Victory for junior doctors

Junior doctors have won their employment dispute with the DHBs, getting a 5.8% pay rise. More importantly, they also ensured that they would continue to have a say in future employment conditions, rather than having them determined by a committee on which the DHBs had an automatic majority. See? Getting together with friends when you negotiate does work...

Accountability III

Last week, the Democrats won control of both the US House and Senate. Cynics have asked what they are willing to do with this newfound power. Today, we have the first answer: hold the Bush Administration accountable for its illegal program of "extraordinary rendition":

The new chairman of the Senate armed services committee, the Democratic senator Carl Levin, revealed that he was "not comfortable" with the rendition system and said it was making the US less secure.

The extra-judicial programme has seen untried criminal suspects rounded up by CIA operatives in more than a dozen countries and sent to third states for interrogation. Some captives have allegedly been snatched off the streets and suffered torture in detention.

Asked whether he would investigate the renditions programme, including the secret prisons and missing detainees, Mr Levin replied: "Yes. Yes, yes and yes."

Holding hearings doesn't sound like much - but it is the first step towards both accountability and policy change. However, it may also be the first step towards a full-blown constitutional crisis. Vice-President Dick Cheney has already declared that he would "probably not" appear if subpoenaed to by a Congressional investigation, and instead would claim "executive privilege". This is the same "I am above the law" claim of absolute monarchical Presidential authority made by Nixon over the Watergate tapes. It was roundly defeated thirty years ago, but the question is whether a Supreme Court dominated by Bush appointees will feel the same way, or whether they will reverse the precedent of United States v. Nixon in favour of Bush's preferred constitutional theories...

Turitea windfarm goes to court

A couple of months ago, I sent in a submission opposing Palmerston North City Council's plans to develop a windfarm in the Turitea Reserve behind Massey University. Today I got a letter in the mail from the Friends of the Turitea Reserve Society inviting me to join and help fund their court case. And looking at tonight's Manawatu Standard, it seems the case has already begun - the Friends of the Turitea Reserve are seeking a declaration from the High Court that the council's decision to allow renewable electricity generation in the reserve (a decision which scored them a $250,000 "milestone payment" from Mighty River Power - my local government is transparently for sale) was unlawful:

Documents lodged with the High Court said the council's decision to add the further purpose to the reserve is ultra vires and unlawful because the Reserves Act does not allow a purpose that is mutually incompatible with existing purposes. The two original purposes of the reserve were to protect flora and fauna and the water supply.

The society also questions the council's consultation process saying information contained in the consultation document and in council representations was "unbalanced, misleading and biased" in its representation of the benefit of the wind farm proposal.

I'm not sure how good their case is - DOC apparently changed its mind on the question of incompatibility with the Reserves Act - but I hope they're successful. Don't get me wrong - I like windfarms - I just don't think there's any need to repurpose reserves and cut down regenerating native bush to make space for them. There's plenty of ordinary farmland on the Tararuas, and they should fill that before even thinking about touching reserve land.

If you'd like to help the case, email turiteareserve@yahoo.co.nz and ask for a membership form. Membership is $10, and I should probably put my money where my mouth is and join something for once.

I don't care

That's pretty much my attitude to The Stadium, and indeed the entire Rugby World Cup. Sure, the event itself is good insofar as it will allow us to suck money from foreign rugby fans, and they will need somewhere to play the damn thing - but that's really where my interest begins and ends. Government paying for it? Well, it also pays for the NZSO - which I don't go to either - so I can hardly complain if rugby or other cultural events get government support as well. Provided its done properly, and actually built on time, then I really don't give a damn.

Of course, those are actually two very big reasons for concern. I'm not an engineer, but the thought of simply sticking piles in the seabed to find out whether the project is possible doesn't sound like a particularly good idea when the clockis ticking. Neither does bypassing the RMA with special legislation. The RMA exists for a good reason: to balance competing interests and allow communities to determine their preferred level of development. Despite the beliefs of rugby fans, the World Cup is not a national emergency which would justify casting that aside with a Muldoon-style National Development Act. If this means the waterfront stadium can't be completed on time, then maybe they should look at another option - or have started thinking about the problem a little sooner.

As for all this talk of an iconic waterfront development, I've heard a lot of this sort of thing over the years. Normally it's from small towns, and results in their errecting a giant fiberglass vegetable or corrugated iron gumboot - or worse, trying to turn their city council building into a casino. Its interesting to see that small-town insecurity extends even to the leaders of our largest city. But you have to wonder why they don't adopt the same solution. If they're so keen on a monument to their own greatness, a giant fiberglass penis on the waterfront would send a clear message of what Auckland is all about. But I suppose that would be redundant, given that they already have the Skytower...

New Fisk

Lebanon faces new crisis after walkout by Hizbollah

Circumlocutions

A Sydney Morning Herald piece on comments about Private Jake Kovco (the first Australian soldier to die in Iraq) caught my eye for its remarkable circumlocution:

The family of Private Jake Kovco, who was shot dead in his Iraq barracks, say they are wounded and angered by criticism over his name being included on Australia's War Memorial honour roll.

[...]

Pte Kovco died after being shot in the head with his own handgun on April 21 while stationed in Iraq.

(Emphasis added)

While there's some dispute over the circumstances, what is clear is that no-one else shot him. Can't they just be honest and say that he shot himself, whether accidentally or deliberately?

Fundamentally illiberal

The Netherlands is famous for being a tolerant, liberal society. So it's a little startling to see that their government is apparently planning to ban the burka:

The Netherlands may become the first European country to ban Muslim face veils after its government pledged yesterday to outlaw the wearing in public spaces of the niqab, or veil, and the burka, or full-length cloak covering the head.

The right-leaning coalition said last night that it would look for a way to outlaw the wearing of all Muslim face veils. The grounds for a ban were laid last December when parliament voted in favour of a proposal to criminalise face coverings, as part of a security measure proposed by a far-right politician, Geert Wilders.

Rita Verdonk, the immigration minister, signalled that the government would now push for a total ban, even though the legislation would be likely to contravene Dutch religious freedom laws.

"The cabinet finds the wearing of a burka undesirable ... but cannot at present enforce a total ban," the Dutch news agency ANP quoted her as saying after a cabinet meeting.

This is a fundamentally illiberal move. No matter what you may think of Islam, veils, or burkas, what you wear is a vital part of freedom of expression, and in this case of religious expression - values fundamental to a liberal society. In a liberal society, it is simply assumed that (barring workplace safety issues, or balaclavas in banks), you can wear what you like in public. It is not the government's business to dictate fashion or tell you what you should wear, any more than it is their business to tell you what you should believe or what you can and cannot do in bed. As John Stuart Mill pointed out in On Liberty

the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection.

There is simply no such justification here. While burkas may be undesirable for all sorts of reasons, wearing a burka in and of itself does not directly threaten anyone. The proposed ban is nothing more than an act of outright religious discrimination - and one that sends a clear message to moderate Muslims that their faith is incompatible with the west. So much for winning hearts and minds...

As for why this is happening, the Dutch have an election in two weeks - and some of their politicians aren't above a bit of opportunistic immigrant-bashing to boost their chances.

New Fisk

Here come the odious excuses

A sinister double standard

Two trials in Britain last week have exposed a sinister double standard over Muslims and "hate speech". Mizanur Rahman had spoken at a protest against the publication of the infamous Danish cartoons, saying that "we want to see [British troops'] blood running in the streets of Baghdad" and calling for further 9/11-style attacks in Europe. He had also carried a sign saying "Annihilate those who insult Islam". On Thursday, he was convicted of inciting racial hatred. British National Party leader Nick Griffin faced similar charges over speeches in which he called Muslims "cockroaches" and Islam a "wicked, vicious faith", and called for his followers to "show these ethnics the door in 2004". On Friday, he was acquitted, after arguing that his words were aimed at Muslims, who were not a racial group in terms of the law.

You don't need to be a genius to see that there is a tension between the two verdicts. In one case, Muslims are not a racial group, and therefore any speech, no matter how vicious, is allowed (a fact which has caused the government to try amending the law in the past). In the other, non-Muslims are considered a racial group. This is inconsistent and hypocritical, and sends a clear message to Muslims that, where freedom of speech is concerned, they are second-class citizens. They can be abused and vilified at will, but cannot respond in kind.

I oppose hate speech laws, but I particularly oppose inconsistent and hypocritical ones. Freedom of speech cuts both ways, and you cannot consistently demand it for yourself while denying it to others. Again, it will be interesting to see whether those local bloggers who opposed the UK's Racial and Religious Hatred Bill on freedom of speech grounds will be quite so vocal in condemning this verdict - or whether the "freedom of speech" they support is freedom only for themselves.

Bail and the presumption of innocence

The Sensible Sentencing Trust has reacted to the bailing of Chris Kahui by calling for a law change to prevent those accused of murder from being granted bail. Apparently, this has "made a mockery of our justice system". I disagree. Rather, what would make "a mockery of our justice system" would be to bow to the demands of the "hang 'em high" brigade and start treating people accused of serious crime as guilty and deserving of punishment, despite the fact that they have not been convicted.

In this country, people are innocent until proven guilty. This has been part of our legal tradition for centuries, and is affirmed in s25(c) of our Bill of Rights Act. A consequence of this is that we cannot imprison them simply because they have been accused of a crime, no matter how serious. Bail is available as of right for most offences, and according to the Bail Act 2000, those accused of serious crimes must be released

on reasonable terms and conditions unless the court is satisfied that there is just cause for continued detention.

There are three primary reasons why a defendant might be refused bail. Being accused of a crime which outrages the public is not one of them. Rather, it is a matter of whether there is a risk of flight, interference with witnesses, or further offending while on bail (previous conviction for the same offence may also be a reason, but even then it simply raises the bar for bail to be granted). Chris Kahui clearly didn't meet those conditions in the eyes of the judge, and so bail was granted. This is as it should be - anything else would constitute punishment without trial.

If Kahui is convicted, then he will no doubt be sentenced to a long spell in prison. But he should serve that sentence only after conviction, not before.

Civil unions in Mexico

Mexico City - or rather, the Mexican Federal District - has just passed a civil union law. And the northern state of Coahuila is also reportedly working on one. Step by step, state by state, freedom advances...

More accountability

It looks like the Democrat's victory in Wednesday's US elections will claim another victim: US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton. He was appointed in 2005 as a recess appointment, but his bullying style hasn't made the US any friends there. Likewise, his insolence and contempt hasn't made any friends in the Senate, and as a result, his nomination is now effectively dead. So long, John - we won't miss you.

New Fisk

Journalists' Coverage of Middle East Shallow and Distorted
Echoes of the Roman Empire

Draconian

For the past eight months, radiographers at half the country's district health boards have been trying unsuccessfully to negotiate pay parity with radiographers in other DHBs. There have been several strikes on the way, but now negotiations have really broken down, and so the radiographers are walking off the job in much of the country for 10 days.

No-one will die because of this, as the radiographers are required to provide life-preserving services. However, the absence of X-rays and MRIs in non-life threatening cases will significantly disrupt surgery, and cause a significant amount of discomfort to many patients.

Normally, you expect businesses affected by strikes to try and get on with it as best they can, and assess the relative merits of further disruption versus going back to the bargaiing table. However, the response of the Canterbury District Health Board has been nothing short of draconian. Rather than negotiate with their workers, they are calling on the government to bar strikes in the health sector - effectively reducing their workers to slaves. I guess it beats paying them what they're worth - at least to the minds of some on the DHB.

Fortunately, District Health Boards are elected, and nominally accountable to their constituents. I'll be gathering information on who is responsible for this demand so they can be held accountable in local body elections next year. Anyone in Christchurch want to help?

Not just a federal victory

While we're celebrating yesterday's Democrat victory in the US elections, its worth remembering that the US has more than one layer of government, and that state legislatures and governorships were also up for grabs. So, how'd they do? According to the New York Times, pretty much the same:

Democratic gains in Congress and among the nation’s governors were matched on Tuesday by a huge surge closer to the grass roots — in the state legislatures, where more than 275 seats and nine legislative chambers from Iowa to Oregon switched overnight from Republican to Democratic hands.

With those legislative victories combined with the six new Democratic governors elected on Tuesday, Democrats are now the one-party government in 15 states — including New Hampshire for the first time since 1874, and Colorado for the first time since 1960. No party has controlled as many as 15 states since the Republicans achieved that exact number after the 1994 election.

And they made those gains across the board - not just in the liberal northeast and the battleground of the midwest, but in the south as well.

Meanwhile, voters also shot down South Dakota's referendum to ban abortion, and parental notification laws in California and Oregon, and raised the minimum wage in six states. Unfortunately, there is a bitter taste: seven states also constitutionally barred same-sex marriage or civil unions. So, while enormous progress was made, it was by no means a complete victory.

On the plus side, the US Congress now has its first Muslim member. Maybe that will make it harder for the Republicans to demonise Muslims, when there's one sitting right there across the chamber...

Drinking age: the vote

The Herald has posted voting lists for last night's vote on the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill:

Ayes:

• Jim Anderton (Progressive Coalition, Wigram)
• Chester Borrows (National, Whanganui)
• Peter Brown (New Zealand First, List)
• John Carter (National, Northland)
• Ashraf Choudhary (Labour, List)
• Bob Clarkson (National, Tauranga)
• Johnathan Coleman (National, Northcote)
• Gordon Copeland (United Future, List)
• Clayton Cosgrove (Labour, Waimakariri)
• David Cunliffe (Labour, New Lynn)
• Brian Donnelly (New Zealand First, List)
• Harry Duynhoven (Labour, New Plymouth)
• Taito Phillip Field (Labour, Mangere)
• Christopher Finlayson (National, List)
• Te Ururoa Flavell (Maori Party, Waiariki)
• Craig Foss (National, Tukituki)
• Martin Gallagher (Labour, Hamilton West)
• Jo Goodhew (National, Aoraki)
• Sandra Goudie (National, Coromandel)
• Hone Harawira (Maori Party, Te Tai Tokerau)
• John Hayes (National, Wairarapa)
• Phillip Heatley (National, Whangarei)
• Shane Jones (Labour, List)
• John Key (National, Helensville)
• Annette King (Labour, Rongotai)
• Colin King (National, kaikoura)
• Winnie Laban (Labour, Mana)
• Nanaia Mahuta (Labour, Tainui)
• Wayne Mapp (National, North Shore)
• Ron Mark (New Zealand First, List)
• Sue Moroney (Labour, List)
• Pita Paraone (New Zealand First, List)
• Winston Peters (New Zealand First, List)
• Ross Robertson (Labour, Manukau East)
• Eric Roy (National, Invercargill)
• Tony Ryall (National, Bay of Plenty)
• Dover Samuels (Labour, List)
• Pita Sharples (Maori Party, Tamaki-Makaurau)
• Nick Smith (National, Nelson)
• Barbara Stewart (New Zealand First, List)
• Paul Swain (Labour, Rimutaka)
• Georgina te Heuheu (National, List)
• Anne Tolley (National, East Coast)
• Chris Tremain (National, Napier)
• Tariana Turia (Maori Party, Te Tai Hauauru)
• Judy Turner (United Future, List)
• Doug Woolerton (New Zealand First, List)
• Richard Worth (National, List)
• Dianne Yates (Labour, List)

Noes:

• Shane Ardern (National, Taranaki-King Country)
• Chris Auchinvole (National, List)
• Rick Barker (Labour, List)
• Tim Barnett (Labour, Christchurch Central)
• David Bennett (National, Hamilton East)
• Paula Bennett (National, List)
• David Benson-Pope (Labour, Dunedin South)
• Georgina Beyer (Labour, List)
• Jackie Blue (National, List)
• Mark Blumsky (National, List)
• Sue Bradford (Green, List)
• Don Brash (National, List)
• Gerry Brownlee (National, Ilam)
• Mark Burton (Labour, Taupo)
• Chris Carter (Labour, Te Atatu)
• David Carter (National, List)
• Steve Chadwick (Labour, Rotorua)
• Charles Chauvel (Labour, List)
• Helen Clark (Labour, Mt Albert)
• Judith Collins (National, Clevedon)
• Brian Connell (National, Rakaia)
• Michael Cullen (Labour, List)
• Lianne Dalziel (Labour, Christchurch East)
• Jacqui Dean (National, Otago)
• Peter Dunne (United Future, Ohariu-Belmont)
• Ruth Dyson (Labour, Banks Peninsula)
• Bill English (National, Clutha-Southland)
• Russell Fairbrother (Labour, List)
• Darien Fenton (Labour, List)
• Jeanette Fitzsimons (Green, List)
• Phil Goff (Labour, Mt Roskill)
• Mark Gosche (Labour, Maungakiekie)
• Tim Groser (National, List)
• Nathan Guy (National, List)
• Ann Hartley (Labour, List)
• George Hawkins (Labour, Manurewa)
• Tau Henare (National, List)
• Dave Hereora (Labour, List)
• Rodney Hide (ACT, Epsom)
• Marian Hobbs (Labour, Wellington Central)
• Pete Hodgson (Labour, Dunedein North)
• Parekura Horomia (Labour, Ikaroa-Rawhiti)
• Darren Hughes (Labour, Otaki)
• Paul Hutchison (National, Port Waikato)
• Sue Kedgley (Green, List)
• Keith Locke (Green, List)
• Moana Mackey (Labour, List)
• Steve Maharey (Labour, Palmerston North)
• Trevor Mallard (Labour, Hutt South)
• Murray McCully (National, East Coast Bays)
• Damien O'Connor (Labour, West Coast-Tasman)
• Mahara Okeroa (Labour, Te Tai Tonga)
• David Parker (Labour, List)
• Allan Peachey (National, Tamaki)
• Jill Pettis (Labour, List)
• Lynne Pillay (Labour, Waitakere)
• Simon Power (National, Rangitikei)
• Katherine Rich (National, List)
• Mita Ririnui (Labour, List)
• Heather Roy (ACT, List)
• Clem Simich (National, List)
• Lockwood Smith (National, Rodney)
• Maryan Street (Labour, List)
• Nandor Tanczos (Green, List)
• Lindsay Tisch (National, Piako)
• Judith Tizard (Labour, Auckland Central)
• Metiria Turei (Green, List)
• Nicky Wagner (National, List)
• Kate Wilkinson (National, List)
• Maurice Williamson (National, Pakuranga)
• Margaret Wilson (Labour, List)
• Pansy Wong (National, List)

No abstentions - everybody voted!

The results have also been entered into the CommoNZ archive of conscience votes here, which allows them to be searched and compared with votes on previous bills. And lining up the results side by side, its clear that both an awful lot of MPs changed their minds between the first and second reading. It's also clear that a few who opposed lowering the drinking age in the first place have accepted that there is no going back now, and that it is untenable to remove rights from people who can vote. By contrast, the number of people who voted for a lower age in 1999 and who now think they made a serious mistake is limited to two: Wayne Mapp and Nick Smith.

In terms of the party split, National and Labour were mixed (with Labour being more heavily opposed than National), ACT and the Greens were 100% against, while NZ First and the Maori Party were 100% in favour.

Accountability

Who was responsible for the Republican Party's humiliating loss in yesterday's mid-term elections? It can be summed up in three words: George W. Bush. His foreign policy chickens have come home to roost with a vengeance, and America is now bogged down in Iraq with no way out, no end in sight, and no friends to help them. Normally, you'd expect some show of contrition or personal acknowledgement of the people's concerns after such a thumping defeat, but Bush didn't do that. Instead, he fired Donald Rumsfeld.

There's no question that Rumsfeld deserved to be fired long ago, though I'd prefer that it had been done over his involvement in torture rather than mere incompetence. But at the same time, this is classic Bush. It's always somebody else's fault, and there's always somebody else to take the blame so that he doesn't have to acknowledge that he fucked up and admit responsibility for his own actions.

Fortunately, now that the Dems control the House (don't you just love saying it?), there's some chance that they'll be able to sheet some of that responsibility home to Bush, and finally hold him accountable for the disaster that his presidency has turned into.

Carnival of the Liberals

The twenty-fifth Carnival of the Liberals is now up at Philosophy, etc.

National's hypocrisy on coal

Yesterday in Question Time, National Party climate change spokesperson Dr Nick Smith attacked the government over Marsden B, asking the Prime Minister

Why have her Ministers supported the decision of the Government company Mighty River Power to proceed with a 320-megawatt coal-fired power station in Whangarei—a plant with a life of 40 years, over which it will emit 36 million tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere—and how is that decision consistent with the Prime Minister’s aspiration that New Zealand should be carbon neutral?

Quite apart from the fact that the government hasn't so much "supported" Marsden B as taken the usual stance of not interfering in the day to day business decisions of an SOE, its a bit rich for National to be complaining about this. In case anyone has forgotten, back in 2004 National was explicitly supporting Marsden B, saying that

The Government must ensure that it doesn’t let the RMA sink this desperately needed piece of generation like it sank Project Aqua

and that "coal has a key role to play in the future generation needs for New Zealand" and that therefore National would oppose any carbon tax.

Labour has been slack in acting on climate change - but National has been far worse, opposing any action whatsoever and even going so far as to deny that the problem was even real. For them to complain now about the government's slow pace is the height of hypocrisy.

Kept at 18

The Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill just lost its second reading, 72 - 49. An excellent end to a great political day. And just to cap it all off, it looks like the Democrats may have won the Senate as well.

Details of the vote will be up as soon as I receive them.