More "no-fly" madness

Via CalPundit: More evidence that the Department of Homeland Security's "no-fly" list targets Greens and Democrats:

The Senate Judiciary Committee heard this morning from one of its own about some of the problems with airline "no fly" watch lists. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., says he had a close encounter with the lists when trying to take the U.S. Airways shuttle out of Washington to Boston. The ticket agent wouldn't let him on the plane. His name was on the list in error.

After a flurry of phone calls, Kennedy was able to fly home, but then the same thing happened coming back to Washington.

Kennedy says it took three calls to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to get his name stricken from the list. The process took several weeks, in all.

Unfortunately, it's a bit of a problem if you're not a Senator and don't have that sort of access to those in power.

It will be very interesting to find out how his name got on the list - but I expect the answer will be classified.

Is this the sort of society we want?

The right are constantly pointing to the United States as a model, telling us that we should cut taxes, slash services, and introduce "workfare" schemes for the unemployed. In other words, we should be more like America. But is a widening gap between rich and poor, a rising poverty rate, and reduced access to basic healthcare really the sort of society most New Zealanders want to live in?

I think not.

The opportunity in the "labour shortage"

Catriona MacLennan points out the great contradiction in New Zealand society at the moment: we have 80,000 unemployed ekeing out their lives on inadequete benefits. Worse, we have an "underclass" of people who don't have jobs - who have never had jobs - and who are forced into petty crime to sustain themselves. At the same time, we have a "labour shortage", and employers are beginning to import workers from overseas. The solution is obvious:

Let's think hard before we consider doing that. Now is the perfect time, instead, to make a concerted, nationwide effort to get all the unemployed and underemployed people already living in New Zealand into work.

I agree fully with this sentiment - it is ridiculous to talk of a "labour shortage" when 4% of the workforce is unemployed and actively seeking a job. In the 80's we thought that that level of unemployment was an atrocity. Nowdays, though, the business community is willing to write off those 80,000 people as the "crud at the bottom of the barrel".

What policies can we pursue to ensure that the "labour shortage" turns into tangible benefits for the worst-off in our society? The obvious one is to make it easier for people to move from the benefit into work. This means reducing the harsh clawback regime which prevents the unemployed from building their CVs through part-time work, providing grants and assistance to those wishing to relocate to areas where there are jobs, and eliminating the standdown period which makes taking a job an unacceptable economic risk. Labour has made some progress in this direction, but not enough, and they have focused on punitive measures (such as their infamous "no-go" zones) rather than positive assistance. As for the people MacLennan writes about - people pursuing a life of petty crime because they have no other alternative - the answer is to give them those alternatives. At the moment the probation service simply ignores its charges; they should be actively working to find them meaningful employment, and to ensure they stay in it, not abandoning them to live on the streets.

And of course the Immigration Service should take a dim view of companies trying to import workers wholesale or gain exemptions to allow them to hire backpacker labour in areas where there is high unemployment. We supposedly live in a free-market system. Well, the solution of the free-market to a labour shortage is for employers to either offer higher wages, or to lower their standards and commit to training. If they are unwilling to do that, and in consequence cannot find the workers they need, then they have no-one to blame but themselves.

LiveJournal syndication

The LiveJournal syndication feed has been updated to use Atom rather than Blogstreet - meaning that you can get full articles rather than truncated headlines.

"Homosexual panic" claims another victim

I've avoided talking about the McNee case because a) I don't post about crime, and b) Jordan said everything I wanted to say far more eleoquently than I ever could. The "defence" of "homosexual panic" is based on bigotry and hate, and effectively licenses the murder of gays. And unfortunately, David McNee isn't its only victim. Again, the circumstances are dubious (to say the least), and the victim no angel, but there is no question that his killer went far beyond self-defence. The message sent by both judge and jury is that killing gays is acceptable, and that the standards we would apply on questions of provocation and appropriate force are lowered if the victim is homosexual. Dan White would be proud.

Voltaire's tagline was ecrasez l'infame. Well, this is an infamy that needs to be erased. If we do not treat every New Zealander as being of equal moral worth and their lives as being of equal value, then we have no right to call ourselves a civilised nation.

Tied polls

Political Animal has a good post on interpreting the margin of error in polls, specifically targetted at lazy announcers who claim that a poll is "tied" because the difference between two parties is less than the MOE.

Our regular entrail readers would probably do well to read it.

Constitutional issues III

The Holden Republic has more in our exchange on constitutional issues. He's right; we don't differ greatly in our opinions. One difference is that he seems to have read my coment that things could simply be left to evolve as a "should". That's not really what I intended. It's not that we should simply leave constitutional structures beyond human rights protections to evolve as that we can, because there's less need for limits and the flexibility may be advantageous.

There's also a strong measure of pluralism about government structure here. To my mind the form of a government isn't nearly as important as what it does. What seperates good governments from bad and acceptable forms from unacceptable ones is the extent to which they support human rights, individual freedom (for everyone, not just the rich), and true equality of opportunity; are responsive to their people; and have proper checks and balances to prevent abuses. There is no one best way to do this - modern liberal democracy does it well, constitutional monarchy seems to do OK, and concievably even a benevolent dictatorship might be able to manage. Generally, our current structure is within the bounds of acceptability. It has its flaws - too much executive power, too few protections for human rights - but they require tweaks rather than fundamental change. We don't need to move to a republic to address those concerns, hence the slow drift and republicanism-by-a-thousand cuts rather than a clean break.

(That said, I also think that monarchy is incompatible with human dignity. We are citizens, not subjects; we rule ourselves, rather than needing to be ruled by another. While constitutional monarchy (backed by the memory of what happened to Charles I and James II) has removed the arbitrary excesses of kingship, it can't erase this. But it's hardly worth building a guillotine over.)

As for ultimate republican forms, others have talked about codifying the reserve powers, twinking out the governor-general and splicing in a ceremonial president in their place. This would be the easiest path to a republic, but poses some danger of the president exercising their powers for political reasons (think of Australia's constitutional crisis here). At present we have strong conventions against such abuses, but these could easily break down in the changeover.

A more interesting option is mentioned by Brian Easton in the final pages of The Whimpering of the State. He proposes a "Swedish-style" republic, where

• the constitutional law would state the lawful successor of Queen Victoria would be the head of state of New Zealand (thus respecting the Tiriti o Waitangi as the foundation of the New Zealand constitution). There would be no other reference to the Head of State (as there is none in the Swedish constitution);
• the duties of the Governor-General or Queen's representative, appointing the Prime Minister and related activities, would be taken over by the Speaker of the House acting in partnership with two deputy speakers. This Swedish solution emphasizes that the power of governance comes out of parliament.
• a bill of parliament would become law when the relevant minister signs it and the Chief Justice is advised.

(The Speaker and deputies would be elected by a supermajority, and a dissolution would require the agreement of all three, thus providing balance and reducing abuses.)

This would require greater change than the first option, but I think the result would be better. It fits well with the tone set by MMP and moves us more towards consensus politics. It builds on and amplifies existing conventions regarding the Speaker and their neutrality, and the requirement for a supermajority would enhance this further. And it saves us from having to debate the role of a president (which has been problematic in Australia). Unlike Easton, however, I don't really see the need for a "figurehead clause". Napoleon's advice applies: if we're going to do away with the monarchy, then let's do away with the monarchy, and not leave it lying around where people might still continue to believe in it.

Brash statements

Justleft has an excellent post on Don Brash's claim that New Zealand is on the path to becoming a failed state and the strange correlation between our decline relative to Australia and the pursuit of the very policies Brash advocates...

Looking at the Stuff story, Brash's behaviour is actually quite disturbing:

When it was put to him that it might put potential investors off New Zealand, Dr Brash said he was just presenting a factual argument. "This government is damaging our prospects and it's important everybody knows that."

Asked if he thought it likely that his remarks would make someone who was thinking of expanding into New Zealand think again, Dr Brash responded: "I don't know."

It's clear that Brash is doing everything he can to undermine the economy so that he can then turn around and blame the government for it. In the process he is damaging the interests of every New Zealander for his own political gain. But then, this isn't really any change - he's already shown that he's willing to inflame racial tensions with lies in order to grub votes. And he wants to be Prime Minister?

"Political correctness"

The Herald has published another opinion piece tilting at the windmill of "political correctness", this one from evolutionary psychologist Valerie Grant. In it she treads the well-worn path of pointing out that people are not possessed of equal capacities, and that gender differences in employment are not prima facie evidence of discrimination. She could have saved herself the effort. "Political correctness", as used by right-wing politicians and Herald columnists, simply means "bad" or "I don't like it", and is overwhelmingly applied to policies designed to encourage the very moral equality and equality of opportunity which Grant praises. It is the cry of every bigot upset by the fact that bigotry is no longer socially acceptable, and of every beneficiary of an unequal status quo who fears the erosion of their privilege.

When Peter Dunne and the Maxim Institute cry "political correctness" over the civil union bill, they are complaining about a policy which treats people as being of equal moral worth regardless of sexual orientation. When Don Brash cries "political correctness" over unequal funding for Maori education and health, he is complaining about policies which attempt to guarantee Maori the very basics of equality of opportunity. And when David Farrar cries "political correctness" over the idea of a "Treaty Council" managing the foreshore, he is complaining about the idea that Maori are New Zealanders too, and are therefore entitled to a say in the management of common resources.

Look at who complains about "political correctness". Look at what they are complaining about. If we take those complaints at face value, then "political correctness" stands for the expansion of equality and opportunity and the erosion of entrenched privilege. And that is something we need more of, not less.

ACT to voters: you're stupid

Stephen Franks explains why ACT is polling so badly in its former stronghold of Auckland:

"I know this sounds patronising to Aucklanders but I don't think they are deep thinkers about politics, on average"

Which is obviously why they'd want to vote for a party which calls them stupid to their face, right?

Constitutional issues II

The Holden Republic comments on my post on constitutional issues, rightly pointing out that my claim that "in a democracy, it is the people who are sovereign", doesn't match the legal reality. We're a constitutional monarchy, and legally at least the government's sovereignty derives from the monarch, not the people. Mea culpa, mea culpa; like most New Zealanders, I regard the government as a republic in all but name, and the fact that they claim to exercise power in the name of the queen rather than the name of the people as being about as relevant as whose face is on the money. Ultimately, our politicians answer to us, not to someone in England, and that shows us where the real power lies.

(At the same time, I should also point out that according to practically any post-Enlightenment political theory, even the monarch's sovereignty must be ultimately derived from the people, because we are its only possible source...)

As for my comments on the relative merits of enforceable human rights standards versus the identity of the head of state, it's simply a matter of relative importance and where we want constitutional freedom and where we want limits. Human rights are one area of our constitutional structure in which we don't want flexibility and where we absolutely do want hard enforceable limits on parliamentary action. Other areas aren't nearly as important, and could simply be left to evolve.

Rolling in our own excrement

That's my gut reaction to Mighty River Power's plans to refurbish and convert the Marsden-B plant to burn coal. It's a quick and dirty fix, and while there's no doubt that it will add to our energy security, it is also likely to have significant environmental costs. Worse, it will "Maui" the energy generation market again, by providing a source of artificially cheap electricity which will significantly constrain further construction.

The thing is, it doesn't have to be this way. Coal can be burned relatively cleanly and efficiently using gasification technology. It's still worse than natural gas, but it's a hell of a lot better than using quarter-century old boilers originally designed for oil. Which is of course what Mighty River is planning to do. They've chosen the filthiest possible option so as to externalise their costs, and the local community will pay for it in lung cancer.

This is a project that deserves to fail, and the quicker it does so the better. Unless Mighty River commits to using the cleanest available technology, their consent applications should be fought at every turn.

Constitutional issues

Another pair of excellent posts on the Treaty and constitution from Justleft and Grey Shade. There's more in these two posts than I can really hope to do justice to, but here's a few random thoughts.

Firstly, Justleft is right; we need more debate and understanding of these issues if we are to reach any sort of consensus on where we're going. And it has to involve everybody, not just the elite. The Greens suggested a system of "study circles" as a way of promoting grassroots discussion, and I certainly think it's worth a try.

Secondly, I should point out that our constitution isn't entirely unwritten; we actually have a Constitution Act 1986 which collects various pieces of legislation and convention all in one place (it contains elements of the original New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 (UK), the Letters Patent covering the executive council, and conventions regarding judicial independence). The problems are that:

it's not entrenched;

it's not really enforceable; and

it's incomplete (or rather, more incomplete than usual).

There are advantages to this - it gives flexibility and our constitution can grow and change as we do, but there's the obvious disadvantage of not providing firm enforceable limits on political action. We can further codify it, and make it enforceable, but this will require disabusing our politicians of their cultlike worship of "Parliamentary sovereignty". In a democracy, it is the people who are sovereign; our politicians are going to have to learn to respect this. Unfortunately, too many of them are still mired in FPP culture, and it will probably require generational change before the meme is expunged.

But overall the real necessity is not a written constitution, but an entrenched and enforceable Bill of Rights. That matters far more than who our head of state is or the exact process for making laws in Wellington.

Snow

I can see snow falling out my window.

None of it is reaching the ground, but it is very definitely snow.

Media freedom in Iraq, part II

Last night I blogged about the Iraqi regime's attempts to intimidate journalists into leaving Najaf. Well, they're getting a little more forceful:

A police lieutenant arrived at the hotel at 6.30pm in a convoy of two Toyota Land Cruisers from the local police station. He demanded to know the whereabouts of correspondents from al-Arabiya and the Reuters and AP news agencies.

As journalists protested, the lieutenant said above the hubbub: "We are going to open fire on this hotel. We are going to smash it up. I will kill you all. You did this all to yourselves." In a threat that did not immediately appear to have been carried out, he said four snipers would be positioned on the roof of the police station to fire at any journalists who left the hotel.

So, what is it they don't want on TV? The eventual US attack on the Imam Ali Mosque? Or the thousands of ordinary Iraqis who have shown up to serve as "human shields" for the shrine?

More on BCIR

The Holden Republic has some comments of his own on People Power and binding referenda. He favours a system of negative or abrogative referenda, where citizens can overturn a law passed by Parliament on a straight up/down vote. I've blogged about this form of referedum here; it avoids the problems associated with positive referenda and would be particularly easy to graft onto our existing constitutional structure. If the primary goal is to restrain executive power, then this is the easiest way to do it.

Meanwhile, Span has had her own run-in with the advocates of BCIR, and wasn't impressed. One of her concerns is that "the loudest voice (whether it be loudest by virtue of numbers or money) can shout down others", but this is really a problem with any form of democratic government. The squeaky wheel will always get the grease, and so the answer is to do some squeaking of your own. If you don't, and your interests are ignored in consequence, then you have no-one to blame but yourself.

But her prime concern is the danger posed to minorities or disadvantaged groups by a majoritarian system without proper checks and balances. And I agree. No government should be able to (for example) outlaw homosexuality or deny some of its citizens the vote, whether by representative action or referendum. But the answer to that is to impose such limits. I've talked about some of the ways we can cruft this here; probably the easiest is to allow Parliament to overturn a referendum on a simple majority vote (Voters' Voice's proposed 75% is simply too high). This has the effect of making referenda "binding" only if the government wants them to be, but OTOH the informal limit of politicians having to go on the record to vote the people down should not be underestimated. Alternatively, if we eventually move to a written constitution with an enforcable Bill of Rights, then it ceases to be a problem; referenda which seek to deprive people of their rights could simply be struck down.

A losing slogan

With the US election fast approaching, the Elder Party has nominated its usual candidate and kicked off its campaign for the presidency. This year, as usual, they're using a variation on the same old slogan:

Cthulhu for President 2004: Don't settle for the lesser evil!

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that that's really going to cut it this time round. I mean, Great Cthulhu may wait dead but dreaming for the time when the stars are right to wake and draw humanity into his many-tentacled maw, but is he really worse than George W. Bush? Are his policies really worse than those of the Republican Party of Texas?

Sadly, it's no longer clear that Great Cthulhu is in fact "the greater evil"; this essential point of difference has been lost. So instead he'll just have to follow the path of every other presidential candidate, and campaign on the following slogan:

Cthulhu for President 2004: The lesser evil for once.

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled broadcast.

Police and domestic violence

New Zealand First is calling on the government to review the Domestic Violence Act in the wake of a report saying that it was ineffective. However, the reason it is ineffective is that it is not being properly enforced by Police; they just didn't take it seriously. The answer then seems to be obvious: review the Police, and find out why they are refusing to enforce the law. If it's resourcing, then find out what they need to be able to do it properly, and provide it. But if it's bad attitudes and a belief that domestic violence isn't really a crime and isn't worth their effort, then that needs to be rooted out.

Media freedom in Iraq

For a long time now I've been pointing out that the "freedom" the Americans have bought to Iraq doesn't seem to include freedom of the press. First the Americans, and now the Iraqi interim government have imposed controls on the press aimed at preventing "unwarranted criticism" of the actions of US troops or Iraqi politicians. But now with a full-scale war raging in Najaf, the regime is trying even harsher tactics to ensure that the "wrong" message doesn't get out:

The move against reporters in Najaf, designed to intimidate journalists other than those embedded with US forces into leaving the city, began when Najaf's police chief, Ghalab Jazaree, summoned reporters to announce that they had two hours to start the return journey to Baghdad.

[...]

As a group of Arab and Western journalists were attempting to meet the Governor, Adnan Zurufi, to protest against the order, a second police contingent arrived bearing a written order to all journalists in the city to leave. The journalists at the Governor's office were turned back by a plain-clothes security officer who told them: "You have been warned. You have your two hours. If you don't leave you will be shot."

I've said it before and I expect I'll be saying it again: the "new" Iraq is looking more and more like the old Iraq with every passing day.

More on a "Treaty Council"

Dr Alex Frame has been kind enough to provide me with a copy of his submission on the foreshore and seabed settlement, in which he proposes the idea of management by a "Treaty Council". It's a short but interesting read. Those worried that this sort of co-management will erode our customary right to go to the beach shouldn't be; the proposal is quite explicit that

the Council's management of the estate shall be such as to accord to all New Zealand citizens the greatest degree of public access, enjoyment and use, without discrimination on grounds of race, origin, belief or status, compatible with the Three Articles of the Treaty of Waitangi, the general laws of New Zealand, and the efficient management of the estate.

[Emphasis added]

The Council would be forbidden from selling the beaches, or from granting any lease with a period of longer than 20 years. While its not stated (this is a skeleton proposal, after all), ports and other long-term developments could easily be permitted by Act of Parliament. Current law requires this if the crown wants to sell any part of the foreshore; that bar could easily be lowered to the granting of longer-term leases.

The overall approach is one of co-operation and localism. The council would co-opt members where local issues were at stake, and not just from the Maori community. The aim would be to apply the broad principles stated above to produce a local solution for local circumstances, rather than trying to insist that "one size fits all".

As I said earlier, I like this proposal. It's co-operative rather than adverserial, has great symbolism, and allows all parties to save face. I just hope that the government has the courage to change its mind and adopt it, rather than trying to plough on with its current plans.