15 February 2006

TV2 funding TV1 doesn't stack up

I see the party keeping Labour in government – NZ First (who voted for Pita Paraone?) – is supporting a commercial free TV 1 funded by TV2 profits – which of course, doesn’t stack up.
.
Even if TV1 ran on half the budget of ABC TV in Australia ($250 million, lets be generous and convert A$ into NZ$), there would hardly be enough money.
.
TVNZ as a whole ran a surplus of around $57 million last year. Now TVNZ without ads on TV1 would make a smaller surplus, not 50% (as TV2 generates most of the revenue) but maybe around 20% - it also depends on whether you allow TV1 to advertise TV2 programmes or not - these are not legally commercials, but highly valuable in retaining audience share.
.
So, anyone for a $40 million a year public service channel? Maori television gets $26 million a year of your taxes for programmes and to cover operating costs, AND it has advertising revenue, and it broadcasts only in the evenings, is that what TV1 is to become? The BBC World feed for overnight isn't cheap either, that would have to go.
.
Now I note Sue Kedgley supports this too, but then she’s always been a fan of forcing people to pay for things she likes and banning things she hates, as PC so wonderfully has demonstrated.
.
Compulsory pay TV should be resisted. NZ On Air should be wound up with its funding for TV programmes to cease, and TVNZ should be sold – having access and potential control over a means of disseminating information is something governments should stay far away from.

Transmission Gully still not worth it

.
yes Transit still wants to build the coastal expressway instead of Transmission Gully. (the image is the profile of Transmission Gully compared to the existing route)
.
Good.
.
There isn’t the money for Transmission Gully – it is an uneconomic project and the media have been hoodwinked by Porirua City and the shockingly poor policy advice that sits within it. Porirua City Council does not know better than Transit, Greater Wellington Regional Council and peer reviewed consultants about roading costs – it just has a blinkered agenda. It wont raise rates to pay for Transmission Gully, even though its citizens would be some of the major beneficiaries. Porirua doesn't have the money - all the road user taxes from Wellington are committed for the next ten years (including the money that goes into the Crown account) - so it would have to be money taken from other government spending/tax cuts/borrowing to build a project with an economic return of 50c for every dollar spent on it. Wellington City Council has been trying to point much of this out - and it has a more credible policy department than any other Wellington territorial authority.
.
The coastal expressway does not need building now – the median barrier along the coast does, and that has funding from Land Transport NZ (see your petrol tax sometimes is spent well). The barrier costs around $16 million, 4-laning costs around 30 times that, Transmission Gully costs around 70 times that.
.
The focus for the corridor between Mackays Crossing and Paremata should be on a bypass for Pukerua Bay and a flyover at Paekakariki, which will make access in both communities safer and quicker. Congestion at Paremata has been ameliorated by the recently opened upgrade. Transit can pursue options for four-laning along the coast after that, and when congestion gets bad enough. Notice the road hasn’t been closed for a while – because it mainly gets closed due to accidents. When the barrier is up, there will be even fewer accidents and it will rarely be closed. With four lanes it is extremely unlikely all lanes will be closed at once – hardly worth an extra $500 million at that point, when you can use that money for something else – like remaining in your pocket!
.
The argument that Transit promised Transmission Gully and residents planned on that basis has some validity – but by no means was funding ever promised – the study that preceded the current round of consultation demonstrated that Transmission Gully was over three times what previous estimates had been.
.
Besides that the other components of the Western Corridor plan are difficult to argue against, the Kapiti Western Link Road (as a 70km/h arterial please!), extension of the rail service and higher frequency services, the Petone-Grenada link road and some other improvements are all worth proceeding with.
.
The next step is to see what the conclusion of the hearings panel are, and then the final recommended corridor plan adopted by the GW regional council and Transit. By the way, a good question and answer summary is on the GW website here and the whole proposed Western Corridor plan on a pdf document here.

Fund your OWN public TV



.
Stuff reports a call by a bunch of high profile New Zealanders for a compulsory pay TV channel – sold as a public non-commercial channel. It would be compulsory pay TV because you would be forced to pay for it regardless of whether or not you watch it.
.
As such channels exist overseas, they think you should be made to pay for one here, as you are made to pay for National Radio and Concert FM
.
Of course, there is little stopping this parade of rather wealthy New Zealanders setting it up themselves, buying frequencies and running such a channel with donations. TVNZ, after all, holds frequencies for a nationwide UHF TV channel, and the Maori reserved UHF frequencies still exist (Maori Television uses a frequency owned by Sky).
.
Unfortunately I doubt the people concerned are willing to put their hands in their pockets for a non-commercial TV channel. You see, when you want something expensive, most people would rather spend their money on other things, like holidays or Sky TV.
.
Public funded TV is expensive. ABC TV in Australia costs A$526 million a year , and the BBC sucks £123 (around $300) a year from British households to fund 2 analogue and 4 digital tv channels, and half a dozen radio stations for the whole country. Of course there are about 15x the households in Britain. Around a third of New Zealand households pay around 50% more than that for dozens of channels that they presumably want.
.
The big problem is that those advocating public TV complain about a lack of decent local programmes and too much advertising. Well ask those who produce the programmes. If people who worked in the industry charged less for their services there could be more programmes. If people wanted them they would pay for them – ahhh but they cost far more than imported programmes you say. It is a bit like complaining that too many fly economy class, it would be better to have decent seats with decent food, like those people who fly business class – someone else ought to pay!
.
Ah but it is about our culture. This is the argument I heard from the local content lobbyists for years - why make the conversation about money! Whose culture? So public TV reflects culture does it? Is that why 80% of Australian TV viewing is NOT done in front of the half billion dollar compulsory pay TV channel? Is that why public TV is almost invariably rather leftwing in outlook? (though TV3 news can give them a run for their money).
.
Well if it is about culture then stop trying to put your hand into other people’s pockets and work for free or a lot less. If the culture vultures care so much about culture they wont charge what they do for their services because it will be done out of love – after all socialists often say how much they wish so much was not about money.
.
They claim most people are ready to throw their tvs out the of their windows. Who is stopping them? Do something else, listen to the radio, play your own music, read a book, talk to people, go outside!
.
Television is not a right – it is a service and it can be funded in three ways:
.
Advertising: Where you, the viewer, get a free service in exchange for businesses (and the state!) promoting products and services to you. However to keep you watching, the channel must give you shows you want to watch, so that the audience is at its greatest.
.
The people advocating public TV don’t like commercial television though. There is an undercurrent of thinking that what the great unwashed like the most is poor quality – the proletariat only like rugby, imported comedies and reality TV shows. This is not good enough for our esteemed New Zealanders who despise this as drivel. Commercial TV targets particular audiences that may be interested in particular products, so beyond that we have…
.
Subscription TV: To convince people to pay for extra channels has been quite a feat, mostly by putting sports on it. However it does mean that people get what they pay for, and the choice is growing year by year. Again the public TV lobby see this as crass “why should you have to pay for it”, as if Dame Malvina would do all her concerts for free. Well pay TV is like buying magazines, people increasingly buy the channels they want and at any time, can give it up.
.
Voluntarily funded TV: US PBS is largely this, as are the handful of non-commercial (but not commercial free) channels around the country. People donate money and the station operates. You make a decision whether public TV is something you want to support, or you would rather save up for something else. Triangle TV in Auckland is a hybrid of this and commercial broadcasting, and there are similar channels in Dunedin and Nelson.
.
None of this washes with the public TV lobby, but fortunately the government wont give them what they want. This is because Treasury looked into this some years ago and the cost is astronomical – those public TV people don’t come cheap you know!
,
So I suggest the coalition of the (willing?) raise cash, buy some frequencies and transmitters and have a go themselves. They will soon see that most New Zealanders couldn’t give a damn or are not willing to put their money where their mouths are.
.
I've found in the UK that the most challenging programmes are not on the BBC, but on Channel 4 - which is prepared to show documentaries such as "religion the root of all evil". Commercial TV can be different - the BBC wont even call terrorists terrorists as it is too scared of offending anyone!

14 February 2006

War with Iran

.
The Oxford Research Group has released a report on the consequences of war with Iran (whether Israeli or US attack), to strike at its nuclear facilities and capability to retaliate. It estimates that it could lead to a wider war in the Middle East, kill 10,000 people and solidify backing for the current regime, and anti-American feeling in the Middle East. Iran could retaliate with suicide speedboats against oil tankers and a ground offensive would be untenable, requiring 100,000 troops.
.
The full text of the report is here. It recommends that all non-military options be pursued to respond to Iran's nuclear programme - which, of course, should be pursued first. Diplomatic and trade sanctions may have a better chance of helping the regime topple than war. However, Iraq's nuclear facilities is Osiraq were knocked out by Israel in 1986, which did not result in war - but that was simpler.
.
However.
.
Nuclear attack on Tel Aviv, population 358 000. Imagine one third killed = 129 000.
.
Maybe Iran is bluffing. Maybe Iran wont use nuclear weapons, maybe it wont supply nuclear materials to terrorists it supplies, funds and trains now. Maybe....
.
Hopefully a diplomatic solution can be found that is verifiable, and Iran can be brought back from the brink. If it can't and Iran uses what it looks like it is acquiring, then it will be too late.
.
Iran needs to be threatened with economic sanctions and isolation if it continues, and an opening up if it opens it facilities for full inspection and verification. Its government and people should know that there is a willingness to strangle Iran economically if it persists, and to use military force if necessary. As long as Iran has murderous intent against Israel, Israel will not sit by and watch hundreds of thousands of its civilians be incinerated.
.
After all, if Iran uses a nuclear weapon against Israel - there should be no doubt that the Israeli and US response will make that the end of the Islamic Republic.

Bottled water and waste

Now the Greens have this as their latest guilt trip for consumers. Lindsay Mitchell agrees with them in part (and is probably slightly concerned about that).
..
People spending their own money to buy something they want – bottled water. This is despite the quality of tap water getting better and despite many people not knowing the taste difference.
.
A lot of that may be true. It may also be true that people are drinking more water, because of the health benefits, and that more people in air conditioned environments are feeling dehydrated. People buy bottled water for when they exercise, and travelling on planes and trains. Some (like me) buy bottled water because the tap water is foul (though I am in London) and I am prepared to pay for water that I prefer.
.
The main whine appears to be that people are wasting money – like they “waste” money buying petrol when they could be travelling by other means. It sounds just as paternalistic and school prefect like as the Christians are on sex. It may cost 10,000 times more to bottle water than reticulate it, but if people are willing to pay for it, it is no different than buying too many pairs of shoes – nobody else’s business!
.
However, a more substantive concern is “what about the plastic bottles”. Now there may be arguments that if people are replacing drinking other bottled drinks like soft drinks, then there is no net impact at all. Some bottles are recycled too. Regardless of that, there is a legitimate question.
.
Is the world going to be swamped with all these bottles using up land and making our cities and landscapes ridden with garbage?
.
No.
.
“Our landfills are creaking” gives as image of mountains of rubbish about to spill over. There is plenty of land for landfills – think of where the main Wellington city one is in Happy Valley – vast acres of valleys and land to the west and south of it where landfills could exist with nobody being affected. It is more a matter of whether it makes economic sense. Bjorn Lomborg claims that the entire waste of the US for the 21st century, assuming the population doubles, would take up an area roughly 28 miles square and 100 feet high. Not exactly overflowing is it when the USA covers 3537441 square miles. It is no reason to not reduce waste, but one problem is the incentives.
.
Local government typically runs landfills and does not always operate them to make a profit, like an investment. If it did, the cost of using them would go up, increasing pressure for waste reduction and improving the economics of recycling. Ah, but people will tip rubbish in public areas you say. The tragedy of the commons - and something that tends to only occur on public land. Time to sell that land too, but in the meantime this is where law enforcement and councils could focus their efforts - sell the landfills and enforce laws against tipping. Littering is something that environmentalists spend far too little time being concerned about.

Christian fundamentalism and sex

....
Who put the mental into fundamentalism?
.
I have been engaging regularly with another blogger who has decided (for unrelated reasons) to cease blogging on political matters – this is AJ Chesswas. I did so because I have, what some may say is a masochistic tendency, to engage with those and ideas that are almost the complete opposite of mine. Friends know this in my collection of North Korean propaganda, but I also find engagement with socialists, ecologists, religious zealots and racists all intriguing. At best it challenges me on what I believe and tests it, at worst it just gets me wound up.
.
My main engagement has been the curious religious fascination with sex. As Muslims get all agitated about cartoons depicting Mohammed, Christians get most agitated in New Zealand about sexual behaviour. The opposition to the Civil Union Bill was driven by people opposed to homosexual behaviour and relationships. Simple as that.
.
Opposition to legalising prostitution was driven by people opposed to sex being a commodity – although there is a wider concern about this, as prostitution makes many people uncomfortable with the “what if it was your daughter” argument. Few defended the right of adults to choose to have sex with money exchanging.
.
Christians got extremely wound up when sodomy and male same-sex acts (they ARE different, sodomy is not just a homosexual practice and lesbian sex has never been prohibited) were legalised in the 1980s. Marches with the flag and enormous petitions, concern that teenage boys would suddenly start bumming each other because it was legal. I was 15 at the time and it didn’t cause me to look at my friend’s bums in a new light.
.
So why do they get so wound up? I figured AJ Chesswas would enlighten me as his views on these matters are some of the most radical I have seen. I didn’t want just some quotes from the Bible, but some reasoning and to be fair, scripture was the weapon of last resort.
.
He, after all, got extremely agitated when I explained I had engaged in behaviour that, at one time, was illegal in New Zealand. Check out this :
.
“When a person consents to making a bad choice there is a huge duty on us to help prevent them doing it. How much more a duty when we are the one causing them to do it? How much more when as a man we're abusing the fickle choice of women who we know are so easily manipulated?”
.
“If only you knew the repulsion and wrath that is flamed in the belly of a God-fearing man when he hears of a woman being sexually perverted. Get help Scott. That is both an insult, a compliment and a threat.”

.
So before the lynch mob was sent on a plane to London (where, frankly we are talking genocide proportions if all the people in Britain who did this are going to get punished), I had to ask. Why does this matter? Why do they get SO angry?
.
If people respect each other, don’t assault, steal or defraud from each other and get along peacefully, isn’t that enough? Why should the state be involved in private matters and why, indeed, should individuals give a damn whether their neighbours are married or not, enjoying sodomy, banging their sheep or making chocolate capsicum and parsnip cupcakes?
.
It is a fundamental liberal maxim that people should be able to do what they wish, as long as they do not infringe upon the right of others to do the same. Christian fundamentalists dismiss this as a secular religion - and say to enforce this is "forcing my views on them", as if NOT doing something is MAKING you do something. Leaving people to choose is not forcing anyone, it is free will.
.
Not only is liberalism utility maximising (allowing maximum creativity, risk taking and accountability for risk taking), but is moral. It is moral because people own their lives – anybody else owning your life is called slavery. It is also moral because it seems absurd and offensive for anyone else to have control over your body - if you (and whoever you are with) consent to do something, why is someone not participating in a better position to not only say no, but to punish you for not agreeing? What made that person the guardian of your body?
.
Well this is the answer I got:
.
"Sex is a private act, and that is the basis of my resistance to what has become a very public debate. But it is only a private act when that privacy actually means something - ie when it is expressed monogamously in a committed and covenantal relationship. When it is exposed, or people expose themselves, that deviant sexual practices are not only common but being publicised, celebrated and encouraged - then sexuality is of significant concern to any moral person who's in touch with the next generation".
.
A private act, but only when you do it the way they want you to (and because they don't want any manuals of naked people showing you different ways of doing it), because otherwise it is a "bad choice”. Although he wanted to punish people for the bad choice too because:
.
“What I'm saying that where a choice is a bad choice then it doesn't matter whose consent is involved - it is a bad choice and both participants are acting in a destructive, irresponsible, undignified and inhumane manner.”
.
Not clear why it is destructive to enjoy a sexual act, irresponsible to whom, undignified (is just an expression of taste) and inhumane is unclear when two adults consent.
.
Then there is a plea to the majority – with one problem. Unfortunately Christian fundamentalists surround themselves with people who agree with them (as many of us do, life is happier when you don’t have to deal with others) he said:
.
“most people need little help in trying to understand how the practices you talk of are perverted!! Most people couldn't bear to even use the srts of terms you are using in this discussion!”
.
I said sodomy, oral sex and masturbation. Terms I have used in discussions with quite a few people. I think most people would not think of those as perverted, particularly the latter two – some may not be a personal preference, but he is clearly deluding himself if he thinks "most people" think that way. Given the best Christian political result in the elections has been around 6% for United Future (and much of that vote was not on religious ground), it is clear that, as a bumper sticker in the US read, the "moral majority is neither"!
.
However then we come to the crux of it – scripture was quoted and:
.
“In marriage a husband and wife have chosen to refrain from the most pleasurable experience available to them, and save that as a gift for each other. This gift and its ongoing life withtin their marriage is a symbol of the exclusive love and life they share in their hearts for each other. When people figure out the right place to put things the blessing that follows is the joy of being a parent. The joy of bringing into the world new life, and meaningfully recreating something that will live and last because of you”
.
Ok, I would disagree with much of that, but – setting aside agreement on this - this surely is still a matter of choice. Why regulate to require people have no sex unless it is heterosexual coitus within marriage? Why throw people in prison for sodomy? Well..
.
“How can such an important matter not be the interest of a people's government? This is even more important than things like smoking, alcohol and obesity, because it deals with a person's core relationships and identities. If we get this right, and children are given the right start to life by two parents who truly love each other, we probably won't even have to deal with the problems and addictions that arise from a person's depression and lack of meaningful relationships and identity.”
.
Furthermore..
.
“And if there are any sexual acts that are more risky than sodomy they certainly should be illegal!! Force is certainly a very good argument when dealing with the immoral and unreasonable!”
.
I wont even mention a long list if he wont search the internet for them!
.
Apparently the state should control our core relationships and identities. Keen on a state arranged marriage anyone? Can’t have been hooking up with the wrong partner now can we? Should the state determine your career (identity)? What else must the state protect us from?
.
Two people apparently will truly love each other if they withhold sex and this will deal with the problems from depression and lack of meaningful relationships. Of course if you are gay, then the glowing “love” of those who “care” will seek to “cure” you, because, after all, just because you are “immoral and unreasonable” doesn’t mean you can’t repent – rather like those who offend against the Party under communist systems.
.
So there you have it – beyond simply saying the Bible says so (the Bible bans eating shellfish as well) it is simply immoral, offends Christian fundamentalists and apparently has some amazing effect on depression, meaningful relationships and identity. Anyone who has had a less than optimal marriage or is gay will find this laughable. I believe Christian fundamentalists (and other religious fundamentalists) have an obsession with sex for bigger reasons. Yes, the Bible is strict on these things (although the Adam and Eve story means that humanity was bred from the incestuous coupling of their children), but I think sex cuts to the heart of what it is to be human in many ways and that is why religious people want it regulated. Mr Chesswas once argued:
.
“Comparing fihgting to sexual immorality is like comparing apples to sausage rolls. It really bugs me when people say it's hypocritical of Christians to want to ban pornography, but not violence.”
.
Well when you are into banning, which is a violent act in itself, it would be more hypocritical to ban people from it! In short, this was in the context of how good fist fighting can be!! Mr Chesswas regards that as ok, but many sex acts as abominable.
.
Sex is an expression of self – the most selfish act anyone can commit. You can’t have sex (short of lying on your back and thinking of England) properly without it being something you want and enjoy. If you do it just to give someone else pleasure (while you are nonchalant about it) you are – more than any other activity – being untrue to yourself, and you wont do it very well. Sex is THE act of selfishness, two people (or more) getting immense personal pleasure from performing acts for their own gratification. It just so happens that you enjoy giving the other person their gratification as well, as it heightens YOURS.
.
It is immensely pleasurable, one of the most highly regarded entertainment activities – partly because it doesn’t happen very well without someone else wanting to do it, and because it involves revealing physical and personal traits and habits that most of us don’t want to observe in most people we know. In short, most of us find a small proportion of people attractive for sex and of them, a small proportion find us attractive, and of them, some still wont regardless – making it highly prized, highly pleasurable and very selfish. Sex is the ultimate hedonistic experience – highly desired and often denied and often restrained by reality – you can never always have sex with whoever you want. When you use force or try with those unable to consent, it is a crime and rightfully so.
.
Christians don’t like the pleasure from sex – they prefer sacrifice. After all, they worship a God who is said to have sacrificed the life of its son for the sake of everyone else alive then and forever more. Not just sacrifice the life, but through an enduring humiliating painful torturing death. The omnipotent God does this to its son and this is an act of love? Bizarre. However, throughout Christianity is an asceticism and denial of self. Christians accept sex for procreation because biology means they have to. You can live your life without any sex of any kind – women will still menstruate and men will still ejaculate spontaneously (through overflow), but it is rather sad. It is no coincidence that nuns and priests are meant to be celibate (choir boys were nowhere in the Bible as an exception), sacrificing themselves to God.
.
Christian fundamentalists have taken this further by celebrating the pleasure of sex within heterosexual matrimony as a privilege that is granted by God – in thanks for you making a procreative couple. If God wanted children (explains the interests some priests have in them) then, the omniscient being could have ensured women laid countless eggs and men fertilised them extra-corporally.
..
It is a paternalistic authoritarian attitude which effectively claims ownership of everyone’s lives under the umbrella of “love”. In George Orwell’s classic novel 1984 – the state had perfected artificial insemination, in order to ban sex and intimate relations between people. This was because they interfered with love for Big Brother. How close is that to the theocracy proposed by Mr Chesswas? The acts are to be banned and depictions and promotion of them too – so your body is controlled and your mind too, through censorship.
.
The best explanation of the attitude was in THIS comment
.
“There is a big difference between administering law and punishment responsibly and lovingly, and doing it hatefully a la Hitler. This is very much a reality in the way a loving parent disciplines and punishes their children..
.
No there isn’t – it is mere semantics and a matter of degree. There is nothing loving about locking someone in prison, the difference is that Nazi Germany exterminated many of those it despised – a matter of degree. The state lovingly will do violence to you, lock you up and tell you what you did is wrong – because the state is controlled by people who believe in a ghost you don’t believe in and which cannot be proven to exist. Brian Tamaki and those Christian voters who switched to National in their droves last election are seeking an Iranian style theocracy - like Europe had in the middle ages. One that treats you all as children, and which has the state controlling your body and your mind. The fundamental difference with Nazi Germany or Maoist China is degree – theocrats would probably not be genocidal, just prison wardens.
.
There is no substance of reason behind Christian fundamentality – it is as dangerous an idea as Islamic fundamentalism – both forms of religious fascism, both trying to enforce a subjective supernatural based belief system and ban others. The key difference with Islam is that, outside the USA, there are very few Christian fundamentalists. They want your body and your mind, as the followers of fundamentalist religion not only know the truth, but they will use all means they can to enforce it.
.
As a footnote Mr Chesswas has noted that he is being challenged already because of “a romantic involvement with a Labour party campaigning feminist law graduate! All of this has resulted in a significant challenge to my views on biblical literalism. But then, as has so often been pointed out, if I were to truly be a biblical literalist I’d have to tie scriptures to my hands and my forehead, refrain from trimming my beard, and not wear clothing made of different types of material!”
.
Indeed! I think it is odd that people who hold a book in such esteem then decide it is appropriate to skip over significant portions of it. Now I am no theologist, but I don’t think the Bible says anywhere “these chapters supersede these ones”. That is why I find it difficult to understand people who choose a religion, but only those parts they like, it is like they want a “god” but the “god” they want must be too nice to have meant all that was said in that “holy book”. Maybe they are too scared to do this.

11 February 2006

The West should treat Islam the way it wants Islam to treat the West


Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi said so.
.
Indeed. We want an open and free debate and exchange of views - without violence, without threats against our citizens, and without threats to wipe Israel off the map. I haven't noticed Westerners using terrorism against Muslims - or indeed
.
He also said "Muslims for their part had to avoid "sweeping denunciation of Christians, Jews and the West". As my post a few days ago on the anti semitic cartoons, there is still some way to go on that one.
.
Mr Abdullah is a moderate - that's why he shut down a newspaper that now said it made an "editorial oversight" for publishing the cartoons, and he declared that possession of them was now banned.
.
That's the difference - so Malaysians, particularly the 40% who are NOT Muslim, here are the cartoons. Judge for yourselves - after all, they are not meant to offend you and I think you are all adult enough to make your own mind up.

Boo to you Yahoo

The reports that Yahoo may have supplied information to Chinese authorities that led to the arrest of a dissident journalist shows a disjunct between legality and morality among that is utterly reprehensible. A company that flourished due to the freedom of the USA is willing to actively participate in repression.
.
Reporters Without Borders claims that Mr Li Zhi received an eight year prison sentence for attempting to join a banned political party and Yahoo China gave the government details of his online registration. Yahoo is to look into this, as it is to appear before the US Congress to discuss its policies in relation to human rights in China.
.
Of course it is well known that Google has a censored version of its search engine for the Chinese market, but Google at least has kept its email server outside China. Microsoft also has shut down an anti-government blog in China.
.
The companies concerned don't want the Chinese market to be taken by someone else, by ignoring it they claim they are not helping Chinese freedom (the internet is probably on balance a liberator even when it is partially censored, than not) and that it will simply mean others will enter and take market share.
.
However it is one thing to operate within the laws of a country in how you provide a service - another to gather information and supply it so that country's government can oppress its citizens. Yahoo may have blood on its hands - for shame!.
.
Note if you search yahoo China for tiananmen massacre, you get nothing. If you search for BBC news or Voice of America, you get sites that have nothing to do with it. Back to shortwave radios in China then is it?

Worthless MP


.
Remember Richard Worthless?
.
The header on his website claims he is the MP for Epsom, look at the VERY top of your browser to see what it says. He just doesn't get it does he? The man who was convinced that, somehow, National had a better chance governing with him winning the Eden seat, rather than a list place, rather than National ALSO getting Rodney Hide and whoever ACT could bring along, has shown more of his true colours.
.
He doesn’t believe in free speech any more than Tariana Turia does.
.
In his virtually audience less newsletter “Newsworthy” he said:
.
The media defence of "freedom of speech" overlooks two important points:
* Freedom of speech is not an unconstrained right. Whilst the New Zealand Bill of Rights in section 14 refers to the right of freedom of expression, there are a raft of laws which impinge dramatically on that right.The laws of criminal contempt and defamation are clear illustrations of that.
* We still have our on statute books the crime of blasphemous libel which carries a maximum jail term of one year. “

.
Nice to raise that point, as if he was a prefect pointing out that "it's illegal" like some arrogant little do-gooder! When Richard Worth was at school was he hated because he told teacher whenever kids broke a rule? If he were a cop would he have given you a ticket for going at 101km/h (it’s the law!)?
.
The law of blasphemous libel does exist, Worth fails to point out that the Crimes Act S.123(4) points out that no one shall be prosecuted for this offence without leave of the Attorney General. This demonstrates that it exists for exceptional cases – though it should not exist at all – it should not be a crime to blaspheme against any religion.
.
Worth wasn’t just pointing out the law, he was effectively endorsing it by saying:
.
“Comments and caricature ridiculing or attacking the religious beliefs of others are dangerously divisive in any community. Such comments bring unpredictable response actions from extremists and often the tacit support of more moderate adherents.”
.
On one level he is right. Imagine if you lived in a society where your beliefs and opinions were typically considered extreme, ridiculous and stupid. Ever been a libertarian? Ever been an atheist in an avowedly Christian or Muslim town? Think the law should protect me, Not PC, Lindsay Perigo from ridicule? No. We wont threaten to burn down your buildings or behead you.
.
"Comments attacking the religious belief of others" should be suppressed because someone will lose the plot and give an "unpredictable response action". So free speech now must have permission from people who tend to act violently when their belief in ghosts is attacked. So we must shut up because some psychotics will murder us due to the offence caused. There are plenty of reasons to criticise religions because they are ridiculous - that is different from harassing people.
.
Rodney Hide (the real MP for Epsom) said, “we must be respectful of other people’s cultures and beliefs. That’s a simple matter of politeness and a pragmatic recognition of what it takes to live in a diverse and tolerant world.” You don’t go around and tell your Muslim neighbour everyday his religion is stupid or tell the local priest how evil you think Catholicism is.
.
However, Worth is not saying that - he separates lampooning from ridicule and attack - because making fun of religion is not ridicule? How does he write this sort of vapid nonsense?
.
Worth deserves the ridicule of the title Worthless - not as an insult, but because he is worthless in a party that nominally supports personal freedom. Presumably he is seeking the religious minority vote at the next election, given that the MP for Epsom has staked his colours to the mast of freedom on this issue.

10 February 2006

Labour bought the election?

Well of course it didn't - it isn't as simple as that, but it doesn't look like it played by the rules or the law.
.
David Farrar has reported here and here on the Electoral Commission referring the Labour Party to the Police for an alleged overspend of $446,815 over and above the limit of $2,380,000. This is because Labour believes that the pledge card should be a government not a party electoral expense - because policy pledges are not about getting elected are they?
.
Are they BOLLOCKS.
.
Had National done this, Labour would have given it enormous grief - and would have claimed taxpayers bought National the election - well I don't think amount of spending is as important as the nature of the spending. What IS wrong is taxpayers helping fund party campaigns, particularly just one party - that is corrupt.
.
The lame excuse is that "the electoral law was outdated and unclear". Oh dear, that's what to use in court - sorry judge, the law is outdated and unclear, I wouldn't have broken it otherwise, I'd like it to change. Outdated? So it should be legal for governments to spend taxpayers money on promoting the encumbent party in power?
.
If Peter Dunne and Winston Peters have any conscience, they will pull support if Labour is found guilty - the election was too close a race to make this NOT worth pursuing. Labour has played on an uneven pitch - and kiwis don't like unfair play. If things pan out, then there will be prosecutions and the issue remains as to whether Parliament in its current form should continue.
.
As much as the cost is something to baulk at, for Labour to retain any shred of credibility in this government, Parliament should be dissolved and another election called within 6 weeks. If Labour wont do it, National should call a no confidence motion and every party in Parliament should (Labour excepted) support it. What's a bet even the Greens and the Maori Party might even support it.
.
Labour has handed National a gift horse on a plate, heated it and served it with cutlery - now is National smart enough to know how to carve it?

Morales makes sense on one point


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

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

.

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

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

£100 parking ticket!

Annoyed about a parking ticket you recently got? Think your council is screwing money out of you? Well you're probably not in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. British local government likes screwing the public for cash to pay for their petty planning, whilst still being incapable of maintaining high standards of street maintenance (most NZ councils have far better local road surfaces because the funding is tied to performance).
I was in a pay and display park on the street on Saturday morning in Chelsea – I was ticketed for being six minutes over the displayed time. I found this out about eight minutes over (when I went to check to buy another hour at the standard rate of £3 an hour). I couldn't find the fascist parking cop who did it - although K&C has a reputation for being strict on this, and I suspect it finds it easy to get fascists by hiring people outside the Borough who can't wait to punish the "evil rich people" who have cars in Chelsea.

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

09 February 2006

Whither Iran

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

Cheers Rodney, shame on Brash

.
Rodney Hide has come out solidly in favour of free speech – which I thoroughly commend. He said:
.
“Prime Minister Helen Clark should unequivocally stand up for New Zealanders’ freedom and that includes the freedom of our press. Instead, she is undermining it. She should not condemn our media for reporting the news. She should instead condemn attempts by violent groups to bully and to censor our news. Of course, we must be respectful of other people’s cultures and beliefs. That’s a simple matter of politeness and a pragmatic recognition of what it takes to live in a diverse and tolerant world. But we must never surrender our freedom and the freedom of our press out of a misplaced respect for another culture or set of beliefs. To do that is to trade away our culture of an open and free society where we can debate the issues of the day both seriously and with humour as free citizens in a free country. That means that people will on occasions be offended. In an open and free society we accept that.”
.
Too right Rodney. Encouraging words indeed, of course he was only following the Libertarianz press release from Leader Bernard Darnton :)
.
NZ First has expressed a view (beyond Winston’s statement which may or may not represent NZ First, as he is part of the government, but his party isn’t .. whatever that means).
.
Doug Woollerton is concerned about the trade impacts, but has at least taken a sensible approach saying:
.
“The rights or wrongs of editorial decisions to publish the cartoons will undoubtedly be debated for some time to come, and that is healthy and will hopefully lead to greater understanding and tolerance on both sides of the debate.”
.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of free speech, but at least acknowledgement that having the debate is better than shutting it down.
.
Meanwhile, as has already been noted, the Maori Party is now the new party of censorship.
.
As Not PC has pointed out, it would help if Tariana Turia had a sense of humour. Her own belief in ghosts that speak to her is utterly hilarious. She asks “what’s the joke?” the answer is – it doesn’t matter.
.
In addition, Pita Sharples said:
.
“It's one thing to promote freedom of the press and freedom of expression, but quite another to use those rights to justify the decision to insult religions and beliefs”
.
So I cannot insult the belief that homosexuals are sinners, are that of their own free will and should burn in hell for that? I cannot insult the belief that women who expose any part of their body to men and are then raped are partially responsible for the rape and deserve some punishment over and above that? I cannot insult the belief that people of dark skin were made by God to be slaves? I cannot insult the belief that rats were Jews?
.
Well Tariana Turia and Dr Sharples can just fuck off – sincerely. I don't apologise for that language - I find their sensitivities over religion to be pathetic. I find religion to be insulting, as it is irrational and often contradictory to life. I find many beliefs to be either hilarious funny or downright insulting.
.
Of course, try making jokes about Maori religions or myths in New Zealand, and see how much free speech we REALLY have.
.
Everyone in New Zealand ought to bear in mind that there are ALREADY LAWS prohibiting insulting people on colour, racial, ethnic or national origins. The Human Rights Commission (Human Wrongs Commissariat in Libz speak) states:
.
It is unlawful for any person:
To publish or distribute written matter which is threatening, abusive, or insulting, or to broadcast by means of radio or television words which are threatening, abusive or insulting; or
To use in any public place as defined in s.2(1) of the Summary Offences Act 1981, or within the hearing of persons in any such public place, or at any meeting to which the public are invited or have access, words which are threatening, abusive, or insulting; or
To use in any place words which are threatening, abusive, or insulting if the person using the words knew or ought to have known that the words were reasonably likely to be published in a newspaper, magazine, or periodical or broadcast by means of radio or television,
Being matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons in or who may be coming to New Zealand on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national origins of that group of persons.

.
Now this is not within the scope of the Human Rights Acts, which the Race Relations Commissioner has pointed out – as being Muslim isn’t ethnic. The argument sometimes made is that religion is a matter of choice, but ethnicity is not. Well, really?
.
If a newspaper published jokes about taniwhas, tapu and other Maori supernatural beliefs, would this be tolerated? The Maori Party clearly wouldn’t, but how would the Human Wrongs Commissariat react?
.
So what of National? On the one hand Murray McCully has rightfully said that he respected the decision by the Press and Dominion Post to publish the cartoons as they had the right to do so. Whereas Brash deplored the publication and essentially agreed with the PM’s approach. He said it was reportedly “irresponsible, insensitive and in bad taste”.
.
Well sorry Don, you are wrong – and frankly this approach means you no longer deserve to be leader of the National Party.
.
The two newspapers concerned have reported on a news story and reported about what was published to cause an outcry of violence and intimidation in many countries. Peaceful people have been threatened because of the reaction, yet you say nothing about this – this vile appeasement is beneath you.
.
Why does a Muslim have a moral right to religion, but we don't have the right to freedom of speech? Why defend those who are insulted against those who stand up for what you, reportedly, believe in?
.
Why, when journalists uphold free speech and those offended respond with death threats, do you censure the journalists? Then again, National was the party that brought us the Human Wrongs Act in the first place, the party that toughened up censorship laws across the board in 1993 and voted for the toughening up introduced by Labour last term (yes it was motivated by child pornography which is fine, but it also covered magazines on cannabis and erotic letters).
.
As Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute said:
.
Blasphemy violates no one's rights; whoever finds such cartoons offensive, can avert his gaze. To cave in to intimidation and not publish anything Muslims (or any other group) feel is offensive is to surrender the crucial principle of free speech.
.
Ultimately, this clash is about respecting man’s right to express his views, however unpopular, in the face of religious attempts to subordinate that right to mystical dogmas.
.
The free speech so many of us want to defend isn't that free when the leaders of the two major parties regard it as less important than ensuring people aren't offended. Free speech as long as you don't offend anyone is not free speech.

07 February 2006

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

So said Voltaire, of course there is no god. It is also sad that the audience includes most New Zealand politicians. Helen Clark, Chris Carter, Winston Peters, Don Brash, Rodney Hide, Peter Dunne, Keith Locke - all too afraid to laugh, in public at least, all too afraid to stand up against the violence now being perpetrated against Danish, Norwegian and other European targets. Testicularly challenged the lot of them.
.
Libertarianz is the only NZ political party to have supported the right to publish the Danish cartoons. ACT and National should hang their heads in shame, gutless in defending values against the mindlessness of religion fueled hatred.
.
Well we know what the government thinks - Chris Carter saying:
.
"It is hard to see why the publication of cartoons known to be deeply offensive to Muslim communities is such an important point of principle to the New Zealand media who have published them." This coming from a man who played North Korean propaganda songs when he hosted the Labour Party show on Radio Liberty on Sundays when it existed in the mid 1990s.
.
Helen Clark expresses an opinion, when she should have just shut up - it is inappropriate for the government to express a view on what newspapers publish. She isn't expressing outrage at embassies being torched, she should simply have said the papers have a right to publish what they wish, New Zealand is an open an tolerant society and debate on this issue should proceed without the interference of politicians. That is broadly what the Australian Labour Party Foreign Affairs spokesman, Kevin Rudd said:
.
"These decisions should be made on their journalistic merit by Australia's news media, we should not be kowtowing to anybody when it comes to freedom in this country."
.
What the HELL is it going to take for the National Party to speak up?
.
The National Party remains silent - probably trying to figure out whether or not to follow the populist view of supporting freedom of speech or fearing being branded racist and bigoted for doing so. United Future is also doing so, given that it incorporated an immigrant party some years ago, Peter Dunne wouldn't dare saying anything. DPF reported Winston talking about how the Arab world had been insulted, showing his difficulty in comprehending that Islam is bigger than the Arab world, and the Arab world is more diverse than Islam. ACT, well I would hope Rodney Hide would have said something by now.
.
Pita Sharples has shown the Maori Party's preciousness about insults by saying:
.
"It's one thing to promote freedom of the press and freedom of expression, but quite another to use those rights to justify the decision to insult religions and beliefs"
.
In other words, freedom of the press does not exist. Why can I not insult anyone believing that there is a teapot orbiting the earth where there is a genie who is a god? Why is Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or any other form of ghost worshipping different?
.
Keith Locke on the other hand showed that the Greens are with Labour in its hand wringing, mealy mouthed appeasement of bigots and violence mongering. Although the Frogblog comments show Green supporters more split on this than you may think:
.
"Rather than blame Muslims for their reaction, we should strive to make our community more tolerant of Islam, and see it as a peaceful religion. We can’t judge Islam, or any other world religion, by the small minority of extremists within its ranks."
.
Ok let's not blame Muslims? Why not? If one of the thugs who protested in London calling for the beheading of anyone who offended Islam (are you on that list?) actually carries out this act will it be because he has a psychotic commitment to his religion, or is it the fault of the USA and global capitalism, or did I do it? This is akin to blaming a rape victim for looking too sexy for the rapist - he's peaceful usually, just you provoked him!
.
Some on the far left are claiming the cartoons are a fascist conspiracy because the newspaper that first published them was pro Nazi in the 1930s. They also claim this is part of an anti-immigrant agenda in Denmark. This may be true, but it has unlocked a belief in violence that the cartoons could never demonstrate. As far as fascist credentials are concerned you may as well talk about those on the left who defended Mao, the USSR, Pol Pot, Ceausescu and other evils. Keith Locke's youthful exuberance for Pol Pot and the USSR are well known.
.
This "small minority of extremists" that Locke claims exist - are enough for 14 governments to officially condemn it and call for action - enough for the Syrian government to sit back and let embassies be torched - in a totalitarian state where dissent is not tolerated. While he is right that you cannot judge all Muslims according to what a small number say, I dont see protests in Muslim countries defending freedom of speech and calling for debate about Islam - you wont, it isn't allowed. I don't see Arab Muslim run newspapers agreeing to stop printing antisemitic cartoons.
.
If there was a cartoon lampooning the National Front and National Front members torched the publisher of the cartoon - the Greens would not say "you can't judge the National Front by this". Similarly, the Greens would be the first to claim that environmentalist Volkert van der Graaf who murdered semi libertarian gay Dutch politician Pym Fortuyn, did not represent how peaceful environmentalists are.
.
The Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand naturally want the cartoons withdrawn and apologies made, saying that freedom of expression does not include mocking other religions and their beliefs. Well actually it does!
.
Beyond all that, I thought some quotes from Voltaire would be enlightening at this point:
.
"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too."
.
"One hundred years from my day there will not be a Bible in the earth except one that is looked upon by an antiquarian curiosity seeker." (if only he were right and that goes for the Koran too).
.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
.
Finally, Lindsay Perigo has called for Islam (as a belief system) to be put to death by shaming - not its adherents put to death - but the religion and the ideas it promulgates. He calls on Muslims to discover rationality and decency, and for those who defend the values of Western civilisation to do the very same.

06 February 2006

Moving on beyond Te Tiriti o Waitangi

Good on Julian Pistorius (who blogged it), Tim Wikiriwhi, Helen Hughes (all 2005 Libz candidates) and other Libz members and supporters who went to Waitangi to protest – against those who advocate using the Treaty as a means of separating New Zealand politically into two states.
.
As PC has pointed out, the Treaty was not the basis for a future constitution. I like Stephen Frank’s interpretation which states that the Treaty essentially was Maori ceding overall governance of New Zealand to the British Crown (which later devolved virtually all of that to a New Zealand government), while Maori were guaranteed property rights over what they owned. A good starting point at best, where you have full control over your body and your property, while the government exists to protect that and arbitrate on disputes between you and your neighbours.
.
Unfortunately the Treaty has come to mean many things to different people – the partnership it embodies for some was relevant in 1840 – when there were two representative collectives – the tribes that signed the Treaty and the British Crown. However, today all New Zealand citizens elect representatives at the central and local government level, and everyone’s views through that system have relatively equal merit (democracy then being a head counting exercise). To say that I as a New Zealanders born not of Maori descent (I think. I was adopted so have no idea about one side of my ancestry) have less right to be consulted or have my views considered that one who is, is sheer racist nonsense. Nobody is special because of their ancestry – Hitler believed people were – so does Slobodan Milosevic.
.
All who wish should use, promote and sustain the Maori language and cultural traditions - New Zealand would be worse off if this did not happen - but it should thrive because people want it, and get a sense of life from it, not because they feel obligated to do so. Most of all, as long as a language, traditions, culture and beliefs are consistent with people being able to live their lives happily, and make choices about how they want to live, let it live. It would be mundane indeed if we were monolingual and had the same tastes and traditions. With the explicit and implicit racism of the past behind us, it is time to look forward. We are not one people, we are 4 million people, there should not be homogenisation, because all individuals are different and will live in different ways. Being Maori or Chinese or being a New Zealander is one expression of this, but it is not THE expression.
.
The main grievance claimed under the Treaty is the theft of property in the name of the Crown mainly in the 19th century. It is appropriate that this be investigated and, if the Crown still owns the property concerned, that it be returned. It is also appropriate that the Crown consider whether state or council held land could be in better stewardship by local iwi, especially if there is regular iwi or hapu usage. As long as private property rights of others are protected and recognised, the rights of those who had their land stolen should be. Having said that, the laws of evidence must be upheld. The High Court should undertake this task, instead of the Waitangi Tribunal, which should be wound up. This will ensure objectivity and politics around settling claims are avoided, but also mean that decisions can be appealed and the court rulings are binding – unlike the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal. It will mean claims for satellite orbital slots become irrelevant – but claims over fisheries and lands are not. It will give iwi the incentive to get it right and courts to be fair, and not political. The traditional left will fear the court system as much as the traditional right fears binding rulings on land claims - but this is about doing right against state theft.
.
I will not repeat what others have said, but I believe New Zealand should become a constitutional republic – IF (and it is a BIG if), it protects the life, bodies, liberty and property of adults, and restricts the state to acting to protect those goals. However, nobody in the republican movement in New Zealand believes in this, at all.

03 February 2006

Now who is being offensive?



The cartoon image on the left comes from Al Ahram, an Egyptian newspaper, which published this on 21 April 2001, though not in its English language edition.
.
The cartoon image on the right is from Arab News, of Saudi Arabia, published 10 April 2002. Interestingly, opinions supporting freedom of speech against Islam are absent in both papers.
.
This and other images depicting Jews, Americans or the west as being murderous, carrying out the 9/11 attacks and part of some insane conspiracy are a matter of course across the Arab world. Not only are these undoubtedly offensive to those portrayed, but are blood thirsty with violence – something that is comparatively rare in western newspapers. There are plenty more here and here.
.
So continuing that theme and following on from the protests and condemnations of governments of some predominantly Muslim countries, we now have armed thugs (Islamic Jihad and the Yasser Arafat brigades) surrounding EU offices in Gaza demanding apologies from the governments of Denmark, Norway, Germany and France, about the comic strips satirising Islam published in newspapers in their respective countries. They are threatening to attack civilians from those countries in Gaza if there are not official apologies.
.
Evil fuckers.
.
How dare they believe that the actions of privately owned newspapers are the business of the government or that doing violence to people who happen to come from the same place, is somehow a just reaction to being offended? Well, look at September 11 – that is how they believe it.
.
So are there double standards here? Not by the West – Christianity is satirised constantly in Western press, music and television. The BBC comedy Father Ted being one example, where priests are depicted as being incompetent, really stupid or drunk and lecherous.
.
The hypocrisy lies with the Muslim Arab world in particular which tolerates the depictions seen above - but then again, with total state control over media and education, any lies or slander about the rest of the world has little chance to be challenged.
.
EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson said that any trade sanctions against Denmark must be considered as sanctions against the whole EU, and that action will be taken at the WTO if WTO member states impose such restrictions. However, many of the states protesting are not WTO members, such as Saudi Arabia and Syria – they don’t have the rule of law to achieve membership, but others such as Indonesia and Malaysia do.
.
Charles Bremner, Paris Correspondent for The Times congratulates France Soir for having the balls to print all 12 of the Danish cartoons across two pages.
.
The online edition of the Spectator is publishing one of the images, but none of the British newspapers has the courage to do so, although plenty Daily Telegraph readers are encouraging it – you can understand the Telegraph’s editor wondering whether it is worth risking the lives of his staff for it, given London remains a high profile terrorist target. New Zealand newspapers have far less to fear, and I hope one prints them. In fact, I dare the NZ Herald, Dominion Post, the Press and the ODT to print them all.
.
The editor of the Danish Jyllands-Posten, Carsten Juste, apologised for the offence caused but is not saying sorry for the publication. “the dark dictatorships have won” he said.
.
No they have not.
.
The final words are an extract from France Soir, published in the Guardian. Don't let anyone tell you that French people can lack courage when their freedoms are fundamentally under attack.
.
“It is necessary to crush once again the infamous thing, as Voltaire liked to say. This religious intolerance that accepts no mockery, no satire, no ridicule. We citizens of secular and democratic societies are summoned to condemn a dozen caricatures judged offensive to Islam. Summoned by who? By the Muslim Brotherhood, by Syria, the Islamic Jihad, the interior ministers of Arab countries, the Islamic Conferences - all paragons of tolerance, humanism and democracy.
.
So, we must apologise to them because the freedom of expression they refuse, day after day, to each of their citizens, faithful or militant, is exercised in a society that is not subject to their iron rule. It's the world upside down. No, we will never apologise for being free to speak, to think and to believe.
.
Because these self-proclaimed doctors of law have made this a point of principle, we have to be firm. They can claim whatever they like but we have the right to caricature Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha, Yahve and all forms of theism. It's called freedom of expression in a secular country ...
.
For centuries the Catholic church was little better than this fanaticism. But the French Revolution solved that, rendering to God that which came from him and to Caesar what was due to him.”
.
Now it is time for the Muslim world which is so outraged personally to stop for a second, and instead of looking at themselves, shut up, listen and learn four points:
.
1. We in the West are not all Christians and most of us couldn't care less what religion you follow. It is your business, why not let whether or not we follow Islam (or any religion) be our business. With the exception of a minority of nutters, we don't want to convert you.
.
2. We in the West have limited the power of governments to regulate what is published in newspapers, since they are almost always privately owned and anyone can set up their own newspaper or magazine to spread the ideas they wish. Our governments have not got the power to interfere in the publication of a newspaper or the lives of our citizens unless laws have been passed, by democratically elected parliaments, to allow it. Politicians are subservient to the law - something that most of your societies do not yet have, where Kings and Presidents have unlimited powers.
.
3. We in the West do not fear Islam. Unlike your societies where Islam is taught from birth, and schools, media and publishing do not contradict it - ours lets people choose their religion or not to have a religion. Yes there are social problems involving crime and poverty, but you are not without those yourself - on average, people in our societies have higher standards of living and more ability to live life and be happy than those in yours. You may find a lot of it offensive, but you have no more right to tell others what to do, that we have to tell you. Ask yourself why you fear your religion being challenged - if you have been convinced of the wisdom and justice of Islam, why do you think that alternative views could change that? Are your arguments strong enough to stand scrutiny? Surely they must be!
.
4. We in the West get offended all the time, by different religions, politicians, businesses, individuals, and we do not resort to violence to respond to it. We have learnt that there is no right to not be offended. Many of us are offended by your traditions, and the stories and images portraying Europeans, Americans and Israelis in your media. We wont threaten violence against Muslims in our countries because your newspapers print such images, so why should you? Why are you so ready to use violence instead of engage in discussion?
.
I am so sick of religion - it IS the root of so much evil.

02 February 2006

Abandon Saddam's trial - execute him

.
His arguments are that Saddam is not like any private citizen, who has the right to be presumed innocent and for whom culpability for crimes should be proven objectively by a court. Saddam was a dictator, who was responsible for the tens of thousands of murders perpetrated by the regime he led - a regime that did not have the consent of the governed and granted no rights to them. Presuming him innocent is absurd, since he is indisputably guilty.
.
He also claims that the court is farcical, by giving Hussein a stage to condemn his political enemies, the USA and to encourage terrorist insurgency.
.
Journo suggests there be a public hearing to document the evil acts of his regime, and then he be summarily executed.
.
He also argues that the existing court is not much better than courts under Hussein's regime. Only members of Saddam's tribe were seen fit to judge him "Whatever the tribal group feels is just--regardless of evidence or logic--is just. A trial conducted on this premise is a repudiation of justice asan objective principle."
.
He is right - in fact a better (though not ideal) model for this is Romania, where the crimes of Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu were clear - and they were executed after a brief trial, when their crimes were outlined. Having been disposed of appropriately, Romanians could start picking up the pieces of their country.
.
Saddam Hussein is responsible for waging war against his own people, against Iran and Kuwait, and murdering and torturing political opponents. He is responsible for running a totalitarian dictatorship that ran roughshod over the rights of his citizens.
.
I oppose the death penalty - because I do not believe the state has the right to kill civilians when convicted of crimes - and because the state getting that wrong is a far greater evil than it letting the guilty go free.
.
Saddam Hussein is not a private citizen, he was a ruthless tyrant. There will never be any question of his guilt and the atrocities he is responsible for. He lost the right to live when he ran a state committed to brutal thuggery.
.
The United States should not support this trial and withdraw any assistance it has provided to it - no man with any sense of honour should be defending this thug.
.
Saddam should be executed, following a public hearing of evidence of those who were witness to the crimes of the regime - that deserves publicity and a reminder of the evil that has been overthrown.

Iraqi chemical weapons shipped to Syria before war?


Hat tip to Teenage Pundit for linking to an article at the New York Sun where former Iraqi general Georges Sada claims that Iraqi chemical weapons were flown to Syria in advance of the coalition invasion. His book “Saddam’s Secrets” makes the claim and he says that they need to be found. Syria did not sign the Chemical Weapon’s Convention, and has long been suspected of having chemical weapons.
.
The CIA has been unable to verify these claims, but they could explain why nothing was found in Iraq after the invasion. Iraq had chemical weapons, it used them at least twice, it was unlikely to have destroyed them. Both Iraq and Syria have been ruled by Baathist Party regimes, although they were not always allied – Hafez El Assad (former Syrian dictator) was no friend of Saddam.
.
Of course that, plus President George Bush’s declaration that the US is addicted to oil and needs to find alternatives to Middle East sourced oil (including biofuels and hydrogen), wont dent the left’s conspiracy theories that the Iraqi war was just to bolster the oil industry.

Insulting religions is a right

Yes it is.
.
Islam (Shia, Sunni), Judaism (Orthodox, Hasidic, Conservative, Reform, Karaite), Christianity (Orthodox, Catholic, Presbyterian, Anglican, Evangelical, Baptist, Methodist, Seventh Day Adventist), Hinduism, Shintoism and all other worshipping of the supernatural is the denial of the mind and offensive to me - and anyone of any faith who wants to persecute me because I am an atheist can get fucked - and I will use all reasonable means to defend myself against it.
.
The Koran, Bible, Torah, Shruti and other religious texts are books to me - stories, with no spiritual status. I have the freedom to burn them if I desire or throw them away in the rubbish. Fundamentalist Islam and the brainless drones that worshop Brian Tamaki are the same - much like the this-wordly religions of political fanatacism that Hitler, Stalin, Mao and others cultivated.
.
So go on, declare a fatwa on me.
.
Meanwhile, the House of Lords is earning its keep defending these freedoms. First it defeated the ID card bill, by insisting that it be explicitly voluntary. Now it has referred the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill back to the House of Commons, after removing the element that would have prohibited “insulting or abusive” speech against religions, and inserting “intent” as a critical part of offences under the Bill. What the Bill intends to do is to prohibit the spreading of hatred against religions, with the emphasis being to target Muslims and Christians who incite holy war against each other. In fact, a coalition of comedians, Christians, Muslims, libertarians, humanists and other atheists have been opposing the Bill.
.
Of course the Bill should be defeated. There is no right to “not be offended”. I find Islam and Christianity both quite offensive, and freedom of speech demands that you have the right to criticise or blaspheme against them. I think the world would be a better place without either religion, but that does not mean I want to do violence against those who believe or spread the beliefs. Far from it. I want to convince people that believing in ghosts who you should sacrifice your life to is at best a waste of time and energy, and at worst is self destructive, destructive to others and delusional. The age of persecuting people because of what they think of your religion belongs in the dark ages.
.
It is also encouraging that blogs on the right (Sir Humphreys and DPF) and left (No Right Turn) have both celebrated this. Like I have said before, I like Tony Blair a lot, but the insidious political correctness and willingness to override civil liberties short sightedly is a major drawback. Fortunately David Davis has confirmed the Tories opposed this move – though I wonder how much the Conservative party opposed it because it was a Labour bill, rather than any solid commitment to freedom – but it is at least a start.
.
An example is the dispute caused by the Danish newspaper which was blogged by DPF. The newspaper – Morgenavisen Jyllands- Posten - published cartoons depicting Muslim men wearing bombs instead of turbans. See them all here, and the response from the newspaper (in English) to criticism and the jihad placed upon them. One could hardly find a better example of the “Clash of Civilisations” predicted by Samuel Huntington in the early 1990s. Western liberal constitutional democracy vs. Islamic authoritarian theocracy.
.
Ambassadors and Foreign Ministers from predominantly Islamic countries have called for the Danish government to act against the newspaper. None of them understand that in the free world, governments do not censor on command, nor do they have the legal powers to do so. Constitutional democracies in western Europe have limits on the power of the executive and parliament – limits that leaders in Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan do not have.
.
It was also reported that in Belgium, a young Muslim immigrant published a poster of the Virgin Mary with naked breasts seen here, as promotion for a play . However, will Muslims see that in a predominantly Christian nation, this is not only allowed, but was even subsidised by the state (which, of course, I would oppose - Muslims shouldn't fund what is offensive to them through the state). The treatment of the Danish newspaper is akin to that of the Dutch artist who was murdered for publishing photos of naked women with words from the Koran on their backs, reported in the earlier story.
.
It is one thing to be offended, another thing to call for a boycott of a newspaper, but to boycott all of the goods from a country where a newspaper is published and demand that the government of that country do something – when it has no legal powers to act, and when doing so would be grossly offensive to THAT country’s way of life and culture, shows a primitive attitude to people, nations and culture. The newspaper is responsible, Danes are not, many Danes do not buy the newspaper, and the government has nothing to do with it. Government in Denmark does not control every aspect of your life, and does not have the power to do so – individual Danes act on their own volition, not as an amorphous unified whole. This is why far more people from the Middle East emigrate to western Europe than vice versa and why the standard of living in western Europe is higher than in the theocracies complaining about the cartoon. People in the west can be creative, productive, innovative and be free, without some mullah overseeing whether it is offensive or not.
.
More importantly, the violent reaction by a minority of Muslims (and the acquiescence by more) to anything which offends their religion is stone age barbarity – where there is no argument, just the gun. The use of violence to respond to an insult is the tool of the uncivilised thug.
.
Danes should remain defiant – what that newspaper is doing is fighting for the freedoms we all have to criticise religions. A freedom that much of the Islamic world does not have – because Islam’s defenders fear it. They fear reason, they fear the debate, the moral critique which comes from responding to other beliefs with talk and reason, not threats and bombs.
.
A clear message has to be given to Muslims and governments from Islamic countries – there is another way of looking at the world – one where there is a right to freedom of speech, including freedom to offend. Many of your traditions are offensive to us – we find your treatment of women to be degrading, treating them as less than men, and we find your intolerance of different points of view and different forms of cultural expression to be insulting to our intelligence.
.
Either the Islamic world catches up with the enlightenment and looks in on itself, or it will get offended time and time again – and if any Muslims take the law into their own hands in western countries, they can expect the consequences.
.
By the way, check out Ask the Imam website, with its proclamations of what is legal under Islam - don't be plucking those eyebrows now girls!
UPDATE: and good on The Whig for publishing these blasphemous images. I wonder if the Iranian Embassy will be asking Winston Peters as Minister of Foreign Affairs to act against the blog.