No thanks

A group of Australian MPs thinks we should look at a trans-Tasman union. No thanks. For a start, it is difficult to see what it would achieve - we already have the benefits of free movement through the trans-Tasman travel arrangement, and of free trade (except in apples) through CER. What would political union add? While a case can be made for further economic integration, political integration clearly isn't necessary for that to go ahead. Meanwhile, on the minus side there's the fact that our "shared values" aren't that shared. Quite apart from the obvious point of difference on race relations, there's also our divergant foreign policies and differing stances on Iraq, climate change, refugees, human rights, and the Pacific. Political union with Australia would mean losing our voice on the international stage, and would see our policy stance dictated by Texas-over-the-Tasman. And that's something I don't want a bar of.

Political censorship

Over in Fiji, the Fiji Times has shut down its print edition rather than be subject to political censorship. Meanwhile, here in New Zealand, our politicians are engaging in a little political censorship of their own. Last month, former Progressive MP Matt Robson was referred to the privileges committee over a column he wrote in which he noted United Future leader Peter Dunne's undying support of the liquor and tobacco industries and the apparent inconsistency with his claimed support for families. This was alleged to be a contempt of Parliament, in that it

reflect[ed] on the character or conduct of the House or of a member in a member's capacity as a member of the House

Robson appeared before the Privileges Committee yesterday, during which he apologised for any offence taken at his words. This is simply outrageous. In a democracy, representatives are accountable to the people - not the other way round. No member of the public should be forced to apologise to an MP for something said about how they perform their duties, unless it is found by a court of law to be defamatory. But the spirit of feudalism dies hard, and so we have the unseemly spectacle of our elected rulers demanding that they be shown the deference and immunity from criticism previously shown to unelected monarchs, and implicitly threatening punishment if "defied".

This is, to put it bluntly, a crock of shit. Reflecting on the conduct of the House or of MPs is the very purpose of political commentary, and the lifeblood of democracy. It serves a vital purpose in ensuring that our representatives can be held accountable for their actions by the voters. And if Parliamentary Privilege interferes with our ability to do that, then it is long past time we ended it.

Tonga: what we supported

Last month, the New Zealand government sent soldiers and police to Tonga "to help maintain law and order". At the time I was deeply uneasy about this move, as it smacked of propping up a corrupt feudal regime against its own people. But I didn't know quite how bad it was.

The National Centre for Women and Children - an NGO funded by NZAID to lobby for an end to sexual violence in Tonga - has been interviewing those detained by the police in the wake of the riots, and produced a report on The systematic torture and abuse of prisoners by the government of Tonga following civil unrest in November 2006 [PDF]. It is horrifying reading. It reports widespread violations of civil liberties by Tongan police, including arbitrary and unlawful detention, denial of legal advice, and prison conditions that constitute cruel treatment. Worse, according to the report,

Treatment amounting to torture under the common law of Tonga and International law has also been reported as occurring in custody

Prisoners were routinely beaten with rifle-butts when arrested by Tongan troops, to the extent that three quarters of prisoners entering one cell had serious head injuries. Several were beaten into unconsciousness. One reported being pistol-whipped, and then having a loaded and cocked pistol pointed at him while being threatened with death. Prisoners were routinely beaten by police on arrival at the police station, and subjected to threats and physical violence during interrogation:

[O]ne prisoner was threatened with physical and sexual violence by a Police Officer holding a large broom stick.

One prisoner estimated that about 40% of the prisoners in his cell had been subjected to some form of physical violence during interrogation. He described that one of the prisoners had had a wooden chair broken over him while being interrogated.

A prisoner interviewed for this report said that he observed another prisoner being forced to make a confession by police who were slapping and punching him about the face and head. The prisoner had provided Police Officers with a list of items he had stolen but according to the prisoner who witnessed these events, the Police Officers were trying to get the prisoner to confess to more items.

And that's not the worst of it. Some prisoners were handcuffed for extended periods of time. According to one witness,

One of the prisoners was crying – crying like he was at a putu [Tongan funeral]. He was begging too. His handcuffs had been on for three days straight. They [the Police] wouldn’t even take them off when he went to do a shit. The cuffs had worked themselves so tight that they had cut through his skin and you could see his wrist bones exposed.

(Emphasis added)

This is outright torture. Its not as sophisticated or calculated as that carried out in places like Iraq (whether by the former dictator or his replacements), but it is torture all the same.

This is what we sent troops to Tonga to protect: a regime of corrupt, feudal, torturing kleptocrats.

I hope the government is feeling proud of themselves.

Standard procedure

Two months ago, the rabid right were crying "corruption!" over the government's retrospective validation of Parliamentary Services funding, and claiming that any such validation was unconstitutional. Today, the government introduced the annual Appropriation (2005/06 Financial Review) Bill. And what does the explanatory note say?

This Appropriation Bill confirms transfers between outputs made by Order in Council and confirms expenses incurred for the 2005/06 financial year in excess of appropriation by Parliament but with the approval of the Minister of Finance. It also validates unappropriated expenses and capital expenditure.

(Emphasis added).

As I pointed out at the time, this sort of retrospective validation is entirely normal - and it has to be done as all government expenditure must (one way or another) be authorised by Parliament. This bill (along with others of its type - which are listed on the Parliamentary website) tends to confirm this picture. What I'm wondering is whether we'll see the same outpouring of constitutional outrage - or whether the rabids will stay silent because it really is just standard procedure.

Fiji: it's over

The Fijian coup is over. Scoop reports that President Ratu Josefa Iloilo has signed an order dissolving Parliament and placing the military in charge. This perhaps isn't surprising, given that Commodore Bainimarama effectively put him in charge after the coup of 2000 - but it is disappointing. I'd have expected Fiji's President to defend its constitutional system (on which his position and authority depend), not to collude with the military in abrogating it.

Meanwhile, the media have been forced away from Prime Minister Qarase's home, and it seems that he is under house arrest. Hopefully they'll leave it at that - but they seem to want a bloodless takeover, so they'll likely be satisfied with simply removing him from office.

The problem now is the future. The new regime (whoever they are) will at one stage or another have to hold elections (at least if it wants to legitimise its status or be seen as anything other than an imposed military dictatorship). But elections mean an eventual loss of control, and future governments may very well attempt to prosecute the perpetrators of this atrocity against democracy, or introduce the same policies Bainimarama just vetoed at gunpoint. And so the cycle looks like it will repeat itself, until the army accepts its subordinate position or is disbanded.

A stunning victory

For the past year, the Unite! union has been waging a campaign against McDonalds for fairer pay for its workers. They've had flash-strikes, protests, even a free concert. So, how'd they do?

They won - gaining a commitment to end youth rates, substantial pay rises for staff, secure hours, and overtime rates and a one-off bonus for their members. It's a stunning victory - made all the more stunning by McDonalds' anti-union reputation. It also reinforces the clear message from the success of other union campaigns in the past year: that unions deliver solid benefits to their members, and joining one is a way to higher pay.

So, I wonder who they're going to take on next?

Ashamed

Another one of those "ashamed to be a New Zealander" moments, with another racist attack in Wellington over the weekend. In Christchurch a few years ago, similar attacks resulted in a march for tolerance to show that the community opposed racist violence. If someone wants to organise a similar march in Wellington, then please let me know.

And while I'm at it, what is it with the Dominion-Post getting Pansy Wong's name wrong? This is the second or third time I've noticed it in the last few weeks.

Another NeoCon goes

First Rumsfeld, now Bolton. And US foreign policy will be better for it. Bolton symbolised the bullying, blustering unilateralist style preferred by the Bush Administration - an approach which alienated countries which would normally be well-inclined to the US. He adopted the same approach towards the Senate committee which was supposed to confirm his appointment, and as a result was not confirmed. His departure hopefully marks another step in the US's return to sanity from its madness under Bush.

Now, if only Gonzales would follow...

New Fisk

My reservations about the French

Chavez wins in Venezuela

Venezuelans went to the polls yesterday, and with 80% of the vote counted, it looks as if incumbent Hugo Chavez has an unassailable lead. It will be interesting to see how the opposition take this - whether they will accept the results of democracy (assuming the international observers judge the elections to be "free and fair" - and so far they have reported no major problems), or whether they will once again attempt to overthrow the elected government by extra-constitutional means and restore the oligarchy.

I don't like Chavez, but he is at least elected by an overwhelming majority, and that should be respected. You don't encourage democracy by supporting coups - but then, I suspect that "encouraging democracy" is the furtherest thing from many of his opponent's minds.

This brings Latin America's year of elections to a close. As for the result, South America has turned a gratifying shade of red:

(Map stolen from BBC)

The left won in seven of the twelve countries holding elections, including every country south of Colombia. The right won in four, entirely in Central America (I'm not sure which category to count Haiti in). The next latin American elections will be late next year, in Argentina in October, and Guatemala in November. Hopefully they'll be as successful as this round.

Fiji: It begins...

The Fijian army has reportedly taken over the HQ of the police tactical unit - the only police unit with guns, and something that Commodore Bainimarama wants to see disbanded. I guess he wants to make sure he has a monopoly on firearms and therefore on the ability to hold the government at gunpoint.

Meanwhile, in a positive sign, at least some of those approached to form a miliary-backed interim government have refused to participate. Now, if only they all would. Unfortunately, I think the army won't have too much trouble finding enough venal, self-interested people to front for them.

Why they fired Rumsfeld

Why did George Bush fire Donald Rumsfeld? Initially it seemed that it was a response to the Republican Party's loss of both the House and Senate in midterm elections; Bush was hardly going to accept that it was his fault, so he fired Rumsfeld instead. But a classified memo leaked to the New York Times suggests a rather different reason: Rumsfeld had changed his mind about Iraq, and was proposing a major change in strategy. This was questioning Bush's judgement about the need to "stay the course", which is apparently something you are Not Allowed To Do in the Bush Administration, so Rumsfeld had to go.

Not that I think Rumsfeld's options were particularly great; too many seem predicated on the ugly American habit of blaming those "ungrateful Iraqis" for America's policy failures. But at least he showed some awareness, even if only in private, that things were not working, and that avoiding having to admit that the President was wrong was not a good reason for continuing on the same way. But even that basic level of attention to reality seems anathema in the faith-based Presidency.

Discrimination

A Wellington bar owner has refused to accept Parliament's decision not to raise the drinking age, and is banning 18 and 19-year olds from their premises. Their "justification"?

"As a private business we have the right of refusal."

Actually, they don't. As I pointed out last time some stupid bar owner had this bright idea, s44 of the Human Rights Act 1993 outlaws discrimination in the provision of goods and services (such as selling alcohol). And "age" (meaning "any age commencing with the age of 16 years") is listed as one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination in s21 (i). So while the Sale of Liquor Act requires them to refuse service to anyone under 18, refusing it to anyone who meets the purchase age - whether teenagers, 40-somethings, or crufty old pensioners - is illegal. You can't stick up a sign saying "No Maoris" in your public bar, and you can't refuse to serve 18 and 19-year olds either.

Speaks for itself

The National Party is sometimes parodied as a party of arrogant business wankers who treat the people around them peons. Unfortunately, some National MPs seem to be doing their very best to uphold that reputation...

But quite apart from confirming that Jonathan Coleman is a wanker, this also again raises the spectre of National's sponsorship by the tobacco industry. Coleman wasn't the only National MP there - chief whip and frontbencher Simon Power was also in attendance. And remember, British American Tobacco wouldn't be hosting them unless it thought they could (eventually) get something out of them. Given that Coleman is one of National's health spokespeople, you really have to wonder whose interests will be represented in National's health policy - those of ordinary New Zealanders, or of a company which profits by making them sick.

Cthulhu no longer waits

Cthulhu movie trailer [YouTube]

OK, so it's not The Call of Cthulhu; instead it looks to be more a contemporary version of The Shadow Over Innsmouth. But it still looks cool, and I'll probably have to see it if it ever makes it to the big screen.

(And some day I'll have to see the H P Lovecraft Historical Society's 20's silent movie-style adaptation of The Call of Cthulhu as well - if only for the neat art deco blasphemous idol).

New Fisk

Like Hitler and Brezhnev, Bush is in denial

Getting involved

DPF has an interesting post on how the Keep It 18 campaign came into existence, with the aim of

actually encourag[ing] more people to get involved with politics and campaigning on issues. The drinking age debate showed that a few people can make a difference. Now I do not mean to imply that MPs made up their mind on the lobbying alone, or even that other lobbying from industry groups such as BWSC (which ironically and sadly has just been closed) and HANZ wasn’t also influential. But feedback from both media and MPs has been that the efforts of KI18 did help to a significant degree.

Of course, the people involved were all politically well-conected, with excellent access to media and politicians for lobbying, and this made their job immensely easier. But these skills can be learned, and you'd be surprised how many politicians will respond to a well thouht-out email. As I keep saying, democracy is fundamentally a clash of interests, and its a matter of participate or perish. And if you don't stand up for your interests, then they willnot be taken into account. So, to echo DPF, next time you see an issue you feel strongly about, speak up about it, let the politicians know what you think, and (if you're keen) get together with some friends and try and organise a campaign around it. Otherwise, when you get walked all over by people who do do these things, you will have no-one to blame but yourself.

The end of eradication

National has released its new lineup, and looking at the full list [PDF], one portfolio is notable by its absence: that of "political correctness eradicator". Good. The position was a bad joke when it was established, and became a worse one when Wayne Mapp opened his mouth, spewed his ignorance, and displayed the bigotry and illiberalism which underlay his worldview. Worse, it suggested a conscious effort by National to roll back the increased equality, opportunity and erosion of privilege of the last 50 years and return us to some sort of idealised version of the 1950s when New Zealand was run by and for dead white males and anyone else (women,gays, Maori) could bugger off. I am glad those days are gone, and I am glad that the fringe loonies who wish to return to them no longer seem to be pulling the strings of our major opposition party. Perhaps now we'll have a serious opposition, rather than the bad joke Brash seemed intent on turning it into.

It is however apparent that women and young people still don't matter to the National Party, both portfolios being given to unranked newcomers. I guess old habits die hard...

Protecting a war criminal

Lieutenant General Moshe Ya'alon (ret) is a former Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces. He is also a war criminal, responsible for setting policies which displayed a callous disregard for the lives of Palestinian civilians - for example in the bombing of the home of Hamas official Salah Shehada in 2002, in which 13 civilians (as well as Shehada and one of his aides) were killed. Ya'alon was in New Zealand last week on a fundraising trip (an outrage in itself - we should not be allowing war criminals into the country), when some enterprising person had a judge issue an arrest warrant for him under the Geneva Conventions Act 1958, which allows universal jurisdiction for grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. But rather than seeing Ya'alon dragged into court and made to face justice for his crimes, the government quashed the warrant. He has since fled the country.

I am deeply ashamed by this. New Zealand is supposed to be a staunch advocate of international law and human rights, but when push comes to shove and there is some chance of actually having to enforce that law (something we agreed to do when we signed it), we back off to avoid an international incident. The message we are sending is loud and clear and one of hypocrisy: that war crimes are committed only by our enemies, and we will look the other way when the victims are Muslim.

Fiji is now a military dictatorship

So, it has come to this: Fiji is now a military dictatorship in all but name. The Fijian military waves its guns, and the democratically elected Prime Minister accedes to their demands. Like DPF, I think it would have been better for Prime Minister Qarase to stand on principle and refuse, and make the military take the name and shame as well as the power, rather than giving them even a tarnished aura of democracy to cloak themselves with. But then, I'm not the person faced with having a gun held to my head.

Unfortunately, it looks like even this show of acquiesence isn't enough, with Commodore Bainimarama setting a noon deadline for the government to submit totally or he will overthrow them. And no matter what happens, Fijian democracy will be the loser.