Geneva racist conference should be boycotted

The UN is often seen by many as an organisation with lofty goals of getting the world together to agree on what is right and wrong, and have collaboration, co-operation, compromise all to make the world a better place.

The Durban Review Conference in Geneva is meant to be like that. Its stated goal is “evaluate progress towards the goals set by the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban, South Africa, in 2001.”

Racism is bad right? What’s wrong with eliminating racism, xenophobia and “related intolerance”? Nothing of course, until you find out what is really behind it.

You see a real conference would look at what has happened at Darfur, and how so many countries have provided succuour to the Sudanese government and be dismayed. It would look at the blatant racism in the media of many in the Middle East, not just what happens in the Israeli occupied territories.

So what is wrong with the conference? For starters, Islamic countries are seeking religion to be put on the same level as race. The Netherlands is boycotting the conference for that reason. While people have a right to freedom of religion (and no religion, which none of the conference documents acknowledge), it is NOT about race. Religion is a choice. Funnily enough, precious few Islamic countries allow Muslims to commit apostasy without severe punishment. Many countries are seeking this conference to pass resolutions banning offence against religion - which is an attack on free speech and open debate.

The United States is boycotting it because Islamic countries are seeking to return to the “Zionism is racism” focus, making it predominantly about Israel.

Australia is boycotting it for similar reasons, as delegates from some countries used it as a forum to declare anti-semitic views.

Canada, Italy and Israel are also boycotting.

So for Green MP Keith Locke to say boycotting would be “just to follow the US”, is a lie. It would be following many Western countries that share our values, values of free speech, freedom of religion (and to have no religion), and to be committed against racism as a whole, not to single out Israel on dubious grounds.

It speaks volumes about the immaturity of the Green Party’s foreign policy that it rejects a boycott because the US - and we are talking about the Obama Administration – is boycotting, along with many others. Of course given the Greens support race based politics in New Zealand why should one be surprised.

New Zealand should stand against the hijacking of this conference by countries that practice vile racism in their media against Jews, that ignore the racist based genocide in Sudan (why is that not mentioned but Israel is) and want to suppress religious dissent.

Murray McCully is considering New Zealand’s position – it is right to stand alongside our friends in opposing the doggerel that will come from Geneva.

The UN for decades was a forum for brutal dictatorships and autocracies to pontificate about South Africa and Israel, ignoring their own murderous records - it should not now be the forum for the Muslim dominated autocracies that span from the Maghreb to Malaysia.

UPDATE: Associated Press is reporting that Germany is boycotting now too - and that is a country that knows only too much from history about racism, and moving on beyond it.

UPDATE 2: Foreign Affairs MinisterMurray McCully has announced New Zealand is NOT attending. He said it needed to responsibly and productively address racism

“It would also need to avoid circumscribing freedom of expression, such as in the contentious area of ‘defamation of religion’.

“I am not satisfied that the wording emerging from preparatory discussions will prevent the Review Conference from descending into the same kind of rancorous and unproductive debate that took place in 2001.

“It is a pity that this should have been the case. Combating racism and related intolerance is an important cause, and one to which New Zealand attaches the highest importance.

“However the Review Conference in Geneva is not likely to advance the cause of race relations at the international level, and so New Zealand, like many other countries, will not be represented at it"

GOOD!

Too wide for the seat?

Stuff reports an article from The Age on what it calls an airline "fat tax", which of course is nothing of the sort. MSM clearly unable to tell the difference between a tax (a government imposed charge that isn't optional) and a fee, but I digress.

United Airlines, which in my experience meets all expectations of North American airlines for being abysmal (yet the US domestic market remains closed to foreign owned competitiors), announced that passengers that cannot fit into its seats will be asked to buy a second adjacent seat or a business class seat.

In effect, if you're too wide for your seat you need to buy another.

This is great news for those of us who suffered on flights where your neighbour extended over the armrest or even over the seat.

However, as Cactus Kate points out, business class may not make you immune from the impact of the grotesquely obese. Air NZ long haul, Virgin Atlantic, British Airways, Singapore Airlines and a couple of others have business class that puts a serious barrier between passengers, but many don't.

What intrigues me is how this will be policed by the airline - will there be a seat at check in for passengers to be placed in for the airline to test if you fit?

By contrast, the socialists in Canada ban airlines charging for an extra seat.

I'm flying BMI in business class tomorrow to the Middle East, I should have an empty seat beside me (because of frequent flyer status and the flight isn't full), and for that I will be glad.

CO2 is a pollutant? well...

With CO2 deemed by the US Environmental Protection Agency as a health risk, (despite plants thriving on it), the most committed environmentalists can have only a complete response.

If you're a true environmentalist, stop emitting this pollutant- now. All those who believe CO2 is a pollutant should take immediate steps to cease emissions, cutting down on them by not driving is hardly enough. Of course, the obvious step isn't enough, you need to ensure the breakdown of your remains is addressed too - jumping into a volcano will do the trick. The last CO2 emitted, but it will be less than you emit in a day.

You know what you have to do. That 450 litres a day of CO2 you emit is simply immoral - and those of you environmentalists who made little polluting beings, shame!

By the way you also produce methane, 21 times the impact of CO2, you can address that at the same time.

(Hat Tip: Tim Blair)

Conflict of the commons... again

That is how to explain the conflict reported in Sunday News between street prostitutes and “The Papatoetoe Community Patrol”. It is as simple as that.

You see, the streets are owned by Manukau City Council, paid for by all ratepayers and by motorists. "The Papatoetoe Community Patrol" does not own them, neither do the street prostitutes, so whilst the streets and footpaths remain in “public ownership”, neither has any less right to be there.

From the perspective of private property rights, I do not have a problem with the street prostitutes plying their trade, but also not "The Papatoetoe Community Patrol" using persuasion to discourage people from being customers or sex workers. As long as no violence or threats of violence, against people or property as used, then let it be.

Now I find taking number plates to make use of the lack of privacy in the Motor Vehicle Registry to send letters to customers is rather nasty, a nosy finger pointing judgmentalism that some people don’t live their lives the way a “holier than thou” group does – or thinks it does. After all, far too often are groups of judgmental people populated by those with their own embarrassing secrets. It smacks of the Stasi in East Germany, snooping who pry on everything everyone does, but it can go both ways – prostitutes and their customers could always take photos of the patrol, or find ways to thwart them. Each to their own of course.

Nevertheless my point is simple. Privately owned footpaths would offer the opportunity to resolve this. For example, if you owned the footpath outside your property you could ban or allow any legal activity. A body corporate owning a whole street could do the same.

However, whilst it remains “public”, this sort of problem will remain. Different members of the public want to do different things in public places that do not involve initiation of force.

You can be certain that an extrem großen stadt for Auckland wouldn’t dare think of allowing property owners to take responsibility for their footpaths, in exchange for a reduction in rates. If all of the footpaths of a shopping district were owned by a body corporate they could happily ban street prostitution, or allow it. However, given what little interest this government has shown so far in protecting private property rights, I don't hold great hope for any significant change.

Greens don't get the idea of choice

Foodstuffs' decision to charge for plastic bags at its New World, Four Square and South Island Pak 'n' Save is being hailed by the Greens.

It is, of course, a clever move to boost the firm's environmental credentials, whilst making a comfortable profit on bags that cost a fraction of that to buy (even if some money is donated to "environmental causes"). It's been widely done in the UK, and customers seem to have started taking their own bags, while supermarkets can charge for a marginal cost input.

However, the Greens don't get it. Foodstuffs' is doing this as a commercial decision, it believes its customers will pay, and use less bags as a result - and it will be a winner, and presumably there will be less plastic bags used (which is the goal of the Greens, although the environmental impact is negligible).

It is done by free will, choice, voluntary agreement, option, conscious decision.

So what do the Greens say?

Forget choice, you can stick that up where a bag isn't comfortable, the Greens don't just encourage others to do the same. They don't even encourage the public to use Foodstuffs' supermarkets and bring their own bags.

No.

Green Co-Leader Russel Norman says "What we need now is for the Government to back up Foodstuffs' good initiative by introducing mandatory product stewardship for plastic bags".

So we need the "government" to force people to do it, even though it has been proven that you can convince people to do it. Russel gets out the truncheon of state force. State violence needed when people do something by choice.

WHY don't they get it?

Russel says "we don't want the good guys to be disadvantaged by other companies freeloading or refusing to do something about their bags." What? HOW is Foodstuffs disadvantaged when it is making money out of deterring what you don't like? If you WANT it to do well, go SHOP there, encourage people to shop there.

Then he contradicts himself again "They are also easy to do something about, and the public is overwhelmingly behind bold moves to reduce plastic bag use. Foodstuffs' move is an important recognition of this."

So why do you need to force people if they want to reduce plastic bag use? Foodstuffs will be successful, and others will follow.

Or maybe, just maybe you don't believe what you say. Maybe you think most people don't care, will want free plastic bags, and it will fail - which is why you want to force them.

In which case be honest - you want plastic bags taxed or banned regardless of what people think, because the Greens are wedded to statism, to authoritarian bullying - to nanny state regulating, taxing and pushing people around to fit your world view.

According to the Greens, if people really want something, you have to force them to do it.

The party of non violence? Ha!