David Farrar gets it but...

Yes on Kiwiblog he posts about "The Stalinist Wellington City Council" because WCC does not want new town centres and shopping malls to compete with existing shopping districts.

He is decidedly libertarian saying "So the Council has decided Kilbirnie and Miramar can get big shops, but Rongotai and Seatoun can not? I’ve got a better solution - let every business decide where they want to be located, and let the public decide if they will shop there."

Yes exactly David of course.

Now in the comments he gets some flack for saying Stalinist, given WCC doesn't run gulags, suppress free speech or have gun toting secret Police. Of course it is a hyperbole, but it is one with a core underlying point. Stalinists were central planners, those who thought they knew what was best for everybody and everything, and believed human beings could be moulded according to what was best for them, nor for their surroundings to be moulded into what human beings wanted.

That you see is the problem - planners want people to fit a plan, not for plans to fit people.

The comments are well worth a read, with Owen McShane, PhilBest and Paul Walker making perhaps the best.

Take this from Owen:

"Stalinist planning is planning from the top down based on the notion that central planners have superiour skills and knowledge and have the authority to direct and control the economy and of course the use of land. Stalinist planning refuses to acknowledge the efficiency of market led allocation of resources and the resulting spontaneous order..

We used to have a Town and Country Planning Act which gave councils the authority to direct and control the use of land and to manage the local economy. The RMA was supposed to have reversed this Stalinist approach by removing that authority and replacing it with the mandate to focus on adverse effects on the environment. Of course the central planners did not like this at all and soon persuaded the courts that you could not manage environmental effects without directing and controlling the use of land.

Climate change alarmism has now provided all the excuses they need."

The market "failures" are actually government failures to use the market, roads being the classic example.

Now what I'd like to know is why David persists with the National Party when it seems to positively embrace this in the RMA, and is doing nothing to change it, whilst promoting a mega-city that will enable Auckland to do one "Stalinist" plan for the whole region?

Why is Libertarianz now the only party that is fighting is?

The Standard distorts the idea of "service"

The Standard has made a peculiar post saying:

"All those engaged in service violate the neo-lib/neo-con ‘ethic’ of looking out only for yourself. Since neo-liberals depend on the stable running of society to pursue their own interests, they operate as free-loaders on the efforts of others to maintain a civil and just society. Since they do not understand the urge to help others, they denigrate."

Where is the evidence for this? When has anyone either conservative or laissez-faire liberal ever condemned those who either choose to be in the armed forces or engage in voluntary or paid work that is primarily about helping others?

It goes on to claim those who "denigrate service" are "parasites on society" because they rely on the stability that comes from those who "give service".

What?

What planet of Orwellian doublespeak and lies is The Standard coming from?

The condemnation of Helen Clark as "engaging in service" is valid because she has NOT engaged in defending the country, or providing health, education, food or housing for ANYONE? Politics is not some sort of self-sacrificial "service" it is a relatively well paid (for a fair number who enter it) activity that is primarily about controlling people and spending their money. How is this service? What else would she have done? Who can possibly say Helen Clark feels unsatisfied or that she has sacrificed herself for what she did? Moreover, how can this be compared to being a doctor, cop or an entrepreneur who sets up business and employs people?

The "stability of society" primarily comes about because most people most of the time get on with their own lives, look after themselves, families and loved ones, and don't try to meddle in or control the lives of others. The Police play a role in being called upon in last resort when people initiate force against each other. This is seen as "service" because it isn't obviously self interested, but few join the Police to suffer. The Police are paid, and most enter the job for a sense of fulfillment and satisfaction. THAT is part of the selfishness Ayn Rand talked of, the virtue of looking after yourself as the primary goal.

You see for virtually everyone there is satisfaction in providing for yourself materially and emotionally, and in being benevolent to your friends, family and loved ones. It is what being human is.

Sadly some on the left think they have a monopoly on this, bizarrely translating "service" into meaning the superstructure of their beloved state - a series of interlocking institutions which initiate force.

That's where the two visions of human benevolence differ.

Statists believe your primary goal should be to "serve others", to "sacrifice yourself" is the highest virtue, and the best way to do this is through the state. You do this by working for the state and "doing service" through this, or you can surrender your taxes and know you are "caring" somehow by having it all done through this mammoth collective exercise.

Objectivists believe your primary goal should be to "live" and "enjoy life", and that is up to you. Human nature means people are social beings, so will be generous, benevolent and kind to family, friends and loved ones. It is, after all, how families are created. By maximising your life, you also maximise your own capacity and willingness to give to others - witness the generosity of Bill Gates.

Human beings who live their own lives pursuing their own values produce enormous positive externalities to others, as well as often being generous in their own right.

However nobody exists to satisfy the needs and wants of others. That is slavery.

Time for ACT to do something for freedom

It doesn't take much. Given this repulsive childishness from the Victoria University of Wellington Students' Association (of which I was a member under protest, without choice), which I now understand includes the following in the past:

"In 2007 exec member Heleyni Pratley laid a communist wreath on ANZAC Day, reading “To the dead and the dying in the struggle against imperialism, victory shall be theirs”. The same wording featured in the wreath laid by 1973 VUWSA President Peter Wilson in protest against the Vietnam War and again 30 years later by 2006 President Nick Kelly."

No different from putting a swastika down - unspeakably vile.

Rodney it is time to set students free from being forced to fund these lowlife scum, enjoying the freedom of liberal democratic Western capitalist civilisation to spread their filthy philosophy of theft, death and denial of truth.

They have ever right to be Marxist fools, but no student should be forced to fund the cheerleaders of the most murderous philosophy of the 20th century.

I said it earlier this year here. What's stopping you?

ANZAC Day 2009

I have nothing to say that I have not said before, or others have said so well. So here are my sentiments:

"take time today to remember those who lost it all for your freedom. They did more for peace than anyone who protests for it ever have" (ANZAC Day 2008 post)

"The only thing that would've been worse than World War 2 is surrender" (ANZAC Day 2007 post)

and to conclude, I like Not PC's post this year very much " if you want to give thanks for peace, then thank a soldier. But do not forget to thank the trader more"

So take a moment to remember the loss of those who gave their lives so you can have one in relative freedom and peace. Very few of us can begin to comprehend how hard that job is.

Zimbabwe's troubles? blame capitalism!

So says the Standard

Setting new high standards in blogging by linking to a four year old article on a US Marxist website (nothing like those articles that make assertions without any back up evidence) to damn the IMF and World Bank for wrecking Zimbabwe's economy in the 1980s.

"Mugabe’s government which followed the IMF and World Bank’s neo liberal plan for their economy to the letter, has shown us all how these policies will finish up."

Welcome to the Orwell's world of doublespeak.

No, I am not making this up.

Referendum on mega city for Auckland?

Don't make me laugh. There wasn't one for the 1989 local body amalgamation. There wasn't one for the Local Government Bill 2001 (now LGA 2002) which fundamentally changed local government from being prescribed specific powers to having a "power of general competence".

There certainly wouldn't have been one had the Royal Commission recommendations been adopted in full, by a Labour Government, which instituted the Royal Commission in the first place.

If I had a vote, I'd vote no in a referendum. For the reasons outlined succinctly by Not PC.

However, for the likes of Jordan Carter, Idiot Savant and the Standard to lobby for a referendum smacks of stinking hypocrisy. These promoters of big local government didn't even raise a peep when Labour, the Alliance and the Greens let local government off the leash in 2002.

More fundamentally

If the Opposition's only concern about the mega city are:
1. It should have race based political representation (saying that non raced based representation "shuts Maori out";
2. It should be subject to a referendum.

and if National and ACT are happy to create a mega city with the power of general competence (power to do anything).

Who the hell is against the mega city and wanting LESS local government for Auckland?

It all comes back to Libertarianz. Read the Libertarianz detailed policy on local government - after all, it's the only policy around that is substantially different from the Labour/National/United Future/ NZ First/ ACT/ Maori Party/ Progressive idea of a mega city for Auckland (as these are the parties which support the current government and supported the last one for calling for a Royal Commission).

Bad boys and girls

I heard Geoffrey Palmer, ever the old school prefect, on RNZ (via wifi radio) last night talking earnestly about how people drank too much and how there needed to be steps to address it. The Law Commission is arguing for a higher drinking age, for higher taxes on alcohol and shorter opening hours. A bit like keeping the whole class behind after school because a few kids did something wrong. The NZ Herald reports further on this.

Will de Cleene correctly slams this, as raising the drinking age makes alcohol MORE of a forbidden fruit than it is, and all the measures combined just raise the black market opportunities, including increased theft of alcohol.

Yes, some people commit crimes when they are drunk - that is a matter for the criminal justice system. Yes there is legitimate concern about people who drink so much they barely function or act in ways dangerous to themselves and others. However, that isn't because alcohol is available, it is cultural and particular to certain individuals.

You might ask yourself why so many people want to escape reality. Could it be because far too many people talk as if something isn't what it is? Could it be because so many live lives of quiet desperation and intoxication is an escape from them loathing reality?

UPDATE: Blair Mulholland puts it rather succinctly "Why should the government stop restricting alcohol sales? Because alcohol is fun. Because people enjoy it, most of the time responsibly. Because I like it and want to buy it. That should really be all the argument anybody ever needs."

South Africa rewards scoundrels and thieves

According to the BBC the South African election seems to have granted the ANC the two-thirds majority needed to amend the Constitution - again. On the bright side, it appears to be a relatively free and fair vote. On the downside, it shows just well the ANC has branded itself as the only political party that can do good for the black majority, and how it has branded the Opposition Democratic Alliance as racist (it is anything but), and the Thabo Mbeki breakaway (though he is not standing) party COPE as a wasted vote.

The ANC has gone from being a rebel terrorist movement (which brutally treated those within its ranks who did not follow the party line - shades of Zanu-PF) to being a dominant party in a liberal democracy. However it is one where the executive dominates the legislature, almost treating it as a formality, and where the President treats the Constitutional Court with contempt.

In South Africa, the separation of ruling party from state, executive from legislature, and judiciary from executive, legislature and party is highly blurred. However, this is far too complex for many South Africans to follow. It is also something the state owned and controlled broadcast media largely ignores - the SABC is by and large the mouthpiece of the ANC.

Zuma's past is known - there is ample evidence of him having extremely questionable financial dealings, he treated his rape trial with an appalling misogynistic attitude. He said he prevented AIDS by having a shower, and he is quite the polygamist (4 wives and 3 fiancees), as well as being homophobic.

None of this bodes well for any substantive change in South Africa. The main beneficiaries of ANC rule have been ANC rulers, now including the convicted fraudster and promoter of murder (necklacing) Winnie Mandela. ANC MPs have remarkable levels of wealth and so called "black empowerment positive discrimination" appears to have benefited relatives and friends of ANC MPs and high ranking officials, and their businesses, not the tragically poor underclass - who remain largely as they were.

So where now for the state with the second highest murder rate and highest HIV infection rate in the world? It wont become Zimbabwe - yet - the economy is far better run, and liberal democracy hasn't been quashed, it just has a playing field rather tilted in one direction.

What should Zuma do? Well I'll leave that to the Economist of last week:

He should state unequivocally that he will not propose a law to render the head of state immune from criminal prosecution. He needs to resist the temptation to elevate some of his dodgier friends to high judicial posts. Parliament needs more bite to nip the heels of the executive; the present system of election by party lists shrivels the independence of members and needs reform. To curb cronyism, all MPs, ministers and board members of state-funded institutions should register their and their families’ assets. He should also keep the sound Trevor Manuel as finance minister. Finally, Mr Zuma should ask his government to revise, perhaps even phase out, the policy of “black economic empowerment”. This may have been necessary 15 years ago to put a chunk of the economy into black hands. But its main beneficiaries now are a coterie of ANC-linked people, not the poor masses.

Time to cut the VUWSA off at the knees

Yes I believe in Voltaire's maxim - if Jasmine Fremantle wants to burn a flag at Anzac Day, then she should have the legal right to do so. If she wants to damn those who saved New Zealand from Japanese imperialist occupation, who helped save Western Europe from Nazism and Fascism, who helped deter the Red Army from rolling across the Iron Curtain, who helped roll back the Korean People's Army and "Chinese People's Volunteers" from making all of Korea Kim Il Sung's slave state, who helped prevent Malaysia from being an outpost of Communist slavery, who helped push back Saddam Hussein from occupying Kuwait - she can.

It is one of the freedoms defended and fought for by those who died in wars that they would rather not have had to fight.

However, if those forced by law to belong to an organisation that expresses these views opposes her, they should say so to.

Wherever the VUWSA Executive is on ANZAC Day should be confronted head on by those, who silently, tell them to go fuck themselves. Go contemplate how New Zealand would be had the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere been running for a few years - go contemplate how an OE in the UK would have been under the jackboot of the Third Reich. In fact go to fucking North Korea and enjoy the free speech there.

Meanwhile, if the government ever needed a stronger reason to abolish compulsory student union membership, it has it now.

The VUWSA can be a tinpot club for Marxist apologists for appeasement and letting fascist and communist imperialist forces impose tyranny on the world.

However, why the hell should anyone be forced to join it?

So go on - burn your flag - but enjoy the free speech of the others watching you, taunting you and telling you what childish ungrateful fools you are. I have yet to see anyone commemorating ANZAC Day glorifying war - but I've seen enough immature little "heroes" taking for granted the freedom that men and women fought for, which make any privileged little leftwing student look like a cowardly little nobody.

Oh and students? Time to demand your student fees back, to protest the university and really tell the VUWSA what you think, while it's time for a Bill to roll through Parliament.

High taxes don't win votes or attract winners

Not when you've run deficits and borrowed the country into the ground.

The Daily Telegraph reports a massive swing to the Conservatives in the latest Yougov poll.

45% Conservative
27% Labour
18% Liberal Democrats

David Cameron has a 56% approval rating, vs Gordon Brown with a 69% disapproval rating. Not that the Tories have earnt it, they are just very lucky they didn't win the 2005 election.

Expect Labour to get a pounding in the forthcoming MEP elections for the European Parliament and the selection of local body elections that are run at the same time.

Meanwhile, the FT reports the new 50% tax rate will drive talent from the City of London.

The head of one City institution with a strong private client business fumed, “What are they trying to do, drive all the high-earners out of London?”

New York must be rubbing its hands with glee, and ready to welcome an influx of talent in a year's time.

Of course the knuckle dragging tracksuit wearing "werking peeepill" will think it's fair - and as a result the Tories are not promising to remove the new tax. Oh well, let the UK get what it votes for - and watch the talent leave.

Be nice if the left were honest

Idiot Savant's two clangers this week:

1). How fair is it to increase taxes on those who don't actually cost the state money? The UK is introducing a new 50% tax rate on earnings over £150,000, he says New Zealand could "do the same" by introducing a 45% rate on earnings over NZ$100,000. Wait a second, did you see that? NZ$100,000 is only £38,000. The new tax rate in the UK is cutting in at NZ$393,000, which in NZ would mean very few taxpayers indeed, because NZ is a low wage (and largely low cost of living) country.

He says "This move would not be contractionary, because the rich tend to stick their money in the bank (or in a housing bubble) rather than spending it." Really? Not term deposits or buying shares or investing in businesses or buying high end consumer goods or travel? What nonsense, where does he get this?

"it will help balance the books while helping to reduce the inequality which is fundamentally harmful to everyone in our society" he says. Why does that inequality exist? Oh yes is it because some people are more successful and entrepreneurial than others, or maybe because a lot of people come out of state schools barely literate, get paid to breed or be lazy, and get sold a philosophy that people get rich unfairly, or that someone owes them a living?

Higher tax rates and this attitude about "equality" sells the philosophy that people who are richer owe everyone else, through the state, more of their income than those who are fiscal failures in life. The real unfairness is the vast underclass of people who spend their lives from unearnt income off the hard work and risks taken by others, ungrateful, expecting more every year, and voting to thieve more from those who pay to keep them alive.

2.) Seeing Sweden as a great example to New Zealand, forgetting of course that its education system is based on vouchers, based on ANYONE being able to set up a school, including private businesses to run them for PROFIT, and parents being able to send their children to any of them, with their tax money flowing to their chosen school.

In other words ACT policy, and far more liberal and competitive than the centrally planned, bureaucratic system he often clamours for.

He ignores criticism of the Swedish health system for chronic waiting lists. A Swedish study in 2004 reports that 77 out of 5,800 heart surgery patients died on the waiting list.

For a bouquet though, he was dead right regarding Damian Green, the Conservative MP who had his office raided and was arrested because he received leaked information that embarrassed the Labour government. The UK Labour government is beyond a joke, is tired, stinking and should go as soon as possible. My only question is whether I'll go before I get a chance to vote the bastards out.

More air security for what?

Airlines and airports think it's unnecessary, but it doesn't matter. Government security goons are keen on it, because it will mean they get more money and more power, growing in influence.

According to the NZ Herald up to 14 extra airports could get security screening, but it isn't for terrorists. No. It is to cover drunk people (who surely can be dealt with without everyone being screened), the mentally ill (who airlines should be able to discriminate against, if it weren't for the Human Rights Act) and the disaffected.

I called for a serious cost/benefit analysis of the measure, if only because I believe the delays, and inconvenience to travellers (simple things like stopping people taking water on flights) will outweigh the risk, particularly if other options are selected.

Take this comment from Ray Dumble, chief executive of Tauranga Airport Authority, who said the government is "using a boulder to crush an ant".

"To me the action is potentially disproportionate to the actual problem. But, like anything, it's a business cost which will be passed on ... in the end it will be the poor old passenger who pays."

It's simple. In the UK thousands of trains travel every day without ANY security screening, some go up to 125 mph carrying over 250 passengers at a time - and passengers are screened for nothing. If this can be sustained every day in a country with far more serious terrorism (and domestic anti-social behaviour) problems than NZ, then we can let people fly from Napier, New Plymouth, Tauranga and Nelson without being harassed because 1 in 10,000 people who fly are mad or drunk.

What business should run for free?

The news from the NZ Herald that TV3 faces fines of up to NZ$300,000 because it broadcast advertising - its primary source of revenue on a Sunday morning should raise a more serious question.

Why should any privately owned broadcasters broadcast for free?

The laws restricting when TV broadcasters can broadcast advertising are a little recognised but very real limit on free speech. Why should the government dictate when a broadcaster can sell the only thing that broadcaster has to make money? Advertising.

Imagine a cinema that had to offer free tickets on a Sunday morning, or any other business that was told if it opened on a Sunday morning, everything would be free. Indeed, imagine the internet without ads on Sunday morning - um yes, got the point?

Of course look at who brought the case - the cheerless Ministry of Culture and the Arts. People who produce nothing, who risk nothing, but use your money to promote their view of what culture and arts should be subsidised. Not the culture and arts you consume and want, no. You're forced to pay for a statist view of the world. It's wrong, and the Ministry of Culture and the Arts should be disbanded.

Meanwhile, a small step forward would be to end restrictions on advertising on Sunday mornings, as well as Good Friday and Christmas Day (the only days radio stations cannot broadcast advertisements, but I doubt most of you even notice).

If you don't like advertising on TV on certain days then you can avoid it - do something else, turn it off.

What do you want councils to do then?

Given this news

You might ask why National and ACT are doing nothing to constrain the powers of the new Auckland mega city.

You want the new mega city to get involved in promoting shows with your money?

Well National and ACT don't care if it does.

So if the council will do what it likes
Wont reduce rates
It wont fix transport

What's the point? Especially when it makes some on the left get excited about the possibilities.

Iran's benign proxy?

Leave it to Trevor Loudon to post to remind us how an Imam from Hamas calls for extermination of all Jews.

Then wonder why, with this rhetoric, Israelis and Jews generally should "get over" the Holocaust, as so many leftwing commentators say.

While Palestinians support the likes of this, is it any wonder Israel wont compromise?

Oh and Iran funds and arms Hamas. However, you never hear calls for Iran to end its imperialist ambitions do you?

IRD cuts seen differently by Labour

250 jobs to be axed from the Department of Legalised Theft - which can only help boost the economy, as there are less claws trying to clasp money from the productive.

However, I found it funny that Wellington Central MP Grant Robertson on Twitter said:

"250 jobs to go at IRD. apparently its a good time to ask people to take voluntary redundancy! services we get from IRD will suffer."

Services? What are they Grant?

IRD is the state institution that says you're guilty and you have to prove your innocence to it. It harasses people to pay for what they never asked for, for services whether they deliver what you want or not, all without asking - it takes.

I've never understood the mindset of someone who would work for IRD - what joy is there is forcing people to pay for government? What joy is there is forcing people to surrender between 20 and 40% of their income for monopoly education, health and pension schemes which are never accountable if they fail you, and which you can't opt out of?

Taliban rolls further in Pakistan

First it was Swat Valley. I blogged about this tragedy here, here (the consequences of Taliban rule shutting down so much freedom) and here.

Just like the 1930s in Europe, the Taliban did not stop there. It didn't say "thanks we'll be good now", the Taliban have used Swat as a base, to fight onwards and now capturing Buner District, nearer to Islamabad.

CNN reports:

"The Pakistani government appears unable or unwilling to stop the Taliban's steady advance deeper into the territory of this nuclear-armed country"

Is Pakistan a failing state? What will it take for the West to be worried about Pakistan's apparent impotence against the Taliban? Will it take Islamabad to be surrounded before governments wake up and realise that the Taliban is taking over a state that holds nuclear weapons - and if you think a nuclear armed Iran is scary....

UK government hikes up taxes and subsidies

Alastair Darling has read his (hopefully) last budget, what a fizzer.

The same government that wants to borrow and spend, in order to boost the economy, is now raising taxes at the same time.

A new top tax rate of 50% is to be introduced from 1 April at a threshold of £150,000. So the UK is back to discouraging the best and brightest to remain, back to penalising success to pillage for the bloated public sector, and welfare for the underclass. It is a breach of Labour's 2005 manifesto pledge "We will not raise the basic or top rates of income tax in the next parliament".

Alcohol and tobacco duty increase by 2% today - the typical sin tax.
Fuel duty goes up 2p a litre in September, don't pretend it is about anything other than pillaging the motorist, as 5x as much is generated from fuel tax in the UK than is spent on roads.

Government debt is going to be 79% of GDP by 2013/2014 because Darling and Brown before him have wasted the good years, constantly running deficits. Now borrowing an additional £175 billion. Fiscal child abuse on a grand scale, because Gordon Brown refuses to cut unproductive government spending.

It's Gordon Brown's huge fiscal "gift" to an incoming Tory government, which will find it difficult to cut taxes easily without massive cuts to spending - and at the same time Labour will accuse the Tories of being heartless, when Labour has been stealing from future generations to buy itself power.

He is subsidising those with cars more than 10 years old by paying £1,000 subsidies to those buying a new car who already have an old one. Nice that, so those without cars get nothing and those already with newer cleaner cars get nothing. A nice subsidy to Labour voting knuckle draggers in the north.

250,000 jobs will be "created" through subsidies, and everyone under 25 who has been unemployed for 12 months or more will get training.

£500 million to "kick start stalled housing projects", great when you already have a deflated housing sector. Nothing like government to help further deflate a sector in decline.

The bloated Scottish Executive is to get another £104m, which upset the socialist SNP government which sees government jobs being cut there - good. The Welsh are similarly unimpressed with a reported £400m cut. Good. This is all part of reducing growth in state spending to 0.7%.

Tax credits for breeding are to increase, when the UK already has a massive problem of people on low incomes breeding when they can't afford to house, educate or provide healthcare for those kids.

£1 billion to subsidise low carbon businesses. £750 million to subsidise "emerging technologies". £525 million for offshore wind generation, because presumably it isn't efficient for users to pay for that electricity.

Pensioners get a 2.5% increase even though there is no inflation - Labour's bribe to pensioners taken from their grandchildren.

Leader of the Opposition David Cameron is unimpressed according to the Daily Telegraph “the worst peacetime public finances ever known. Any claim to economic competence is over, dead, finished.” He added: “With debt like that, our children are going to be in poverty for decades.”

It's appalling. The British governnment squandered years of prosperity, milked the increases in the speculation of the housing market, and ran deficits, poured money down the black hole of the NHS, boosted welfare and kept subsidising the criminal underclass through housing, welfare, health and education, and now it is squandering more.

This budget wont boost the economy, as it borrows to subsidise some industries, and means that future budgets mean more tax increases and tougher spending cuts just to get a balanced budget.

What's most insidious is the philosophy behind it. It is class warfare returning. Labour is saying:
- If you're wealthy and successful, you owe it to the country to have more of your money taken to prop up the government's past failures;
- If you're a pensioner or a welfare beneficiary, don't worry, we'll improve your standard of living so you can vote for us to borrow and hope some more;
- If you run a business that bureaucrats decide is "new technology" or "low carbon" expect money that was taken from other businesses.

It is a return to the old Labour borrow, tax and spend. There is so much wasteful pointless government spending in the UK, tinkering here and there, subsidies here and there, schemes, projects and other nonsense that could be cut - but no, Labour wouldn't hear of it.

So the message is clear- from April 2010, the best and brightest can either be taxed in the UK more heavily, rearrange their affairs to avoid it, or just fuck off.

Why would you stay to get half of every pound you earn to pay for the UK government?

ALL budget documents here

UN Racism conference farce continues

UN Watch continues with highlights of the Durban Review Conference, to show the madness did NOT end with Ahmadinejad's tyrade against Israel.

Testimony presented at the conference challenged the Libyan chair by exposing Libya's own racism (remember the foreign nurses imprisoned in Libya for spreading HIV?). Most poignantly presented by a Palestinian, who was one of those nurses imprisoned.

"Thank you, Madame Chair.

I don’t know if you recognize me. I am the Palestinian medical intern who was scapegoated by your country, Libya, in the HIV case in the Benghazi hospital, together with five Bulgarian nurses.

Section 1 of the draft declaration for this conference speaks about victims of racism, discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance. Based on my own suffering, I wish to offer some proposals.

Starting in 1999, as you know, the five nurses and I were falsely arrested, prosecuted, imprisoned, brutally tortured, convicted, and sentenced to death. All of this, which lasted for nearly a decade, was for only one reason: because the Libyan government was looking to scapegoat foreigners."

Watch the France 24 news coverage (in English) here.

A racism conference chaired by a representative from a totalitarian dictatorship that randomly villifies foreigners.

UN Watch also notes a side event which included Iranian political dissidents, including a representative of the Azeri minority in Iran, which claims persecution by the Iranian regime.

Meanwhile the Palestinian delegate used the conference to accuse Israel of being the worst human rights violator (hardly surprising). Syria's delegate echoed this damning Israel, and saying all foreign occupation is racism. (Turkey would be a bit worried about this, China might be less keen on this, as would Pakistan and Russia, since all have some territory claimed by others).

Gee is there no racism elsewhere? Besides, can you really trust delegates from authoritarian states to give an objective view of racism in their states?

UN Racism conference was a farce before it started

While most of the focus on the UN Racism Conference (Durban Review Conference) has been on Ahmadinejad, the signs were there well before that this would be a farce. Islamic countries all wanted the conference to be an effort to prohibit defamation of religion, and to slam Israel. Cuba also wanted anything to do with freedom of speech removed. Iran sought to overwhelmingly dominate the conference proceedings.

Even more sinister is the effort by China, Cuba and South Africa to promote the idea that victims of Trans-Atlantic slave trade should be compensated - i.e. implying the old call that African-Americans should be compensated for what their distant ancestors suffered. That all fell flat.

UN Watch has excellent coverage of the background meetings before the Conference, showing just what rogues so many attendees were looking to be:

In the Intercessional Working Group for the Durban Review Conference, Pakistan, speaking for the group of Islamic states (OIC), objected to paragraph 56, which “Stresses that the right to freedom of opinion and expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic, pluralistic society,” saying that it did not see how this relates to the conference’s focus on racism.

(In which case what harm does it do? Yes you can guess).

Cuba argued that paragraphs about freedom of speech and expression should be moved to the more passive Section 1, which reviews progress of states rather than demanding action from them.

(Funny that, you don't get freedom of speech and expression in Cuba)

Cuba also endorsed mention of the ad hoc committee on complementary standards, an Algerian-chaired U.N. committee that is seeking to add an additional protocol to the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) that would define criticism of religion as a violation.

(In other words, trying to say criticising a religion is a form of racism - what nonsense).

China, Cuba, and South Africa argued that there needs to be more work on paragraphs 60-62 on the trans-Atlantic slave trade. China said these paragraphs should be more “victims oriented,” implying support for the African-led effort to demand that Western countries pay reparations for the past injustice.

(In other words, the US government should pay African-Americans compensation for the suffering of their ancestors - even though Africans in Africa today almost all have lower standards of living than African-Americans).

In a meeting of the Durban II working group at the U.N. Human Rights Council, Iran was extremely active, proposing amendments and language changes in more paragraphs than any other state, and in a few instances, ignoring the Chair’s plea to hold off on certain paragraphs for the time being and engage in a constructive manner.

The closing session of the working group on the draft Durban II declaration:

Iran asked that the paragraph on Holocaust remembrance be deleted;

(because of course, it mind never have happened right?)

The Czech Republic for the EU requested an amendment to the controversial paragraph 30, which “Takes note with appreciation that the Ad hoc Committee on the Elaboration of International Complementary Standards convened its first session,” proposing to delete, “with appreciation.” The ad hoc committee is primarily responsible for promoting the campaign to criminalize the “defamation of religions” within U.N. human rights law. Nigeria lashed back at the EU, proposing to keep “appreciation,” while adding, “and commends” the committee. The paragraph was then tabled and skipped.

(Czechs bravely wanted to dismiss the Islamic driven attempt to restrict religious criticism, while Nigeria endorses Islamofascism).

Cuba proposed the deletion of paragraphs 55 and 56, which emphasize the importance of freedom of expression, saying, “There is no reason why we should single out one right, which is not even associated with the fight against racism.”

Iran proposed a new paragraph 56 that calls for “permissible restrictions to freedom of expression.” It also suggested integration of the “defamation of religions” concept into article 66, which deals with incitement to hatred.

(Both being great opponents to freedom of expression).

So is it any surprise that New Zealand felt that there was no point going to fight a gallery of rogues that were uninterested in racism, and driven more by fear of their own appalling standards of free speech and openness being scrutinised?

Single Auckland council wont fix transport

"There will be an integrated single authority for Auckland's roads and public transport"

Wrong.

There will be three.

Megacouncil will look after local roads and contracting public transport, kind of like ARTA is meant to do now, but doesn't do a good job of local roads. You might reflect on why that is.

NZ Transport Agency will continue to look after the state highways. Ministers don't trust the Auckland Megacouncil to do that. Who would blame them? So the busiest most strategically important roads in Auckland wont be a matter of the Megacouncil.

Ontrack will continue to look after the rail network. Ministers also don't trust the Auckland Megacouncil to do that. Again, key routes for freight (set aside the unprofitable low frequency low density passenger services) are too important to leave to a local authority.

If you want to see how poorly a local authority can perform on transport planning and management you need only look at Auckland's past, which is littered with several planning screw ups. Here are a couple.

1. SH20: Land was designated for the so-called "South Western Motorway" in the 1960s, to link the Southern Motorway to the North Western Motorway. The land was empty at the time, so placing a designation on it meant anyone using the land would know it would one day be acquired for a motorway, so short term leases were the order of the day. However, the ARA and Auckland City Council decided in 1974 that the route beyond Richardson Road to the northwest was not well defined, and so the designation should be dropped from there. As a result the designation only comprises the sections now being built - from the Southern Motorway to Mt Roskill. The Waterview Extension debate is purely because previous Auckland councils decided the South Western Motorway need end at Mt Roskill. Well done. Cost of that decision now runs at least to $1 billion.

2. South Eastern Arterial: Auckland City Council decided in the 1980s that there were inadequate connections between Pakuranga, Mt Wellington and the Southdown areas so decided to revive plans for the "South Eastern Motorway" to link Church St to Mt Wellington Highway and the Pakuranga Motorway, with on and off ramps to the Southern Motorway. It did so on the cheap. The resulting road has few shoulders to accommodate breakdowns, and traffic lights on multiple busy intersections when it should be a proper motorway with flyovers. Ultimately this will need perhaps $100 million of improvements to bring it up to standard to relieve the bottlenecks on this important road.

The Auckland mega council wont change that - and in fact the government doesn't even trust it to manage its own networks.

So let's stop hearing arguments that a single council will be good for transport in Auckland - when there isn't any evidence for that.

When is an official independent?

Joris de Bres thinks that the government should continue to pay him to be a critic of it. It raises the issue as to when state sector employees are meant to be independent and when they can effectively lobby politically.

He went to the Geneva Racism Conference, in his "independent capacity" then criticised the government, parroting the Labour Party point of view.

Foreign Minister Murray McCully said "I am not sure whether he is there is an official capacity or as a representative of the Labour Party". Of course de Bres's boss, Rosslyn Noonan is herself a card carrying member of the Labour Party, and saw nothing wrong with it.

The Human Rights Commission is meant to be independent, in terms of enforcing the hideous law that created it. In that respect its independence is justified. It must be able to criticise politicians when they break the law. Ros Noonan did so on the Electoral Finance Bill.

However, for paid employees at the level of de Bres to attend international conferences in a private capacity (we have yet to find out who paid for the trip), and then use the trip as a platform to do politicking when it is NOT part of his job, is outrageous.

Imagine if a National Party member, was a government official, and went to the US to complain about NZ's nuclear ban - how would the Labour Party welcome that?

Exactly. De Bres should go, Noonan should be warned.

No Minister agrees.

Of course, I'd abolish the Human Rights Commission, but that's another story.

Exploit the earth or die

It's today! The Greens will hate it, because it runs counter to the philosophy so many have had rammed down them for the last two decades - that the best way nature can be is left alone.

Capitalism magazine says:

Capitalism is the only social system that recognizes and protects each individual's right to act in accordance with his basic means of living: the judgment of his mind. Environmentalism, of course, does not and cannot advocate capitalism, because if people are free to act on their judgment, they will strive to produce and prosper; they will transform the raw materials of nature onto the requirements of human life; they will exploit the Earth and live.

Environmentalism rejects the basic moral premise of capitalism—the idea that people should be free to act on their judgment—because it rejects a more fundamental idea on which capitalism rests: the idea that the requirements of human life constitute the standard of moral value. While the standard of value underlying capitalism is human life (meaning, that which is necessary for human beings to live and prosper), the standard of value underlying environmentalism is nature untouched by man.

Oh and it doesn't mean polluted air, water and the end to parks, forests and lakes. It means recognising that human beings survive by using the earth. It means acknowledging that people worldwide survive by exploiting the earth and applying their minds to it.

(Hat Tip: Not PC)

Obama's boondoggle of "fast rail"

The Obama Administration is pouring US$13 billion of money into developing a high speed passenger rail system. Sounds great doesn't it? Obama talked of how countries like Japan and France have been doing it for decades, but the US hasn't, and it is about time that it did.

Sadly this money is going to be wasted, and it isn't going to deliver anything remotely like a high speed rail system for the USA. Why?

The USA is vastly different from France, Japan, Italy, South Korea and other countries with high speed rail systems for one obvious point - size! Japan has profitably developed high speed rail because it has tens of millions of people living very short distances down densely packed corridors. With the exception of the Boston-New York-Washington DC Northeast Corridor, the distances in the US are too vast for rail to begin to compete with aviation for travel time. That rail route in itself is profitable, but sadly under the Federal Government owned AMTRAK is milked to cross subsidise other politically driven routes.

Obama's money will be bad money after bad. It wont build any high speed rail routes because it isn't enough money. The money will go to improve existing lines, at best upgrading lines as fast as the Northeast Corridor, which is nothing like lines in Japan and France. Speeds in Japan and France are In the US it is 145 km/h, in France it is 320 km/h, in Japan 300km/h. High speed rail in the US is slower than most main lines in the UK, which are at least at 160 km/h and typically faster.

Obama has basically lied that this money will deliver the US high speed rail like in those countries. A country that is far bigger will get trains less than half the speed of the countries where high speed rail works. It isn't enough money, and what it will do is next to nothing.

More importantly, rail can never be competitive with aviation over medium to long distances, and the diversity of origin/destination patterns means it wont be useful over short distances in most cases. Obama wont set it free to be profitable and slash all of the politically driven loss making routes that excite far too many members of Congress.

In short, he's wasting money on a feel good project, lying about what it will deliver and pretending it will make any noticeable change in the US economy or the environmental impacts of transport.

It's not change - it's the same failed policy of the Carter Administration on transport.

I'll leave to Sam Staley of the Reason Foundation to explain further. As Randall O'Toole says "Taxpayers and politicians should be wary of any transportation projects that cannot be paid for out of user fees."

Aucklanders are about to get something just like that.

South Africa's election - rewards for corruption

The ANC is predicted to win another landslide in the South African elections. Although you could be excused for wondering why it could deserve it. ANC President Jacob Zuma has already proven that the ANC is willing to corrupt the judicial system when one of its own are threatened.

That in itself should deny it power. The separation of party and state, and the independence of the judiciary are clearly threatened in South Africa.

The party of Nelson Mandela who conducted himself admirably when power was handed over after the first non-racial election, dropped far under Thabo Mbeki. Mbeki on one hand evaded science and contributed to the deaths of thousands as he embraced quackery on HIV, and on the other hand has his hands bloodied by his embrace of Robert Mugabe. Jacob Zuma shows signs of being worse still. Blocking a visa for the Dalai Lama, because China wanted it, shows how the anti-imperialist credentials of the ANC look rather rusty.

The ANC has the arrogance of the single governing party it long wanted to be – after all, it never ever really wanted liberal democracy. In South Africa, it still doesn’t need to give a damn, as so many black South Africans are grateful for liberation from racist rule. That sadly is enough to maintain the ANC’s arrogance.

The ANC has used the government owned media to push its own platform disproportionately. It has also been profoundly corrupt, with government contracts going to friends of Ministers, and politicians enriching themselves from the state.

More generally, South Africa is a mess in several dimensions. The economy is suffering from the global recession, crime has not receded with a murder rate the second highest in the world, and the highest reported assault and rape rate. South Africans have largely had to take things into their own hands to protect themselves. Riots a couple of years ago don't mean the majority have turned on the ANC. Bishop Desmond Tutu has been critical of the government, saying bureaucrats act with little regard for citizens, much like under apartheid. Electricity is severely rationed, because the government refused to privatise or allow the state monopoly to be challenged.

This has seen a new breakaway party emerge called COPE (Congress of the People)– which blames the ANC for opposing the rule of law and for corruption. The Democratic Alliance has long been the party of Opposition, even when apartheid existed, the Democratic Party was the liberal opposition, with recently deceased leader Helen Suzman. It has a long proud tradition of opposing apartheid and is now lead by Helen Zille. Suzman expressed concern before her death that democracy was more vibrant under apartheid than it is today, a sad legacy.

The best result would be for the ANC to be defeated, for a coalition of the Democratic Alliance and COPE to purge South Africa of the corruption and kleptocracy of the ANC years. However, the South African government media portrays the Democratic Alliance as a party of “white interests”, and the vast majority of poor barely literate black South Africans believe the cargo cult the ANC pulls out to have them vote for it – that only the ANC is looking after them, despite precious little evidence of the sort.

The most likely outcome is the ANC wins less than the 66% needed to change the constitution. The ANC will gloat and cheer, and continue to look after itself over holding itself accountable.

We can only hope that it wont threaten South Africa’s open liberal democracy as the party that believes it exists to rule increasingly sees its majorities eroded away. The sooner South Africa tells the ANC "thanks for the revolution, now we want good governance" the better.

Rudman gets much wrong on transport, again!

Oh dear, after doing quite well lately, Brian Rudman has it badly wrong.

On Auckland he claims "That Aucklanders were willing to pay an extra regional fuel tax on top of the fuel tax the rest of the country paid".

Um Brian, the government that passed the legislation for this tax was voted out, rather comprehensively, by Aucklanders as well as the rest of the country. I wouldn't have thought that meant "Aucklanders were willing to pay".

Then he says...

"It's not that Auckland wants special treatment. It just wants an equitable share of the budgetary cake.

In the past I have given examples of how Auckland was for years ripped off by the state road builder Transit New Zealand when it came to the distribution of road-user levies."

Brian has an interesting view of "equitable" being that Auckland gets money taken from road users, but he wants it spent on public transport. He doesn't mind road users being pillaged to pay for public transport, but don't let fuel tax paid in Auckland get spend on roads in Southland. Equity for Brian is geographical, but not modal.

Moreover, he doesn't even understand that Transit New Zealand (which doesn't exist now) hasn't been responsible for distributing road taxes since 1996. Not good for a man who writes so frequently about transport to not even understand the funding framework. Transit used to bid for funds, it did not distribute them - and in fact the public transport projects Brian likes never went far for so long because they have such poor returns - Labour had to change the funding framework to allow poor value projects to proceed.

Then he quotes the Green Party Transport Research Unit!! Wonderful stuff, people who evade facts that there is little difference between trucks and trains in environmental impact, people who lie about the nature of road projects (witness the nonsense about the Basin Reserve flyover in Wellington). The Greens claim Auckland got 40% of what it paid in road taxes. Now I don't know the basis for that (Brian doesn't publish the documents so we can actually determine if mistakes have been made), as it could simply be the fact that the majority of fuel tax until this year went to the Crown anyway.

Then he makes the fantastic non-sequiter "Imagine the wonderful rapid rail system, complete with spur lines to the airport, Aucklanders could be enjoying now if that money had already been spent here." Yes imagine Brian, because until Labour got re-elected, the rapid rail system would NEVER have been funded because it has always been an inefficient project. The money would have gone on roads.

Furthermore, Brian avoids confronting you with the truth that IF such a system existed, Auckland ratepayers would have had to pay 40% of the capital costs and the ongoing operating subsidies. Road users don't pay all of the subsidies paid out by the ARC, nor should they.

Finally he says "Over the last couple of years, the progress was there for all to see. Double tracking of the rail lines was under way, Spaghetti Junction was expanded, the Northern Connection was completed." Yes, the double tracking was funded by former Infrastructure Auckland money. Spaghetti Junction expansion came from road users and was accelerated at the cost of the "Northern Connection" (I guess he means the Northern Gateway toll road).

Sorry Brian - you can't claim it is inequitable to spend Auckland motoring taxes outside Auckland, but somehow fair that economically questionable rail projects get subsidised by those who don't use them (and don't pretend it makes a jot of difference to congestion).

Moreover, don't pretend that if motorists were pillaged to pay their "share" of the costs of a rapid rail system that Auckland ratepayers would pay "their share". It's a nonsense, Aucklanders have proven they don't want to pay - stop trying to find non-users to pay for your expensive rail fetish, when there is no evidence that it will do anything besides gold plate the commutes of maybe 5% of Aucklanders.

UN Racism conference proven to be a farce

The vile speech by Iran's homophobic warmongering racist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has previously damned liberal democracy as a failure, has provoked a walk out by many delegates at the UN Conference on Racism according to the BBC.

He claimed Israel was created to "make an entire nation homeless", which is historical nonsense.
He claimed Israel existed to create a "totally racist government".
He claimed Israel existed on the "pretext of Jewish suffering", as he denies the Holocaust once again.

CNN says he was jeered at and cheered at, but the cheers were from Iran and the Palestinian delegations it appears.

New Zealand can be glad it isn't a party to a forum for this vile bigoted thug to express his idiotic views. Of course, I expect Green MPs to send a note of protest to the Iranian Embassy about Ahmadinejad's views, like the Greens did when he denied there were homosexuals in Iran - remember that? It must have happened surely, I mean they always claim the moral high ground!

Racism is mindless, but to hijack this forum to talk only of the Palestinians, to engage in historical denial, to point a finger at one but not others, shows little real interest in racism.

Reuters report

UPDATE: Colin Espiner in the Press reports that Chief Human Rights Commissioner (and long standing leftwing Labour Party stalwark) Ros Noonan claims "I've been through the programme and I can't find anything that smacks of anti-Semitism quite the reverse". I guess the fact Ahmadinejad would use the conference as a platform for it, didn't matter did it?

Espiner basically takes the Labour and the Green view, by not stating until halfway through his article that only the Labour and Greens are questioning whether foreign policy is independent, and he doesn't list all the countries boycotting the conference. Yep, good independent unbiased MSM journalism there Colin.

UPDATE 2: Keeping Stock reports that Joris de Bres is attending the Geneva conference, despite it being boycotted by the government.

Shouldn't this supercilious little man arrive home to find a letter advising him of the termination of his employment, with the bill for this unauthorised trip removed from his salary?

Condoms too big for Indian men

This is an old report I happened to find listed in the top 10 on the BBC website.

A new stereotype to go alongside the one for black men and for east Asian men.

Nothing more to say on this.

Labour and the Greens think their side is "independent"

Presumably if New Zealand "followed" the Arab world, Africa and the developing world, known for being scrupulously anti-racist, pro-individual rights and pro-liberal democracy, that would be an "independent foreign policy". However "following" the developed world, of countries that prohibit racism at the government level, that actually do let the judiciary hold the executive and legislature to account, that constitutionally and factually embrace free speech and individual rights to a relatively high level, is "following others".

Grant Robertson and Keith Locke mistake choosing to agree with the likes of the US, Australia, Germany and the Netherlands as being "not independent" which is frankly insulting. However, they wouldn't dare suggest that choosing to agree with South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Iran and China means you are "not independent".

It's just their own bigoted anti-Western scepticism over individual rights and the West coming to the fore - trying to paint the government as slavishly following the United States, even though the US has Barack Obama as President - who I don't doubt was the preference of both Robertson and Locke.

Keith Locke moreover supports this conference singling out the Palestinian issue, but happily lets the genocide in Darfur remain unmentioned, not least because Muslim states don't want to point a finger at a fellow Islamic regime committing racist murder, supported by China. Locke likes to see the UN as a meeting of equals, when it is a gallery from the relatively free to murderous butchering tyrants.

New Zealand attending this conference would imply its endorsement and being a party to an one sided set of resolutions - or it would be fighting hard to make it different.

I used to like child abuse

until Cindy Kiro came along. So implies Lynne Pillay Labour list MP in saying "Cindy Kiro played an important role in opening our eyes to the detrimental effects of bullying and child abuse".

Child abuse was such a joke beforehand, and bullying? Hey it toughened you up - it was all good until the sagacious Cindy Kiro came along.

Please - she meant well, but she did nothing besides promote a nanny state and more welfarism.

Children don't need very highly paid bureaucrats being their advocates - they need families who give a damn and the state to enforce the law on lowlife parents and guardians who abuse and neglect. Dr Kiro widened the net of her concern to all parents, she thought her role was to ensure all kids did better - letting down those kids living in hellholes of terror and abuse.

Metiria Turei messaged me on my twitter account to say "Completely disagree with you view of Cindy Kiro. best child advocate this country has seen ever". Respect the fact she responded to me, but what has been the record in the last 9 years, what remains the tragic truth that too many kids, particularly in Maori families, are being ignored or abused. Cindy Kiro did precious little to target this.

It IS about race

Merata Kawharu’s column in the NZ Herald this morning is an attempt to justify separate Maori political representation on the Auckland mega stadt rat.

She claims “Maori deserve their own voice”, well who doesn't? Nobody is seeking to stop it - the issue is whether Maori voting themselves is generating a voice, or whether it should be guaranteed, but others get no guaranteed voice. Moreover it implies that Maori have one voice - as if all the individuals of a race have one opinion. A rather nonsensical and sinister notion.

Quite how New Zealand got through local body restructuring in 1989, the Local Government Act 2002 without “honouring existing agreements” is beyond me – I didn’t notice Hikois then, so this “agreement” must be recent.

She then lies about what has happened “The abolition of Maori seats on the governing Auckland body must rank among the greatest challenges. It is, in short, premature and flawed.” There has been no abolition, as there are no such seats. The idea is new. You can’t abolish something that doesn’t exist.

She repeats Metiria’s call for mana whenua which she says includes “offering protection where relevant to those who may visit or live within the tribe's traditional domain.”. Hold on, protection where? On the tribe’s land, it need not have anything to do with local government. Elsewhere, it is the role of the state to offer protect from the initiation of force – the tribe is not excluded from that as all of its members have equal participation rights.

So she talks of a long history of Ngati Whatua wanting participation in governance of Auckland, but largely ignoring that for around three generations it didn’t have any special role.

However, how does she respond to the point that mana whenua IS about race? After all, Ngati Whatua is a tribe of people of one race. Maori representation is about Maori voters, Maori candidates and Maori representation. It is not about other races.

She doesn’t. She said it isn’t about race – but then talks about it being exactly about – not race, but a subgroup of a race.

Saying it isn’t about race, doesn’t change the fact that it is. It doesn’t change the fact that Maori have as much right to representation in local government as anyone else – nobody blocks it or restricts it. I am not represented just because someone of my race is elected (whatever that truly means), and I can be represented by people of other races.

Oh, and if you think belonging to a tribe should give you special privileges in government over others, then you haven’t learnt that nepotism is a dirty word in government in the civilised world. Setting aside any political representation on a basis that excludes people because of who their parents are is simply wrong.

If Maori seats are not about race, they would be seats open to anyone to get representation by whoever wishes to stand - which of course, they are not.

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!

Good riddance to Stalin Kiro - let's not replace her

The children who benefited from this office were those of the people "working" there, which of course took money from families with their own children.

I have long regarded Dr Cindy Kiro as odious. She is prepared to sacrifice reason and individual rights for a big nanny state that puts safety of children above everything else. She was an authoritarian bully of the worst kind, she wanted all children monitored and planned by the state, under her warm stifling embrace. Instead of focusing on the vileness of parents who brutally abuse and neglect their kids, she adopted a scatter gun.

Meanwhile, the record of child after child murdered and abused by their extended families, far too often Maori, grew under her watch. She was gutless. Unable to confront the gravy train of intergenerational welfare that sees too many have accidental children and pay them at best negligible attention, at worst treat them as violent and sexual playthings, she wanted what's best "for all children" - ignoring that most parents, most of the time raise children who turn out to be reasonably well balanced, happy, healthy and productive citizens.

It was like she saw security at airports (because of terrorism) and figured the same "screen everyone every time" approach should apply to parenting.

I watched the antics of this woman throughout the life of this blog as follows:

In 2005, Cindy Kiro supported airlines having a deliberate policy of never sitting men next to children. She said "children’s safety is paramount" which of course can justify a Police state. It doesn't matter how many adults are offended, blamed for abuse or what freedoms people lose, nothing comes before the safety of children.

In 2006, Cindy Kiro promoted a single ID number for all children, so the state could track them. Her phrase ""If there is glue ear, or major issues about safety at home, then people do not learn properly. All the little bits need to come together." seems to justify monitoring every child. As Not PC said at the time "To say that all children need to be numbered because some children have been beaten by their parents is not just disingenuous, it's downright insulting to the vast majority of New Zealand parents." Indeed, Cindy Kiro wanted it to be about ensuring every child "did better", because the state, somehow can know best.

I first called her Cindy "Stalin" Kiro in June 2006. Why? Because she called for a "plan for every child" agreed by the state in a press release that remains on Scoop, but curiously not on the OCC website (Stalin rewrote history often too). She said "“In future we need to put in place a plan for each child from the day that they are born so that children don’t fall through the gaps again". Terrifying stuff, nonsensical when you consider CYPS is incapable of handling the deluge of cases of children living with criminally negligent/abusive parents already. A chilling vision of the state checking if, maybe you let your 10 year old taste wine, or maybe let your child briefly read Lady Chatterly's Lover, and punish you appropriately.

In October 2006 I blogged how Sue Bradford SUPPORTED Kiro's idea. Kiro called it "Te Ara Tukutuku Nga Whanaungatanga o Nga Tamariki" "This would provide a systematic approach to monitoring the development of every child and young person in New Zealand through co-ordinated planned assessment at key life stages and supporting families to make sure children have the opportunity to reach their full potential. The assessments would take into account the whole child: their physical, social, educational, emotional, and psychological development.”

She was awfully excited about planning childrens' lives.

In September 2007 I despaired it took the MSM a year to catch up on this story. Kiro claimed it would cost NZ$5 million a year. The Dom Post reported she "would make it compulsory for every newborn's caregiver to nominate an authorised provider to assess their family's progress through home visits. Those who refused to take part would be referred to welfare authorities." In other words, state goons to watch on your family. She said "She did not know of any similar schemes internationally. "We can lead the world in it.""

North Korea watches on families constantly Cindy, hardly world leading. I bet you don't know much about North Korea though do you? It's a long way from where you have spent your life.

In November 2007, I blogged about how she talked about "our children" again and how "we" needed to change "our" attitudes to child abuse, as if most people were casual about it. She said "New Zealanders had to change their attitudes and behaviour to become more child-focused". I'd bet most parents would beat to a pulp anyone they caught harming their kids.

No Dr Kiro, perhaps abusers should change their attitudes, and you can stop lumping everyone in the same group you collectivist!

In February 2008, I blogged about how she encouraged people to spend more time with their kids, having recently pocketed her relatively comfortable salary paid for forcibly by the people she wants to spent more time with their kids.

In August 2008, I blogged on how she called for "action on child poverty", not from those who breed without the means to raise kids. No. She wants to force everyone else to pay for those families. She wanted more welfare, and for no penalties for DPB beneficiaries not naming "deadbeat dads" (hey we can all be forced to pay for it).

Finally in December 2008 I asked when she would be fired. Zentiger at NZ Conservative noted how she said "New Zealand has a high tolerance to violence", making the murder of children everyone's problem and fault.

However Dr Kiro never liked picking on those who abused their kids, because it would raise some uncomfortable truths about demographics both of income and race. She let down Maori children in particular because she wouldn't finger point at the disproportionate number of young Maori who have children they never wanted, who leave children in the hands of extended families that include abusers, and who live a life on welfare giving scant attention to the educational, nutritional and emotional needs of the children.

That is the scandal of modern New Zealand - and Cindy Kiro was too ideologically blind or afraid of offence to point it out.

She COULD have called for an outright ban on anyone convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence from ever having custody of children or being allowed to live under the same roof as children - but no.

She COULD have called for a denial of welfare payment to anyone who abused children, but no.

She COULD have shouted loud and clear to Maori, given her own background, that it is disproportionately poor fatherless Maori families on welfare that somehow see the worst cases of abuse. Parents who abuse their kids, neglect them or let them be abused or neglected should have them removed.

but she is a gutless control freak who would rather regulate and monitor everyone Orwellian style (bet she never even read "1984") than point blame at those who ARE to blame. Not only that she wanted you to be forced to pay MORE welfare to those who are to blame, meaning less for you and your kids.

The Office of the Childrens' Commissioner should be abolished, to save the money taken from families to pay for it. To have a bureaucrat willing to advocate to sacrifice the freedoms and responsibility of most citizens because a small number are vile towards children is wrong - the experiment of this bureaucracy has failed - it is time to save a little money, and let the criminal justice system focus on identifying, convicting and punishing abusive parents, and placing the victims in the hands of those who give a damn - which also means abolishing the institutional bias against adoption.

but that's another story.