And they expect us to trust them with tasers?

At the moment, the New Zealand police are trialing the use of tasers as a "less than lethal" response to aggressive behaviour. Meanwhile, there's yet another story of the abuse of pepper spray to "induce compliance". A police constable is currently on trial for assault for using pepper spray on a person at a party. According to another officer present,

Constable Donna Olliver said yesterday that she was outside Mr Viane's [the victim's] house with the constable.

She saw them talking and heard Mr Viane say he wanted to go and see his girlfriend. At one point, the constable had put up his hand as if to tell Mr Viane to stop talking.

Mr Viane did not have anything in his hands, was not aggressive and seemed submissive.

He was not confrontational, but he was not listening to what the constable asked him.

Ms Olliver said Mr Viane went to take a step, to bypass the constable who got out his pepper spray and used it in his face. Mr Viane fell to the ground holding his face in his hands.

She said the constable turned and said: "I'm sick of f. . . . . . telling him."

Ms Olliver said she did not hear the constable tell Mr Viane he was under arrest.

So, disagree with a policeman, and get pepper sprayed. That's not what this weapon is for. And they expect us to trust them with tasers?

Ending drug advertising

Here's a surprising fact: New Zealand is one of only two countries in the OECD to allow direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising (the other being of course the US). As a result, we've seen an exponential growth in the level of drug advertising on our television screens, as drug companies have attempted to boost sales by having patients pressure doctors for specific medicines. But a 2003 report [PDF] from Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin schools of medicine made a strong case that such advertising is harmful. Quite apart from failing to provide objective information on the risks and benefits of the drugs being marketed, pushing up drug spending by increasing demand, and promoting the "medicalisation" of normal health by creating new "diseases" to be treated, it also compromises patient safety. As the report points out,

Rational prescribing promotes caution when using new medicines and suggests older medicines should not be replaced unless there is evidence of major advantages to be gained by doing so.

Direct-to-consumer advertising undermines this - that's the point. And it has meant problems, when heavily marketed drugs with wide market share have been discovered to be unsafe.

Now after years of procrastination, the government is finally moving to end this practice. And not unsurprisingly, the pharmaceutical industry is not pleased. But rather than addressing the concerns raised by the report (which echoes other studies from the US), instead they're resorting to their usual crude blackmail of threatening to withdraw research funding. But more amusing is their second "argument":

"(A ban) would send another signal that this is an anti-industry, anti-United States government," Merck Sharp and Dohme managing director Alister Brown said yesterday.

That's right - joining the civilised world in stopping pharmaceutical companies from promoting unsafe drugs to people who don't really need them is "anti-American". Do we need any more evidence that that term really is the last refuge of the morally indefensible?

New kiwi blog

Hong Kong Ham.

Moderation

A couple of weeks ago the comments to my post on blogs and debate were dominated by discussion of the poisonous atmosphere in blog comments, particularly Kiwiblog, and how it was destroying debate. It seems that DPF agrees. Following in Jordan's footsteps, he has decided to experiment with moderation in an effort to raise the tone of his blog, and is calling for volunteers to do the donkeywork. It will be interesting to see what effect this has, and whether the threat of moderation will encourage a little more politeness from his commenters, or whether they will continue inthe current vein. Though judging from the feedback on the new policy, people don't seem very keen on it at all...

"Land of the free"

How bad is it in the US? Now, you can't even tell the Vice-President that his policies are reprehensible without being arrested by the Secret Service. So much for the "land of the free"...

[Hat tip: Talk Left]

Private cap and trade

The Herald has an interesting puff-piece this morning about Celsias.com - a kiwi company which claims to be

the first company in the world to enable everyone to benefit financially from taking action to solve [global warming] and our patent pending service is your opportunity to get rewarded for playing your part – registration is free.

Its mostly hot air at the moment - all they have is a PR website rather than a live system - but what they seem to be proposing is effectively a private "cap and trade" system among their members. People and companies can sign up, measure their emissions, and track the savings they make as they invest in energy efficient technology and lifestyle changes. But rather than purchasing an offset for those emissions (as is standard in carbon neutrality schemes like Ebex21, who I used to go carbon neutral a few months ago), instead you simply track changes from your initial baseline, and sell any savings as carbon credits.

As an opt-in scheme, its obvious that only those who make savings will participate. But from the Herald piece, that seems to be the point: Celsias wants to "assist our members to create as many carbon credits as possible". So their real business is likely to be packaging and selling offsets from distributed savings to the corporate market - like Ebex, but without the trees. Its perfectly valid - many offset schemes work by selling the emissions reductions gained by building windfarms or installing energy efficient lightbulbs - and really just a question of how you prefer to get your credits. And from the individual perspective, the promise of money might at least get people to think about emissions reduction.

The real question is whether it will get them to think enough. Offsets sell for between NZ$10 - 25 per ton, and that's probably about the amount an average household could be expected to save. Sure, its nice, but I'm not sure how many people will go to the effort of tracking and auditing their emissions for that sort of payoff. Still, its worth a go.

Global warming: a moral imperative

In his movie "An Inconvenient Truth", former US Vice President Al Gore says that preventing global warming is a moral imperative. Today's Independent tells us why. According to a new study from the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, global warming will lead to extreme drought affecting a third of the planet:

The study, by Eleanor Burke and two Hadley Centre colleagues, models how a measure of drought known as the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) is likely to increase globally during the coming century with predicted changes in rainfall and heat around the world because of climate change. It shows the PDSI figure for moderate drought, currently at 25 per cent of the Earth's surface, rising to 50 per cent by 2100, the figure for severe drought, currently at about 8 per cent, rising to 40 cent, and the figure for extreme drought, currently 3 per cent, rising to 30 per cent.

(Clearly, these figures are not exclusive; less severe categories include the more severe ones).

The study is limited, in that it only uses one climate model and one emissions scenario (moderate to high - which we sadly seem to be on track for), and yet at the same time it is likely to be too optimistic, as it doesn't include important feedback effects on the carbon cycle (which would tend to push things towards even greater emissions and therefore greater warming). But the findings are frightening enough. What we are looking at is vast stretches of the world becoming effectively unsuitable for agriculture. In wealthy countries, where we have efficient food and water distribution systems, this will merely make life slightly uncomfortable. But in the third world, where people are more dependent on local agriculture and water supplies, it will mean famine and death on a massive scale - a slow motion disaster which will kill hundreds of millions over the next century. Stopping that is definitely a moral imperative.

Hot air?

Having promised that their dirt would be dished within two days, the Exclusive Brethren's stalkers for hire are now backing away from their threat. Is it because there is no dirt - or because they've realised that their idea of what is "explosive" might not be shared by the New Zealand public?

Cause for complaint

Don Brash has written to the Commissioner of Police complaining about their failure to prosecute Labour for their egregious overspending during last year's election. And he certainly has cause for complaint. Faced with a case of vital importance to our democracy, the police simply did not take it seriously, with one officer even complaining that the investigation was distracting him from "real crime" - like burglaries. This is a basic failure of the police to enforce the law, and it calls the competence of our police into question.

That said, there is little we can do about it now. Section 226 of the Electoral Act sets a six month time-limit on prosecutions, which has long-since expired. And given the clear constitutional provision against retrospective criminality, Labour cannot now be held to account for it (not under criminal law, anyway). All we can do at this stage is tighten the law to ensure that this does not happen again, by extending the time limit and putting prosecution and investigation of electoral crime in the hands of the Electoral Commission rather than the police. National has had more than ample opportunity to introduce a Member's Bill to fix these problems; the question is, why haven't they?

North Korea wants to test

Just when America is gearing up to bomb Iran, North Korea pops up and announces its intention to conduct a nuclear test.

Well, that's a clear policy success for the Bush Administration's strategy of refusing to negotiate under any circumstances, isn't it?

Good riddance to Christian Heritage

The Christian Heritage Party has called it a day and closed down. It seems they realised Graham Capill had permanently poisoned their image, and that they could better advance their goal of a theocratic New Zealand through another vehicle.

All I can say is "good riddance". Unfortunately, given the intensity of their desire to force everyone to live according to the dictates of their god, I suspect they'll be back.

Challenging tyranny

Two months ago, "Jihad" Jack Thomas walked free from an Australian courtroom after his convictions under anti-terrorism laws were quashed due to lack of evidence. Despite that, he was immediatelly slapped with a control order, subjecting him to a midnight - 5am curfew, requiring him to report to police three days a week, and requiring that he seek written permission in order to make phone calls. In essence, he has been sentenced to parole, despite having been acquitted of any crime.

Now, Thomas is challenging that order - and with good reason. The imposition of a Control Order after acquittal clearly breaches the common law bar on "double jeopardy". And the way in which they are granted - by a judge acting in secret, with no representative of the accused present, and therefore no ability to contest the "evidence" presented - is a clear violation of the principle of natural justice. In New Zealand (or any other civilised country), such a system could be challenged under the Bill of Rights Act (or its equivalent). Unfortunately, Australia is not a civilised country, and has no constitutional protection for human rights. Still, double jeopardy and natural justice are principles recognised in Australian law, and fairly deeply ingrained at that, so Thomas may be successful despite the lack of constitutional protections. We just have to cross our fingers and hope...

Something to go to in Auckland

Former Court of Appeal judge Ted Thomas will be giving a lecture at the University of Auckland Law School on Thursday on the topic of "Human rights in the age of terrorism: More particularly an indictment on the Prime Minister of Great Britain".

When: 6pm, Thursday, October 5th
Where: Stone Lecture Theatre, 3rd Floor, Law School Building, 9 Eden Crescent, Auckland Uni
How Much: Free.

The event will be hosted by Amnesty International, the International Law Association and the Faculty of Law.

Brazilian elections

Brazil went to the polls overnight, and it seems that President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (or "Lula", as he is normally known) has narrowly missed out on an absolute majority, and so will be facing a run-off election at the end of the month. The Economist will be pleased. Last week, they published an article about Lula's "underperformance". The problem? He spends money on the poor. The result is that the proportion of Brazilians living in poverty has dropped from 28 to 23 percent, and the real income of poor households rose 28% on average last year. Clearly, this is exactly the sort of "underperformance" Brazil needs at the moment...

Why we shouldn't elect judges

Every so often, usually in response to an unpopular judicial decision, someone suggests that we should elect judges so as to keep them under control. Today's New York Times has a powerful warning against judicial election:

In the fall of 2004, Terrence O'Donnell, an affable judge with the placid good looks of a small-market news anchor, was running hard to keep his seat on the Ohio Supreme Court. He was also considering two important class-action lawsuits that had been argued many months before.

In the weeks before the election, Justice O'Donnell's campaign accepted thousands of dollars from the political action committees of three companies that were defendants in the suits. Two of the cases dealt with defective cars, and one involved a toxic substance. Weeks after winning his race, Justice O'Donnell joined majorities that handed the three companies significant victories.

Justice O'Donnell's conduct was unexceptional. In one of the cases, every justice in the 4-to-3 majority had taken money from affiliates of the companies. None of the dissenters had done so, but they had accepted contributions from lawyers for the plaintiffs.

Overall, O'Donnell supported his campaign contributors from the bench 91% of the time. The average for the Ohio Supreme Court as a whole was 70%. The conclusion is inescapable: justice is for sale in Ohio.

Unfortunately, its not just Ohio. 39 states of the US elect their judges, and with the cost of campaigns rising, the independence and impartiality of their courts is being progressively compromised.

The purpose of a court is to deliver fair, impartial, and independent justice, based on the law rather than public or private prejudice. Election utterly compromises this goal, and results in judges making decisions with one eye on their campaign. This completely undermines the judicial system, and its a good reason to appoint rather than elect.

[Hat tip: TalkLeft]

No justice for Fernando Pereira

So, it seems that there will be no justice for Fernando Pereira, and that Gerard Royal, Louis Dallias, and the other Rainbow Warrior bombers have successfully gotten away with murder, thanks to a decision in 1991 to no longer pursue the case. This is gutless, absolutely gutless, and I'm ashamed that our government shows so little regard for the lives of visitors to this country. But it seems we'll accept anything, even murder and terrorism, provided our farmers get to keep selling their sheep...

Brash, Maori and "choice"

The Herald has finally published the opinion piece which led to Don Brash being called "evil". But rather than taking issue with his comments about how there are "few if any people in New Zealand who have only Maori ancestors" (which shows not only a failure to distinguish between race and ethnicity, but a a basic failure to grasp who the parties to the Treaty actually were), I'd like to make a few points about his other highly contentious claim: that the current position of Maori is a matter of "choice":

But it is quite wrong to argue that, because Maori are over-represented in negative social statistics, the “Crown”, or the government on behalf of all New Zealanders, has somehow failed to discharge its obligations under the Treaty. If Maori New Zealanders die more frequently from lung cancer than non-Maori do, for example, it is almost certainly because Maori New Zealanders choose to smoke more heavily than other New Zealanders do, not a result of some failing by the Crown.

"Dying more frequently of lung cancer" is a cheap example, because it has seemingly direct causation which can be directly blamed on the individuals concerned. Or does it? Quality of healthcare is also a factor, and there's some evidence that Maori receive poorer healthcare than Pakeha for the same disease, leading to differential survival rates - notably for cancer and heart disease. So its not as black and white and not his problem as Dr Brash would like to pretend. But more generally, Brash's implication is that just as Maori "choose" to die of lung cancer by smoking, they have also "chosen" to be over-represented in negative social statistics such as poverty, unemployment, educational attainment, and illiteracy. Decades of dispossession, marginalisation, discrimination and denial of opportunity are masked beneath that facile claim that the current state of Maori is a "choice". But it saves Dr Brash from having to wonder whether the government has lived up to its obligations (whether under the Treaty or as a decent government), and what it can or should do about it.

Remembering Nuremberg

Today, October 1st, is a landmark day in international justice. Sixty years ago today, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg handed down its verdict. Twenty-four major war criminals were tried on charges of conspiracy to commit crimes against peace, waging a war of aggression, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Nineteen were found guilty, three were acquitted, one was declared medically unfit to stand trial and one committed suicide before the trial's end. Twelve of the guilty were sentenced to death.

The trial gave us the Nuremberg Principles defining war crimes in international law, and the precedent that "only following orders" is no defence. It's ironic (and painful) then that on such a significant anniversary, the United States, one of the chief architects of the IMT, has just passed a law purporting to retrospectively immunise its soldiers and political leadership from prosecution for war crimes, and effectively overturning that precedent with regards to torture. Which I think proves the need for international criminal law more than ever. If states are not going to hold their own accountable, or write themselves a blank cheque for atrocity, then the international community must step in and do its utmost to ensure that there is justice. Otherwise, we are going to see state-sanctioned atrocities, genocide,and war crimes - crimes which should have ended with Nuremberg.

Very Dirty Pool IV

So, now we know who the Brethren's chief spy was. Lew Proctor, a former police detective, has admitted being hired by the Exclusive Brethren to stalk the Prime Minister, her husband, and other high-ranking MPs. And he's promising "shock revelations" later this week. Which likely means another big steaming dump of irrelevant personal muck in the media, and a further debasement of our politics. But I'm sure it will go down well in the sewer and with the Wishart crowd.

Meanwhile, Rex Mason, the head of the Brethren in New Zealand, seems to have figured out that their political activity is impacting badly on the Brethren's public reputation, and is trying to claim that all the muck digging and anonymous smear campaigns were done by him and the rest of the leadership cadre as individuals, rather than on behalf of the Exclusive Brethren Church. And if you believe that, there's a bridge I'd like to sell you.

But the most amusing bit is this:

[Proctor] claimed a contract had also been offered to spy on National Party leader Don Brash - by a National Party member.

Nice to know that some in the National Party caucus are as poisonous as the Brethren...

New Fisk

Marwahin, 15 July 2006: The anatomy of a massacre