealand of course supported it because it didn't care enough and didn't want to seem to be associating with the USA and Israel. The UNCHR has had many serious human rights abusers elected to it, like Sudan during the start of the Darfur killings.
However, New Zealand wants to join in. So let's look at some of the other members likely to be around at the same time:
- Cameroon, which imprisons men suspected of homosexual activity and forcibly engages in anal examinations of them to seek evidence.
- Djibouti, which tends to arrest and imprison journalists who criticise the government in isolation wards;
- Nigeria, whose Police boast of 795 extrajudicial killings in 3 months, with politicians leading gangs of thugs who terrorise with murder, rape and arson against opponents or supporters of opponents;
- South Africa, which treats Zimbabwean refugees as purely economic migrants and facilitates the ongoing oppression in Zimbabwe;
- Bangladesh, which engages in arbitrary arrests, frequent torture in custody, extrajudicial killings, journalists accused of defaming the government or military get arrested and sometimes tortured;
- China, which arrests, tortures and executes political opponents;
- Indonesia, which imprisons people for blasphemy against Islam, arrests political activists in West Papua;
- Jordan, which strictly punishes criticism of the King and civil servants, detains women to protect them from domestic violence;
- Egypt, which arrests political opponents without trial, tortures and engages in extrajudicial killings, imprisons editors of critical newspapers, requires government approval of NGOs;
- Qatar, which requires all NGOs to be registered and are monitored and bans political protests, or membership of any organisation critical of Arab governments;
- Saudi Arabia, which arrests without charge, puts critics in solitary confinement, sentences those convicted of sodomy to up to 7000 lashes, grants the death sentence by decapitation to those as young as 13, enforces strict limits on criticism of the government and Islam, denies women the right to work, travel, study, marry, receive health care, and access government agencies, including when they seek protection or redress as victims of domestic violence, unless authorised by a father or husband, flogs rape victims for illegally associating with the opposite sex;
- Azerbaijan, which regularly tortures those arrested, arrests and shuts down opposition media and journalists;
- Russia, which engages in extrajudicial and politically motivated executions, tortures and kills young soldiers in its own army as part of hazing, NGOs are required to register and the government shuts down and threatens opposition media;
- Cuba, which suppresses all forms of political dissent, prohibits gatherings of groups, arrests and imprisons political opponents including classifying some as mental patients.
Yep, they'll all ensure the world is safe for political freedom, individual rights and open societies wont they?
05 July 2008
Pravda remains loose with the truth
Earth begins to kill people for changing its climate says Pravda.
Before it killed people without sentient purpose, what with the earthquakes, tidal waves, volcanoes and the like. Nice to know it has a brain.
Of course when you read the report it's hard not to make a few points:
"At least 2.5 million people have been killed in natural disasters over the recent 48 years" Well the Khmer Rouge managed just about that in four years, Mao manage well over ten times that in 15 years, etc etc. The UN did nothing then of course, even though it was obvious what killed people.
"It was also said that the death toll in developing states exceeds the number of casualties in developed states 20-30 times" Well the population of developing states is over 6 times that of developed states, and when you're developing the value of life isn't as high to your governments. I mean look at Burma and North Korean responses to their disasters - shutting out aid unless it goes through the dictatorships.
"the frequency of catastrophes could be linked with the global climate change." Yes, or sunspots, or tectonic plate movements, or solar flares, or the capability of international news services to identify and report on catastrophes regardless of the domestic political environment (which is generally more open now in most countries than it was before).
Yep, brilliant analysis alright.
(Hat tip Tim Blair)
Before it killed people without sentient purpose, what with the earthquakes, tidal waves, volcanoes and the like. Nice to know it has a brain.
Of course when you read the report it's hard not to make a few points:
"At least 2.5 million people have been killed in natural disasters over the recent 48 years" Well the Khmer Rouge managed just about that in four years, Mao manage well over ten times that in 15 years, etc etc. The UN did nothing then of course, even though it was obvious what killed people.
"It was also said that the death toll in developing states exceeds the number of casualties in developed states 20-30 times" Well the population of developing states is over 6 times that of developed states, and when you're developing the value of life isn't as high to your governments. I mean look at Burma and North Korean responses to their disasters - shutting out aid unless it goes through the dictatorships.
"the frequency of catastrophes could be linked with the global climate change." Yes, or sunspots, or tectonic plate movements, or solar flares, or the capability of international news services to identify and report on catastrophes regardless of the domestic political environment (which is generally more open now in most countries than it was before).
Yep, brilliant analysis alright.
(Hat tip Tim Blair)
Oh and petrol tax and motor vehicle registration fees as well
Yes tis the season for higher charges for motorists.
*
*
ACC, the compulsory statutory monopoly for road use personal accident insurance is increasing levies to you all - and being a monopoly, it wont differentiate on the basis of risk, or past performance, so the dangerous driving accident prone lunatic will pay the same as the safe suburban driver with a clean record. What does it all mean?
*
The ACC levy on petrol goes up 2.01c/litre (and the 12.5% GST on top of that). The argument being those drive more are more exposed to risk.
*
The ACC levy component for petrol car motor vehicle registration and licensing goes up from $183.22 to $211.48 (GST inclusive). ACC is already most of the cost of registration and licensing.
*
For non-petrol driven vehicles the ACC levy component of motor vehicle registration and licensing goes up from $281.46 to $336.69 (GST inclusive). You see as there is no diesel tax and no ACC RUC charge, the cost is higher.
*
Of course you could ask this. What would happen if there were other companies you could pay your motor vehicle ACC levy to, ones that charged based on your generalised risk, such as age, driving record and location? You would be more incentivised to drive more safely, and wouldn't be cross subsidising the reckless. Labour opposes this. National had talked about it before it lost the 1999 election.
*
So when you pay a higher registration/licensing fee next time, fill up the tank and see it has gone up over 2c/l more, ask yourself "did I have an accident or two last year and so i should pay this additional risk" or "did I have a clean driving record so I'm paying for someone else's mistakes"?
*
Labour says we all have to pay for the recklessness, negligence and mistakes of a few - that's why you're paying more.
04 July 2008
Random question
Would it be that the dedication of all petrol tax to the National Land Transport Fund is hiding a reduction in revenue from petrol tax, due to people responding to the high price of fuel?
If that is the case, is there a looming crisis in land transport funding as a result because the less people drive the less money there is?
For RUC it isn't quite the same, but again the less people drive the less RUC there is - although for trucks it should moderate maintenance costs.
It would be interesting to find out.
If that is the case, is there a looming crisis in land transport funding as a result because the less people drive the less money there is?
For RUC it isn't quite the same, but again the less people drive the less RUC there is - although for trucks it should moderate maintenance costs.
It would be interesting to find out.
Why vote National?
NZ Herald reports "National attacked the Government yesterday over increased road-user charges and a law passed last night allowing regional fuel taxes to fund large capital projects - but won't say it would undo them"
Gee, surprise me. You could say the same about the 39c income tax rate etc etc.
Nothing like moaning about something you wouldn't reverse anyway is there? So remind me again, why does voting National do anything more than at very best stop things getting worse? Why should people opposed to the way the country had been governed since 1999 set their sights so low?
Gee, surprise me. You could say the same about the 39c income tax rate etc etc.
Nothing like moaning about something you wouldn't reverse anyway is there? So remind me again, why does voting National do anything more than at very best stop things getting worse? Why should people opposed to the way the country had been governed since 1999 set their sights so low?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)