Compulsory third party insurance nonsense

So Stuff reports that Associate Transport Minister Harry Duynhoven has finally decided to completely ignore all official advice, and institute compulsory third party insurance for motorists.

.

Oops not that the report says he ignored official advice, but go on - make an Official Information Act request on the matter- you'll find numerous papers written on this saying what a dumb idea it is, politely.

.

Now, I'll hear you say, what about that bastard who ran into my car and wasn't insured? Well what about him? Were you insured? Did you insurance company provide cover against the uninsured as many do? If not, then well you took the risk didn't you? Besides, do you think making it compulsory makes it universal? All compulsion will do is add to the penalties for those who don't wish to be insured, and a few more will become insured - after all, if the threat of being sued by someone else's insurance company isn't enough of a threat, a fine wont do more.

.

Ah but it exists in other countries. Um, no you're not quite right there. Compulsory Third Party Insurance in other countries is typically about personal injury cover, not property cover. In New Zealand this is irrelevant since there already is compulsory third party injury cover, which you pay at the same rate regardless of your driving record - ACC does that for you, it's a monopoly that treats the driver with the clean record the same as the recividist drunk driver - but that's the state for you - it's equality after all!

.

The claims made about this nonsense policy have little evidence to back them up. Duynhoven's claims about the effects of compulsory third party insurance overseas are such rubbish, because the premiums are about INJURY cover. The INJURY cover premiums vary according to driving records in Europe, but they don't in New Zealand, because New Zealand is the only country with nationalised no-fault socialised injury insurance (which means you can be accident free or be a serial killer by accident, and your premiums don't change).

.

Certain parts of the country, such as East Cape, the far North and the Chatham Islands have low levels of Warrant of Fitness, Motor Vehicle Registration and Drivers Licence compliance, and many don't have insurance. This will just be added to the list. The excuse that it will address "bad driving" raises the question - why aren't dangerous drivers simply denied licences for longer, or face imprisonment for dangerous driving causing death? In other words - is this just another sound bite for election year which, when you look at the evidence, isn't worth it?

.

but will National oppose it? It COULD suggest an alternative - open up the ACC motor vehicle account to competition, so good drivers could choose a private insurer who rewards good behaviour. That MIGHT make a difference, but that would weaken the holy grail of ACC socialism - no fault, no blame, everybody pay the same.

Why the media is playing into the Chinese government's hands

It is difficult to determine how language develops when stories are covered by the media, but perhaps too many underestimate its importance. It is particularly important with the coverage of the Olympic torch relay, because whilst protestors are typically concerned about human rights, and the Chinese government's oppression of political opposition and free speech, the news media has characterised the protests as being "pro-Tibet". In smaller numbers have been those waving the flag of the People's Republic of China, and have been called "pro-China". The implications of these two phrases should not be underestimated.

.

The Beijing government is milking this coverage for all it can, playing the nationalist card. This card is particularly strong for Chinese, because, unlike Marxism (which has little genuine currency left in China or amongst Chinese worldwide), focusing on Chinese identity and implying that those who protest the games are "anti-Chinese" can foment a great deal of animosity. Yet I doubt if any of those protesting the games are anti-Chinese at all.

.

The protestors against the Beijing Olympics are variably in favour of greater political freedom in Tibet, some believe in Tibetan independence, but the overwhelming message is that the Beijing government should provide some outlet for Tibetan grievances to be heard or at least expressed. The phrase "pro-Tibet" implies the Chinese government is "anti-Tibet", which is slightly silly. The Chinese government happily hangs onto Tibet for a whole host of reasons.

.

The truth is more that the Chinese government is "pro Han Chinese" and, like most cultures around the world, does apply an element of cultural arrogance and patronising attitude towards ethnic minorities. In short, Tibetans should be damned pleased the Chinese Communist Party "liberated" China and has given them electricity, roads, hospitals etc. That is what Beijing is trying to sell, and with some justification argues against Tibetan Buddhist feudalism. Beijing's line on Tibet needs to be understood clearly for what it is:

.

- Tibet is part of China, always has been. If you argue for Tibetan independence the fear is that China will splinter as CNN reports Hu Jintao saying. Don't forget China was far from unified before 1949, and a China that is broken up is weaker than a unified one, well for those in power in Beijing anyway.

- Beijing believes, quite strongly, that other powers (Japan, USA and other neighbours) would support the disintegration of China, purely for geopolitical reasons. This is due to an inherent xenophobic view of the world burnished into Chinese political thought based upon experience with colonialism in Shanghai and Hong Kong and Japan's invasion and occupation. Beijing and the Communist Party in particular strongly believes the rest of the world fears and opposes a strong China, and that supporting Tibetan independence is one way of achieving this (the aggressive attitude towards Taiwanese independence has a similar motive).

- Beijing believes, with a grossly patronising attitude, that Tibetans should be grateful for rule from Beijing and what has been materially delivered to that rather cauterised province (historic Tibet has had a good chunk of its land incorporated into Qinghai province). As Tibetans are arguably materially better off than they were in the 1950s (which frankly wouldn't be very hard), they should be grateful and stop ruining a sporting event that China as a whole should be proud of. They want Tibetans to be conscious they are part of the Chinese nation, and isn't that a great thing.

.

So Beijing treats protests about Tibet as being a foreign inspired plot to weaken China, and its media is full of this line. Calling the protests "anti-Chinese" plays into its hands. This is why those who protest should acknowledge what the real problem is and the real solution - the problem is not China governing Tibet, it is its governance. That problem isn't just Tibet, it is all of China barring Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan.

.

The Chinese state media, which today has global TV and radio broadcasts, and multiple websites, is constantly portraying the protests as being "anti-China", and the lackeys who wave the blood stained flag of the People's Republic as "pro-China". Western media should abandon such terminology - nobody is protesting against the "Chinese nation" or "Chinese people", they are protesting the one-party state authoritarian rule of the Communist Party of China. Unfortunately the protestors have rarely made that clear and coverage of them has not helped.

.

This coverage is why some protests have started emerging in the West that are "pro-Chinese".

.

So I call about protestors to abandon the calls for Tibetan independence. The call should be for all of China to have fundamental political freedoms. This means freedom of speech including freedom of the press, and for prisoners of conscience to be released. It is about allowing criticism of the Communist Party. It should also be about China stopping its support for Myanmar and Sudan's fellow dictatorships, and its sending of North Korean refugees back to almost certain death in gulags. However, one thing at a time.

.

The message needs to be loud and clear. There would not be protests against the Beijing Olympics if China's government opened dialogue with the Dalai Lama, opened up Tibet to the sort of freedom of speech that exists in Hong Kong, and stop arresting political prisoners. China is the third largest economy in the world if you don't count the EU as one entity, there is much to be proud of in raising its peasant economy to an industrial power - but in the 21st century many fear the Olympics will shine a light on all of this, while ignoring the executions, torture and oppression by those who rule China against those who oppose what is done to them. This message is blurred by those who paint this as being "pro-Tibet" and "pro-China". Nobody is anti Tibet or anti China, and those who are "pro-China" are actually pro Chinese Communist Party rule. If this was 1936 and Germans were flying Nazi flags would they be pro-German or pro-Nazi? China's government and many Chinese may not think there are parallels with the 1936 Olympics - but while China is ruled by a single party that executes those who challenge its rule, it is difficult to avoid the link. Not since Moscow in 1980 have the Olympics been held in a dictatorship.

.

In an age of soundbite news reporting is it too much to ask for simple slogans like "pro-Tibet" and "Pro-China" to be done away with and instead call them "Tibetan independence" or "human rights campaigners", and "pro Chinese government". Being anti Chinese Communist Party is not anti Chinese.

Mbeki the friend of fascism

South African President Thabo Mbeki has visited his ol' buddy Robert Mugabe and according to the BBC Mbeki has said that "there is no crisis" in Zimbabwe. What is that if it isn't wilful blindness to the destruction of Zimbabwe?

.

Why do world leaders remain silent against this accessory to murder and fascism?

.

Mugabe has done more harm to Zimbabwe's people than Ian Smith and the racist Rhodesian administration - but racism is the biggest taboo nowadays. Be a racist leader and there is, rightfully, no tolerance. Be a murdering fascist black African kleptocrat, and it's ok - at least he's not killing and starving people based on race (though he did lead murderers based on tribe).

.

It's time the Western media got over the fawning lack of criticism of post-apartheid South African government. Nelson Mandela has been long gone - Thabi Mbeki is no Nelson Mandela, and Jacob Zuma even less so. The ANC is the Zanu-PF of South Africa.

.

According to CNN, the Summit of African leaders is likely to call for the Zimbabwe election results to be released in full immediately. Of course, it will ignore the widespread fraud - because their old bloodthirsty buddy Robert Mugabe is beyond criticism. It's about time Mbeki and the ANC regime was not.

Pity Zimbabwe

Robert Mugabe has always been an evil despicable thug - it has taken the world 20 or so years to finally realise that. He is going to claim victory. Although the opposition has already claimed it, Mugabe has a long record of being a bully. His goons will declare it has been free and fair, and the corrupt lowlife that comprise the ANC will continue to provide succour to Mugabe. You see, the South African regime only doesn't perform like Mugabe because it doesn't need to - yet.

So why is Mugabe not a surprise? Many on the left waxed lyrically about the man in the 1980s, he was a great hero - even though he is a Marxist-Leninist who has enriched himself enormously from his grip on power. What is the truth?

There are umpteen books telling this truth, but here are some of the highlights of how awful he has been, for some time:

- For starters, Mugabe is a Marxist-Leninist. Note that the 20th century includes Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim Il Sung, Castro, Erich Honecker, Pol Pot, Nicolae Ceausescu among others who were Marxist-Leninists. That in itself should raise concern. He spoke Marxist-Leninist rhetoric repeatedly, constantly spoke in diatribes against the West and in favour of socialism. He spoke often about the state participating and regulating all sectors of the economy, and presided over an ever increasing growth in state ownership and control of the economy over the 80s and 90s.

- From as early as 1983 he was supporting the creation of a one-party state, openly asking why Zimbabwe couldn't have one? What supporter of liberal democracy and individual rights would not be concerned? His thugs murdered en masse in Matabeleland, his "war veteran" barbarians bayoneted whole families who were considered to be enemies, including infants in front of their parents.

.

Mugabe was treated with kid gloves for so long because of three different motives:

.

1. Enormous British "guilt" about Ian Smith's apartheid style Unilateral Declaration of Independence. Anything was better than that. Racism being a bigger sin than destroying free speech and an economy.

.

2. Left wing cheerleading of Marxist African post-colonial leaders as "heroes". They couldn't do any wrong - they represented Africans ruling Africa, when many were kleptocractic authoritarians who took what they wished and would beat and kill those that got in the way.

.

3. Conservative British desire to get "rid" of the problem. Rhodesia had been a weeping sore, largely because the UN wouldn't leave it alone. Unlike the mass murdering despots in Cambodia, China, North Korea, Indonesia and the like, Rhodesia was a cause celebre that had most of the world united in opposition. The issue wouldn't be left alone, but don't you dare raise gulags in Siberia at the UN - that's different.

.

Mugabe has now acted as would be expected. The election was held, he did all he could to rig it, and could only rig a run off. Now he has banned political rallies. It is clear Zimbabwe is no libera democracy.

.

The key to this is of course South Africa. Thabo Mbeki - an ignorant buddy of Mugabe - has disgustingly appeased his friend for far too long. Thousands have died because Mbeki wont turn off the supply of money and energy to Zimbabwe and demand Mugabe go. Why? Because in his heart of hearts Mbeki is a Marxist thug too. This ignores the quackery he believes in on HIV - which has directly contributed to the deaths of thousands of South Africans while HIV remained a lower priority for health care and far too many South Africans were complacent about it.

.

You simply have to look at how South African democracy has slowly been getting eroded since the end of apartheid. The ANC calls the opposition "racist" whenever issues of corruption are raised. The state owned television gives the leading opposition party - the Democratic Alliance - hardly any coverage and is highly sympathetic to the ANC. The truth is that if the ANC couldn't win elections on its own right, it would be highly tempted to play the Zanu-PF game.

.

Mbeki like Mugabe plays the race card against critics at every chance, he called Archbishop Desmond Tutu an "icon of white elites". It is the card of blame, and to remove responsibility. It's about time Mbeki was shamed for the useless man he is.

.

If Mugabe effectively overrides liberal democracy in Zimbabwe, it should feel the force of full international sanctions - and South Africa should be shamed if it fails to follow. Apartheid is gone in South Africa, the ANC does win free and relatively fair elections - get over colonialism and start policing the murderous thugs of post colonialism. Whatever good Mugabe could have ever have said to have done has been more than undone by halving the life expectancy of a once rich country. Some of us aren't surprised, it's about time Britain - who is responsible for putting this Marxist-Leninist bully in power, took the lead and called for global sanctions - meanwhile it would save the lives and pain and suffering of thousands if someone could swiftly deliver a bullet to his head.

Should the Olympics be boycotted?

Both the libertarian blog Pacific Empire and semi-libertarian blog Mulholland Drive are endorsing a boycott of the Beijing Olympics. Blair Mulholland explains why:
.

• Free speech and freedom of the press is severely restricted and censored;
• Religion must be sanctioned by the state or adherents are persecuted; and
• Huge numbers of political and religious dissidents languish in Chinese prisons

He calls for China to simply release all prisoners of conscience and to guarantee freedom of speech and freedom of the press. All perfectly reasonable. The boycott he calls for is for athletes to choose themselves, not for government to impose it.
.
So should they? It has been a while since an Olympic Games has suffered from widespread boycotts. Athens, Sydney, Atlanta and Barcelona were all games held in free liberal democracies with all such rights, as will London.
.
The Seoul Olympics in 1988 were the last games during the Cold War, but partly catalysed the democratisation of South Korea. When South Korea won the right to the games in 1981, it was under a military dictatorship, but in 1987 it had its first fully democratic presidential elections and despite North Korea demanding a boycott, only Cuba, Ethiopia and Nicaragua joined the boycott. Since the Seoul Olympics, freedom of the press and vigorous democratic elections have been the hallmark of South Korea. However, China is not on the cusp of becoming free, it is not South Korea 20 years ago.
.
The LA Olympics in 1984 were boycotted by the Warsaw Pact, but the 1980 Moscow Olympics were meant to be a propaganda triumph. This failed miserably not least because of the almost universal Western boycott in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

.

Now in 2008, the Olympic torch ceremony has been a focus for protests in London and Paris. Disturbingly though, the coverage has talked about "anti-China" and "pro-Tibet" protests - I doubt they are either.

.

Who is anti-China? Well besides many in Japan, Korea, Vietnam and others from neighbouring states who harbour the fear and the latent racism that is widespread outside Western civilisation, few indeed. I am not. I am pleased China is growing, pleased that freedoms in China have grown with it and would like nothing less than for the people of China to simply have some fundamental freedoms.

.

Simply being able to criticise the government, have a free and open press, and a state that is accountable, rather than being an extension of the Communist Party. I care less about China being a liberal democracy than I care about the right to free speech, for political prisoners to be freed, and for those who govern China being accountable before the law. It is about China growing up.

.

However, those who govern China are fomenting nationalist hatred that is seen on the China Daily forums that what the protests are about are about criticising and humiliating China. They are not - they are about rejecting the bloodshed, the repression and the unwillingness of China's one party state to be accountable or even honest about what it does. To me China is not what the Communist Party, which in its darkest period was responsible for tens of millions of Chinese starving and being slaughtered, says it is - it is about a people who are resourceful, hard working and creative.

.

Tibet is almost a sideshow, but represents what is wrong with the Chinese regime - it tolerates no dissent, it doesn't allow free and frank debate about government in Tibet, or criticism of what it does. Sadly this means that when Tibetans riot, and attack innocent local Chinese, it becomes a "them and us" story - some choose to unquestionably support the Tibetan protestors, others the Chinese - the truth is that neither are angels, but it is encumbent upon the Chinese Communist Party led regime to not suppress information and not suppress free speech there. i see no reason to be "pro-Tibet" anymore than being "anti-China", and don't believe that a Tibetan Buddhist theocracy is where it should be heading.

.

China has a better model. It's called Hong Kong.

.

You'd be hard pressed to find anywhere in the world with more individual freedom than Hong Kong. In Hong Kong, there is a lively free press, with private property rights, independent judiciary and freedom to do business. Art and culture thrive in diversity, and this is all in spite of over ten years of oversight from Beijing. Hong Kong doesn't have liberal democracy, but it is a free society, has low levels of corruption and reasonably high accountability for politicians and bureaucracy. Most importantly, Beijing has left it pretty much well alone. The truth is that in the last ten years Mainland China has been slowly moving towards the freedoms of Hong Kong, not Hong Kong moving backwards - albeit that China has a long long way to go.

.

The key questions are this - is it positive for freedom and individual rights in China for the Olympics to be hosted there and a spotlight to be turned on China? and are the Olympics a celebration of China's economic and technological modernisation or a celebration of its one party authoritarian state?

.

The answer to the first question is yes. It is yes because the Chinese regime can't turn the screws too much while the world watches, for fear that it encourages more protests, more scrutiny and more attention about what it doesn't do well. It is already hurting and straining relations. If it were not for the Olympics then Chinese human rights abuses would be ignored, as they largely have been since Tiananmen Square. Unfortunately the day after the Olympics is likely to be painful for those who dare to express dissent in China in the run up to it. However in the lead up, and at the time Chinese officials will be confronted with questions.

.

The second question is more delicate, as the truth is it will be both. China has much to celebrate in its modernisation, the long journey from the murderous Maoist state which starved and shouted at its people, to the market based authoritarian state where, by and large, people can get on with their lives as long as they don't challenge the state, or get in the way of the groaning leviathan. Standards of living have soared enormously, all because of free market capitalism - although China's legal and banking systems are at best shaky and antiquated.

.

Meanwhile, political power continues to come from a barrel of a gun. The Communist Party's sphere of influence has steadily eroded. China is not the starving Police State of North Korea, but is no bastion of open debate. Political dissension in China is expressed behind closed doors within the Communist Party, and to a limited extent at the local level where some criticism is allowed. Meanwhile some within the Party use its siamese twin like linkage with the state to enrich themselves - with little accountability, except from enemies who dob them in for whatever reason. Let's face it, the Chinese state is authoritarian, corrupt and brutal.

.

The Chinese regime would use the Olympics to showcase China, and undoubtedly many Chinese in China would be proud to be in the Olympic host country. One argument is that this would solidify support for Communist party rule, but what if there was a boycott, would this weaken such rule?

.

A state boycott would not - the Chinese regime would turn in on itself, would make racist claims that countries boycotting are "anti-Chinese". If China does not engage in a brutal suppression of dissent in the run up to the games (and the situation in Tibet is not of the scale of Tiananmen Square), then states should not now announce a boycott. A boycott should have been clear when China won the rights to host the games. To posture now in the final year, in the absence of any major change in circumstances is simply to posture.

.

Yes I know some think Tibet represents that - but it doesn't. None of the countries posturing about Tibet recognise it has any right to independence. Tibet has been subject to far more repression in the past, yet the world was largely silent. China is under pressure to be restrained in Tibet, but how it acts there is little different to how it acts elsewhere - it's just that the Dalai Lama exists for Tibet, no similar spokesperson exists for people oppressed in other provinces.

.

However, none of this should hinder the absolute right of individual athletes and politicians to boycott the games to express opposition to China's lack of individual freedom. My own view is that athletes that value such freedoms should not go (with the added benefit that they avoid breathing the toxic swill of Beijing smog), and neither should politicians. Those politicians who do go should take the chance to express concern about China's lack of political freedom.

.

In that sense if the Olympics is held, has some politicians boycotting loudly, some attending and expressing support for individual rights and many athletes boycotting, then two things will have happened. China will be in the spotlight - much of what is good will be seen, and some of what is wrong will be seen too - and those in charge know this. So for that I support those who individually choose to boycott the games purely to support the rights to free speech and political dissent, and for freedom for those arrested and imprisoned for such offences. I don't support those who simply call for "Free Tibet", as all of China should be free.

.

In fact a better campaign would be to extend the freedoms of Hong Kong to all of China - but since there isn't liberal democracy in Hong Kong, many of those protesting wont see the value in that. However, the longer Hong Kong succeeds and is seen to succeed, the more the rest of China can appreciate that it is the way to go - because the most important thing isn't elections, it is freedom.