Morales makes sense on one point

.
New Bolivian President Evo Morales sides with Castro and Venezuelan socialist strongman Hugo Chavez, and is rabidly anti-capitalist, but he has made sense on one point. Legalising the international sale of Coca.
.
He said to The Guardian: .

“You have to realise that, for us, the coca leaf is not cocaine and as such growing coca is not narco-trafficking," he says. "Neither is chewing coca nor making products from it that are separate from narcotics. The coca leaf has had an important role to play in our culture for thousands of years. It is used in many rituals. If, for example, you want to ask someone to marry you, you carry a coca leaf to them. It plays an important role in many aspects of life."
.
"I want to industrialise the production of coca and we will be asking the United Nations to remove coca leaf as a banned substance for export," he says. "That way, we can create markets in legal products such as tea, medicines and herbal treatments. There has even been research in Germany which shows that toothpaste made from coca is good for the teeth.

.

Coca-colgate? Maybe Coca Cola should have kept some in it for dental hygiene? Seriously though, this should be supported. I don't like Morales cuddling up to socialist dictators and his anti-capitalism, and I don't agree with them that cocaine should remain illegal, but it would be a good step forward to give Bolivia this carrot.

If the US legalised coca products, it would improve relations with Bolivia and help to nullify the new Latin American socialist alliance developing between Bolivia, Venezuela and Cuba.
.
Sadly, I doubt if it will. The US commitment to the war on drugs is only matched by the degree to which it has failed to stem the demand and supply.

£100 parking ticket!

Annoyed about a parking ticket you recently got? Think your council is screwing money out of you? Well you're probably not in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. British local government likes screwing the public for cash to pay for their petty planning, whilst still being incapable of maintaining high standards of street maintenance (most NZ councils have far better local road surfaces because the funding is tied to performance).

I was in a pay and display park on the street on Saturday morning in Chelsea – I was ticketed for being six minutes over the displayed time. I found this out about eight minutes over (when I went to check to buy another hour at the standard rate of £3 an hour). I couldn't find the fascist parking cop who did it - although K&C has a reputation for being strict on this, and I suspect it finds it easy to get fascists by hiring people outside the Borough who can't wait to punish the "evil rich people" who have cars in Chelsea.

So anyone in New Zealand ever got a £100 parking ticket for being six minutes over time (that you paid for) on a quiet back street?

Whither Iran

.

The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been most vocal in the discussion about the cartoons and has tastelessly announced a Holocaust cartoon competition.
.
As if comparing the belief of a religion (which is supernatural) to a historically documented genocide is equivalent. However, education in some Islamic societies teaches that the Holocaust didn’t happen.
.
It looks, on the face of it, given the intransigence of Iran on its nuclear programme, its desire to destroy Israel, its ongoing support, training and funding of terrorism, that it is looking for conflict.
.
The problem is that Iran is deeply divided. One argument made is that much of the Iranian population, particularly the 50% under 30, are pro-Western and have little time for Islamic fundamentalist. The fire of the Islamic revolution has by and large gone for that population. Don’t forget that Iranians are NOT Arabs and most do not speak Arabic, and the affinity that Ahmadinejad has with the Palestinians is not one that Iranians ethnically share. Iran’s political system does not provide a particularly good outlet for alternative views.
.
At the top is the Supreme Leader, who is the religious and state head of the country, selected from an Assembly of Experts (pope style). He then appoints the religious members of the Council of Guardians, who with members selected by the Parliament, vet political candidates for their consistency with the Islamic constitution.
.
So for starters, you can’t be a non-Islamic candidate or a Muslim candidate who does not believe that Islam should be the deciding factor in government. As a result, turnout at elections has varied. Only 10% turned out for the Tehran local elections, so Ahmadinejad was a Mayor with very little support.
.
Reformists have called for those opposing the regime to boycott the elections, but still 59.6% turnout for the 2005 Presidential election was reported, with Ahmadinejad getting 61.69% of the vote against more moderate reformist candidate Akbar Hāschemī Rafsanjānī. While not an overwhelming endorsement, it is still one that George Bush would have been very happy with. Democracy is, after all, the counting of heads, not what is in them.
.
So what does this mean? It means that given half the chance, a lot of Iranians would cheer the downfall of the Islamic Republic, particularly citizens of Tehran, and that by sheer demographics this will occur. The problem is it wont be soon enough.
.
You see Iran has a nuclear programme – one ironically that was started with the help of the USA in 1975 under President Gerald Ford. The objective was to help Iran develop nuclear power in order to free up its oil reserves for export to North America. Of course back then, Iran was governed by the Shah Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, who was overthrown an alliance of opposition groups (liberal and conservative), which was subsequently overtaken by the Islamic revolution. A Siemens/AEG Telefunken joint venture had signed a contract to build a nuclear power plant which was terminated after the revolution.
.
Iran’s nuclear programme was in abeyance during the 80s, due to the war with Iraq and a lack of interested western partners. In the 1990s Russia helped Iran develop the Bushehr facilities, under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections.
.
Iran under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty has the international legal right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, as long as it accepts inspections by the IAEA to ensure it is not developing a military capability. In 2002, an Iranian dissident pointed out there are secret nuclear facilities at two locations not subject to these inspections. By 2004, the IAEA is not convinced that Iran has responded adequately to these allegations, in response the Iranian government breaks seals of the IAEA on its equipment, and resumes building nuclear centifuges. By September 2004, the IAEA calls on Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment programme. By November 2005, following the Iranian elections, the IAEA is impatient, rightfully so, as Iran still refuses to allow inspections it is treaty bound to comply with.
.
So now the IAEA has voted 27-3 to submit its concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme to the UN Security Council. The Council can impose economic sanctions on Iran. Iran meanwhile has said it will resume uranium enrichment, denies it is pursuing nuclear weapons (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons on August 9, 2005, while its President sabre rattles against Israel.
.
Iran must not gain nuclear weapons. If it wanted to prove it had no such intent, it could do so by opening up its facilities to inspection. The fact that it refuses to do speaks volumes. Iran has several motives for gaining nuclear weapons:
.
1. Regime survival: Having been branded as part of the Axis of Evil by George Bush and seen the regime change the US implemented in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is reason to believe it could be next. Having a nuclear capability would deter the US, the sooner it gets it the better.
.
2. Threaten Israel: Iran would want to deter any possible Israeli strike of Iranian facilities and to use a nuclear capability as a bargaining chip for its proxies (Hizbullah) in the region. At worst, it could supply terrorists with a small device to explode at an Israeli target, dramatically raising the stakes of the Palestinian conflict.
.
3. Status in the region: With neighbours Pakistan, India and China all nuclear, Iran will feel it can have a greater say in regional affairs with a nuclear capability.
.
So what now? Dialogues, sanctions, war, overthrow of the regime? Are enough Iranians disenchanted that they will deal to the government if it goes too far, or do words need to be backed up by action? More to follow tomorrow.

Cheers Rodney, shame on Brash

.

Rodney Hide has come out solidly in favour of free speech – which I thoroughly commend. He said:
.
“Prime Minister Helen Clark should unequivocally stand up for New Zealanders’ freedom and that includes the freedom of our press. Instead, she is undermining it. She should not condemn our media for reporting the news. She should instead condemn attempts by violent groups to bully and to censor our news. Of course, we must be respectful of other people’s cultures and beliefs. That’s a simple matter of politeness and a pragmatic recognition of what it takes to live in a diverse and tolerant world. But we must never surrender our freedom and the freedom of our press out of a misplaced respect for another culture or set of beliefs. To do that is to trade away our culture of an open and free society where we can debate the issues of the day both seriously and with humour as free citizens in a free country. That means that people will on occasions be offended. In an open and free society we accept that.”

.

Too right Rodney. Encouraging words indeed, of course he was only following the Libertarianz press release from Leader Bernard Darnton :)

.
NZ First has expressed a view (beyond Winston’s statement which may or may not represent NZ First, as he is part of the government, but his party isn’t .. whatever that means).
.
Doug Woollerton is concerned about the trade impacts, but has at least taken a sensible approach saying:
.
“The rights or wrongs of editorial decisions to publish the cartoons will undoubtedly be debated for some time to come, and that is healthy and will hopefully lead to greater understanding and tolerance on both sides of the debate.”
.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of free speech, but at least acknowledgement that having the debate is better than shutting it down.
.
Meanwhile, as has already been noted, the Maori Party is now the new party of censorship.
.
As Not PC has pointed out, it would help if Tariana Turia had a sense of humour. Her own belief in ghosts that speak to her is utterly hilarious. She asks “what’s the joke?” the answer is – it doesn’t matter.
.
In addition, Pita Sharples said:
.
“It's one thing to promote freedom of the press and freedom of expression, but quite another to use those rights to justify the decision to insult religions and beliefs”
.
So I cannot insult the belief that homosexuals are sinners, are that of their own free will and should burn in hell for that? I cannot insult the belief that women who expose any part of their body to men and are then raped are partially responsible for the rape and deserve some punishment over and above that? I cannot insult the belief that people of dark skin were made by God to be slaves? I cannot insult the belief that rats were Jews?
.
Well Tariana Turia and Dr Sharples can just fuck off – sincerely. I don't apologise for that language - I find their sensitivities over religion to be pathetic. I find religion to be insulting, as it is irrational and often contradictory to life. I find many beliefs to be either hilarious funny or downright insulting.
.
Of course, try making jokes about Maori religions or myths in New Zealand, and see how much free speech we REALLY have.
.
Everyone in New Zealand ought to bear in mind that there are ALREADY LAWS prohibiting insulting people on colour, racial, ethnic or national origins. The Human Rights Commission (Human Wrongs Commissariat in Libz speak) states:
.
It is unlawful for any person:
To publish or distribute written matter which is threatening, abusive, or insulting, or to broadcast by means of radio or television words which are threatening, abusive or insulting; or
To use in any public place as defined in s.2(1) of the Summary Offences Act 1981, or within the hearing of persons in any such public place, or at any meeting to which the public are invited or have access, words which are threatening, abusive, or insulting; or
To use in any place words which are threatening, abusive, or insulting if the person using the words knew or ought to have known that the words were reasonably likely to be published in a newspaper, magazine, or periodical or broadcast by means of radio or television,
Being matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons in or who may be coming to New Zealand on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national origins of that group of persons.
.
Now this is not within the scope of the Human Rights Acts, which the Race Relations Commissioner has pointed out – as being Muslim isn’t ethnic. The argument sometimes made is that religion is a matter of choice, but ethnicity is not. Well, really?
.
If a newspaper published jokes about taniwhas, tapu and other Maori supernatural beliefs, would this be tolerated? The Maori Party clearly wouldn’t, but how would the Human Wrongs Commissariat react?
.
So what of National? On the one hand Murray McCully has rightfully said that he respected the decision by the Press and Dominion Post to publish the cartoons as they had the right to do so. Whereas Brash deplored the publication and essentially agreed with the PM’s approach. He said it was reportedly “irresponsible, insensitive and in bad taste”.
.
Well sorry Don, you are wrong – and frankly this approach means you no longer deserve to be leader of the National Party.
.
The two newspapers concerned have reported on a news story and reported about what was published to cause an outcry of violence and intimidation in many countries. Peaceful people have been threatened because of the reaction, yet you say nothing about this – this vile appeasement is beneath you.

.
Why does a Muslim have a moral right to religion, but we don't have the right to freedom of speech? Why defend those who are insulted against those who stand up for what you, reportedly, believe in?

.

Why, when journalists uphold free speech and those offended respond with death threats, do you censure the journalists? Then again, National was the party that brought us the Human Wrongs Act in the first place, the party that toughened up censorship laws across the board in 1993 and voted for the toughening up introduced by Labour last term (yes it was motivated by child pornography which is fine, but it also covered magazines on cannabis and erotic letters).
.
As Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute said:
.
Blasphemy violates no one's rights; whoever finds such cartoons offensive, can avert his gaze. To cave in to intimidation and not publish anything Muslims (or any other group) feel is offensive is to surrender the crucial principle of free speech.
.
Ultimately, this clash is about respecting man’s right to express his views, however unpopular, in the face of religious attempts to subordinate that right to mystical dogmas.

.

The free speech so many of us want to defend isn't that free when the leaders of the two major parties regard it as less important than ensuring people aren't offended. Free speech as long as you don't offend anyone is not free speech.

God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh

So said Voltaire, of course there is no god. It is also sad that the audience includes most New Zealand politicians. Helen Clark, Chris Carter, Winston Peters, Don Brash, Rodney Hide, Peter Dunne, Keith Locke - all too afraid to laugh, in public at least, all too afraid to stand up against the violence now being perpetrated against Danish, Norwegian and other European targets. Testicularly challenged the lot of them.

.

Libertarianz is the only NZ political party to have supported the right to publish the Danish cartoons. ACT and National should hang their heads in shame, gutless in defending values against the mindlessness of religion fueled hatred.

.

Well we know what the government thinks - Chris Carter saying:

.

"It is hard to see why the publication of cartoons known to be deeply offensive to Muslim communities is such an important point of principle to the New Zealand media who have published them." This coming from a man who played North Korean propaganda songs when he hosted the Labour Party show on Radio Liberty on Sundays when it existed in the mid 1990s.

.

Helen Clark expresses an opinion, when she should have just shut up - it is inappropriate for the government to express a view on what newspapers publish. She isn't expressing outrage at embassies being torched, she should simply have said the papers have a right to publish what they wish, New Zealand is an open an tolerant society and debate on this issue should proceed without the interference of politicians. That is broadly what the Australian Labour Party Foreign Affairs spokesman, Kevin Rudd said:

.

"These decisions should be made on their journalistic merit by Australia's news media, we should not be kowtowing to anybody when it comes to freedom in this country."

.

What the HELL is it going to take for the National Party to speak up?

.

The National Party remains silent - probably trying to figure out whether or not to follow the populist view of supporting freedom of speech or fearing being branded racist and bigoted for doing so. United Future is also doing so, given that it incorporated an immigrant party some years ago, Peter Dunne wouldn't dare saying anything. DPF reported Winston talking about how the Arab world had been insulted, showing his difficulty in comprehending that Islam is bigger than the Arab world, and the Arab world is more diverse than Islam. ACT, well I would hope Rodney Hide would have said something by now.

.

Pita Sharples has shown the Maori Party's preciousness about insults by saying:

.

"It's one thing to promote freedom of the press and freedom of expression, but quite another to use those rights to justify the decision to insult religions and beliefs"

.

In other words, freedom of the press does not exist. Why can I not insult anyone believing that there is a teapot orbiting the earth where there is a genie who is a god? Why is Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or any other form of ghost worshipping different?

.

Keith Locke on the other hand showed that the Greens are with Labour in its hand wringing, mealy mouthed appeasement of bigots and violence mongering. Although the Frogblog comments show Green supporters more split on this than you may think:

.

"Rather than blame Muslims for their reaction, we should strive to make our community more tolerant of Islam, and see it as a peaceful religion. We can’t judge Islam, or any other world religion, by the small minority of extremists within its ranks."

.

Ok let's not blame Muslims? Why not? If one of the thugs who protested in London calling for the beheading of anyone who offended Islam (are you on that list?) actually carries out this act will it be because he has a psychotic commitment to his religion, or is it the fault of the USA and global capitalism, or did I do it? This is akin to blaming a rape victim for looking too sexy for the rapist - he's peaceful usually, just you provoked him!

.

Some on the far left are claiming the cartoons are a fascist conspiracy because the newspaper that first published them was pro Nazi in the 1930s. They also claim this is part of an anti-immigrant agenda in Denmark. This may be true, but it has unlocked a belief in violence that the cartoons could never demonstrate. As far as fascist credentials are concerned you may as well talk about those on the left who defended Mao, the USSR, Pol Pot, Ceausescu and other evils. Keith Locke's youthful exuberance for Pol Pot and the USSR are well known.

.

This "small minority of extremists" that Locke claims exist - are enough for 14 governments to officially condemn it and call for action - enough for the Syrian government to sit back and let embassies be torched - in a totalitarian state where dissent is not tolerated. While he is right that you cannot judge all Muslims according to what a small number say, I dont see protests in Muslim countries defending freedom of speech and calling for debate about Islam - you wont, it isn't allowed. I don't see Arab Muslim run newspapers agreeing to stop printing antisemitic cartoons.

.

If there was a cartoon lampooning the National Front and National Front members torched the publisher of the cartoon - the Greens would not say "you can't judge the National Front by this". Similarly, the Greens would be the first to claim that environmentalist Volkert van der Graaf who murdered semi libertarian gay Dutch politician Pym Fortuyn, did not represent how peaceful environmentalists are.

.

The Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand naturally want the cartoons withdrawn and apologies made, saying that freedom of expression does not include mocking other religions and their beliefs. Well actually it does!

.

Beyond all that, I thought some quotes from Voltaire would be enlightening at this point:

.

"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too."

.

"One hundred years from my day there will not be a Bible in the earth except one that is looked upon by an antiquarian curiosity seeker." (if only he were right and that goes for the Koran too).

.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

.

Finally, Lindsay Perigo has called for Islam (as a belief system) to be put to death by shaming - not its adherents put to death - but the religion and the ideas it promulgates. He calls on Muslims to discover rationality and decency, and for those who defend the values of Western civilisation to do the very same.