Let's all laugh at the religious person

DPF has some amusing excerpts from Gordon Copeland's autopbiography. They make me very glad that this freak is no longer in Parliament.

Gordon Copeland is a moron

Poor Gordon Copeland. Now that he's left United Future over the right of parents to beat their children, he faces the problems of the independent MP: a drafty seat by the door with only Taito Philip Field for company, few speaking slots in debates, and even fewer questions at Question Time. The least you'd expect is that he would actually use those resources to represent his constituents, but sadly, even that seems to be beyond him. Today, he had a rare primary question slot at Question Time. He didn't use it, or even trade it to another party. As a result, there are only 11 questions being asked. What a moron.

Not even the Christians want Gordon Copeland

It looks no-one wants Gordon Copeland. First, there was his embarassing fallout with Destiny New Zealand. Now, his own party, Future New Zealand, has decided to dispense with his leadership, and even changed their name in an effort to disassociate themselves from him. Copeland is trying to but a brave face on it, but it seems his former colleagues don't really want him. How sad.

Glove puppet

Well, it seems National has at least one supporter for their plan to sell SOEs to pay for tax-cuts: Gordon Copeland. The man really has turned into a complete glove puppet.

Meanwhile, I wonder if this means the Dunne faction of United Future has returned to sanity? They're certainly keeping very quiet on this...

Divorce

The civil union of Gordon Copeland and Destiny New Zealand is officially over. On Morning Report this morning, Gordon Copeland announced that he wanted nothing more to do with Brian Tamaki, Richard Lewis, or Destiny New Zealand, and while he was intending to co-lead a new pan-Christian party, the level of mistrust was too high and Destiny would not be involved. So, the party fell apart before it was even formed, a level of sectarianism worthy of Trotskyites.

Still, there is one positive note: no-one had to lose their head for this divorce.

Private property bill dead

The Justice and Electoral select committee has finally reported back [PDF] on Gordon Copeland's New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill and recommended that it not proceed. The bill would have inserted two clauses into the BORA - one affirming a right to own property, and the other that no-one was to be deprived of the "use or enjoyment" of their property without just compensation. While being supportive of the idea behind the bill, the committee thought that it was vague, would have a profound impact on existing legislation, and impose unknown costs on central and local government. Which was of course the point - Copeland's initial press release made it pretty clear that this was aimed at gutting the RMA by intimidating local bodies with the cost of litigation and uncertain damages. And it's telling that even the National Party - who aren't exactly fond of the RMA - thought this was a bad idea.

So, so much for Copeland's attempt to establish Libertarianism by stealth. I wonder what he'll do next?

Alamein Copeland

That apparently is what United Future's former MP is being called around Parliament. And he deserves it. Not because he jumped parties (something I regard as part of the normal political process), but because like Kopu he wants to continue to collect his MP's salary while not actually bothering to be there. Instead, he thinks that the "tremendous public support" he has received permits him to spend his time away from Parliament building his party, and that he can represent his constituents by not being there.

This wasn't acceptable when ACT was doing it, and its not acceptable for Copeland either. If he's not going to bother to turn up, then he really shouldn't be an MP at all.

Who's next?

Yesterday saw some amusing snark from Peter Dunne over Gordon Copeland's leap of faith, with Dunne reminding people that Copeland - a self-proclaimed "man of integrity" - had supported the United Future caucus' position that list (but not electorate) MPs should resign on leaving their party. I don't for a moment think that Copeland would apply the same rules to himself that he would seek to impose on others - but what if he did? Who would be the next United Future MP if he resigned?

Here's the first 10 places on United Future's 2005 party list:

1. Peter Dunne
2. Judy Turner
3. Gordon Copeland
4. Marc Alexander
5. Larry Baldock
6. Murray Smith
7. Paul Check
8. Janet Tuck
9. Bernie Ogilvy
10. Paul Adams

Of these, Alexander famously left the party citing "religious differences". Murray Smith is currently serving as party vice-president - or at least was the last time UF's website was updated. He's also a fundy originally from Future New Zealand, so may not be sticking around. Baldock has already left. Paul Check was the leader of Outdoor Recreation New Zealand and likewise departed after the election. No-one knew who janet Tuck was during the election campaign, and we know even less about her now. Which may leave "Dr" Bernie Ogilvy as the last man standing. Though given that he was also a fundamentalist whackjob, there may not be much hope there either...

Says it all

The Herald: MP resigns over smacking bill, then misses vote.

John Armstrong is also fairly disparaging on Copeland's behaviour or the chances of his revivied Christian vehicle, saying that he was early for his own execution and on a one-way path to political oblivion.

Perhaps he'll surprise us. Perhaps there is a large theocrat vote lurking under the surface out there, waiting to bound out of their churches and carry Copeland over the 5% threshhold so he can implement God's Plan for New Zealand. But I doubt it.

Toys overboard!

Gordon Copeland is throwing a sulk over the impending passage of Sue Bradford's Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill and is quitting United Future to form his own party with former MP (and fellow Christian extremist) Larry Baldock. While this obviously affects the government's majority in the House, the abstention of the Greens assures them of confidence and supply (59 votes out of 115), and this will be tested in the next few days following the Budget debate. However the loss of Copeland's vote spells even more problems for the government's legislative program. On the positive side, it means they are going to have to rely on the Greens and Maori Party more often to get legislation passed - which will give them greater power to demand concessions and stall bad bills such as the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill.

The bigger picture in all of this is the breakup of United Future. This was originally a conglomeration of Peter Dunne's United New Zealand (a centrist, liberal party) and Future New Zealand (the rump of the 1996 Christian Democrats), which subsequently turned into a takeover. Now the Christians are walking, hopefully Dunne will be able to return to his centrist, secular roots. Though given past polling, he'll almost certainly be doing it all by himself again. As for the "new" Future New Zealand vehicle, it'll likely follow in the footsteps of other such groupings and quietly disappear thanks to the undemocratic threshhold.

Finally, there's a lesson in this for our politicians: you can't trust Christian parties to deliver the votes they have promised - they will flake and betray you. Hopefully this will introduce a note of caution into any future negotiations with such groupings.

The state does belong there

One of the key arguments used by opponents of Sue Bradford's Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill is that smacking is not the business of the state. It's an argument seen clearly in Gordon Copeland's speech on the bill's second reading, where he said

The bill as it stands, in my view, is gravely flawed. I say that because of my deep conviction that the right and the responsibility to train and discipline children belongs to parents. The role of the State should be limited to ensuring, for the common good, the safety of New Zealand children. But subject to that overriding criterion, the choice of which particular means parents use to discipline their children belongs to them, and to them alone.

He goes on to say that the bill intrudes into the home, and that "the State does not belong there". Which is exactly what people said in the past against progressive attempts to criminalise domestic violence, child abuse, and spousal rape. They all happen in the home, but the state very definitely does belong there. And the reason is precisely that duty to ensure people's safety Copeland speaks of - a duty which encompasses all New Zealanders, regardless of age. The core duty of the state is to protect people from violence - and "violence" includes smacking. We would not tolerate bullies giving people a "loving smack" on the street to "discipline" them; we do not tolerate people smacking their partners, even when it causes no more than "transitory and trifling" harm. We should not tolerate people smacking their children either. While parents have a right to raise their children how they wish, they have no right to use violence against them.

An Orwellian moment

There's a memorable scene in 1984 where the official narrative about who the government is at war with changes in the middle of a news broadcast - and it just adopts the new line seamlessly and continues on as if nothing has happened. The same thing seems to have happened in the middle of Gordon Copeland's latest press release on climate change policy. At the beginning of the release, Copeland attacks the government's sustainable land management and climate change policy for suggesting that forest owners pay (either by a flat charge or a tradable permit regime) the cost of carbon released when forested land is converted to agriculture. He then goes on to talk about United Future's new climate change policy, which includes... forest owners paying the cost of carbon released when forested land is converted to agriculture:

"United Future's climate change policies that were announced this morning include a provision that requires the internalisation of all greenhouse gas costs when forested areas are converted to intensive agriculture.

"Where forested land is converted to farming the landowner would bear the Kyoto costs arising from the loss of the carbon sequestration, but would not face a land tax."

Which is exactly the policy he was attacking literally a sentence before. But Copeland doesn't seem to have noticed or care about his contradiction. Oceania has always been at war with East Asia. And United Future has always been in favour of internalising carbon costs.

Electioneering?

Today, a copy of Gordon Copeland's newsletter, "Copeland's Chronicle", landed in my mailbox. It's a special edition, sent out in response to the recent Auditor-General's report that United Future (among others) had unlawfully spent parliamentary Services funds on "electioneering". The bulk of the newsletter is Copeland's third-reading speech on the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill (which you can read here), but it finishes with a not-so-coded appeal for funds:

Concurrently we are seeking support from United Future members and others.

The newsletter is produced by Parliamentay staff and sent from Parliamentary servers. So, does it count as "electioneering"?