Veitch vs Harawira

So whilst John Key gets excoriated by the left for engaging in an interview with convicted violent criminal Tony Veitch.

The stony silence about Titewhai Harawira.  

What's the difference?

Veitch was a man abusing a woman, Harawira was a woman abusing people of both sexes.

Veitch is a New Zealander of European extraction, Harawira is a New Zealander of Maori extraction.

Veitch's crime was in the context of a private relationship, Harawira was contracted and paid by the taxpayer to provide care.

Veitch's victim was a woman, clearly unable to defend herself against his strength, Harawira's victims were mentally ill, clearly unable to defend themselves.

Veitch is never forgiven by those who claim to oppose violence in all its forms, Harawira's past is conveniently forgotten.

Nothing is quite as empty as the hypocritical judgment of the pseudo-liberal, "violence is ok when it suits us", peace loving "except when fighting for human rights" left.  Titewhai Harawira is as guilty and as violent as Tony Veitch, but to condemn a Maori woman just wouldn't be on would it?  After all, it is not about judging the content of people's character or their actions, but judging them on their ancestry and their genitalia.

Individualism means judging every person on their actions, and leaving race and sex out of it.   Leftwing collectivism means judging the same actions as different, according to who does them.

That's how a Maori woman can violent abuse mentally ill people, and be forgiven. Because she is a Maori woman.

Just some kind of democracy, not freedom, not peace for Egypt

That's what the Greens want for Egypt.

Well you'd think that if you believe the Green Party official blogger "Toad" with its comments, after I called for secular liberal democracy in Egypt that doesn't wage war with its neighbours.   This was the response (10.19PM 4 February):

@Libertyscott 9:58 PM

I will welcome an open free secular liberal democracy in Egypt, as long as it does not wage war against its neighbours directly or by proxy through terror.

How about just a “democracy”, without the qualifications. Not necessarily secular, not necessarily liberal (I suspect you probably mean libertarian). You know, one where the people decide!

And if the people of Egypt (as determined by genuinely democratic process) want to wage war, that is their democratic right.

But I would counsel anyone anywhere, including in Egypt, that war should be a last resort in resolving international disputes and should be engaged in only in response to serious human rights violations.

Read that again "not necessarily secular" so a theocracy is "ok" for the Greens?  OK if a religion takes charge and the only thing you can vote for is whatever shade of religion is ok?  Who'd have thought!! The Greens think religious based government is ok, better than dictatorship, though you might wonder what the real difference actually is when one sees Iran.

Not necessarily liberal?  Really?  Presumably the Greens don't mean "people's democracy" where a single party represents the "people", like North Korea.  Surely not, although the Greens have more than a couple of MPs who have been sympathetic to such regimes in the past.  Do they mean "third world democracy"? A patronising self serving justification of dictatorship based on traditional values that means societies are unified, not competitive, and work together in a grass roots party.  Like Zanu-PF likes to think itself as being.  No, surely not.   It has to just be Toad being ignorant of what "liberal democracy" means.

However it is clear freedom isn't important as long as people get to vote.

Moreover, Egyptians are allowed to wage war as a democratic right.  I thought the Greens believed in peace, and the UN Charter.  Hardly very peace loving is it?  On top of that war should only be in response to serious human rights violations.  On that basis Britain should not have declared war on Germany because it invaded Poland (but when?), but presumably the US could have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq if only to improve human rights.

However, we know what this is code for.  Egypt could invade Israel, because of human rights violations committed against Palestinians.  That would be ok.  As would Hamas setting up an Islamist democratic theocracy in the Palestinian Territories. 

Peace?  No the Greens think a theocratic democracy can vote to wage war, but only to address serious human rights concerns in another country.   Quite what a theocracy knows of rights would be a fascinating question.   It's simpler than that, the Greens have never believed in freedom, have no real belief in secular liberal western style democracy and so their belief in human rights is vacuous. 

For the rights of those who don't belong to the religion of a theocracy by definition will be neglected.   However, far more sinister, is the belief that as a last resort, democratic theocracies can wage war, but not in self defence, but rather to remedy "human rights".

US can't win with Egypt according to the left

Let's be clear, there is absolutely NO foreign policy option available to the US that would satisfy its detractors.  It doesn't matter if the US intervenes or stays apart from what happens, it will do wrong.  For its critics offer no real options at all.  

The US has previously engage in armed intervention to overturn dictatorships and to institute a form of democratic rule, and was damned for it.  What regime has been more vile in recent history than the stone age Taliban, which explicitly wanted girls kept as uneducated chattels for men, and which banned music?  Yet overthrowing that regime and allowing more moderate, yet Muslim forces to come to power in Afghanistan is damned and condemned.  The USA was meant to take 9/11 as a moment to reflect, except for those 3,000 or so murdered in that attack.   It was meant to let Al Qaeda operate freely, and indeed fold to its demands to get out of the way of it imposing its deathly will upon the Middle East.  The US did provide support for Saddam Hussein in the early 1980s, as a failed proxy against Iran.  That was criticised and still is, as if Reagan was still in power.  Then the US overthrew the regime, and it was criticised, because dictators shouldn't be overthrown by external force.

So the US ought not to overthrow Mubarak.

Yet supporting Mubarak, a policy which, to be fair, Obama inherited, is also unacceptable to its critics.  Mubarak is a kleptocratic authoritarian bully, so should get no support at all.

So should the US simply withdraw aid from Egypt and not care what happens?

No.  That too would be criticised.  If Mubarak remained, it would be the fault of the US for... having supported him before.  

Should the US say Mubarak should go and there should be free and fair elections?

No. That would be interference in Egypt's internal affairs.  

So what should the US do?  Rather simply, it should ignore the vacuous hypocrisy of those who appease dictatorships they like, and look after its national interest.

That interest is to defend the security of the US and its allies.  At the moment, preserving as much of the foreign policy status quo of Egypt is that.  Maintaining peace between Egypt and its neighbours is paramount.   A free secular liberal democratic Egypt is likely to be the best way to ensure this, but the likelihood of this happening spontaneously is fair less certain.

As Janet Daley wrote in the Sunday Telegraph:

Democracy consists of more than elections (even if they are “free and fair”, as everybody keeps saying): it is freedom under the rule of law. That involves institutions such as an independent judiciary (which Egypt does have a semblance of), mechanisms for holding government to account after it has been elected, and disinterested agencies of public order which rely on an abstract idea of justice rather than loyalty to the ruling elite. All of this relies on the vigilance of a citizenry that has been specifically educated in these principles and in the quite complex system that embodies them.

The absence of this is not a reason to leave Egypt to dictatorship, but it is enough reason to promote more than just elections for Egypt to have a peaceful future.

David Cameron tries to defend liberty

It is a debate that wouldn’t be had politically five years ago, couldn’t be had ten years ago, but is now mainstream. It centres around a single point – the response to citizens of a state that wish its downfall, not replacement of one elected government with another, but the destruction of the core foundations of that state and civilisation, and replaced with another.

Today it is about Islamists who seek to undermine liberal democracy with core values of individual rights and freedoms. In the past those who sought revolution have had different philosophical touchstones. Most have also adopted techniques of insidiously inculcating their values and beliefs into the mainstream by gentle steps. However, all have faced end points at which their philosophies rubbed against ill-defined core values that at the end of it all come down to individual liberty in one form or another.

Britain’s problem is both that these values do not have a solid foundation, nor have any solid protection in the constitutional arrangements of state.  It is an "understanding" which is very fluid.  This fundamental weakness serves Britain as poorly today as it has done so with more recent challenges to these “core values”.

Marxists spent much of the 20th century seeking just that kind of profound change, as they had stunning success with the Labour Party in nationalising much of the means of production, distribution and exchange in order to downsize capitalism. This included nationalising key services such as health, and crucially education, the latter important for it provided the means to ensure future generations would share their ethos. The downfall of some of this was that the reality of the crippling inability of the state to respond to changes in demand and supply, when trading with the more fleet of foot, came to pass in the 1970s. Margaret Thatcher wound much of this back, but she could not wind back those successes of Marxists that planted themselves in the psyche of the vast majority – state health and education. In that the seeds for the leviathan like nanny state that came with Tony Blair, that saw the state in “partnership” with business and the voluntary sector, interweaving pervasiveness, whilst letting the capitalism that Thatcher did unlock, continue to prosper.   Yet Marxists still won on the welfare state and in education, and still command the mainstream perceived "moral highground".

Every single infringement on individual liberty that came under Blair (and to be fair, under every British government beforehand) saw little fundamental challenge, for the state is sovereign. Protests within a radius of Parliament were banned. Authors wishing to read books in schools needed to be vetted not just for convictions, but mere suspicions raised by private individuals who would never face challenge. Meanwhile, membership of the European Union saw a new panoply of civil liberties “guaranteed”, such as how Abu Hamza, convicted of soliciting to murder, cannot be deported to the US because he would risk life imprisonment there for his own role in assisting to set up a terrorist training camp. UK prisons have increasing numbers of convicted violent and sex offenders, who as illegal immigrants cannot be deported because they claim they will be persecuted at home. Furthermore, the UK state is legally obliged to force taxpayers to pay for welfare for such criminals and their families. Yet the same state can impose criminal sanctions on people for not having a licence when they own a television set, it can criminalise people who put a recyclable object in a rubbish bin and criminalise a Christian B&B owner who would rather not have a gay couple pay to stay in his own home.

You see there is no consistent philosophical basis for any of this. You do not have private property rights because the state can override them, the council can restrict what you do with your land, the state can tax as it wishes, there being absolutely no restriction at all on the scope of this. Your relationships with others are subject to extensive rules on discrimination that were designed to eradicate old fashioned sexism and racism, but now give cause to a whole host of grievances based on unequal outcomes rather than treatment. Your own actions in terms of speech have always faced some restriction, but be careful of offending others, for that now may give rise to concerns of discrimination. Certainly there remains mountains of laws on businesses, from shop opening and closing times, to property developers needing to provide effectively subsidised accommodation, and the appetite for more remains among politicians seeking to do anything from protect the environment to having more women in management.

The idea that an autonomous adult might interact voluntarily with other adults, do as she wishes with her property as long as it does to infringe upon the right of others to peacefully enjoy their own, and to express as they see fit, as long as it is not incitement to violence, has no foundation bearing anywhere in the British constitution, which of course, does not actually exist beyond convention.

So when the British Prime Minister David Cameron declares “multiculturalism has failed” and “Each of us in our own countries must be unambiguous and hard-nosed about this defence of our liberty”, he doesn’t do so from a strong grounding in the British state. For past governments have only ever been amorphous and fluid in their defence of liberty. Alan Turing worked hard to protect Britain from the totalitarian terrors of Nazism, only to have the police harass him because his private life was incompatible with laws that were more compatible with Nazism than liberty. It has always been liberty, except when it comes to fleecing citizens of their money for the state. Liberty with your land, except when it comes to grand projects, council planning and wanting to do virtually anything commercial. Say what you wish, unless you offend the wrong peoples. Nothing limited the last government and nothing limits this one, except their own consciences and fear of electoral backlash.  Only concern with treaty based commitments on human rights at the EU level has an impact, but that has most recently shown itself to be able to insist on prisoners getting the vote.  It might discipline totalitarian instincts around democracy and media, but any state that wished to go so far would be unlikely to care much about the EU.

Nevertheless, I welcome Cameron's speech, it is about time. It isn’t racist,  despite the vacuous name calling on the left.  Nothing he said is remotely about race or even about demanding adherence to Christianity.  For Hindus and Sikhs (3rd and 4th most popular religion after Christianity and Islam), there is no issue.  Only the far left and sympathisers with Islamism will want to tar it with this cheap slogan. It isn’t just that Islam is not a race, but that the concerns he raises are exactly where those who seek to more fundamentally undermine personal liberties and freedom rub up against the freedom to express ones views. Nobody called damning either communists nor fascists as somehow racist.

Cameron is saying no taxpayers’ money should go to organisations that do not embrace core values of individual liberty. I would go further than that, and not give taxpayers’ money to organisations that promote anything.  That would be truly liberal.  As would removing the vestigial role of the Anglican Church with the state, but this is hardly causing a problem, it is a mere detail.

More important is that he wants to cease access of such organisations to prisons and universities.  It is right to keep proselytising of Islamism from state institutions.   The question of whether religion should be restricted in prisons may remain moot, as many will vouch for its benefits, yet few would want it to come with moral endorsement to do violence.

Yet it shouldn’t just be about money, it should be about a robust defence of secular liberal democracy  built on the foundations of individual rights and freedoms. It means the uncontroversial right of freedom of religion belief and worship, and to live ones life according to these or other beliefs, but also to respect absolutely the right of others to live otherwise. Even more importantly, there is no right to have your religion or secular beliefs treated as greater than those of others. You have no right to be not offended or for your beliefs not to be laughed at.  Allowing humour at the expense of the BNP means allowing humour at the expense of Islam and humour at the expense of environmentalism and humour at the expense of atheism and humour at the expense of social democrats et al.

However, to make that defence robustly the Conservative Party needs more philosophical consistency. It has long ago expunged the sclerotic closet-racism of the past (to the dismay of the left because it was such an easy target) and embraced the leftwing “progressive” agenda of “positive-discrimination”. It has embraced the secular religion of environmentalism and has never looked particularly keen on private property rights. It is without any testicular fortitude on Europe, yet has imposed an absurd ban on new non-EU immigration that is hurting business (including my own employer which has concluded the bureaucracy required to put new expert foreign staff, who would help the UK win export work, through the process is not worth it at the moment). Moreover, it is engaging in fiscal austerity on the basis only of necessity, rather than also claiming that there are simply some things the state shouldn’t do – like pay benefits to people on high incomes. He is trying to draw a line in the sand on liberty, when he himself doesn’t appear to have one or much of a basis for it.

In parallel to this speech was a much feared so-called “far right” protest led by the English Defence League (EDL). It went off peacefully, despite being portrayed as racist fascists by the far-left “Unite Against Fascism” (supported by David Cameron) who countered the protest. The EDL denies this, and its website concentrates on Muslims needing to reform their religion to be compatible with British values.  It is easy to dismiss it as working class English people who are intolerant of difference, yet it is hardly surprising when confronted by Islamists who burn British flags and protest against British soldiers on Remembrance Sunday.

No doubt the EDL contains a fair few racists and, but the fuel for the fire in the bellies of those who join it comes from Islamists. It isn’t helped when so many who are anti-fascist appease Islamist fascists, such as Ken Livingstone undertaking book reviews on Iranian television. For the future of the UK demands that those who belief in the values of individual freedom stand up against Islamists, say that they do not see any role for Islam as a source of philosophy for the state, and that whilst individual citizens are always free to choose whatever religion they wish, they cannot and should not use violence or fear against those who disagree with them.  

No one should fear criticising any religion or any philosophy. The only philosophical basis to defend that position is to believe that the human individual owns his life and has the right to autonomy and self-determination. Sadly the actions of most mainstream politicians and the British constitution do not defend this.   Whilst liberalism in itself can provide a defence against Islamists it is not enough in itself when some use liberalism to wage war against it - then there cannot be tolerance of those who seek to destroy it. 

Council bans man from having sex

Yes, it's true.  Classically Liberal writes about this story I saw in the Daily Telegraph.  

A man in the UK has been prohibited from having sex on the grounds of his incapacity to consent, by his council.  

He has not committed any offences.  However he has a low IQ and "moderate learning disability".  It was claimed he doesn't understand enough about sex and that sex education would confuse him.

Now if I apply a simple test about the role of the state, it is to protect people from the initiation of force and fraud by others.

Yes it is 2011.  It is the UK.

Classically Liberal says:

Under a 2005 law judges have the power to declare people mentally incapable of making their own decisions and then take those powers upon themselves. This includes the power to force people to have surgery, to force them to have abortions and force them to use contraception. It also includes, apparently, the ability to force people to never have sex again.

In essence it is the state claiming ownership over the mentally disabled to make life decisions for them, without having them institutionalised.   Forcing people (which means women) to use contraception and have abortions is, of course, a politically correct form of sterilisation (which isn't acceptable, although the effect is the same).  It is possible to understand why reproduction for women who are mentally disabled is problematic, because they are largely incapable of performing the functions of a mother.   Although red flags go up when this is raised. 

However, to prohibit a man having sex appears to be different.  The man has been having a sexual relationship with another man, who hasn't complained.  There are no other examples, although there are accusations of lewd behaviour in two instances, no police action ensued.  Presumably if he has acted criminally the law should step in.

Yet now he is to be banned from having sex, with another, for what end?  What right does the state have to take away this man's legal right to have sex and why? To protect him? 

The man concerned is "now subject to “close supervision” by the local authority that provides his accommodation, in order to ensure he does not break the highly unusual order". 

Shades of the Stasi in east Germany.

However Classically Liberal makes a key point:

We allow individuals with little understanding of dietary needs to make decisions regarding the foods they eat, though government is trying to strip that right away as well. The consequences of eating a candy bar are relatively trivial. One doesn't need to have some high level of understanding to make that choice.

So what level of understanding is needed in this case. Given that pregnancy is clearly not a threat the only real potential problems might be health risks. But wouldn't a less intrusive—certainly less authoritarian—measure be simply checking Kieron and Alan for any diseases that might be contracted. If both are healthy in these matters, and the implications of the reports I've read indicate they are, then there is negligible risk on the part of Alan. His ability to consent should not be judged merely on the basis of his mental abilities but also as to the risks he is realistically facing. If both men have a clean bill of health then there is virtually no risk and Alan would appear to be capable to consent to something of no risk.

History is littered with example of the state using psychiatry to remove people from society "for their own good".  Thomas Szasz in "The Myth of Mental Illness" warned of how mental illness has been used by the state to mould behaviour rather than represent anything real:

"If you talk to God, you are praying; If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia. If the dead talk to you, you are a spiritualist; If you talk to the dead, you are a schizophrenic"

Now this case is not the same, but it still makes me wary.

I share this conclusion:

"I do not immediately dismiss the necessity of a court to make decisions in those rare cases where a person's individual mental level is so low that they are incapable of informed consent. But informed consent should not be seen in a vacuum but understood in the context of what it is that the person is wishing to consent to. That is something the court failed to do here."

Why appease a thug on Waitangi Day?

I don't need to write much about Waitangi Day, as Peter Cresswell has done such an excellent job of expressing most of my views on the day and the issues it raises.  Looking from afar it is remarkable how petty, narrow and constricting the views of those are who base their judgement on race and history, rather than achievement and ability.  The single biggest negative about New Zealand is the isolation from the world, from history and from being confronted first hand with the destructiveness of chauvinistic nationalism of the kind that is mainstream political thought in Maori circles.  

Take one simple point.  Where else in the free developed world would a thug of a woman, who is a convicted violent criminal, who assaulted a psychiatric patient in her own little house of horrors, would still be treated as someone with standing, status and be worthy of being associated with?  Titewhai Harawira is a vicious, vindictive, vile entity, who should be shunned by anyone with basic morals.  For what sort of person abuses and assaults psychiatric patients, particularly in a Maori unit which is meant to provide special care?

Tony Veitch has, rightly in my mind, been ostracised for his own violent behaviour.  He has paid his dues, and clearly has regrets, but will forever be tainted by his deeds.  Harawira by contrast, has paid her dues, but her deeds are never raised by the same people who excoriate Veitch. 

So why do feminists and those who claim to put Maori first give the time of day to a violent women who has no regrets about beating up some of the most vulnerable Maori when she had power?

What does that really say about their claims to "peace" and "non-violence"?

Labour allegiance to Mubarak's party

Having read the vituperative and somewhat nonsensical hatred expressed by a couple on the left about John Key's comments on the situation in Egypt, I thought I'd do a little digging and found a slightly more substantive link between the New Zealand Labour Party, Australian Labor Party and the British Labour Party, with the ruling (at time of writing) National Democratic Party (NDP) in Egypt.

You see as much as the left now rage against Hosni Mubarak, the truth is that the NDP has been aligned with all three Labour Parties since the NDP was allowed to join Socialist International in 1989.

You see, until 30 January 2011, they all shared membership of Socialist International, the international non-government organisation that allows socialists to network.  It is dominated by leftwing parties from democracies (it doesn't have Chinese or North Korean membership), but they are all expected to share philosophies and political alignment.  So there you go, time to label Phil Goff, Ed Miliband and Julia Gillard as all leading parties that have provided warm camaraderie between Egypt's dictatorial ruling party and themselves, for it is true.

Time for a loud rant about how disgusting and despicable it has been that these parties have all provided succour to the NDP?  Philosophical comrades for over 21 years.

Of course that doesn't fit the leftwing monologue about Mubarak being a dictatorial tool of neo-cons, when his politics have actually been aligned with centre-left parties.  

Now a bit of rational reflection will tell you that this link is rather tenuous, but if you belonged to a political party, which belonged to an international organisation that invited the NDP to speak, what would YOU think?

Maybe Lianne Dalziel needs to be asked, since she attended Socialist International's last Congress in Athens in 2008, with Mohamed Abdellah of the NDP of Egypt.

The NDP being expelled from Socialist International 30 January doesn't make up for the 21 years of friendship, during which time Egyptians were getting imprisoned, tortured and harassed for objecting to this party.

The simple truth is that the parties of Socialist International can't begin to claim the moral highground given they were parties to giving the Egyptian NDP and effective one-party state legitimacy and moral authority, by allowing it to be associated with them.

Stepping back from this you need to look at the history of the NDP, which was created by President Anwar Sadat, but was essentially a partial reformation of the previous Arab Socialist Union, Nasser's own party which has its origins in the third world anti-colonialist philosophy that developing countries only need one political party to unify the people - in other words a ruse for dictatorship.

The philosophical parent for Egypt's dictatorial and corrupt ruling party is socialism.  It was embraced by liberal democratic socialist parties across the world.  So let's not pretend that Mubarak, the NDP and indeed Egypt's entire post-colonial political history are all nothing to do with the left and socialism, when they most decidedly are, as inconvenient as that truth is.

Left reaches new heights of hysteria on Egypt- NZ relations

Various commentaries I have seen from those not on the left have expressed either cautious optimism or cautious concern about the events in Egypt.  Either Egypt will unshackle itself from its authoritarian leadership and be more free, or it will walk from one largely secular authoritarian regime into an Islamist one.

I have yet to see anyone who has anything particularly good to say about Hosni Mubarak,  more a case of "he kept the peace" which for those with long memories, is worth something. Certainly the utterings from the US and UK governments have been calling on the Mubarak to move towards liberal democracy and political freedom for Egyptians.

Let's bear in mind a little of Egypt's post-colonial political history.  With independence in 1922 Egypt had a monarchy with an elected Parliament, but still had considerable British influences.  However between 1922 and 1952 it would be difficult to say it was liberal, secular and free, although it probably was more free than any other time in modern history.  Of course in 1952 Nasser and the military staged a coup, and with his combination of nationalism and "Arab socialism", he ruled with an iron fist.  He forcibly nationalised the Suez Canal, waged a wholly unsuccessful war against Israel (not called the Six Day War for nothing), and imprisoned, tortured and executed thousands of political prisoners.  He had extensive Soviet backing because the US refused to sell him arms to wage war with.  In 1971 he was succeeded by Anwar Sadat, who also waged a largely unsuccessful war against Israel (Yom Kippur War) and then made peace famously at Camp David.  Sadat engaged in economic liberalisation, abandoning many of Nasser's failed socialist policies, and banned torture and extrajudicial arrests, until a significant break down of law and order saw authoritarian methods return.   Still, he was far more liberal than Nasser.  Sadat paid for peace with Israel with his life, and was succeeded by his deputy, Hosni Mubarak.  Egypt was rewarded by the US for effectively switching sides, with significant amounts of aid.  It became the new intermediary between the US/Israel and the other Arab states/PLO.  Mubarak engaged in further economic reforms, liberalising the economy and staging heavily slanted elections.   Political freedom was limited though, as Mubarak focused on suppressing the Muslim Brotherhood, which for some years waged a terrorist campaign against tourist sites, and locations frequented by US and British tourists that damaged the Egyptian economy.

So Egypt has little tradition of serious political freedom and individual rights.  What Mubarak has today is not a situation he created, but one he inherited and did rather little to reform.  He inherited it from Sadat, who inherited it from Nasser.

Not that you'll hear much of that, because Nasser was a great hero of the left.  Taking the Suez Canal from the British, instituting socialist economics and waging war to destroy Israel.  His hardline police state and Soviet style repression of the press are mere details.  

Yet the best that can be said about Mubarak is that he kept the peace between two countries that had four wars in less than thirty years.  Not that the so-called peace movement cares about peace when it is with a country that it hates.  He came to power when Egypt was under risk of being overrun by Islamists who would have wrecked that peace, and would have sought to oppress Egyptians still further.  Now I would never be one to be an apologist for the oppression, use of torture, political imprisonment and media censorship under Mubarak's regime.  All of that should and must go.  Yet, Mubarak is not the only one who should go.

Libya's Gaddafi has spent much of his career not only suppressing and brutalising his own people, but also arming and funding terrorism, murdering innocent civilians across Europe. Syria's Assad also runs a brutal police state, has invaded Lebanon and provided arms and funding for terrorists in the Middle East.  All of oil-rich sheikhdoms maintain strict political oppression, Saudi Arabia has a brutal police state, all of these regimes are also sexist and not without a strong thread of racism as well.

In other words, Arab politics are full of autocrats, men who will imprison, torture and execute opponents, who will suppress free speech, and in some cases flagrantly apply sexist and racist laws or practices in their regimes.  Mubarak is no different, except in making peace with Israel, he was rewarded by the US.

Arab politics are a sclerotic brand of paternalism. I'm of the cautiously optimistic school that says that there can be a peaceful transition to secular liberal democracy in Egypt, but that it will require forces of secularism, freedom and support for peace to fire themselves up more than the Muslim Brotherhood.  That is the challenge, and it is that freedom supporters of all shades should be promoting for Egypt.  The Mubarak regime is nearly over, but the new fight is just beginning - and it is the serious one.  For Egypt to remain at peace with Israel, to not sponsor terrorism and to allow its people to be free.

Who in the West disagrees?  Well some on the left are constructing a different dialogue.  A false belief that the "right" is somehow protecting Mubarak, by not openly calling for his resignation.  The same left that tends to want the West to withdraw from the affairs of other countries, wants it to actively demand the overthrow of a President.  Of course if it did say so, and then the Mubarak regime started mowing people down in their hundreds, then the West would be to blame for not providing military cover.  Then the West would be accused by some of occupying a country.  In other words, there is really little out from the criticism of the haters of liberal free open capitalist democracies.

Take some of the comments on the left in NZ.

Bomber on Tumeke and Eddie on the Standard says John Key supports Mubarak.  Why? Because he said on TV "no" to whether he was calling on Mubarak to go.  

The Standard says "I wonder who he has been talking with to form this view – presumably some American far right-wingers, no-one else is so reflexively pro-Israel and paranoid about Muslims.

I would have hoped we had a Prime Minister who supported democracy and the overthrow of dictators first and foremost. It seems we don’t."

Really? So the Prime Minister should be in the business of calling for leaders of distant countries to step down when it isn't clear what is going on?  

Bomber says it more crudely "We are supporting a Dictator that the people of Egypt are trying to over throw.."

Well no. There is a difference between expressing support and simply saying New Zealand is not calling for Mubarak to step down.  Not calling for something is not support, it is merely neutrality about the outcome.  To have said yes would have been decidedly non-neutral, but what could it have meant?  If Mubarak remains in the short term, it will have harmed relations and trade, but the implications are well beyond Egypt.  It suggests New Zealand provides support to those wishing to overthrow regimes.  The implications of that are not inconsiderable.

The subtlely on this is lost on Bomber:

"This Government have sold out our independent foreign policy to side with our 'allies' at any given moment, even when siding with our 'allies' now puts as at odds with the rest of the world.

Apparently NZ only supports freedom and democracy when our Dictator wins."

What allies is New Zealand siding with? Hilary Clinton has said "We want to see an orderly transition to a democratic government" and

"the people, who have legitimate grievances and are seeking greater political freedom, a real path to democracy, and economic opportunity"

"We also don’t want to see some takeover that would lead not to democracy, but to oppression and the end of the aspirations of the Egyptian people"

Fair enough I would have thought, but as I said before, the left couldn't care less if Egypt became an Islamist dictatorship because it would be anti-US and anti-Israeli. The blood of apostate Egyptians, Jewish Egyptians, Christian Egyptians and secular Egyptians who oppose this are besides the point.  Supportive of Mubarak? Not really.  However, the US knows if it did call for his overthrow that it may be counter-productive, because so many opponents of the US would see it as weakness, and interference in Egyptian politics.  The US could never win if it was more interventionist.

The UK has been similar, with Foreign Secretary William Hague saying "genuine reforms [are] needed and [a] clear path towards an open society based on democratic values."

The only country calling for Mubarak to be overthrown is Iran.  However, the NZ left bloggers just think NZ foreign policy should be about blatantly telling leaders of other countries to stand down if they face mass protests.  Did they call for that when Iran blatantly forged the results of its elections? No.


Funny how only US backed dictatorships really get the blood boiling about the need for, um Western intervention.

Finally, Idiot Savant not only parrots the "John Key supports dictatorship" fabrication, but claims "Mubarak is a dictator and a torturer. The only difference between him and Saddam Hussein is that he's (still) a US ally, and pro-Israel"

The only difference?  This sort of statement demonstrates either a wilful disregard of history or the rather disgustingly cheap view that Mubarak must be as bad "because the US backed him".

Let's look at some facts.

Hussein waged war against Iran and Kuwait, Mubarak has maintained peace with its neighbours under his entire Presidency (yes I know the US supported Hussein invading Iran, but that's hardly Mubarak's fault).  Hussein used chemical weapons against his own population, Mubarak's Egypt has never had chemical weapons, let alone used them on its population.  Hussein banned all foreign media and the internet, making it criminal to receive foreign broadcasts.  Mubarak restricted domestic media, but never banned satellite dishes, shortwave radio listening or the internet (until the past week).  Hussein ran a personality cult on a grand scale, following the model of Stalin.  Mubarak can barely be said to have had one, largely consisting of his image and the occasional quote being seen in streets.  Hussein was personally (as was his family) a megalomaniacal killer, who purged his colleagues, those surrounding him in murderous style, who let his sons engage in rape, murder and theft, and who ruthlessly staged brutal executions.  Whilst Mubarak's regime has engaged in political executions and has had poor accountability for police brutality and torture, there have not been reports of him being sadistic or engaging brutality for the sake of it.

It is pure dishonesty to equate the two.  Mubarak is a dictator, but on the light end of the scale, Hussein is full blown war-mongering, sadistic, murdering, megalomaniac.  It is like equating Castro with Pol Pot. 

Finally, Mubarak is not pro-Israel by any means.  He took a harder line with Israel than Sadat, he has often criticised Israel.  Egypt has annual military exercise in the Sinai, aimed at defence against Israel.  Domestic Egyptian media has had little restrictions on criticising Israel, with anti-Israeli sentiment freely expressed.  The term "cold-peace" is not being friendly, just tolerating and recognising each other.

Such nonsense, such hysteria, spouting venom and hatred, filled with exaggerated fabrications.

However, anything is on if you're trying to smear your political opponents isn't it?  

UPDATE:  Syria's Ba'athist dictator, Bashar al Assad has said that the events in Egypt wont be repeated in Syria.  Why?  Because "he maintained his own country was stable because of its "cause", opposition to the pro-Israeli agenda followed by the US and its regional allies, such as Cairo and Amman".  It wouldn't be because his father, Hafez al Assad (note the hereditary succession) bequeathed him a brutal police state that was only rivalled by Saddam's Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Iran.  No.  It wouldn't be because Syria has been under "emergency rule" or martial law since 1963. It's because his people are united, in hatred at a common enemy.  Nothing Orwellian about that in a one-party police state with an all encompassing personality cult at all is there?  Of course, there are regular tirades about Syria,  its torture practices, executions and how children are abused in its schools from those who damn Mubarak.... or maybe that's just been neglected given how Syria has always been anti-Western and anti-Israeli?  Funny that...

Where is Facebook not used?

Look at this map, showing Facebook connections.

Well there are three reasons for big dark areas:

1.  Nobody lives there (vast tracts of the Amazon, Sahara, Arctic Circle, Siberia, majority of Australia but notice how Greenland is still connected despite a population of well under 1 million);

2.  Few can afford it (mountains of South America, central and west Africa, and the lower density in some areas);

but there is a third reason...

Look at China, no lack of people, no lack of people who can afford it, but it's a blank.  In fact look at the Middle East, except the shining lights from Egypt through Israel, Jordan and Lebanon.  Beacons in the oil rich Qatar, Bahrain and UAE.  Not Syria, Saudi, Yemen, Libya and little Iran.  Yet Vietnam has some, and we can see free China in the form of Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau against the near devoid lack of mainland connections.  South Korea vs North Korea is too obvious to point out.  Indonesia and Malaysia are wonderfully well connected.

Speaks far more of freedom than many indicators.

Looking for innovation? Try a bureaucracy

Innovators, creators, producers, inventors.   Think of the greatest leaps forward in modern history that have changed economies and how people lived.  Think how many were spearheaded by a government bureaucracy.  Think how many benefited from being in a high tax economy.  Then read this from Wayne Mapp, a man who knows about innovation with his extensive entrepreneurial and  military and political background:

The Government is backing innovation to drive New Zealand’s economy forward and raise New Zealanders’ standard of living... Prime Minister John Key today launched the new Ministry of Science and Innovation (MSI)

Think of every single technological innovation in the last 30 years, do you really think there would be more if there had been the MSI?  

What else could government do?

How about get out of the way?  How about cutting company tax to 10%, so that businesses that do want to engage in research, development and be cutting edge about technology have an environment when they don't see the state taking a third of the "winnings"?

How about opening up the education sector so schools and universities are not dominated by a centrally planned bureaucratically specified curriculum, but that parents can withdraw their children from state schools and take their taxpayer funding with them to free private schools?  In other words, let innovators get involved in educating future innovators, not schools dominated by sclerotic unionists whose main philosophy is a burning envy of distrust of business and a politically driven view of the environment and humanity's relationship with it.

How about saying openly and loudly that you don't know what's best and you can't hire bureaucratics who can pick winners either?  You would be telling the truth, you'd be confronting the myth perpetuated by the left and most other parties that they can magically rescue the economy and advance it by spending other people's money on bureaucratically assessed beneficiaries.

However, it is clear National is of the left, given it's interest in growing the state.  So why vote for more of the same this year?

Why does the left ignore Islamism?

Noticed how so many on the left are, understandably, pleased about the imminent downfall of the Mubarak dictatorship in Egypt, but completely nonchalant about whether it becomes an Islamist dictatorship?

How the rhetoric and thinking, almost childlike in its simplicity goes like this:

What government does Egypt have? A dictatorship

Where does most of Egypt's aid come from? US government. 

That means the US supports dictatorship.  Dictatorship is bad.

What should Egyptian have? Democracy, like "we" in the West have.  Egyptians deserve the same rights we do.

Do you believe in human rights?  Yes

Do you believe women, gay and lesbian people, ethnic minorities and religious minorities deserve equal rights to everyone else? Yes

OK so far but then...

Does it matter who gets elected? Up to Egyptians.

Does it matter if Islamists arm and fund terrorists to wage war against Israel? Silent (but we think Israel deserves it).

Does it matter if Islamists arm and fund terrorists to wage war against the West? Yes, but it would be our fault for wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, backing Israel.  They will stop when they have justice.

Does it matter if Islamists get elected who then restrict democracy to be the same sham it was under Mubarak?  Silent

Does it matter if Islamists suppress free speech, shut down competing media, arrest protestors, use the police and army to suppress dissent?  Silent

Does it matter if Islamists execute political opponents, adulterers, rape victims, gay and lesbian people? Silent

Does it matter if Islamists institute laws and enforce laws discriminatory against women? Silent

Does it matter if Islamists get nuclear weapons? America has them, so what?

See in a blind leftwing hatred of the USA, there is a total blindspot about Islamism.  For people who apparently espouse a love for women, desire for equal rights for gay and lesbian people and who hate torture, suppression of free speech and the like, their willingness to tolerate and appease Islamism is absolutely disgusting.  

It is the mindless view that anyone who challenges those they hate (the Republican Party, Israel) are to be thought of generously.

Well no.

I want Egyptians to be free, to have free speech and an open secular society and government.  I want Egypt to progress.  On balance I do not think it will become Islamist, but the risk is there.

For those on the left, whose hatred of the Mubarak regime is so thorough they will accept any alternative, are completely betraying the beliefs they purport to hold.

Want to see why? Look at how often they criticise the regime of Bashar al-Assad of Syria. A socialist Baathist dictatorship, led by a man who got his position through hereditary succession, whose father was a warm friend of the Soviet Union, who runs a secret police and torture network that rivals Hosni Mubarak. Who has invaded Lebanon twice to overthrow liberal secular regimes that were not compliant with it.

No, you wont hear quite the same hatred of Assad as you will Mubarak, because he didn't have US support.  He had Soviet support, so he isn't as bad.  I mean he has not made peace with Israel, he has not promoted peace in Iraq and continues friendly relations with Iran, so who cares?  After all, nothing gets the left more upset that the US backing a dictatorial regime - not because it should know better, but because the US is the embodiment of what they hate.

It completely robs them of credibility.  Particularly when nobody on the political opposite is saying "save Mubarak, he's good". Nobody is saying that.  All that is being said is that Egyptians deserve the rights and freedoms we all expect.  That is consistent, because it rejects Mubarak and Islamism.

However, for some on the left Islamism is implicitly ok because American is bad.

Where do you get this sort of thought? Try here, here or here for starters.

Egypt faces the crossroads

Egypt has always been seen as the leading Arab state.  Not being flush with oil wealth, it was the centre of anti-colonialism and Arab nationalism under the populist dictatorship of Nasser, who confiscated the Suez Canal for the state and waged war on Israel.   After failing miserably to destroy Israel, but losing the Sinai Peninsula to it, he was deposed and replaced by Anwar Sadat, who had another attempt at Israel before deciding enough was enough - and agreeing a peace treaty, which resulted in Israel swapping land (Sinai) for peace.  

Sadat was assassinated by an Islamist and replaced by his deputy, Hosni Mubarak, who took a less friendly view of Israel, but was sustained by the US pouring more aid money into Egypt than any other country bar Israel (and more recently Iraq).  Mubarak was sustained because the alternatives were seen to be Soviet and then Iranian backed Islamists.   

Let's be clear, an Islamist run Egypt would pose a threat not only to Israel, but could be a base for terrorist activities in Europe and beyond.  It would have a stranglehold over shipping through the Suez Canal, and be leading the largest Arab state by population.   The Iranian military religious dictatorship is already claiming a new Middle East, Islamic dominated, is coming to the fore, let's hope not.

For if it were to happen, do not be deluded that it will cost in lives, and could create a new age of conflict that makes Iraq and Afghanistan seem like they were easy.

Yet the Mubarak regime is far from good, it was relatively open economically, but used torture, suppressed free political expression and has been corrupt and kleptocratic (although not as bad as some).  It has been moderately benign as far as dictatorships go, but it is hardly an endorsement that it is better than the alternative.   So the time has come, as relative moderate secular Egyptians demand political freedom, and the dignity and respect of being able to challenge government, politicians, political appointees and the regime.

My hope is that he steps down, announces free and fair elections, and provides the space for real political pluralism to flourish in a country where more suppression may only embolden Islamists.

For the future of not only Egypt, but Israel, the Middle East and the world is deeply affected by what happens in Cairo.   I sincerely hope that those on the left, who with some justification, criticise and despise the Mubarak regime (although I suspect somewhat motivated by anti-Americanism) will not celebrate or support an Islamist takeover of Egypt.  

For if it is a bad dream for Egyptians to be suppressed by the Mubarak regime, it would be one of our worst nightmares to have an Ayatollah of Cairo.

Arabs stand up, but where will they walk?

Tunisia

Tunisians stood up because they saw the contrast between their own recession (driven in some part by a drop in demand for Tunisian goods and tourism due to the recession in Europe) and the privileged kleptocratic lifestyle of former President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and his thieving bitch of a wife, the gold-digging hairdresser.  Having appointed himself as President for an extra two years, and maintained a tight grip on media, speech and maintaining a personality cult, Tunisians had had enough and rightly turfed him out.  Even when some of his lackeys tried to take over, Tunisians weren't standing for that either.   Ben Ali took over from Tunisia's relatively moderate but dictatorial founding President Habib Bourquiba, a man whose record was described by Christopher Hitchens as follows:

he was strongly influenced by the ideas of the French Enlightenment. His contribution was to cement, in many minds, secularism as a part of self-government. He publicly broke the Ramadan fast, saying that such a long religious holiday was debilitating to the aspirations of a modern economy. He referred with contempt to face-covering and sponsored a series of laws entrenching the rights of women.

Bourquiba was no angel, but he was one of the more moderate of the Arab world's strongmen, look at who he had to the east with Muammar Gaddafi making Libya a personal fiefdom and sponsor of murder worldwide.   He wasn't an economic genius and left Tunisia with mounting inflation and debts.

Ben Ali took over when Bourquiba was pronounced too ill to continue, and resisted an Islamist terrorist campaign to take over the country in 1987.  Ben Ali naturally got extensive US and French support to suppress the Islamists, and Tunisia and its neighbours are no doubt the better for it.

Yet as with all dictators, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Tunisia hosted the PLO for over a decade, and Ben Ali made considerable efforts to encourage it to reach out to Israel and recognise its right to exist.  He opened up the economy and living standards increased, but freedom of expression was not on offer. He hosted multi-party and multi-candidate elections that were for show, and as the economy has waned, and he has appeared aloof from it all, so Tunisians said enough.

However, wherever Tunisia ends up, it is unlikely to be Islamist and it is, after all, a small country.  It is hoped that its largely secularist past will bode well for the future.

Yet Arabs in Algerian, Egypt, Yemen and Jordan have all watched the protests on TV and online, and have seen how easy it is to topple a strongman.  None of the countries have political freedom, all have economic difficulties, but where will they end up?

Algeria

Algeria was born of a bloody civil war against the French, and it went through three Presidents in three years as power struggles and uncontested elections meant a volatile scene.  In 1965, Houari Boumedienne seized power in a coup and ran Algeria on strict socialist principles, with strong allegiances with the Soviet bloc and China, even giving an honorary doctorate in person to Kim Il Sung.  He wasted the country's oil wealth on developing state owned heavy industry which proved uncompetitive and unproductive, and ran a ruthless police state.

Boumedienne's death saw a brief interim Presidency, followed by his protege, Chadli Bendjedid who was unremarkable, as the economy stagnated with falling oil prices.   As debts grew and government spending was cut, protests emerged and Bendjedid liberalised politics to announced the introduction of multi-party elections.  That, as is well known, sparked the rise of Islamism.  Local elections in 1990 saw the Islamic Salvation Front win a majority of positions, and there was every risk it would win the central government election in 1991.  The Islamic Salvation Front was lukewarm towards retaining democracy, with the vice president of the party claiming "If the people vote against the law of God, this is nothing other than blasphemy. In this case, it is necessary to kill the non-believers for the good reason that they wish to substitute their authority for that of God".  The party opposed the widespread coalition of Operation Desert Storm that had UN Security Council endorsement to eject Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.

Hardly surprising that the military intervened and stopped the election, but what followed was a brutal oppression and civil war.  Thousands were rounded up and locked up, prisons were full, and Islamists took to the countryside with weapons.  Islamists embarked on a policy of deliberate massacres of entire villages if they were not supported, the military responded and over 100,000 were killed in 11 years of war.  The war ending only because so many Algerians were tired of the slaughter.   The military supported Abdelaziz Bouteflika to become President, and an amnesty saw many Islamists give up.  He was elected in 1999 in an election boycotted by opponents, but in 2004 he was re-elected in an election described by the OSCE as free and fair.  He engaged in substantive economic reforms, taking advantage of rising oil and gas prices to rebuild infrastructure, construct housing and the economy recovered considerably.   His amnesty and reconciliation process gained much support domestically, except among militant Islamists.  He engaged in privatisation of heavy industries and the tourism sectors.

However, tensions have risen in the last two year as Bouteflika sought and gained a constitutional change to allow him to run for the Presidency for a third term, meanwhile Islamists have gained support in resistance to his attempts to retain power.  He held an election in 2009 described by Western observers as a sham, as many candidates and voters boycotted it, and he subsequently won.  In essence, Algeria's carefully won peace has been undermined by the hunger for power by a man who started by doing good, but has been unwilling to let free expression and pluralism rise against him.  As a result, those who are not scared of doing violence and unwinding the peace - Islamists - are gaining the upper hand.  Algeria's economy is in reasonably good shape, but tensions with rapidly rising food prices and dissatisfaction with corruption and suppression of dissent, are firing up protests.  None of this is helped by Islamist backing for a revolution. It would be fair to say that the greatest risk in Algeria is a second bloody civil war.

Yemen

Often forgotten is the fact that the Republic of Yemen was only united in 1990, as much of Yemen's post colonial history was spent as two governments and states.  The new united Yemen was promising as it established a multi-party democracy, guaranteeing equality under the law, basic individual rights.  However, the election didn't result in acceptance of all political leaders, as the President and Vice President came from the two former northern and southern republics.  Grievances spilled out into armed conflict between the two sides, not helped by the failure of the two state's armies to integrate.   The unified Yemen acted as if it were two countries, with Saudi Arabia supporting the socialist south because it was opposed to a united Yemen.  The UN Security Council and most other states sought a ceasefire, and the civil war ended quickly with dominance from the north.  Subsequently parliamentary and presidential elections saw dominance achieved by Ali Abdullah Saleh, who had been President on reunification, and had previously been President of the northern Yemen Arab Republic since 1978.   Although elections have widely been considered to be reasonably free and fair, Saleh has had considerable influence over the media and press.

However, the main challenge to his rule since 2004 has been an Islamist insurgency from the north, which is partly tribal and religious motivated (as it has come from a sub-sect of Islam - the Shia Zaidiyyah).  Terrorism and attacks have persisted in Yemen, with the Yemeni government fighting a continuous campaign against the Islamist rebels.  Both it and the Saudis claims Iran is supporting the Islamists materially.  Saudi Arabia is now backing the Yemeni government, as Al Qaeda Saudi Arabia has shifted its base to Yemen.  The US has since provided direct military support to the Yemeni government to attack its bases in the north, including air combat support.

Yemenite discontent is from a combination of disenchantment with the almost continuous rule by one President since 1978, but also an economy which has performed poorly.  This was not helped by the repatriation of hundreds of thousands of Yemeni workers during the 1991 Gulf War because the regime supported Saddam Hussein.  Yemen's economy has been dependent on subsistance agriculture and modest oil and gas reserves, of which revenue is used to offset high subsidies for domestic petroleum.  Tourism is virtually non-existent, and the civil war has dissuaded foreign investors as well as driving more skilled Yemenis overseas.  In short, the country has been seriously hamstrung by ongoing conflict.

The great fear is that protests in Aden will be taken advantage of by Al Qaeda and its associated Islamist rebels, particularly as Yemen is in a strategic position on the approach to Suez.

As for Egypt? The news is unfolding... the consequences could be far reaching.... and I will write on it later.

However, the common theme amongst all of these state is resistance to political power, to absolute rule, to those who have used the state to enrich themselves and not ever been accountable for what they have done.  In short, Arabs in these states have wanted political freedom.

Yet more than a few have seen it as a chance not just to throw off the shackles of existing regimes, but to introduce a new order.  Akin to how Iranians threw off the authoritarian corrupt Shah, and supported the most well organised alternative - who has since proven to be more authoritarian and despicable.

The Western support for the likes of Hosni Mubarak has been because the apparent alternative would be far worse - yet the truth is nobody knows what will happen, and maintaining dictatorship and one man rule simply provides fodder for the Islamists, promotes hatred of Western values and civilisation as Islamists can say the West supports political freedom for all, except Arabs.   So support must be given for these regimes to change, to let people have their say, and for freedom to emerge in secular modern republics.  Yet if any look like becoming Islamist states that will harbour and promote terrorism and war, then it is a different story, for it risks the national security of the targets of that terror and war.  Hopefully most Arabs in these countries, having lived under relatively secular rule for some time, have little appetite for a new form of tyranny - but, one might have said the same of Iran in 1979.

Labour approved of part-privatisation in 2002

Cast your mind back to the last Labour Government.  A government opposed to privatisation? Not quite.

The evidence is clear, as Michael Cullen issued a press release on behalf of the government in 2002 approving Qantas buying 4.99% of the mostly nationalised Air New Zealand, and approved an application by both airlines to get Commerce Commission and ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) approval for Qantas to ultimately buy 22.5% of Air New Zealand.

If it was good enough for Helen Clark, Michael Cullen, Trevor Mallard and Paul Swain (and the rest of Cabinet including Phil Goff, Annette King et al) then, why is it not any good now?

I opposed that at the time for the simple reason that the whole Air NZ nationalisation debacle was partly caused by the government sitting on its hands and not approving Singapore Airlines's request to lift its shareholding in Air NZ/Ansett Australia to 49%, because Qantas lobbied the government saying it had a "better idea" even though all of Air NZ's private shareholders opposed it.

It was a classic example of corporatist lobbying which successful killed off a competitor.  Qantas got what it wanted; the failure of Ansett (its biggest competitor) and a chance to gobble up Air NZ to ensure it was never threatened in its own patch again.  The latter didn't ultimately happen, but let's be clear.  Whilst Air NZ/Ansett did make poor business decisions, its collapse was precipitated because of government interference in a business decision that would have saved it.

That is the level of competence of those in the Labour Party who think, somehow, that they can manage large businesses well, when they have helped bring one to its knees, thanks to its competitor helping it out.  Then Labour sought to hand over part of what is now deemed to be a "strategic asset" (whatever that is) to its biggest rival.

The Greens did oppose any sale, because the growth in the public sector is seen as a "good" by those who think the people = the state.   However, it's sad that while Labour has no credibility, National can't have the courage of its convictions to argue that government should be in the business of owning businesses at all. 

Just one day

The day to remember what happens when the philosophy of selfless sacrifice, the belief that the common good is more important than people pursuing their own ends, the belief that the ends justify the means, the belief that people's ancestry is more important than their deeds, and when individualism is snuffed out completely and absolutely.

Holocaust Memorial Day is a day to recall the millions who were systematically removed from their homes, transported as cattle, enslaved, tortured and murdered industrial style in a manner that has yet to be paralleled by any regime.

It is also a day now to remember how the radical anti-capitalist Red Khmers took over Cambodia, declared Year Zero, abolished money, abolished property, systematically emptied the cities and shot, terrorised, tortured and starved between a quarter and a third of the population of that impoverished country - with the full material and moral support of the People's Republic of China.

A day to remember when the Orthodox Christian Serbian fascists went from town to town in Bosnia Hercegovina and ordered out the non-Serb men and boys, marched them out of town and shot them, and then went about raping the women and girl children of the towns (and one should not forget the Catholic Croatian fascists who did the same on a less organised scale to non-Croats).

A day to remember when the Hutu people of Rwanda had the fear and hatred struck into them to slaughter and butcher the Tutsi people, on a scale and extent that most has never really fully understood.

AND especially a day to remember when the Islamist thugs backed by the Sudanese dictatorship entered Darfur to slaughter, starve, rape and maim thousands of those who were not of them.

Many other mass slaughters and murders should also be part of today, and hopefully they will also be noted, such as the murder of Armenians under Turkish rule in the early 20th century, the Soviet slaughter of ethnic minorities and deemed class enemies under Lenin and Stalin, Mao's mass starvation of Chinese people in the 1960s, the murder, disappearance and purge of one third of the people of Equatorial Guinea in the early 1970s.  The list goes on.

It is why the use of the term "holocaust" should not be used lightly.  It is about the systematic slaughter and indiscriminate murder of vast numbers of people because of their background.   A scourge that the 21st century has sadly not yet purged from the desires of some politicians or religious leaders.

Being rational about privatisation

If there is one issue that is guaranteed to result in hyperboles, reality evasion and emotive banality from New Zealand’s left, it is raising the issue of privatisation of state owned enterprises. I think sometimes that those who claim to be “centre-left” are really hardline Leninists, who react as virulently as Mao’s Red Guards to those who don’t follow the “correct line”.

As a libertarian, I don’t believe the state should be engaged in owning and running businesses at all, because nobody should be forced to have their money tied up in any business. Some businesses the state owns are unviable in their own right and should either shut down, or be severely scaled back. They destroy wealth, and sustaining them is nothing more than taking from taxpayers to subsidise the customers of these businesses, who would otherwise either pay a full market price or go elsewhere. Kiwirail being a good example. If it was properly privatised it would still exist, but not on the scale it currently is at, which is driven by politics, not economics. Bear in mind though that key competitors of Kiwirail are state and local government owned, in the form of roads and ports. This significantly blurs questions of fair competition.

Others are profitable in their own right, but are constrained to expand because they don’t have enough capital and because the state, as a shareholder, tends to resist such expansion. Winston Peters stopped the Airways Corporation, an efficient operator by world standards, from expanding into other countries. An outrageous destruction of opportunity by a New Zealand company that could have taken its international best practice and earned foreign exchange from doing so. NZ Post is in somewhat of a similar position, being an excellent operator which was shoe-horned into entering the local banking sector by Jim Anderton, instead of entering foreign postal markets where it has true world-class expertise.

Some undermine competition and investment from the private sector, because the private sector knows state owned companies don’t fail. Ask yourself why there has been next to no new entry in the electricity generation market as the state has maintained ownership in 70% of generating capacity. Indeed perversely, after nationalising Air New Zealand, the last Labour Government deliberately tried to engineer the suppression of competition in the New Zealand aviation market, by promoting a Qantas part purchase of Air New Zealand. This would have effectively handed the state owned airline virtually all of the domestic, and 80% of the trans-tasman airline market. As it happens, competition authorities stopped the government creating this monopoly, which was not one of entrepreneurs, but the state colluding with a company that itself had its hands manipulating its government.

In cases where competition exists or can reasonably exist, it seems difficult to sustain any argument that the state should be in that market. Examples of this range from banking, to farming, retail energy production, exploration and supply, transport services, broadcasting outlets, telecommunications, postal services to housing. A state owned competitor at best can perform moderately well and be seen as any other player (how many people think electricity supply has been privatised and don’t realise most of the companies in the sector are state owned?). At worst it can distort competition and investment, as competitors see it as the player that cannot fail, even if it underprices and performs badly.

However, is there a case for the state owning any businesses, particularly ones some economists refer to as “natural monopolies”? I would argue no, and measures can be taken at privatisation to manage this over the medium term (such as requiring certain terms and conditions to be applied to competitors, and transitional measures of price control such as happened with Telecom). Yet this isn’t the issue presented by the Prime Minister’s announcement.

He is talking about a part-privatisation of five government companies.

One, Air New Zealand, is already part privately owned, because the last Labour government did not nationalise all of the shareholding. Given the Labour Party sought to sell 20% of Air NZ to Qantas (and Qantas did acquire 5% which it has since sold), the credibility in opposing any sell down of Air NZ is completely empty. Air NZ faces intense competition in some parts of its business, particularly Trans Tasman and long haul traffic to/from Europe. However, it isn’t individual kiwi shareholders it needs, it actually needs a massive injection of capital so it can expand and work more closely with its foreign partners. Whilst it has performed adequately, this is a highly volatile sector, and the airline is weak if it does not have strong support from highly capitalised partners.

Another, Solid Energy, is a commodity producer and exporter in a competitive international market. Some people find what it produces (coal) to be immoral, such as environmentalists. Quite why they should be forced to own a coal mine is beyond me. Quite why the Greens think so is beyond me even more. Solid Energy isn’t a great performer, it doesn’t make a good return on its capital. It has been erratic in paying dividends. There appears little value in the state holding onto it.

The other three are competitive electricity generators and retailers, Mighty River Power, Genesis and Meridian. They all compete with each other, and with the main private generators/retailers Contact and Trustpower. If it is fine for the private sector to have 30% market share, you may wonder quite why it can’t have all of it. Providing adequate power generating capacity to meet demand is a serious issue, and one that isn’t facilitated by companies that dominate the market but are themselves undercapitalised.

By no means would part or even full privatisation of any of these companies deliver harm to consumers, but are taxpayers losing out?

Well it depends on the following:

- Are the companies constrained from success by a lack of capital? In all cases, the answer is probably less. Extra capital means government borrowing or more taxes to “invest”. I doubt whether really faced with the question, most New Zealanders want to be forced to do this.

- Are the companies making returns better than the government debt their sale would retire? Bernard Hickey says yes, but I’d argue that this snapshot is a poor representation of the long term capital value. Solid Energy and Air NZ have not been good returns over a longer period, so these can be ruled out.

So if the electricity companies are making good returns does it still mean the state should hold onto them, because they make more money than the interest on debt that would be saved if they were sold? Well no. It does not make it moral to continue to force people to indirectly “own” any companies at all.

You see the underlying premise of state ownership of companies is force. You are all forced to have a stake in these companies, without actually having any of the privileges of ownership. You don’t get a dividend, the state uses it to spend on what it chooses (which the left assume you benefit from, but it is all in the mix). You get to inject money into the company without your consent. Most of all, you simply can’t get out of this deal and use the money yourself, since you may make more money if you simply had the money in your own hands.

Which raises the question of whether privatisation might better be carried out in some cases, not by selling shares, but by issuing them to New Zealand citizens in equal quantities. That would be true public ownership, and then the “average” “ordinary” “Kiwi Mums and Dads” or whatever sugar-coated adjectives are used, can decide using their own minds, whether they want to be shareholders in power companies, banks, a postal operator, farms, service stations, a railway, an airline etc. Many will want to, many would rather use the money to pay their mortgage, or put into their own business or put into savings. What would be wrong with that, except that an awful lot of socialists don’t actually like people making their own decisions with their own money, because they want to make the decisions for them.

So when the left talks about thinking about the average person, what they are saying is they want to think for them. Ownership by the public is not what the left wants, it is ownership by the state, controlled according to what politicians think is good for the public.

Paternalism pure and simple.

Who in Haiti and Malaysia can aim and fire?

For that's what Jean-Claude Duvalier deserves.  It is the least Haiti deserves.  The Duvalier family are irredeemably vile, murderous crooks.  Even divorcing his repulsive thieving bitch of a wife doesn't make Baby Doc more acceptable.  The record of his family added decades to the poverty, suffering and death of this sad, but proud country.  A country that threw off the yoke of French slavery, but was punished by the West for over a century and a half, and after paying off the French, got handed the Duvaliers.

The same Duvaliers who used the country's tobacco monopoly as a personal slush fund to enrich themselves.   The same Duvaliers who spent US$3 million on their wedding ceremony.  The same Duvaliers who ruthlessly suppressed dissent, maintained a ban on independent media and promoted widespread corruption and patronage.

Meanwhile, Robert Mugabe is in a hospital in Kuala Lumpur.  Another answer to the problems of a nation is in the hands of the brave.

Bear in mind these people are proven murderers and thieves.  If they were not politicians, they would have been subjected to extradition treaties and be treated as the evil men they really are.   However, they are not "common" criminals, they are the extraordinary ones, that hide behind "state sovereignty" to protect their blood dripping hands. 

Both deserve at the most to be treated as criminals, but as they aren't common criminals, their crimes are indisputable, their role in making the law as they go along, means they have no right to that.   As with Saddam Hussein and Nicolae Ceausescu, they have forfeited the rights of human beings.  For the only legitimate use of the death penalty for me, is the removal of tyrants - as it is an act of self defence and revolution.