Commonalities

In a post about the silence of American left-wing blogs on anti-war MoveOn founder Zach Exley's sudden switch to working for the re-election of the pro-war Blair government, Nick Barlow speculates on the reasons for their apparant utter disinterest in the issue, and in news from non-US blogs in general. He concludes that the differences are significant, and that

maybe we shouldn’t be constantly looking towards the US for linkage - despite the appeal of getting their thousands of readers to glance over our scribblings - but instead try to build links with those we do have more in common with in the rest of Europe and even across the world. For instance, reading No Right Turn recently, I’ve found that there appears to be more in common between British and Kiwi politics than there is between Britain and the US.

What are some of those commonalities? There's an obvious constitutional similarity - the New Zealand constitutional structure is essentially the British one without the House of Lords. We used to have an equivalent - the Legislative Council - but we did away with it in the 50's when we realised that it was just a sinecure for retired MPs and party hacks and didn't really do anything useful. Likewise, our parties mirror those of the UK; we have a conservative landowner / business party (National), and a party which used to be "of the working class", but isn't really any more (Labour). And we have the shared experience of prolonged suffering under neo-liberal (Thatcherite) policies which caused immense social damage and a crisis of legitimacy for government. Which means that politics now is dominated by the aftermath of those changes - and whether they should be restarted or rolled back.

All of this is boosted by New Zealand political parties' habit of imitating whatever seemed to work for their side in the most recent foreign election. So if Blair uses a pledge card or tries to outflank the opposition on the right, so does the New Zealand Labour party. And if George Bush wins an election by whipping up bigotry and homophobia, National tries the same.

There are differences, however. One is that our local anti-immigrant hysteria is driven more by rich asians (whether students or businessmen) than by poor middle eastern refugees. And another is that here, "New Labour" was the brand of an offshoot to the Labour Party's left...

Foxes: Henhouse doesn't need guarding

The Institute of Directors (which represents company directors and business leaders) believes that a provision in the new Securities Legislation Bill which would ban anyone convicted of insider trading or market manipulating from acting as a company director or manager for five years is "unreasonable and draconian".

I think that that says everything that needs to be said about the honesty of New Zealand's business leadership...

New Fisk

Is Lebanon walking into another nightmare?
US rebuffs Assad offer to pull out of Lebanon
After what I’ve been through, it’s no wonder I have a fear of flying
Still Iraq’s civil servants go to work, and still they go on dying

Answers

A couple of weeks ago I sent away an Official Information Act request to the Minister of Police regarding the sedition charges laid against Tim Selwyn. I was seeking information on who had decided to lay the charges (and their rank and job description) and whether it was normal for a decision to charge to be made by someone in their position, as well as any communications or advice they had received on the issue. But rather than the usual written response, I received a phone call, in which the police demanded to know the reason for my inquiry (no reason need be given under the Act), and expressed their reluctance to release information lest it be misused by "the criminal element". Subsequently, I was able to gain the following information:

• Mr Selwyn's words are considered to express a seditious intention as they "incite, procure, or encourage violence, lawlessness, or disorder". According to Selwyn, this is on the basis of the phrase "We call upon all like-minded New Zealanders to take similar action of their own to send a clear message..."
• The charges were laid by the officer in charge of the investigation, who is an Acting Detective Senior Sergeant of the Auckland CIB
• It is quite normal for decisions to charge to be made by people of that rank and in that position (in other words, there was no political pressure)

My request for any communications or advice received on the matter was denied under s 9(g)(i) of the Act, which protects

The free and frank expression of opinions by or between or to Ministers of the Crown or members of an organisation or officers and employees of any Department or organisation in the course of their duty

and s 61A of the Police Act 1958, which protects the confidentiality of internal police documents.

I will now be lodging a request for a list of documents and communications, on the grounds that information regarding the existence of information (and in particular, communications with agencies outside the police - such as the Crown Law Office or any government Ministry) is not protected under either Act.

What about Central Asia?

With all the attention being paid to the triumph of democracy in Ukraine and its spread in Iraq and Lebanon, perhaps we should spare a thought for the Tajiks and Kyrgyz. Like Uzbekistan, both Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan have recently had elections. And like Uzbekistan, those elections were shams. According to the OSCE, Tajikistan's elections "failed to meet many OSCE commitments and other international standards for democratic elections", and suffered from "widespread irregularities" including intimidation of the press, barriers to opposition candidates, and "manipulation during the vote counting and the tabulation of votes". Those in Kyrgyzstan "fell short" of international standards and were marred by

vote buying, de-registration of candidates, interference with media and a worryingly low confidence in judicial and electoral institutions on the part of voters and candidates.

The OSCE also reported multiple voting, intimidation, and infringements of freedom of expression and assembly.

But the parallels with Uzbekistan don't just stop with the local rulers' penchant for fixing elections. As with Uzbekistan, Russian observers pronounced the elections "fair and legitimate" (which I suppose they were - by Russian standards). And as with Uzbekistan, US criticism of these poor parodies of democracy has been muted at best. Why? Because like Uzbekistan, both Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan are allies in the "war on terror", and play host to US troops. And in exchange for that, the US seems quite willing to look the other way on a little bit of despotism.

In Tajikistan, the opposition are suing. In Kyrgyzstan, they're taking to the streets. But in both cases, it looks as if the local democrats will be doing it without even the moral support of the US. So much for "spreading freedom"...

Sedition by Example VI: Hatty Weitzel

(Part of an ongoing series aiming to excite disaffection against our law against sedition and thereby incite change...)

Excerpt from a story appearing under the headline "Banned Literature", reporting on the appearances before Mr F. Hunt, S.M., of three people on charges of selling seditious material (The Evening Post, Friday, August 18, 1921):

A University Student

The next case taken was that of a young woman named Hedwig Weitzel, described as a student at the Training College, who was charged with selling on 19th June last, "The Communist," which encourages violence. Weitzel pleaded not guilty.

Constable McKay said he purchased the Communist paper from Miss Weitzel at the Communist Hall on the evening of 19th June.

To the Defendant: He first went to the hall on 11th June. He denied having sympathised with the movement, but said that he had signed a nomination paper.

Miss Weitzel made a lengthy statement. She said that it was a student's duty to make herself conversant with every school of thought. She did not know that the papers were banned; and, in fact, did not receive a notification to that effect until 5th August. Defendant produced a letter from the Customs Department, which, she said, stated that the books had only just been banned.

Mr Hunt: "This is only a notification of seizure."

Defendant: "Then we have not received any notification at all that the papers are prohibited." She did not consider the charge against her specific enough.

The Magistrate: "Here's an extract: 'Members must be prepared at any time to change their activities from legal to illegal.' That is plain enough, surely. I am going to convict you. What is the police report?"

An Unfavourable Report

Mr Macassey [the prosecutor] said that the police report was to the effect that Miss Weitzel was a B.A. of Victoria University College. She knew quite well the risks that she was taking in dabbling in matter of this kind. Her mother, a German, left for America some six months ago, taking two of her family with her, and had not since returned. Her father, also a German, died some four or five months ago. Neither had been naturalised, and during the war they were decidedly anti-British. During the war the family lived in Buller street, and the house was the rendezvous for anti-militarists and revolutionaries of a pronounced character, one of whom was married to defendant's sister. All these men were arrested and imprisoned for talking anti-conscription. It simply pleased the Weitzel family to encourage anything which would weaken Britain's fighting power. The defendant must have known all this, although she was young at the time. She was constantly at the Communist Hall, and was as much a Communist at heart as any of the party.

Weitzel's case was not unique, but was one of a great many prosecutions for sedition of those distributing communist literature (two others were tried on the same day and reported on in the same story). She was convicted, fined ten pounds, and given fourteen days to pay. The fine was paid by a group of female students who had accompanied her to court, and this sparked a furore in the media and in Parliament, and led to the passage of what is now s. 162 of the Education Act 1964, which requires all teachers to swear an oath of allegiance to the crown. The Act is still in force, and to this day teachers must swear to "be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors, according to law" - exactly as police and soldiers do.

(Sources: Evening Post, August 18, 1921; "'A Spirit of Bolshevism': The Weitzel Case of 1921 and its Impact on the New Zealand Educational System", by Roger Openshaw, Political Science, 33, 127 - 139)

More on the republic debate

The Holden Republic has a detailed analysis of Keith Locke's Head of State Referenda Bill [PDF], which is currently in the ballot. The bill sets out a process for moving to a republic, involving a series of referenda to decide between the status quo, a directly elected head of state, or one elected by Parliament. Its biggest flaw is that it does not propose enough change - it is effectively aimed at introducing a "twink" republic, where the monarchy and Governor-General are simply twinked out and replaced by the head of state. I think that there are probably better options than this, and that the move to a republic also allows other constitutional changes to be made (such as limiting the power of Parliament with a justicable Bill of Rights Act, and possibly a more general "written constitution").

If this bill was drawn from the ballot, I'd want to see entrenchment of both the clauses governing the head of state's election and the Treaty clause (which states simply that "the rights conferred and obligations imposed by the Treaty of Waitangi continue as if this Act had not been passed" - a good compromise which recognises that the Treaty means something, but also recognises that exactly what it means is outside the scope of the bill). I'd also want to see an option for a Swedish style republic, along with some sort of push to codify exactly what powers the head of state holds (which would require seperate legislation). But like Lewis, I think that the bill is a good start, and as a picture of the simplest option available is a valuable contribution to the debate.

How to make friends and influence people

US troops fire at freed hostage

It took only one friendly fire incident for the Canadians to forgo any future military cooperation with the US. I wonder if the Italians will do the same?

Simply not credible

That is the only way to describe the National Party's apparant U-turn on asset sales. We should remember that Don Brash has been advocating the wholesale dumping of state assets for at least the past 15 years (and probably longer) - and that just 18 months ago he was promising that if he were Prime Minister, the government's stake in TVNZ, Air New Zealand, KiwiBank, and our state-owned electricity companies would be gone by lunchtime. And now we're expected to believe that he's changed his mind? As the billboards say, "yeah, right"...

What we have here is an opposition calculatedly using the tactics of deceit, promising one thing to gain office, with the intention of doing exactly the opposite if elected. Labour did this in 1987, National did it in 1990, and this dismal pattern was one of the driving forces behind the switch to MMP. But National doesn't seem to have accepted, adapted to, or even learned from this public rebellion, and instead seems committed not just to reviving FPP, but also the worst of its tactics. Which is yet another reason not to vote for them.

Cousins and consequences

A detailed examinition of the recent hominid remains found on the Indonesian island of Flores last year have confirmed (or at least very strongly suggested) that "Hobbits" were indeed our cousins, rather than being modern pygmies. But the real question still remains unanswered: what happened to them? Stories of the Ebu Gogo date to the post-European contact era; have they died out, or are they still there? And if so, what could they tell us about ourselves?

Coincidentally, I've just read an essay in A Devil's Chaplain ("Son of Moore's Law") in which Richard Dawkins argues that the effects of meeting a surviving (or recreated) hominid species would forever undermine our present moral distinctions based on absolute but essentially morally arbitrary species barriers. He revisits this argument in a post-Hobbit article in the LA Times:

[T]o meet another human species would be a soul-building experience. Besides, the live discovery I wistfully imagined would turn human complacency on its head. Our speciesism accepts a vast moral gulf between Homo sapiens and every other animal. Nice people will unquestioningly value the life of a human embryo above that of an adult chimpanzee. The chimpanzee thinks and feels, enjoys love and suffers fear, yet moral absolutists feel no unease at the killing, or selling, of a captive chimpanzee. Simultaneously, they see an infinite moral objection to the "murder" of a brainless, senseless human embryo.

What would become of such a double standard in the face of a living - and perhaps suffering - Homo floresiensis?

And if Flores Woman indeed belongs in the genus Homo, she might be capable of interbreeding with us - and therefore of shaking absolutist morality to its ill-considered foundations. (Please, somebody, go out to Flores and search.)

But simply the knowledge of H. floresiensis's recent existence should have the same effect. Few people could hear the news of their discovery without considering, even for an instant, whether they were "people". But even asking the question undermines speciesist moral thinking; it no longer becomes a question of "can I theoretically breed with you" (which, spelled out, seems an exceptionally poor basis for morality) but one of recognition of shared traits which don't necessarily follow species boundaries. And once that is acknowledged, speciesism crumbles; you can't include all humans without also including some animals (particularly other primates), and you can't exclude those animals without also excluding some humans (such as embryos, the mentally retarded, and even young children). Our old moral boundaries are left looking disturbingly similar to the National Front's: based on something essentially arbitrary and irrelevant.

The republic debate

Like The Holden Republic, I watched the One News special on whether Prince Charles should become king of New Zealand last night. Like their other similar specials, it was more a quick overview of the issue than a detailed exploration, and there was very little in the way of actual debate. Instead, they flipped rapidly from talking head to talking head, each of whom said their own little spiel, without much reference to what others had said.

The point was made that we are essentially a de facto republic already, and that the sheer distance and disinterest of the monarch left us free to run our own lives. Much was made of the threat of the monarch's extensive powers (such as the power to dismiss Parliament or appoint judges) being vested in an elected president who as a political actor would be tempted to use them for political advantage - but no-one raised the obvious question in response: why have a president at all? People's thinking about a republic seems confined to the version where we simply replace the monarch and Governor-General with an elected president, but that's not the only way to do it. An alternative is the Swedish model, where the reserve powers are vested in the Speaker and their deputies, who are elected by a supermajority of Parliament. The Speaker is already required to be seen to be politically neutral by constitutional convention, and the supermajority requirement would strengthen this. It would also fit well with the consensual approach to politics encouraged by MMP, and would help shift things further in that direction.

(I should also point out that the problem of a rogue head of state is not simply a product of elections; it happened in Australia in 1975, when their Governor-General effectively colluded with the opposition to dismiss the Whitlam government. Stephen Franks got this arse-backwards, characterising it as a "rogue government" rather than a rogue Governor-General; I can only conclude that in his view, any left-wing government is by definition "rogue" and has no right to hold office...)

As usual, the biggest argument for retaining the monarchy was "if it ain't broke, din't fix it". Against this is the fact that "she's still there", by which I mean that the mere presence of the Queen (or the monarch in general) is a problem - not because it breaks the system, but because it is increasingly seen as simply incompatible with fundamental parts of the modern western worldview. To modern minds - those who have dragged themselves out of the eighteenth century - political authority flows from below; both legitimacy and even ultimately power is derived from the broad consent of the governed. Monarchy, with its top-down view of political authority, stands in direct contradiction to this. It also stands in direct contradiction to the meritocratic ideal that position and status must be earned rather than simply inherited. And while the Windsors have shown a laudable devotion to nobelesse oblige, it's not really the same thing...

But the most interesting point that came up was the generational difference in perceptions of nationhood. Monarchists tend to be older and greyer, dating from the era when we saw ourselves as a part of the British Empire, and the UK as "home". These views are generally not shared by the young, who are thoroughly indigenised and whose views of nationhood are rooted more in the anti-nuclear struggle and the Treaty than any sense of "Britishness". The current struggle over a republic is therefore part of the same process of generational change that is driving debates over the Treaty - and in the long-run, time is not on the monarchists' side.

Locations

Those who want to argue that wind is only a "niche technology" may want to check out this map of wind resources and possible developments from TransPower. This was produced for the Wind Energy Conference six months ago, and it's already significantly out of date. In particular, since it was produced, resource consents have been granted for a further 120 MW of turbines (at Te Rere Hau and Mossburn), and Trustpower's "Tararua area" proposal has grown to 120MW and is now in the process of applying for resource consent. By way of comparison, New Zealand's electricity demand growth - the amount of new generation we need to install each year to "stop the lights from going out" - is estimated at 150 MW a year. On past and present performance then, we're meeting 80% of that demand growth from wind alone.

Making up our minds

Electricity generator Meridian Energy wants New Zealanders to make up our minds about what sorts of generation options we will support. But looking over which projects have succeeded or failed over the past few years, it's clear that we already have. We don't like big canal-based hydro projects that ruin a river by diverting its flow through generators (rather than ruining only a portion of it by creating a lake), and we do not like coal. Gas power plants seem to be acceptable, due to their general lack of pollution, and there's been little public complaint about geothermal. But what's really striking is the public support for wind. While some consents have been denied (notably for Genesis' plans to build a small farm at Awhitu), generally the public is quite supportive of wind farms, to the extent that some public consultations have had 90% of their submissions in favour, and residents near other power developments are saying "don't build X, build a wind farm instead". And now that New Zealand's major environmental groups have got on board and are actively promoting wind power, this trend is only going to get stronger.

Justice for torture

For a while I've been suggesting that Donald Rumsfeld could be sued or even prosecuted in the US for authorising interrogation techniques which are tantamount to torture. Now, someone is finally doing it. Rumsfeld is being sued in his home state of Illinois, by the ACLU and Human Rights First, who are acting on behalf of eight Iraqi and Afghan detainees who were

...incarcerated in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they were subjected to torture and other cruel and degrading treatment, including severe and repeated beatings, cutting with knives, sexual humiliation and assault, mock executions, death threats, and restraint in contorted and excruciating positions. None of the men were ever charged with a crime. All have been released.

Rumsfeld is being held responsible for this because he

"authorized an abandonment of our nation's inviolable and deep-rooted prohibition against torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of detainees in U.S. military custody." The complaint further charges that brutal and illegal interrogation techniques were personally approved by Secretary Rumsfeld in December 2002. Those techniques included the use of "stress positions," 20-hour interrogations, the removal of clothing, the use of dogs, isolation, and sensory deprivation.

Although some of these techniques were later rescinded, Rumsfeld personally approved a new list in April 2003, which included dietary manipulation, sensory deprivation and "false flag" (leading detainees to believe that they have been transferred to a country that permits torture). He also made clear that harsher techniques could be used with his personal authorization.

[Links added in so you can see the documentary trail. It's particularly chilling that the initial request included techniques such as "use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of suffocation" (the "dry submarine" - a form of waterboarding) and "[convincing] the detainee that death or severely painful consequences are imminent for him and/or his family". The latter is explicitly defined as torture in the US anti-torture statute.]

A secondary part of the complaint is based on the principle of command responsibility: even if he didn't directly order the abuses or establish a policy framework which encouraged them, Rumsfeld is still responsible for actions carried out by US soldiers if he knew or should have known about them and failed to prevent or punish them.

Similar cases have also been filed in other states against several US Army officers, including Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, on behalf of other torture victims. Sanchez is in a similar situation to Rumsfeld, in that he personally authorised dubious interrogation techniques, not to mention hiding prisoners from the Red Cross. The other cases are more reliant on command responsibility.

These are going to be very interesting cases which will test the US's commitment to the rule of law. But while it's a first go at justice, these are only civil suits. If the actions or inactions of these officials violate US law, then they should not just be facing bankruptcy, but a prison cell.

Irony

An Auckland police commander was so frustrated with police leaking material to the media that he sent a memo telling his staff to dob in the "traitors". It was of course leaked to the media...

But besides the obvious humour value, the police obviously do not understand that these sorts of leaks are essential in a democracy. Without them we would not learn about malfeasance, stupidity, or the frontline effects of government policies and would therefore have far fewer opportunities to correct them. Instead, those we trust with government would be left to police themselves - and the "success" of the police in doing that shows exactly why we should treat the idea with suspicion...

Why now?

The government's decision to impose another 5 c/L (plus GST) petrol tax in order to fund additional roads has led numerous commentators (such as the Herald) to ask the obvious question: why are they raising taxes when we are sitting on an extremely healthy surplus? But this is the wrong question. While the government gained the power to impose this tax a mere two weeks ago, it was widely tipped to delay introduction until oil prices had dropped. So a more interesting question is "why now"? And I think the answer to this can be found in the announcement earlier in the week from the CTU that they would be pursuing 5% in '05 - a 5% across-the-board wage rise for every worker.

What's the connection between petrol taxes and union agitation for wage rises? The fact that the latter are seen as inflationary, while the former is seen as being likely to stifle the economy to some degree. For over a year now, the Reserve Bank has been making noises about the tightening labour market, and threatening to relieve the pressure by hiking interest rates with the deliberate aim of throwing people out of work (as Don Brash did repeatedly in the 90's in an effort to keep unemployment above 7%). They haven't done so so far because the labour shortage has famously failed to deliver better wages to workers (the law of supply and demand losing out to the power and greed of employers); however, with the prospect of wages finally rising, the Reserve Bank would have effectively been forced to act. Enter the petrol tax. By taking a bit of "puff" out of the economy, this will probably discourage the Bank from taking immediate and severe action, thus allowing workers to get their wage rise.

The local commentariat's tunnel vision with regard to taxes and their shallow analysis of why they are imposed ("government greed") has caused them to miss the real story here: the government is now second-guessing the Reserve Bank and attempting to guide the Bank's decisions on monetary policy. It's a decisive break with the "hands off" approach established in the 80's, and one with far-reaching implications. But it's obviously far less important than spreading the idea of a government lining its pockets for no better reason than greed.

New Fisk

Lebanese are united under flag of the ’cedars revolution’

Measuring success

One of the constants of New Zealand policy debate is the local right's uncritical adoption of the US as the model to pursue. According to them, the key to wealth is lower taxes and the elimination of social services. However, such policies come at a cost: according to a recent report from UNICEF, the US has the worst child-poverty rate of any developed nation, second only to Mexico. Who has the best? Predictably,

[t]op of the table are Denmark and Finland, where child poverty levels are less than 3%, while Norway and Sweden follow close behind.

And the reason is pretty clear:

"Higher government spending on family and social benefits is very clearly associated with a lower level of child poverty," said Mr O'Brien.

He said market forces could not on their own lift children out of poverty and urged direct intervention through greater government spending.

By comparison, New Zealand ranks as fourth-worst, something which can be laid directly at the foot of our obsession with market forces in the 80's and 90's. And since the report's data was gathered, the government has massively increased social spending through the Working for Families programme, which is expected to reduce child poverty by two-thirds within a decade.

The right will no doubt point out that this is a comparison of relative, rather than absolute poverty. But while there is no question that the average poor child in the US is better off than one in Mexico, the issue cannot be dismissed as easily as that. The US, like other western nations, is a nominal meritocracy, where people can rise (or fall) according to their talents. But child poverty undermines this, by preventing some from accessing the opportunity meritocracy requires to function. If society is seen as a race, then the children of the poor are handicapped even before it begins, through no fault of their own. Strong measures to eliminate child poverty would therefore seem justified on meritocratic grounds alone.

Reporting back

The Justice and Electoral Matters Select Committee has reported back on the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. The core of the bill - defining civil unions as legally equivalent to marriage - has been unaffected, however numerous amendments have been made to the provisions dealing with de facto couples. This was inevitable given the complexity of the issues involved (and the true task of the Select Committee - to hash out all the fiddly bits), and it doesn't seem to have overly compromised the bill's intent.

Several issues which were already being reviewed, such as spousal immunity and automatic inheritance on the death of a partner, have been put off for future legislation, while other changes have been made to the rules governing minors and de facto relationships to bring things into line with a general age of majority of 18. But the most significant change has been the move away from a single (albeit loose) definition of "de facto" to be applied consistently across all laws to much simpler definition (a relationship in the nature of marriage or civil union between partners who are not married or cupped) to be applied according to the context and purpose of each piece of legislation. While the right will no doubt decry this as creating uncertainty and transferring power to judges, IMHO they have sufficient guidance and this is probably better than trying to force everyone into exactly the same box from day one.

All in all, the bill does introduce far more consistency into the law surrounding relationships, and there's nothing here that I strenuously object to. I look forward to it passing without too much trouble.

Just desserts

Remember Thakshila, the 16-year-old Sri Lankan girl our government forcibly sedated and deported back into the hands of her abusers? The case cost Lianne Dalziel her job as Immigration Minister, after she lied to the public about leaking documents in an effort to discredit the girl's case. But Dalziel didn't just stop at leaking documents - she also heaped abuse on the girl's lawyer, accusing her of unethical manipulation and of running a publicity campaign to stir public sympathy (in other words, of zealously representing her client). Now those accusations are coming back to bite her, in the form of a $3 million lawsuit for defamation. Frankly, it couldn't happen to a nicer person...