30 years on, some Iranians are standing up

Every year on this day the Iranian Islamist dictatorship organises gangs of locals to shout "death to America" as they celebrate when, against all diplomatic convention, Islamist students stormed the US embassy and held its employees as hostages.

Even during war, embassies are either maintained or closed and staff/diplomats allowed to leave with some dignity. However no, the Iranian fanatics had "god" on their side and ransacked the place, and kept 52 terrified hostages for 444 days, helping to bring down the Carter Administration as a result of its weak response.

This year the same spectacle has been orchestrated by military dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but this time CNN reports 2,000 people protesting against the government:

At least 2,000 opposition supporters, sternly warned by authorities to stay home, marched defiantly at Haft-e-Tir Square, witnesses said. Many held up their hands in a V sign. Others shouted "Allahu Akbar," or "God is great," a slogan of protest. Police blocked all roads leading to the square, prompting massive traffic jams.

The Iranian Islamists have not cowered the population yet.

How Copenhagen discriminates against the West

Now let's make a series of jumps, and say the 2009 UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen is about a problem, attributable to human emissions of CO2 and that the best way to solve it is through agreeing by international convention, for nation states to restrict emissions.

Bear with me on this, just assume this is all true.

Let's look at what countries would be bound by this. So called "industrialised economies and economies in transition" are the ones expected to shoulder most of the burden, on the basis that they have already "benefited" from using fossil fuels, emitting CO2 and clearing forests for habitation. So called "developing countries" are expected to should a far smaller burden. They were expected to do nothing under the Kyoto Agreement. This time they are expected to contribute to emission reduction targets, but should not have "their development" hindered.

The philosophy being that it is "unfair" for developing countries to not undertake the sort of economic development that industrialised countries have.

Bear with me further, and just assume this principle is fair.

What should define industrialised vs developing countries? A reasonable measure is GDP per capita, or rather what is produced in a country in goods and services divided by the population, converted into a standard currency such as the US$. There are variants using Purchasing Power Parity, but for the sake of simplicity, let's talk about GDP per Capita. A country with double the GDP per capita than New Zealand must surely be classified industrialised, right?

The countries listed as industrialised and in transition are (geographically broadly from west to east):
Canada, USA, all European Union member states (except Malta and Cyprus), Iceland, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Monaco, Liechtenstein, Croatia, Belarus, Ukraine, Russia, Turkey, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.

Yes, that's it. Almost all of Europe, the two wealthy North American states, rich Australasia and Japan.

The GDP per capita range of these countries (using the IMF listings in Wikipedia for 2008) would be from US$133,044 per person in Luxembourg to US$3,910 per person in Ukraine. A very wide range indeed. Now it would be fair to argue Ukraine, Belarus, both having GDP per capita well under US$10,000 should not be in this category, but probably are due to Russia not wanting to be disadvantaged, but that is besides the point.

New Zealand, by the way, is at US$30,030 per person, above 14 others, but beneath 21

What's a developing country?

That is far more interesting. You see the developing country with the highest GDP per capita is Qatar. A country that has benefited hugely from exporting fossil fuels. It has a GDP per capita of US$93,204. More than THREE times that of New Zealand, yet will be expected to have a fraction of the obligations New Zealand will be signing up to. Some might say Qatar is still developing. Maybe, but then who gets the US$93,204 per annum per person if many Qataris aren't wealthy already?

It isn't the only one. Here's a list of other "developing countries" that will not have their economies hindered by the forthcoming Copenhagen agreement, all of which are wealthier per person per annum than New Zealand:

United Arab Emirates US$55,028 (oil in Abu Dhabi and a couple of fast growing airlines)
Kuwait US$45,290 (oil)
Singapore US$38,972 (just quietly keeps "developing country" status)
Brunei US$37,053 (oil)

All of these countries, all of which either make a lot of money from others emitting CO2, or running businesses that do so, a lot (like airlines).

However, that's not all. There are umpteen others that also are "developing" but are still within the ballpark of industrialised countries' wealth per head that are EU member states:

Israel US$28,409
Bahrain US27,248
Bahamas US$22,359
Oman US$21,646
Trinidad and Tobago US$19,870
South Korea US$19,136
Saudi Arabia US$18,855
Taiwan US$16,988
Equatorial Guinea US$14,941 (one guess that per capita isn't helpful in this place)
Antigua and Barbuda US$14,556
Libya US$14,479
Barbados US$13,314
Venezuela US$11,388

So why is this so? Why do a bunch of oil rich Arab states and what were once the "tiger" economies of East Asia get left out?

Why do environmentalists not call for those states to be treated as "industrialised" given they have per capita wealth similar to those that are classified as such, and indeed are often profligate users of oil, with subsidised domestic fuel and the like?

Could it just simply be that this whole agenda carries with it the old fashioned anti-colonial view that "the West must pay", and so even those who are much wealthier than many in the West can do nothing in return?

If so, why is New Zealand signing up to something that does not demand the reclassification of all countries that are within the GDP per capita range of "industrialised countries" as no longer being "developing"? Mexico, for example, has a higher per capita GDP than Ukraine, Bulgaria and Romania. So why are the former communist bloc countries being expected to change far more radically than Mexico?

Will any industrialised countries blast open this blatantly anti-Western (and Japanese and Turkish) nonsense?

Simon Mann released from Equatorial Guinea

Simon Mann was part of a group of plotters planning to overthrow the government of Equatorial Guinea before the Mugabe regime caught them and handed them over. He had been sentenced to 34 years, with a £12 million fine, and has been released apparently on "humanitarian grounds".

It's a shame the coup hadn't succeeded. Equatorial Guinea is an appalling dictatorship. Its current leader is only good by comparison to his insane drug addled uncle, and there is little doubt its enormous oil riches are being pocketed by the President and his family.

UPDATE: Simon Mann is a two-faced prick, demanding his co-conspirators face "justice". He may have promised the regime to wage war against them, but to now be actively assisting for their arrest is just vile. Sir Mark Thatcher and Ely Calil are now under investigation in the UK under the Terrorism Act after the dictatorship sent a dossier from Malabo. Mann is assisting Scotland Yard. In other words, legislation designed to protect the UK may be used to protect a kleptocratic dictatorship instead.

Simon Mann. I'm glad you weren't killed, but now, you can go to hell.

Air NZ abandons Boeing for domestic routes

Just to show Air NZ's predominantly state ownership does not stop it from applying good commercial acumen, the NZ Herald reports that it has wisely chosen now to order replacements for its Boeing 737-300 fleet, which is almost exclusively used on main trunk domestic flights. Wise, because the global recession has meant deals are easier to get from the two main suppliers of replacements, Boeing and Airbus.

What it will mean is an end to the long history of Boeing 737s on domestic routes, which started in 1967 when the then NAC ordered them to replace the turboprop Vickers Viscount. That first generation set of 737s was at a time when 737s were not popular internationally, and there was a hard sell from a British delegation to order the now virtually forgotten BAC 1-11. Boeing proved its 737 was more promising, despite much British lobbying, and it was right. The Boeing 737, and its second and third generation derivatives has been the most successful airliner made ever, with over 6,000 produced and another 2,000 on order.

The BAC 1-11 sold 244, including bizarrely 22 built in Ceaucescu's Romania. A legacy of a deal signed in the late 1970s. NAC made the right choice.

Since then, the original fleet of 3 has expanded to 15 today, and has been renewed twice. Although Air NZ has tended to order the last of the line of versions about to go out of production. In 1985 the original Boeing 737-200 fleet bought under NAC were replaced with the updated Boeing 737-200 Advanced series (around the last ever made). In 1999 these in turn were replaced with the last Boeing 737-300 series ever made, which saw an end to the noisy 1960s generation turbofan engines well remembered by those living in Wellington's Eastern Suburbs because conversations would need to stop whilst they would take off.

The Boeing 737-300s remain in service today.

Boeing undoubtedly offered its "next generation" 737 series 700, 800 and 900, Airbus had an advantage in Air NZ already having A320s largely used to fly services across the Tasman and to Pacific Islands.

The choice of the A320 was made on price, and it enables economies to be made in having one type of aircraft. The A320 has two other advantages, it has a slightly wider cabin so enables slightly wider seats and aisle, but also carries standard cargo containers in its belly. The "next generation" 737 cannot do that, as its fuselage is still essentially based on the long out of production Boeing 707.

So good for Air NZ, new aircraft, with a lot more seats, more cargo capacity, at a good price, and economies of scale of having one small jet type.

Bad luck for Boeing having lost a sale for a loyal customer of over 40 years for its most successful type.

For passengers it should mean more seats that are slightly wider, perhaps a common fleet that may all have personal TV installed at seats and business class once more domestically perhaps (unless there will be domestic and international configuration A320s). Overall it means that in a few years time, Air NZ's entire jet fleet will be comparatively very young as the 747s and 767s are phased out over the next 5 years as well.

Tough on crime, tough on rights

Not PC posts on the government's package of measures to get "tough on crime" and notes that Idiot Savant rightfully is worried about Judith Collins apparently being gleeful about the end of the burden of proof, obviously in relation to certain laws.

This all harks back to the political populism behind seeking to be tough on crime, something I happily support. What should this mean? Well it means you need to look at the whole process of resolving crime and dealing with criminals.

The first is to ensure the Police are focusing on crime according to its seriousness and crime that involves victims. This means crimes against the person are prioritised over property crimes, which are prioritised over crimes that are against no one.

The second is to ensure the Police have the tools available to do the job effectively but fairly. That does mean having access to records of all those convicted, it means having access to fingerprint records of convicts and DNA of convicts as well. It means being able to be issued with a search warrant or interception warrant if there are, on balance of probabilities, grounds to assume a serious crime is being carried out or planned by suspects. However, it also means disposing of evidence that proves nothing, and that includes the samples of those not convicted unless they wish to have it retained. The innocent should retain that status, rather than some murky halfway house of being "known to the Police".

Thirdly, the courts should have objective law behind them and fact finding processes so that juries and judges can make appropriate decisions based on legally obtained evidence. That means courts are not occupied by victimless crimes

Finally, sentencing should do what it is meant to do, protect the public and send a punitive message. Imprisonment exists to protect people from the perpetrator committing further crime, but must also be proportionate to the offence and the harm to the victim. Fines may be appropriate if the purpose is to punish someone who is unlikely to reoffend. Young offenders might be expected to be rehabilitated for a first time offence that is not a serious violent or sexual offence.

Debate around how best to manage the criminal justice system IS the primary area of public policy that would remain under a Libertarianz government.

Sadly, this government is seeking to use a sledgehammer to deal to crime, and it is doing so on the basis the Police like to do policy in this area - "let's get those bastards and give us the tools to do it, and you'll be right, you'll have nothing to fear if you've done nothing wrong".

Let's be clear what we are talking about in the government proposals:
- Seizure of assets if you can't prove you obtained them legally. Imagine right now the effort you'd need to go to in proving how you afforded your last major purchase? Imagine now how the most sophisticated gangs would establish shell companies and manufacture invoices, receipts and the likes to ensure that they could prove enough. Most of all, ask yourself why anyone should have to prove innocence?
- Wide ranging powers to enter properties, without warrant, if the Police suspect a person who has committed an imprisonable offence is on the premises;
- Wide ranging powers to stop a vehicle, without warrant, if the Police suspect a person in the vehicle has committed an imprisonable offence;
- Wide ranging powers to enter properties, without warrant, if the Police suspect a person is about to commit a drug offence;
- Wide ranging powers to stop and search people in public, without warrant, if the Police suspect a person is carrying a weapon, including knife or a "disabling substance" (yes women, that means you carrying mace or similar);
- Wide ranging powers to search any vehicle, without warrant, if there are reasonable grounds to believe stolen property is within it;
- Powers for the Police to enter your property lawfully (i.e. unchallenged) and snoop using their eyes, ears and recording what was seen and heard;
- Powers for the Police to require you to provide passwords to access your computer and any data you store.. and so on.

More here

What needs to be asked is why this is justified, and what are the specific problems that mean obtaining search warrants is proving too problematic for the Police?

Judith Collins thinks you are protected because of judicial review, but frankly this has little credibility. Parliament is sovereign, when it takes away your rights, the courts are not likely to overturn this. The Bill of Rights Act is only useful for challenging interpretation of general provisions, but the specificity of statute can override this. Beyond that she thinks the media and democracy save your rights, but frankly the NZ mainstream media is not up to the job, as you'll see below. Besides, when the Police Minister cheers the end of the presumption of innocence, then you should be afraid.

Bear in mind of course, guilt till proven innocent is what the tax system is about (and Idiot Savant probably isn't going to campaign to change that is he?)

Following on, it is highly ironic that the president of the Police union Greg O'Connor says this:

"New Zealanders have got to wake up. P has done for this country what the Prohibition did in the US – it's entrenched organised crime."

History delivered an answer to that. Perhaps Mr. O'Connor might be asked to comment on this?

Oh and while we're at it, notice how the Dominion Post article above looks essentially like a government press release with nothing but comment from those supportive of it? Notice how Britton Broun (who was graduating three years ago) did not approach any opposition parties, defence lawyers or anyone else who might be able to comment differently on his little piece of agitprop?

Is this the free media Judith Collins relies upon for robust and vigorous debate and defence of our rights?