So much for the Manukau Graffiti Bill

The Local Government and Environment Committee has reported back [PDF] on the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill and recommended that it not proceed. The bill would have restricted the sale of spraypaint to minors (those under 18), criminalised the carrying of "graffiti implements", and required those suspected of an offence to provide the police with their name and address, as well as the name and address and whereabouts of anyone connected with it. In addition to concerns about the creation of a patchwork of local jurisdictions with different laws in each, and the creation of new offences already well-covered by existing law, the committee recognised that this violated the Bill of Rights Act's bar on discrimination, as well as the right to silence. And hopefully, that will be the end of it - though in the current Parliament, anything is a possibility. Still, the Maori Party voted against at the First Reading, and their opposition should be enough to sink it.

Meanwhile, what is it with Manukau and draconian "moral panic" bills? Is it something in the water up there, or just a particularly authoritarian mayor?

Something to go to in Wellington

According to IndyMedia, Peace Action Wellington is holding a protest against the presence of New Zealand troops in Tonga:

When: Monday, 20th November, 12:30pm
Where: New Zealand Defence Force Headquarters, Stout St, Wellington.

We should not be helping prop up a feudal monarchy against democracy; rather, we should be helping it to make the transition as quickly and painlessly as possible.

Tonga: On the wrong side

It's offical: we are now on the wrong side in Tonga. The Tongan pro-democracy movement has condemned the intervention of New Zealand and Australian troops:

The movement says the intervention is further proof of the failure of Prime Minister Fred Sevele and his largely non-elected Government.

Pro-democracy movement MP Akilisi Pohiva says the Government failed to heed the warning signs of frustration among the people of Tonga, and its security apparatus failed to ensure law and order when trouble started on the streets of Nuku'alofa.

Mr Pohiva says the death and destruction caused during the riots is a regrettable part of the process of democratic change that is now sweeping the country.

He and his supporters have called on the King to dissolve Parliament and appoint an interim administration comprising the heads of government departments pending fresh fully democratic elections.

Meanwhile, Dr Sitiveni Halapua, one of Tonga's most prominent democrats and the head of the government committee which laid out Tonga's path to democracy, says that we are now "propping the government up against everybody else" and that

there was a belief among some some people in Nuku'alofa that the New Zealand and Australian forces were coming "to make people afraid and to support the government".

Instead, said Halapua, the government should step down so the foreign forces could work with a new leadership.

These are the voices of democratic legitimacy in Tonga, and they are telling us that they do not want us there to put a boot on the throat of Tongan democracy and keep the monarchy in power. And neither do I.

Update: Added link to Sunday Star-Times piece.

Questions for Clark

Some questions for Helen Clark in light of her invitation to George Bush to visit New Zealand:

• What is the expected cost to the taxpayer of providing security for such a visit, and how many hip replacements would that purchase?
• Will US bodyguards be permitted to carry firearms?
• Will they be allowed to bring a minigun?
• Will she give an assurance that US bodyguards will not be granted diplomatic immunity, and that they will face New Zealand justice if they shoot anyone?
• Does she agree with the judgement of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg that waging a war of aggression is "the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole"?
• Does she agree with the Convention Against Torture that "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture"?
• Does she feel comfortable inviting a man who authorised torture into our country?
• Would she invite Pinochet or P W Botha or General Suharto to make a similar visit?
• Does she think that leaders should be held to account by the international community for crimes such as aggression and torture?
• Does she think George Bush should be held to account for his crimes?
• Will New Zealanders be forbidden to look out their windows or stand on their balconies to view the passing motorcade, as happened when President Bush visited Mainz in 2005?
• Will New Zealanders be confined in "free speech zones", as routinely happens in the US to those protesting against the president?
• Will she give an assurance that New Zealanders' right to protest will not be compromised during this visit?

Hopefully someone will grill Clark in Parliament over this; her answers should be interesting, to say the least.

Say "No" to George Bush

So, Helen Clark went to APEC to strut her stuff on the world stage - and while she was there, she got them to put climate change on the agenda, which is something of an achievement given the presence of both the US and Australia. Unfortunately, she then went and spoiled it all by inviting George Bush to visit New Zealand next year.

This is a mistake. Quite apart from not wanting to put up with his paranoid security - the hundreds of armed bodyguards, the rooftop snipers, the helicopters and minigun - and the resulting cost and disruption, his hostile attitude to public protest (which will no doubt infect our police in the leadup to any visit), or his vain demands for adulation at any speech, the man is a war criminal who authorised torture. The only reason we should be inviting him to our country is so he can be arrested and extradited to The Hague to stand trial.

New Fisk

A terrible legacy of hatred and death

Dutch torture

In 2003, the Dutch government sent 1400 troops to Iraq as part of America's "coalition of the willing". Now, we learn that they abused prisoners in their care:

Prisoners were forced to wear darkened goggles, which were periodically removed to allow them to be exposed to bright light, the report said.

They were kept awake for long periods by being drenched with water and forced to listen to high-pitched sounds, it added.

There is no question (as far as the Dutch are concerned) that this is a violation of both international and Dutch law, and prosecutions will likely follow. According to European Tribune (which is an excellent resource for getting European news and commentary in translation), debate is centering on whether it qualifies as "torture" in terms of the Convention Against Torture, and therefore whether the soldiers involved will be charged with war crimes. Interestingly, the abuses were reported at the time, but there were no prosecutions; the government seems to have decided to sweep the whole affair under the carpet. To have this news break just days from an election is explosive, to say the least...

Why rioting for democracy is a bad idea

Six dead in Tonga Riots. Speaks for itself, really.

Meanwhile, Tonga has apparently asked New Zealand for military assistance to restore order. I am deeply uneasy about this. It's one thing to stop people from killing one another, but this smacks of propping up a corrupt feudal regime. And if that regime fails to deliver on its promises of democratic reform, and another riot happens, will we see New Zealand soldiers gunning down Tongans to keep a kleptocrat in power?

Any military assistance must be conditional on the Tongan government keeping its promises and making substantial progress towards democracy. And if they renege or delay too long, we should leave them to their fate.

Government snubs Carbon Disclosure Project

Back in September, I blogged about the release of the latest Carbon Disclosure Project - an attempt by major institutional investors to get major companies to disclose information about their greenhouse gas emissions, the risks they faced from climate change, and what steps they were taking to manage those risks and keep their shareholder's money safe. At the time, I noted that New Zealand companies didn't want to talk about climate change - very few had bothered to respond, and only one had made their response public. Also surprising was the fact that government-owned companies such as Air New Zealand had refused to participate, and that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund was not on the list of signatories, and was not using its weight in the New Zealand market to encourage greater disclosure (if only for its own purposes).

So, I wrote to Michael Cullen asking him to use his power as shareholding Minister in Air New Zealand to force that company to participate in future, and to direct the Cullen Fund to sign up for the CDP. Both of these would help send a message to the market that climate change mattered, and that it would affect investment decisions. Today, I received his response:

Thankyou for your letter of 20 September 2006 about the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP). I appreciate you bringing this initiative to my attention. I agree that the responses of public companies, especially large emitters, to the challenges of addressing climate change will be of increasing importance to many investors. The CDP is anticipating this trend, and I welcome the initiative.

You suggest that I should issue a direction to Air New Zealand and the Guardians of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to take part in the CDP. I am reluctant to give such directions. The government has important roles in promulgating an increased awareness of climate change in New Zealand, and in developing clear and sustainable climate change policies. Companies and investors that operate in New Zealand should be able to make investment and production decisions that take account of such policies. You will be aware that the government is in the process of consulting the public on refinements and enhancements to New Zealand's climate change policy.

Some companies and investors will be attracted to the information that can be generated through the CDP. However, I would prefer to leave decisions about whether and when companies should participate in such a scheme to the companies themselves. They are best placed to assess the net benefits of such participation. If more transparent disclosure of carbon information proves to be important in attracting capital, no doubt that will be a factor in those decisions.

So, in short, he recognises that the CDP is a valuable exercise in helping investors make long-term decisions, but he is unwilling to use the government's power as an investor either to encourage this trend, or to help ensure our money is kept safe. Instead, he seems to think the market will just magically sort the whole problem out, without any need for the government to show any leadership.

Sometimes, I really do despair...

But will they prosecute?

Six months ago, Nepal's king responded to mass protests demanding democracy with bullets. He was eventually forced to submit, and constitutionally emasculated by the newly restored Parliament - but at the cost of 22 lives and more than 5000 wounded. Now, a panel set up to investigate the government's response to the protests has found that King Gyanendra was responsible for the killings. The question now is whether they will prosecute, or whether the aura of monarchy is somehow an excuse for cold-blooded murder.

Tonga: but is it enough?

Yesterday's riots seem to have shocked the Tongan Parliament into action, and produced a promise of democratic reforms. The proportion of democratically elected MPs will rise from slightly under half to two-thirds at the next election in 2008 (one third will still be "elected" by the nobles - giving them on average one MP for every three nobles. I guess some people just count for more than others in Tonga). It doesn't sound like much, but it is the crucial step which will allow the people to force further reforms at their own pace. The question is whether it will be enough, or whether the people will demand more rapid progress such as an end to noble over-representation, a fully democratic electoral system, and a Prime Minister and cabinet drawn solely from Parliament rather than appointed to it.

Support Thomas Yadegary

Thomas Yadegary has been detained without chage or trial for over two years under the Immigration Act. Today, he is challenging that detention in court. The case will be heard at 2:15pm, but GPJA have organised a protest outside for people who wish to show their support:

When: Friday, 17th November, 1pm
Where: Auckland District Court, Hobson St

Naturally, I'm hoping that he will be released. Two years is far too long...

A last big push

And so it comes to this: like a mad dictator in his bunker moving phantom divisions on a map, or an inbred aristocrat in a chateau securely behind the lines, Bush is planning "a last big push" to win the war in Iraq. He wants to throw another 20,000 men into the meat-grinder in Baghdad in the hope of securing the city while he convenes a conference of Iraq's neighbours (including Iran and Syria) to ensure regional stability and bangs some heads together to force Sh'ia and Sunni to put aside their differences. It's a fantasy, of course - as much of a fantasy as Hitler's final offensive to save Berlin, or Haig's "big push" to break through on the Western Front - but in Bush's faith-based reality, sheer willpower triumphs over roadside bombs and RPG-7s. Little facts like the US not having another 20,000 men, Iran and Syria being happy to watch the "Great Satan" drive itself to hell, and the Sh'ia and Sunni being more interested in advancing their own interests than in securing Bush's legacy just don't seem to register. And so men and women will be sent to their deaths for a delusion, because the President can't admit that he made a mistake and that the war is lost.

There is no point in throwing good lives after bad. There is no point in trying to stop a civil war that started twelve months ago. The best America can do now is to stop inflaming the situation, admit defeat, and go home.

Tonga: Rioting for democracy

For the past year, protestors have been camped out outside the Tongan Parliament in Nuku'alofa demanding democratic reform. Today, the Tongan Parliament rebuffed them, refusing to vote on the issue before the end of the Parliamentary term. So, they rioted, trashing government offices and shops, overturning cars, and setting fire to buildings. While royal-owned property (notably Shoreline Power, the electricity monopoly looted by the king) has been specifically targeted, so have a lot of other businesses, and there now seems to be general looting. So far, no-one seems to have been hurt - but an awful lot of people are going to be a lot poorer in the morning, and not all of them will be nobles. That's the problem with rioting for democracy: even if you think its morally acceptable to burn out the king and his fellow kleptocrats, a lot of innocent bystanders get hurt in the process. And then, if you win, you have to sit down across the table from them the day after and try and make things work again.

The obvious question is whether this is a one-off riot or the start of a more general attempt to oust the king by force. I guess we'll find out over the next few days. But either way, things haven't got off to a very good start. OTOH, it's also a strong signal to the monarchy: whether its done the hard way or the easy way, change is coming.

Something to go to in Palmerston North

Horizons Manawatu is holding a public forum to discuss water quality in the Manawatu:

When: Friday, 17th November, 1 to 3 pm
Where: Corporate lounge, Arena 2, Pascal St

The forum will be chaired by Steve Maharey.

This has been sparked by public concern over Horizons' decision to allow Fonterra to use the Manawatu River as a sewer,as well as their seemingly lax attitude to water quality in general. Unfortunately, the timing of the meeting (which does seem calculated to limit public involvement) has meant that many environmental groups are boycotting it.

On the plus side, Horizons does seem to be getting the message, announcing that it will be taking a tougher line on those who habitually violate resource consent conditions. This is good to see, but at the same time you have to ask whether they shouldn't have been doing this already.

Guilty

Back in March, a gang of US soldiers in the town of Mahmudiya raped and murdered a 15 year old girl and killed her family. Today, on the eve of his court martial, one of them pled guilty and agreed to testify against the rest. Hopefully, this will help secure their conviction, and show that (in this one case at least) the US military does police its own.

Bush authorised torture

How high up the chain did approval of the US's illegal regime of torture and disappearance come from? All the way from the top, it seems. According to today's Washington post, the CIA has finally acknowledged the existence of a directive from Bush authorising torture:

After years of denials, the CIA has formally acknowledged the existence of two classified documents governing aggressive interrogation and detention policies for terrorism suspects, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

But CIA lawyers say the documents -- memos from President Bush and the Justice Department -- are still so sensitive that no portion can be released to the public.

Rumours about these documents have been floating around for some time - but this is the first time the CIA has confirmed they exist. And now that that's out of the way, the ACLU can go to court to acquire them. There is a compelling public interest in determining whether the President of the United States personally conspired to violate US and international law and commit war crimes, and one that far outweighs any concerns about keeping those interrogation techniques secret (particularly given the level of publicity around US torture and the similar directives from other US officials which have already been released). The security classification system does not exist to hide evidence of government wrongdoing – but that is exactly what it is being used for here.

Unfortunately, the passage of the Military Commissions Act means that Bush will not be able to be charged with war crimes or torture in a US court (that was the point - to cover the President's arse from any future administration with a shred of conscience and concern for law). But this information may result in him one day facing charges in other countries or before an international tribunal. And the sooner, the better.

Britain's petty authoritarianism

The British government is about to lay out its legislative programme for thenext year in the Queen's Speech, and it is expected to include another unhealthy does of authoritarian anti-terrorism legislation, including another stab at introducing 90 days detention without trial for terrorism suspects (because bothering to find people guilty, let alone charge them, before locking them up is so last century). Meanwhile, Home Secretary John Reid is also practicing authoritarianism on a pettier scale: he wants to evict "neighbours from hell" from their homes:

Mr Reid said he wanted to give police the immediate power to close down premises being used for drunken parties, raves, brothels or other persistent antisocial activity, and to "move away from the traditional view that justice has to involve going to court".

Or indeed any testing of the evidence or ability to put both sides of the story (a right fundamental in any justice system). Instead, this will be an instant punishment, akin to a parking fine - except that it involves throwing people out of their homes. It may be "swift", it may even be "effective" (at least at shuffling the underclass out of sight and out of mind) - but it sure as hell won't be "justice".

New Fisk

Conflict in the Middle East is Mission Implausible

An abuse of privilege

Former MP Matt Robson has been referred to the Privileges Committee over a comment he made in his "Robson on Politics" newsletter that

The liquor industry’s support for Peter Dunne, as with that of the tobacco, has always meant that he has faithfully delivered his vote for their interests.

The comment was made in the November 1st issue; the reason it is not there now is because Robson apparently had it deleted the same day he posted it. That however was not enough for Peter Dunne, who laid a complaint that it had breached Parliamentary Privilege, claiming that it had breached Standing Order 400(N) which gives as an example of contempt of Parliament

reflecting on the character or conduct of the House or of a member in a member's capacity as a member of the House

According to the Speaker, this exists "to protect members going about the business of the House from unfounded, scurrilous allegations of serious impropriety or corruption". She has therefore referred the matter to the Privileges Committee.

This is an abuse of Parliamentary Privilege which threatens our democracy. Robust criticism and oversight of our representatives is a vital part of democratic government, and not something we should allow to be undermined by self-interested politicians. If a politician feels that their character has been impugned by "unfounded, scurrilous allegations" from a political commentator, they already have a perfectly good remedy available: they can sue for defamation. What they should not be allowed to do is convene a private kangaroo court and hold a show trial for what is effectively lese majeste. Absolute monarchs did that, and its one of the reasons we emasculated them. If Parliament wants to stay in the same business, then maybe its time we emasculated them too.

Note that I am not questioning the right of Parliament to conduct its own affairs and regulate what is said in the House - I am questioning their right to regulate what members of the public say about them, and to do so privately rather than under the same laws the rest of us operate under. This power has been abused in the past, and it is being abused now. It is long past time we ended it.