The NBR reports that the controversial s92A of the Copyright Amendment Act will be scrapped.

If you recall its implementation was to be "delayed a month while ISPs and copyright holders continued efforts to work out a voluntary agreement on how it would be enforced ... if they could not agree, the clause would be suspended." I predicted then that "in other words, as written, it's dead."

TelstraClear bailed from the talks, making it pretty clear that not only was it not the job of ISP's to be judge and jury, so also was it not their jobs to fix badly drafted legislation. Given how pear shaped things had become, today's announcement from Prime Minister John Key that that the government would be redrafting the section was not surprising.

Awesome victory for the blogosphere whose blackout campaign placed considerable pressure on the government to act.

The internet blackout is at an end and the government has responded; s92a of the Copyright Act has been officially stalled and looks rather doomed. The Herald reports:

Section 92a was to have come into force this weekend, but Mr Key said it would be delayed a month while ISPs and copyright holders continued efforts to work out a voluntary agreement on how it would be enforced.

He said if they could not agree, the clause would be suspended.

If they did reach an agreement, it would be reviewed in six months.

So in other words, as written, it's dead. Yay.

Tumeke report that most of the NZ blogosphere has gotten behind the blackout, blacking out chunks of their pages and/or running banners highlighting the campaign. Tim made this mosaic showing the impact on the front pages of NZ's top 50 or so blogs - you can see MandM towards the bottom right corner.
The government really has to act on this one; it is not everyday you see so many people, commonly at odds with each other, representing pretty much the entire political spectrum, agreeing on one issue. I mean, when Not PC sings the same tune as The Standard surely the resulting blogosphere shockwave has to be able to reach the Beehive?

Over recent years [read: under the previous Labour government] we have been increasingly concerned at ill thought out, badly drafted legislation that removes power from the judiciary and confers it on other bodies within society that are not subject to the rules of evidence and due process.

The anti-smacking bill is an obvious example. The bill removed the defence of reasonable force for assault from the Crimes Act and instead placed discretion as to what is reasonable in the hands of the police as opposed to the court.

The Seabed and Foreshore Act prevented private citizens from taking a property dispute with the Crown to court and instead the legislature, in a massive conflict of interest, simply declared that the property belonged to them.

The weakening of due process is further evidenced by the abolition of an independent appeals court (The Privy Council) and the changes to double jeopardy and the requirement for jury unanimity.

The Copyright Amendment Act, due to come into force on 28 February 2009, is another example. The Labour government wanted to tighten up copyright law, particularly around internet copyright violations so far so good. Except that bits of it were not drafted so well and despite the Select Committee deciding, unanimously, to delete the questionable section from the proposed law the Labour government decided to keep it in.

The sections at the heart of the controversy are:

92A Internet service provider must have policy for terminating accounts of repeat infringers

(1) An Internet service provider must adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances, of the account with that Internet service provider of a repeat infringer.

(2) In subsection (1), repeat infringer means a person who repeatedly infringes the copyright in a work by using 1 or more of the Internet services of the Internet service provider to do a restricted act without the consent of the copyright owner.

At first glance this might seem a bit innocuous. However, as David Farrar points out:

The bill did not define “reasonably implement”, “appropriate circumstances” or who decides if someone “repeatedly infringes”. It also turned ISPs into an unpaid enforcement arm for copyright holders.

Farrar’s article explains the issue well citing intellectual property experts and is worth a read. Essentially, ISP’s will be subject to the threat of legal action if they allow a person who repeatedly offends to use their internet services. The problem is that without these terms being defined they simply will not know whether acting on or failing to act on a complaint subject them to legal action. Being on the wrong side of the law is costly so these providers will have to set in place fairly draconian policies to ensure they are indemnified. As the NZ Computer Society states, quoted by David Farrar, The law essentially places “ISPs in the position of potentially having to be the policeman, judge, jury and executioner in what are often vague and unclear situations”

For some people a website is a bit of fun, a creative outlet, for others it is their business, their livelihood; for all, regardless of whether it is a source of income or not, a website and its contents is the private property of its owner. When a law is passed that allows a single citizen the power to lawfully deprive or interfere with another citizen’s property on the basis of a single accusation, with no requirement for evidence and no opportunity for a hearing, a first year law student should be able to tell you there is something wrong with the law.

The National government needs to repeal this section. Like all governments they are more likely to do this if they feel there is wide spread community support (as lousy a reality as that is) so the internet community is banding together with an Internet Blackout from February 16-23 that calls the government to fix this legislation.

One of the things I am loving about not being affiliated to any party is that I can criticise my own 'side'. It is a liberating thing.

I stumbled accross this on The Standard and I have to say I agreed with it.

Well, most of it.

Definately did not agree with the last line...

And of course John Key was right that a government without a clear direction being pulled all over the show by competing agendas would not be good for the country, especially in a time of economic uncertainty and there is the fact that what he was speaking of and what the Standard are referring to do differ somewhat, in that he only needs a two headed monster to govern and one of the 5 heads is really a two headed monster in its own right, but Tane does have a point....

Moving right along.

Taken from: Careful of them monsters, John by Tane.

It’s amazing to see how quickly John Key got over his fear of five-headed monsters once it came time to cobble together a government, and more amazing still how quickly the media chose to forgive and forget.

You’ll recall that just two weeks ago the media couldn’t get enough of John’s line that having a government composed of:

“all sorts of different parties” with “competing interests” would not be in the best interests of New Zealand during a period of “difficult economic times to manage”.

But, silly me, they bought that one when it was Helen Clark’s coalition options in question. Now that it’s John Key, it turns out what was irresponsible just two weeks ago was actually “smart” and “inclusive” all along.

They’re a funny bunch, our right-wing media.


[I am sorry but if the media is "right-wing" then what on earth am I? Maybe a better question is what does that make The Standard?!?!?]

Supporters of Labour Candidate for Wellington Central, Grant Robertson, have published this video to provide evidence that Stephen Franks, the National Candidate for the same electorate, is “homophobic.” I remain unconvinced; in fact, I suggest that a careful analysis of the contents show that, if anything, Robertson is the bigoted ideologue. Unlike Robertson’s supporters, I will endeavour to argue for my position.

The video opens citing Franks’ comments that he was tired of having to deal with “grumpy Christians and whiny gays;” the caption is put above the head of John Key and attributed to the National Party as a whole. This is clearly dishonest. Franks’ comments were made in a particular context; while he was on the select committee for the Civil Unions Act, he commented that he was sick of grumpy Christians and whiny gays appearing before the committee. To suggest from this that he is sick of gays and Christians in general is simply engage in inaccurate spin.

Moreover, to suggest that because Franks’ on one occasion, several years ago, was sick of them in a particular context means that it follows that the entire National party is sick of them in every context is a whopping non-sequitur. It is hard to take this kind of inference seriously except for the fact that many people actually appear to!

Turning to the video; Grant Robertson starts by responding to the arguments Stephen Franks gave against the Civil Unions Bill in parliament. After admitting that he has read the speech, Robertson does not provide any arguments against Franks’ reasons or offer any critique, he instead suggests that Franks’ arguments are “convenient” given the comments he made which “did not put the gay community in a positive light.”

Note what’s going on here, Robertson is suggesting that if a person utters comments that do not put the Gay community in a positive light, if such comments do not advance the PR agenda of homosexuals, then their argument can be written off. It apparently does not matter whether their arguments are well reasoned, sound or that the facts they cite may be true. The crucial consideration is whether everything they have stated is in the interests of the gay community.

If it is not then everything they say should be ignored and dismissed by members of parliament considering legislation. Apparently, the state should only listen to and consider the reasoning offered by those who advance the PR of the gay community.

This is not open minded tolerance, its close mindedness of the worst kind.

The other point about this opening comment on Robertson’s part is that it is clearly irrational. Robertson is responding to Franks’ arguments, not by showing there is anything mistaken about them but by insinuating he is really motivated by homophobia.

In other words, his response to a critique of government policy is to impugn the motives of the critic and attack his character. Grant suggests that Franks’ is homophobic but then immediately declines to mention or provide evidence of the charge despite the fact that he has put it out there. Moreover even if what Robertson claims of Franks were true, it actually does not address any of Franks’ arguments.

Even if people are motivated by hatred or fear in adopting a position, it does not follow that the position itself is mistaken or that the reasons they offered for its adoption were bad. If I, for example, were motivated by an irrational fear and hatred towards fundamentalists to publish books defending evolutionary theory that would not mean that evolutionary theory is based on an irrational fear of fundamentalism and that I had offered no reasons for this theory. The theory stands or falls on the evidence not the motives of its proponents. Hitler thought the world was round. Was he wrong because he was a monster?

Turning to the allegedly homophobic comments; Robertson cites Franks’ statement “I love my dog that does not mean I can marry him.” Some of Robertson’s supporters have claimed on the basis of this that Franks “compares civil unions to marrying your dog.” This way of interpreting Franks’ comments is of course easily turned into something homophobic, if Franks had actually suggested that a same-sex civil union is on par with marrying a dog, one could then suggest that he thinks that gays are like animals, and hence less than human with no civil rights.

The problem is that this is not what Franks’ said. He did not say that “civil unions are like marrying your dog” he said the fact that you love your dog does not mean you can marry it. In other words, he is stating that the mere presence of love is not enough to justify the state issuing a marriage licence.

As Franks himself clarified, he was not attacking civil unions per se, but the premise of one particular argument for civil unions; the premise that the state should recognise all loving relationships.

Now contrary to what Robertson and his supporters contend, there is in fact a world of difference between noting that one premise of one argument in favour of civil unions entails that one can marry one’s dog and the claim that all gays are dogs.

The reasoning of Robertson’s supporters seems to be this:

P. If one premise of one argument for P entails Q then P is analogous to Q.

But this is clearly false: the North American Man Boy Love Association has offered arguments for Gay rights which utilise premises that entail that paedophilia is a loving relationship between adult and child. Many gay people are aware of these arguments and reject them precisely because they have this implication. Does it follow that these gay people believe that all homosexuals are paedophiles? Of course not! They simply reject these particular arguments and ensure that those who defend ‘gay rights’ use other arguments that do not entail support for paedophilia. To suggest that anyone who rejected NAMBLA’s argument because of its absurd implications then believes that all gays are paedophiles is ridiculous.

Take another example, Grant Robertson supports abortion. Grant is also aware, I am sure, that one argument for abortion rights, proposed by Peter Singer, entails that infanticide is permissible. Does Grant admitting this problem exists with Singer’s argument mean that he thinks abortion is on par with infanticide and that he is ok with this? Clearly not. He simply concludes that this particular argument is flawed.

So contrary to Robertson’s supporters, Franks did not suggest either directly or by implication that “civil unions is like marrying your dog”.

Its interesting that when Franks’ points out that Robertson has confused a claim about a premise with a claim about a conclusion and has cited him out of context that the response is not an apology and retraction; instead Robertson’s supporters, boo, hiss, shout “shame on you” and continue to affirm the false claim Robertson makes against his opponent. No attempt is made to suggest the original allegation was inaccurate or apologise. These people apparently think that it is ok to accuse people of malicious intent without evidence or to back their claims up and that when the claims are refuted they simply maintain them anyway. Who is the bigot here? Not Franks.

Its worth noting that even if Franks’ had claimed that having “a civil union is like marrying your dog” it does not necessarily follow that this is offensive or “does not portray the gay community in a positive light.” It depends upon what respects Franks’ said they were alike. It is true, for example, that heterosexual relationships are like marrying ones dog in some respects as both, for example, occur on earth; both involve at least one human, both can take place in the 21st century, both can happen in the middle of the day etc. Of course in other respects they are quite different. Marrying a dog, for example, (if one consummated the union) violates the law of God whereas a heterosexual marriage does not. But the point is that whether saying they are alike is offensive depends on the way in which they are said to be alike.

Interestingly, even if one misrepresents Franks’ comments, it is clear that he only stated they were alike in that both were loving. Is this what Grant finds offensive? Apparently to say gay relationships are loving “does not portray the gay community in a positive light.” Would Robertson prefer that people said gay lovers hate each other?

Finally let me say some comments about Franks’ argument. While Franks refers to a person loving one’s dog, elsewhere he pointed out that a common premise utilised by defenders of the Civil Unions Act entailed that incestuous unions should be recognised by the State. In this he is absolutely correct; many people who defended the Bill did so on the grounds that:

(1) the government should not discriminate against any loving committed relationships;

The problem is that it is a fact that:

(2) incestuous and unions with multiple partners can be loving and committed;

However, [1] and [2] entail that:

[3] incestuous and multiple partner relationships should be recognised by the state.

Hence if one affirms [1], one is rationally committed to supporting incestuous marriages. Now despite howls and boos from Robertson’s supporters, it is difficult to see what is wrong with this inference. The argument form is clearly valid, it follows the form: all A’s are B, x is an A; therefore x is a B. To deny this form is to affirm that all things of a particular sort can have a property and also some can not, which is a contradiction. Robertson’s supporters may be suggesting that it is homophobic to not contradict oneself but I doubt they are that stupid.

Seeing the argument is valid, the objector needs to reject [1] or [2] as false. The whole point of the argument, however, is to show that [1] is false by showing the absurd conclusions it entails. Moreover, Robertson’s supporters in the You Tube clip clearly support [1] one of them asserts very loudly that something like [1] is true. So presumably their claim is that incestuous couples or polygamous couples never love each other, but that is clearly false. The only sensible thing then is to suppose they support [3], but then if that is the case, then why is it offensive to suggest that homosexual unions are like incestuous ones? They apparently see nothing wrong with incest.

The honest thing to do then would be to simply admit that this argument is a bad one and offer another one. But of course they do not. When an argument for civil unions is refuted, they resort to quoting out of context, character assassination and dogmatic assertions of the falsehood even when its mendacity had been shown.

It is then unwarrantedly claimed that Franks’ comment in one context applies to all times and places and are held in this absurd way by everyone in the National Party. Moreover, any other argument against their position is irrationally dismissed and ignored on the grounds that it does not further their political agenda to consider it. Apparently this is the type of activity that some Labour supporters consider open minded tolerance.

Matt (posted by Madeleine)

With each of us feeling pulled, guilt tripped, bribed, confused over not only who to vote for and how to decide Glenn does it again; read his analysis of the state of our country and where exactly we have gone wrong in our thinking.

Extract from New Zealand: Land of greed, envy and political stupidity (the election blog, part 2):

The New Zealand political environment is one of very strong statism and government intervention, wealth redistribution and disincentives for many people to work hard and try to get ahead. “Share the wealth” might sound like a nice idea, only in this case it’s not a case of someone saying “why don’t you share your wealth,” but rather a case of the state saying “I am going to share your wealth – with everybody else.”

There’s more to it than just this. The involvement of the state with our finances is part of the intervention into private lives, but it’s not the only form of such intervention. Marriage in New Zealand is now essentially a legal construct, and as such those who make the laws inevitable end up telling people what does and does not count as marriage. We’ve recently been told (by lawmakers) that we must – regardless of our own views on the matter) treat same sex couples as having a relationship that is the same as a married relationship, if they have a civil union. Now, you might personally think that’s fine. The point here is that it wouldn’t be an issue if the state didn’t own marriage. If marriage was a private affair, perhaps accompanied by a private contract, there would be no “same sex marriage” controversy. Let churches marry who they are prepared to marry, and let anyone have a public gathering to celebrate what they will. But as soon as the state gets involved and starts bestowing its blessing, they have started forcing other people to endorse forms of relationships.

Take another example: The notorious (at least in new Zealand) “anti-smacking” law. Assault is a crime in New Zealand, however there have always been exceptions – scenarios where you are permitted to use force against other people (within reason). You can use reasonable force in self defense, the captain of a ship can use reasonable force to subdue and contain a passenger who poses a risk to other passengers, and up until recently, a parent could use reasonable force in the course of disciplining a child. The has always said that the force must be reasonable, so you couldn’t injure your child, for example. But you could use force – for example – to place your child in confinement (which would normally be illegal – I can’t confine another person under normal circumstances), or to smack your child (again, with the proviso that the force is reasonable and not harmful), or any other kind of force along those lines. However, section 59 of the Crimes Act, which allowed for this exception in the case of disciplining children, has now been repealed. The state can use force against you if you need correction, but you cannot use force against a child if that child needs correction. As has frequently been noted, this as the unambiguous consequence that any person who uses any amount of force on a child for any reason is a criminal. If you place your child in “time out” when he doesn’t want to be there – you’ve commit a crime, and a crime for which there is literally no legal defense. If you did this and the police laid charges, you’d be guilty, no matter what the circumstances, because the law has been changed so that absolutely no amount or type of force can be considered reasonable. When challenged with this fact, the member of parliament who proposed this law change, Sue Bradford, explained that yes, it’s true that nearly all parents would technically become criminals, but we should trust the police to use discretion. It’s sometimes hard to convict people who physically abuse children, she explained, so this way everyone is prosecutable, meaning that the genuine abusers can be successfully prosecuted without hindrance like pesky defences of “reasonable force.” Think I’m exaggerating? Not even close. I was physically present (and almost physically sick) at Bradford’s public meeting here in Dunedin when she happily explained this.

Another example is the Electoral Finance Act, which I discussed recently here. This is, in effect, an attack on the free speech of political spokespeople who do not wish their personal address to be provided to the new Zealand public.

Another example is Labour’s re-write of the Immigration Act. The new version gives immigration personnel (not even police officers) powers to invade private property, seize belongings and detain people, without the need of a warrant. Oh, and the detainees do not have to be given the specifics of why they are being detained, either.

Then of course there was the notorious Seabed and foreshore Act. The government, one side of a dispute over ownership and governance of parts of New Zealand coastline, decided by legislation that the dispute could never be taken to court, and it declared by fiat that the state owned all of the disputed pieces of land. Case closed. No compensation required (oh, and no due process either).

And then there’s the general all-powerful thuggish behaviour of Labour’s members of parliament over their last few terms of government, including the Prime minister herself, to whom ordinary laws and principles of conduct simply don’t apply – whether it’s the leaked fabrications she used to end the career of the Police Commissioner, the artwork she falsely signed for an auction, the speeding that she apparently required of her driver to get to a rugby game on time – and then let him take the fall for it, as well as the more general reputation she has earned for being a controlling bully who allows no dissent (or free thought). Then there are the cabinet ministers (note: not just members of parliament but cabinet ministers) who, the police agreed, had prima facie cases to answer for assault, but against whom the police, for some reason, chose not to press charges. And then there was the cabinet minister who abused police power by literally calling them up to go and advise a citizen of a request to pay damages (i.e. a civil matter, and even before a civil suit had been filed). The Prime Minister did literally nothing about any of this. There was also the case where an application to build a marina in Whangamata was approved by the environment court, after much effort and expense by the applicants. But then cabinet minister Chris Carter overturned the decision. Again, no due process, no separation between the legislature and the courts, just heavy handed intervention to overthrow the normal process because a government minister didn’t like the outcome of the court.

There’s little doubt that Clark has had a clear vision for the type of society she wishes to engineer. The society towards which the policies of Clark’s Labour government are geared is a society that eschews traditional morality, sees solo parenting as normal and provides financial support to make it no more difficult than two parent parenting, a society where “sexual norms” is a judgemental term and same-sex unions are absolutely no different from traditional marriage between a man and woman, where authority and to some extent, responsibility, are transferred out of the family home into into the hands of the state (it is the state’s role to discipline, educate, or use force to punish, etc), a society where it is fundamentally the role of the state to see that your family is provided for, a society where healthcare and educational choices are made by the state and funded by the taxpayer whether they use those options or not, a society where the type of free expression that finds acceptance is that which upholds all these norms, and expression that call into question the moral acceptability of these things is frowned on, a society where the idea of promiscuity as something abnormal or unhealthy is itself seen as something abnormal, unhealthy and oppressive, a society where the defence of all these values is described as tolerance, and the defence of different values is presented as intolerance. Of great importance, amidst all this, is that the wise, benevolent state faces no opposition to its decisions, and if there is ever public opposition to its intentions (as was the case with the Civil Unions Bill and the Anti Smacking Bill), these complications are simply ignored.

Why, exactly, would a Christian vote for a government like this? I’ve asked a few, and I think that, unfortunately, the reason some Christians might vote for a party like this is that “if they become the next government, they will give me X.” What about their impact on laws relating to marriage, or prostitution, or their immoral solutions to land disputes, or their threat to free speech, or their thuggish and unaccountable influence over civil servants, or their disregard for human rights, whether in its treatment of immigrants or in other cases (such as their rejection of the freedom of association for students)? Don’t any of these give my fellow Christians pause before voting them back into power? “They’ve going to give me X.” Whether that X is a cash payout via some sort of state welfare, or a bonus for people working in the state sector, or something else, how in the world could anyone be so short sighted as to snap at a cash carrot and to ignore the wider picture of what is happening?

One answer has to do with the basic human condition: I’m greedy and envious. If the government gives me money, then regardless of whether I deserve it, my first inclination is to take it and enjoy it. Other people make much more money than I do, so why shouldn’t I be able to get my snout to the trough as well, right? And if the way to get this present is to vote for a particular party, then that party will get my vote.

There are less cynical ways of looking at welfare payouts, of course. Perhaps the Christian voter might think that the state is being kind to the poor by having these programmes (which should, hopefully, make them wonder why they payouts are made to families that earn salaries over $60,000). Maybe they believe that “social justice” just means distributing wealth so that nobody ends up at the bottom of the heap. I’ll say more about this in my next post, but my experience tells me that the main reason some Christians have for voting for Labour is that Labour will give them something, and they don’t want to lose it.

Here’s a question I put to any who think this way: Aside from the fact that you like getting free money, what would be wrong with you not getting that free money? Now I know – when you write conversations yourself you get to determine the outcome, but look at it this way:

Jerry: Hey Perry, who are you voting for?

Perry: I’m voting for Labour.

Jerry: Really? Wow. I wouldn’t have seen that coming. You’re a Christian, right?

Perry: Yes – what does that have to do with anything?

Jerry: Everything, I would have thought. I mean Labour is totally pro-abortion rights, they created same-sex marriage in this country, they made parents into criminals, they forced people to publish their address when they make political comment, they ride roughshod over human rights, they take incredible amounts of tax, they-

Perry: Woah, woah, slow down!

Jerry: Well, you do realise that Labour did all those things, right?

Perry: Well, maybe. I’m not sure. But still… won’t that other party take away the money Labour is giving us? And I work in the state sector, I mean, my future there is more secure with Labour, right?

Jerry: You’ve got to be kidding me.

Perry: What?

Jerry: Do you really think that your personal finances and security in a government job is more important than matters of right and wrong?

Perry: No, no of course not. It’s not just about me. What about all those other families out there? They get family assistance from the government too!

Jerry: And you point is?

Perry: Well isn’t it obvious? Getting money from the government makes it easier for them to get by, so of course I want to vote for a party that will keep giving them that money.

Jerry: Well firstly, pretty much every party is going to give them that money. It would be political suicide not to now that they’re already getting it. But there’s a much more important question here.

Perry: And what’s that?

Jerry: Should the government take my money and give it to you?

Perry: Oh come on, let’s not make it personal….

Jerry: OK fine – should the government take my cousin Bob’s money and give it to you?

Perry: Well it helps the families who get it, right?

Jerry: Oh, so if it helps families then the government can do it?

Perry: Well, I guess. The government is here to help us.

Jerry: Let’s see where that takes us. How would you feel if you worked hard to save up and buy a car, and then some agents from the government burst into your garage tonight and stole it, and gave it to my cousin Bob.

Perry: Come on, that’s ridiculous. Nobody is saying that the government should be allowed to do that.

Jerry: Well Perry, the thing is, Bob can’t afford a car, and having a car would really help his family. He could take them on holiday, and his wife could take them to soccer practice. Do you have any idea how handy a car is in today’s world for a family, Perry?

Perry: But the fact that they would find it helpful doesn’t give someone the right to just take it from me and give it to them! I worked to buy that car. I earned it!

Jerry: So what? Remember, it helps families. I thought you said a second ago that the government can do something if it helps families. In fact while we’re at it, some families struggle to pay for good healthy food. I hope you don’t mind if your local MP comes and raids your fridge for some food for them.

Perry: This is getting silly. OK, the government can’t do just anything because it helps families.

Jerry: Why not?

Perry: Because that stuff is mine! That wouldn’t be just!

Jerry: Just?

Perry: Right. Taking my car or my food would be unjust!

Jerry: That’s interesting Perry. Last time I heard, you were all in favour of this thing you call “social justice.” Am I right?

Perry: You bet! As a Christian, issues of social justice are so crucial to me.

Jerry: I see. So what are some of the fundamental issues of social justice?

Perry: Well probably the biggest one is our attitude to the poor. We should share the vast wealth of society with them, redistribute those resources to see that nobody misses out.

Jerry: OK, so why can’ the government redistribute your car and your food?

Perry: Like I said, that’s unj- [the penny drops]

Jerry: Unjust?

Perry:… yeah. Unjust.

Jerry: I think we need to take a big step back here. I’m all in favour of me sharing my wealth or you sharing your wealth. But what do we normally call someone who takes it upon himself to share other people’s wealth?

Perry: Yeah, yeah, a thief, I know. But look, you can’t say that just because it would be wrong for an individual person, it would also be wrong for the government. Governments can do all sorts of things that an individual can’t do. They can make laws, they can change taxes, heck they can even declare war!

Jerry: OK, now we’re really getting to the heart of it. What can the government do, and what can’t it do? What’s it’s job in the first place? There’s no way we can even begin to ask if it’s all right for the government to take my money and give it to you if we don’t even know what the role of the state is in the first place. Is it the government’s job to redistribute wealth at all? Exactly what rights do I have to the money I earn and the property I possess? How much authority does the government rightly have?

Perry: There you go, getting all academic. Why doesn’t anyone just think of the children….

Perry is a moron. Not in every way, of course, but when it comes to voting and politics, he’s pretty dim. That’s not measured by who he wants to vote for, don’t get me wrong. There are politically smart people who will vote for Labour. They are politically smart because they realise what they are doing: They are giving their support to a particular vision of the role of the government in society. When they debate politics, they realise that they are not debating individual policies, they are really involved in a clash of ideologies: Different political philosophies altogether. Two people might both support the same policy, but on the basis of very different political outlooks. Take the civil unions act that created a kind of same-sex marriage here in New Zealand. One person might support it because they firmly believe that it is the role of state to create by law all the formal types of relationships that adults enter into because they support a big government statist ideology, and if all relationships are covered by law, they can be regulated. Another person might support it in the (mistaken, I think) belief that this law generates more liberty and gets the government out of the lives of consenting adults.

What grates me horribly, however, is the fact that so many Christians (like so many people in general) don’t even ask the big questions. Questions of principle like “should the government be taking and redistributing people’s earned money in this way – is that its job?” are replaced with much more selfish questions like “how much will I get,” or “how will this benefit my profession,” or even more benevolent sounding questions like “what will they give to families,” and people who dissent are not challenged intellectually on whether or not their political philosophy make sense, rather they are targeted with guilt trips like “but you’d be taking [taxpayers'] money away from ________ [insert some group here].” Never mind asking if the government should be giving them other peoples’ money at all, or if the government should be doing anything to benefit those in your profession. What about those not in your profession, or those from whom the money would be taken to give to you?

Let me put some flesh on the bones: I know a person (nobody who would be reading this blog) who is a Catholic believer, who would vote for a pro-abortion rights pro same-sex-marriage party on the grounds that his taxpayer funded job would be less likely to get funding if another party came to power. I have known Christians – high profile ones at that – who have stood up in public and said “when you cast your vote, just ask one thing: What are they going to do for _______,” and he then named the Christian institution that employed him. In short, Christians get tangled up in some pretty ugly political messes, supporting parties – some of them self consciously Christian parties – that are struggling to impress people by how much they are going to give people or do for them, and they are not once engaging in high-level discussion about why anyone should care that those parties are going to do those things. “He says he’ll get the government to promote heterosexual marriage in law! I’ll vote for him!” Or “they want to give cash payouts to married couples who stay together! He gets my vote!” Not “he consistently advances policies on the basis of a good understanding of private property rights,” or “He really understands the role of the state and the limits of its authority.”

A post by Glenn caught my eye the other day and I have not been able to stop thinking about it as despite knowing that Glenn knows what he is talking about in this field, I just am struggling to believe his numbers. It really is proof-positive of the socialist extent of Labour's policies in practice and should serve as a warning to anyone tempted to vote Labour because they think the criticims levelled at Labour's attempts to turn as many working people into beneficiaries dependant on the state as possible are exaggerated.

I have reproduced some of it below as it warrants further exposure.

Extract from New Zealand: Land of greed, envy and political stupidity (the election blog, part 1)

Wealth re-distribution is at an almost unbelievable level at present. Take a family with one income earner. At current taxation levels, with an annual income of $40,000, that income earner will pay $7770.00 in PAYE (“pay as you earn”). This includes income tax plus 1.4% ACC (socialised accident compensation insurance). On the whole, that’s about 19.43%. If the earner works more hours or gets a more skilled job that pays more and the income is $70,000, the total PAYE is $18,090. That’s about 25.84%. It gets worse if you earn more than that.

But it does not end there. Let’s add this to the mix: This family has four children below the age of 12. This means that this family will qualify for state welfare for those children. Use the calculators at www.workingforfamilies.govt.nz to check the figures for yourselves. Let’s imagine that there are two families with one earner in each, one earning 40K and the other earning 70K. I’ll be taking into account the payments received from the “working for families” welfare scheme as well as the accommodation supplement each of these families will qualify for. I’ve arbitrarily hypothesised that these two different families live in the same city that I live in, and pay the same amount of rent that my family pays. Taking all of the above into account, here is the weekly combined income from all sources – after tax – for these two families.

Family 1, earning $40,000:
Total after tax weekly income (including welfare payments) of $1018.27
This family will pay $7770 in PAYE and receive $19,916 in state welfare. No, that is not a typo. Nineteen thousand, nine hundred and sixteen dollars of untaxed welfare payments.

Family 2, earning $70,000:
Total after tax income of $1208.27
This family will pay $18,090 in PAYE and receive $10,920 in state welfare.

Take a few moments to take this in: Family 2 earns $576.92 more than family 1 each week. For their extra effort or skill, they end up just $190 better off each week.

The level of wealth re-distribution to minimise the difference in income between these two families is staggering. And yet, each of these families is a recipient of a sizable chunk of the re-distributed wealth of others. The first family effectively pays no tax at all and then receives a further cash bonus of $12,146. But even the higher earning family still receives well over half of the earner’s PAYE payments back.

Who are the benefactors here? The benefactors are those without children who are trying to get by on $30,000 per year and not receiving a penny from working for families (but still qualifying for an accommodation supplement of about $60 per week). The other benefactors are those who receive none of these taxpayer funded handouts but who fund a huge proportion of them: those who contribute more tax because they earn more.

Essentially, the financial landscape this creates is one where a family on a low to medium income with several children has little incentive to increase their salary/wages beyond around $36,000 (the level at which state handouts start to decrease). Even if they had a salary of $70,000, the difference in financial positions would not reflect this increase in earnings.

That’s what I’m talking about when I talk about statism and wealth redistribution. It’s not just rhetoric without substance. It’s a real system that demonstrably penalises the high achievers, and for everyone else it serves as the great equaliser, making it seem like nobody’s earning more than anyone else. When everyone gets ahead – nobody gets ahead, nor is there any incentive to do so.

Socialism is an easy disease to catch. Labour roll out their election bribe for students and our daughter Sheridan (Sherry) gets excited. She starts Uni in March and at that point will have to quit her part-time job as the hours will conflict with her studies.

For a 16 year old she earns a fair amount of money. Being homeschooled has meant she has had the flexibility to work when other teenagers would be in school; she does her school work in the morning, works the lunch rush at a local cafe, heads to the paddock to ride her horse (which she bought and maintains on her own income), then has band practice (she bought the drum kit, electric and bass guitars for the band out of her earnings), then shops on Trade Me for T-shirts and CD’s or goes to the movies or the mall with her friends.

Given how used she is to her cashflow being rather lush and the freedom and fun it brings she is not excited about the impact on her wallet that starting Uni will mean. Like most households we earn more than the threshold so Sherry does not qualify for the student allowance.

At the point she realised how her financial situation was going to change, she had a teenage moment of refusing to go to Uni. That lasted the length of the next shift when I casually asked her how her life long career as a kitchen hand was going, she had just been complaining about how sore her feet were. She got the point. “No way am I working this hard for such a pathetic hourly rate for the rest of my life. All the adults at work, for whom this is their career, tell me they wish they could have gone to University.”

Wisdom is erratic with teenagers. Only a few short months later she hears a news headline that Labour are going to raise the student allowance threshold. Of course when the details came out she realised that she would not be benefiting from it as even when the first threshold kicks in its still set too low to help her.

I pulled her up on her disappointment. I reminded her of her anger on receiving her first pay check from her first paper-run, she was in tears because she had not realised just how much tax would come out of it when she had pre-spent it in her head – we had tried to tell her. She ranted for days about the injustice of being taxed at age 13 without the possibility of even voting for 5 more years. I asked her to think about her friends at the cafe who, like her, work hard for not much and even less after tax. She got it. They work hard, their feet hurt, the work bores them but unlike her they don’t get to dream of being whatever they want. Their reality is her part-time, short-term job. They don’t have the skills she has to lift herself higher, why should they have to pay for her education?

If she wants to get the letters after her name that will be her ticket to leave serving coffee to the realm of one of those jobs you do before you get a real job, then she has to foot the bill. The public already pay a huge part of the real cost anyway, the majority in fact, but they are not the only beneficiaries of a skilled workforce, those that gain the ability to sip the lattes on their lunch break from their highly paid jobs need to cough up some of it too.

The average student loan is less than ¼ of 1 years post-tertiary wage. It’s hardly the life-long debt we are led to believe.

Sherry doesn’t need the student allowance anyway; we will pay for her Uni fees and provide for her living costs and a bus pass to Uni. We have had 16 years to plan for this and we want her to stay at home til her brain is fully developed anyway - even if it adds a few grey hairs. Our family and friends will give her ample chances to pick up some spending money with the odd babysitting job. She'll be ok. Not being able to add a CD to her collection every week and buying her jeans from the Warehouse instead of the Lee Jeans shop for the next few years won't kill her and it certainly doesn't justify adding to the tax burden of her current workmates.

I was absolutely horrified to wake up this morning to hear that Parliament had passed the Criminal Procedure Bill last night.

While there were some good things in the Bill (as there usually are) such as the district courts being able to hear P cases, I am most appalled at the attack on double jeopardy; the rule that a defendant cannot be tried more than once on the same set of facts (note: we are not talking new facts, new evidence). This law was laid down in section 26 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act:

"No one who has been finally acquitted or convicted of, or pardoned for, an offence shall be tried or punished for it again."

The doctrines autrefois acquit and autrefois convict (the defendant has already been acquitted or convicted on these facts) have long been established within common law and find their place in human rights charters around the world so for the government to erode them in this manner is yet another example of their disregard for rights and freedoms.

In the system of law we use in New Zealand a person is innocent until proven guilty. This system means inevitably that sometimes the guilty will get off and the innocent will be convicted. Whilst no one likes or condones these negative connotations the alternative is worse because the solution to ensuring that the guilty always get convicted is to imprison every accused and likewise, the solution to ensuring the innocent never get convicted is to never convict anyone. The system is balanced to make it difficult to convict because it is generally deemed worse to send an innocent person to jail than to fail to punish the guilty.

So we are left having to accept that once a court has heard a case, weighed the evidence and ruled, that's that. Allowing the state to keep having a go because despite the court's assessment, the state "know" this person is guilty (or worse because of trial by media, the public "know") is to give the state far too much power and to give society far too much uncertainty in the justice system. Whilst it may succeed in increasing the chances of nailing the guilty it equally runs the risk of allowing the state to run trial after trial after trial with its vast resources against the innocent.

Labour undid hundreds of years of jurisprudence on human rights formulated by far greater legal and ethical minds than any of them possess in one sitting last night. Just remember that next time you decide that someone guilty got off after listening to the 8 second soundbite on the news or reading the 600 word article in the Herald; if a judge and 12 of your peers who heard all of the evidence, got to see the body-language and hear the tone of voice of the witnesses ruled the other way, maybe they were in a better position to assess the case. If the police failed to build their case then tough. If anything, knowing they can have a second crack will encourage them proceed with a lower standard of evidence.

Of course with the passage of this Bill the government have not completely removed Double Jeopardy but have only removed it in certain circumstances which the Herald reports as:

"when compelling evidence has been presented that is likely to lead to conviction, and when an acquittal is found to have been tainted."

However, the common law already allowed this following Connelly v DPP [1964] AC 1254, which allowed exceptions on the grounds of special circumstances such as so called tainted trials and new evidence but this law goes further than that.

When you put together:

The Doonegate affair
The repeat failure to rosecute politicians who commit crimes
The abolition of the Privy Council replaced with a unilateral state appointment of judges
The passing of the Terrorism Suppression Act
The Electoral Finance Act
The illegitamcy of retroactive legislation
The placing of what consistutes reaonable force in the hands of the police rather than a court
The personal use of police resources
The public commitment to marginalise critical viewpoints from society
The increased presence of trial by media
The increased growth and intrusion of the state into daily life
(and probably more than I can think of just now)

alongside a series of reforms, the common thread of which makes it easier for the state to successfully prosecute we realise just how scary New Zealand has become in the few short years of this Labour government.

Madeleine

UPDATE:

I discovered on reading Don't Vote Labour "The bill passed its third reading 108-11, with the Greens, the Maori Party and independent MP Gordon Copeland opposing it."

While I am not surprised to find myself in the same company as the Greens and the Maori Party on this one as the Greens do occaisionaly stand on the right side of these types of ethical issues (though often the reasons they give are completely bizarre) and the Maori Party I have a lot of time for on some issues of this nature such as the Seabed and Foreshore, but what was with ACT voting for it?

In the last 24 hours I have been following the debate over the father convicted for assaulting his son. Predictably I have heard differing views from many people whose sense I respect. On the one hand I have heard that he was only prosecuted for delivering three smacks. On the other I have heard that there were other factors, the man lost his temper and left bruises.

Reflecting on this has led me to wonder if there is more to this than the surface debate. Is this debate simply a symptom of a corruption of confidence that has occurred in the last few years (or even few months).

Under the old law we knew that a person accused of child abuse could argue that their act was reasonable in the circumstances. We knew also that 12 people, randomly selected from the population, screened for bias had examined the facts and we knew there were strict rules of evidence applied. We also knew that the judiciary and police were independent of the government. And we knew that if an error was made we could appeal to higher independent tribunals if necessary. Hence if a person was prosecuted for “assaulting their child” we could have a degree of confidence they had done so unjustifiably. We also had some confidence that mistakes would be corrected. Of course the system was not perfect. It never is. But it was reliable.

Now we don’t. There is no distinction between reasonable and unreasonable force for correction in law. All force for correction no matter how trivial is unreasonable under the letter of the law. We know that this is absurd and against common sense. However we are told that we do not have to worry because police can exercise discretion and we can trust them.

The problem is, many of the same people have just told us that the police cannot be trusted. In the last month we have been told that are police are racist and will accuse of terrorism without evidence often from the same community that supported appealing S 59.The greens have warned us that, under terrorism legislation that state have wide discretion that they can use the police to silence dissent. Apparently those in power can’t be trusted to use commonsense in discretion. The Maori party has also told us that this police, whom can be trusted to exercise discretion, overreact to allegations of violence and will proceed terrorize families and children in their zeal. Both these groups exhorted us to trust police discretion in their voting on s59. We know that only in the last 24 hours a high profile police officer, who has been dodged by rape charges for several years, has resigned before he faced investigation on unspecified charges of misconduct. We also know several of his colleagues have been convicted of rape. We also know that at least three MP’s have committed assaults, the police know it, and they choose not to prosecute. We know that one of these MP’s assaulted children while a teacher and this was not considered serious. We also know that the police seem to almost never prosecute labour MP’s who commit crimes accept when those MP’s are ones known to be offside with the PM. We also know, however, that they did try to Prosecute National MP Nick Smith and that merely owing 35$ to an MP warrants a police car to be dispatched to the creditors house. We also know that recently evidence suppressed by the courts was leaked to the media, and confident claims by people on the far-left is that that the police, whom these people assure us we can trust to not use their power unjustly, leaked the documents to subvert a fair trial.

As to the courts we have heard in the last 24 hours, again from the Greens, that the court may have convicted and innocent man for murder. We know also that the Privy Council overturned another murder conviction, one that had been subjected to intense review from all NZ’s appeal courts, and described it as a miscarriage of justice. We also know that the privacy council has been scrapped, because the government considers it unnecessary, and that the ruling party now appoints the judges. We also are aware of evidence the court suppressed in the aforementioned police rape case may have lead to their conviction. We also suspect the courts have suppressed evidence which appears to provide a basis for thinking a group of people are terrorists.

We also have no idea what exactly our leaders consider reasonable or unreasonable force. We are told that violence is never OK. But that an MP who punches another will not face any serious ramification. We also know that a history of abusing children as a teacher does not disqualify you from being a government minister. While violence is never OK, we also are told that people who talk about killing pakeha, talk about engaging in armed insurgency, talk about assassinating people, also buy military weapons, dress as military soldiers and practice military style maneuvers are just mouthing of and it’s an overreaction to think otherwise. Apparently activists on the left mouth off like this all the time. On the other hand we have heard that health professionals should should ask questions of all women admitted to their care in order to screen for violence and abuse. And we know that these questions seem to work with a definition of abuse so broad that everyone is an abuser. Those on the left tell us that while it’s unwarranted to gain warrants for phone taps and surveillance under terror legislation for the above mentioned “mouthing off” families need professionals to regularly monitor them to prevent potential violence.

We also have no clue what the law actually says or how it will be applied. We have just been informed this father would have been prosecuted even if the old law was in place. But they also told us that legislative change was necessary because the old law allowed people to beat their children with planks of wood and could get away with almost anything. They also told us that this law does not mean smacking is illegal. In addition they told us that smacking was already illegal and always had been.

And it’s not just this law. We have been told that the terrorism suppression act was incoherent and impossible to apply. At the same time the MP’s were voting on a slightly amended version of the act and it passed with an overwhelming majority. We have heard that the Electoral Finance Bill law is confusing and difficult to interpret and could threaten our civil liberties. But that’s OK because, you can trust the police the courts and the government to rely on the law of commonsense. As you see from the examples above what our MP’s consider commonsense is difficult to discern.

In a fallen world violence is sometimes necessary. But it needs to be regulated. A civil society needs clear laws that the population can understand and which it’s reasonable to think most people can obey. Exceptions to these laws need to be understandable and not excessively complex to apply. These laws need to be applied impartially to all people regardless of their political allegiances and people who are governed by these laws need to be able to find out what they are. Most importantly we need to be able to trust those in authority to competently establish and maintain such a system

New Zealand is failing to do this. Our leaders in parliament are all over the place, and we have no idea whether those in charge can be trusted to do what they are supposed to do or even know what they are doing. For these reasons people justifiably do not trust the courts or the police to be sensible in prosecuting assaults nor do they trust legislators to pass adequate laws about assault and. And that is the real tragedy of this case.

Here is a list of the instances I can recall where Benson-Pope has blamed one of his staff members for something he did:

• Leaked content of Police Report over Tennis Ball saga - staff member leaked it without his knowledge. (Later turned out it was with his permissison/instruction)
• Having the police collect a $35 cleaning bill - staff member went to police and made request without his knowledge. (Official Information Act request showed his signature on the police forms)
• Playing a part in ending Madeleine Setchell's employment - staff member made calls without his knowledge. (Turns out he forgot that he did intervene)

Are there any more?

Benson-Pope clearly has really crappy staff.

Benson-Pope is someone that the more closely you observe him the more his slimy, smarmy, bullying, bullet-dodging just pisses you off.

Until recently I used to live in Dunedin so I have had a few encounters with Mr Benson-Pope a.k.a. panty slut boy and have crossed swords with him politically and know other people who have too. I find him an unpleasant person and a liar.

The hit he has taken is well deserved. About time. But what annoys me is that he escaped just desserts over so many other issues. But oh well, at least this hit didn't bounce off.

The beehive website is not up with the play though cause they still have him on their site as a Minister.

Interestingly Ian Wishart has re-released his findings on Benson-Pope's involvement in the Dunedin Bondage and Discipline scene with the rather interesting addition:

"[Benson-Pope] went to the trouble of ringing a senior Otago Daily Times journalist at home that evening, expressly to ensure that the newspaper was not quoting him as denying the story. "

This was always a story I felt certain should have had a lot more air time by the media than it did.

It had the now familiar to us all ring of Benson-Pope's dodging the truth.

Add to that our own experience of Benson-Pope's lies. He told the media when he used the police to collect a $35 cleaning bill (the police were his first line of request for this bill - most people would use a 45c stamp first...) that it was not him who utilised police resources as his personal debt collection service but his secretary without his permission (sound familiar?). In fact when we used the official information act to get the files on this incident whose signature was on the request to the police to do the debt collecting? NOT his secretary's but his!

If you can't pay for your traffic fines you will soon be able to drive at speeds like those that Helen travels at when she is late for rugby games with no fear for your wallet.

Yep folks the government's latest socialist policy is that those who cannot afford to pay their traffic fines should not have to.

This is apparently supposed to help those on low incomes who commit traffic offenses. Why should anyone get help with breaking the law? Don't want a $200 speeding ticket? Don't speed. Don't cry I'm poor, I should be allowed to speed for free...

Apparently its because a $200 fine is nothing to a rich person but to a poor person its your whole family's grocery bill for a week. Well on that rationale lets take a look at the cost of groceries - for a poor person the family grocery bill takes most of their paycheck/benefit but for a rich person its nothing... I guess the goverment should pass a law making all supermarkets inflate their prices for rich people and reduce them for the poor....

Murray certainly thinks so and I am inclined to agree from what I have heard so far from the man. Of course it could all be the way the media are reporting things but Key does appear to be pulling National more centrist and last time National were over there it was disastrous for them.

Sure, this time they are facing an incumbant govt which is steeped in scandal and so there will probably be some moderate Labour voters who might vote for what Murray has renamed National, "Labour Lite", but what of those on the centre right and further over to the right (as in correct) position?

It looks like we are left with voting National because its not Labour or jumping to ACT's two man band.

Brash has quit parliament apparently. Its a shame in many ways because he really had a lot to contribute and I would have liked to see him do more.

That said, if he had an affair whilst in office [note use of "if"] then he is unfit for office and quite rightly should go and sort out his personal affairs.

I am sick of this country accepting as public representatives people devoid of ethics, people unable to keep promises, people unable to tell the truth and people who think they are above the law and that the way to rebut anyone pointing out any of these things and questioning them on them is to dig dirt on them and say derogatory things about them.

Now to be fair to Brash, he did not do a Liarbour and he did leave. I don't for a second view him with the sheer utter contempt I view Helen, Field, Hodgson, Benson-Pope, Dyson and other Liarbour MP's still in office who have done despicable, unethical things and remained in office. Brash has redeemed himself in my eyes because he has done the right thing after allegedly messing up and doing the wrong thing.