New Fisk

Bush's new strategy

Fiji: a legal challenge?

Fiji's Citizens Constitutional Forum is talking about challenging the legality of the military regime in the courts. And they'd have an excellent case. In the wake of the 2000 coup a similar case was launched challenging the legality of the intrim Qarase government and succeeded in gaining a ruling that the President's refusal to recall Parliament was inconsistent with the constitution. While it failed in its attempt to have the interim regime declared illegal, the point being considered moot, the Court of Appeal did rule that there were extremely tight constraints on the dismissal of a Prime Minister and appointment of a caretaker - essentially a Prime Minister can only dismissed if they actually lose a vote of confidence in the House, not just because the President (or the person pointing a gun at their head) wants them out. Iliolo's effective dismissal of Qarase and appointment of Bainimarama fails to meet those criteria, and I'd expect any court to follow precedent in saying so.

You have to wonder though what the military regime will do about this, given its demonstrated intolerance towards criticism and those questioning its rule. Will it sit back and allow the legal process to take its course, or will it simply pressure the judiciary and beat and imprison those who dare challenge their rule? On the evidence so far, my money is on the latter...

Egyptian "justice"

Emad Kabeer is an Egyptian cab driver. In January last year, he saw two men assaulting one of his cousins on a crowded Cairo street, so he stopped and asked them what they were doing. The men turned out to be plainclothes police, and for his curiousity Emad was arrested. While in custody, he was kicked, beaten, and sodomised with a stick. The torture was videoed and distributed to others as a warning not to question the police.

Two of Emad's torturers have since been detained. Meanwhile, yesterday, he was jailed for three months on a charge of "resisting authority". In Egypt, resisting illegal sexual torture by the police is apparently a crime.

No more Nazis

Last year I blogged about RedWatch NZ, a neo-Nazi website established to "build a catalogue of information and pictures of the Left" - including names, addresses, phone numbers, and pictures of where people live. The purpose was clearly intimidation and to encourage violence against those listed on the basis of their political beliefs.

I'm pleased to say that RedWatch is no more. It has disappeared into the bit bucket, apparently some weeks ago. Though no doubt its dossiers and hit list will still be circulating around New Zealand's extreme right.

[Hat tip: t94xr]

"Credible intelligence"

The US is bombing again, this time in Somalia. But they have reasons, apparently:

US air strikes in Somalia are aimed at al-Qaeda leaders in the region, and based on "credible intelligence", a Pentagon spokesman has said.

That would be the same "credible intelligence" that told the that Saddam had WMD, then?

Unfortunately, thanks to the Iraq debacle, the US's "credible intelligence" simply isn't credible anymore.

Faith, discrimination and hate in the UK

The British House of Lords has passed the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland), 199 - 68. The regulations will outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the provision of goods and services - meaning that in Northern Ireland at least people won't be able to refuse to rent you a house or provide healthcare simply because you are gay (or straight, for that matter). The regulations will be extended to the rest of the UK later in the year.

Naturally, this has precipitated the usual religious backlash, with extremist Christians, Muslims and Jews united in bigotry and homophobia. Meanwhile, their more mainstream compatriots look on from the sidelines in silent but deniable approval (not so silent or deniable in the case of some Bishops, it seems). If anyone was wondering why 82% of UKanians believe that religion is a cause of division and tension between people, this is one reason. When religion speaks nowdays, it is too often a voice of hate, trying to exclude people from society, seeking tolerance only for themselves. While there are decent and liberal religious people, they don't seem to be speaking up about it and making it clear that their god isn't about hatred.

Meanwhile, the Guardian's Polly Toynbee makes the excellent point that the state should not be devolving social services to those who insist on a right to discriminate:

Lord Ferrers in the last debate said hospitals should be allowed to discriminate if they had a Christian ethos. Does that mean they do now? Are they turning away gay Aids patients? He said a pro-life Catholic hospital should be allowed to turn away a lesbian for fertility treatment. (Though any non-Catholic turning to Catholics for fertility treatment needs their head examined.) The Catholic adoption society said it will shut up shop if it has to allow gay couples to apply. Churches say they will never let out a hall to a gay organisation. Christians running soup kitchens say they want to refuse gays shelter and soup. (Soup!) The Catholic Archbishop of Liverpool threatens to withdraw all cooperation over schools and charity programmes if the law goes through. The Bishop of Rochester says it will damage church work in inner cities. (Only if his church shuts down services.) The C of E pretends that the law would force it to bless civil unions (it won't).

Listen to all these good reasons why the state should step back from its current infatuation with faith provision of social services. In a democracy, public services paid for out of general taxes can't be held to ransom by the weird sexual fantasies of unelected service providers.

(Emphasis added)

I couldn't agree more. If social service agencies aren't willing to comply fully with anti-discrimination law, they shouldn't be receiving state funding.

Sensationalising the mundane

Both Stuff and the Herald are running the story that a new government website will "name and shame bad tenants". From the headline, you'd expect that the website will be a state-sanctioned version of RateMyTeacher for the rental market - RateMyTenant, perhaps? - with landlords venting their spleens and fulminating against the dregs of society who smashed the place up, knocked holes in the walls, or simply gave notice and moved out when they tried to raise the rent. Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead, they're planning simply to put tenancy tribunal decisions online.

The government already does this for court decisions (High Court and above), and it serves a valuable purpose. Sure, people could use it to see if their prospective tenant or employee has raised serious questions on an issue of law, but the real value lies in people being able to look at cases and see what the law is for themselves. The same will apply to the tenancy tribunal. While the tribunal isn't a court and precedent is unlikely to play a significant role, there will be some consistency of decision-making, and the publication of decisions will help pin down for both tenants and landlords what their rights actually are. It will also allow them to learn what sorts of claims are considered egregious and unlikely to succeed - in other words, whether someone is simply trying it on or not.

Unfortunately, mundane news about the public accessibility of government documents doesn't sell advertising, so instead the media has tarted up and sensationalised the story. In the process they've missed one of the major benefits of the move: the ability of everyone not to check for a "bad history", but to know what their rights and obligations actually are.

Shirking their responsibilities

The Iraq war truly has been a disaster. According to the UN, it has resulted in 3.7 million displaced people - one in eight Iraqis. Two million of those live as refugees in foreign countries, mainly in Syria and Egypt, and a further 1.7 million are internally displaced, forced from their homes by bombings, death squads, and ethnic clensing by rival sectarian groups. According to the UNHCR, this is "the largest long-term movement since the displacement of the Palestinians after the creation of Israel in 1948". And its only going to get worse.

To ease this appalling suffering - the result, remember, of a war that was supposed to help people - the UN has launched an emergency appeal and is seeking US$60 million from donor countries. They shouldn't have to do this, because it is clearly the US's responsibility, both morally and legally. They started this obscene war and drove Iraq to this pitiful state of affairs. And as the occupying power they have a clear responsibility under international law to care for Iraq's people. So, shouldn't they be paying to ease the plight of the refugees their crusade has created?

Unfortunately, the US accepting its responsibility to ease the suffering it has caused seems about as likely as their accepting more than a token number of refugees from Iraq. As Terry Jones pointed out earlier in the week, the US has spent around US$500 billion so far on the war - almost a million dollars for every Iraqi it has killed. Meanwhile, according to a Congressional Budget Office report, it has contributed a paltry US$18.4 billion towards the estimated US$100 billion cost of reconstruction - and most of that has gone on inflated costs charged by corrupt US contractors, or on security (that is, if it wasn't simply stolen by corrupt US officials). The US has plenty of money to kill Iraqis, but apparently none to feed, clothe, and house them.

In the lead-up to the invasion, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell warned Bush

"If you break it, you own it"

Its time the US began living up to that, rather than shirking its responsibilities to the Iraqi people.

Reminder

Just a reminder that nominations for the 2007 Bloggies close on Thursday, so if you want to nominate your favourite New Zealand blogs, you should probably get on with it.

Climate change: more comprehensive?

Jordan Carter has some thoughts on Matthew Hooten's prediction that "National will end the year with a more comprehensive climate-change policy than Labour". Jordan focuses on the political aspects of the question, and the likelihood of National overcoming its Revolutionary and industry lobby factions (something I am deeply suspicious of). But I think it is also worth pointing out that it would be a very difficult task, because Labour's policy is already about as comprehensive as it can be - and possibly even extends its net wider than the previous version (while it does not include either direct industrial emissions or small users of industrial power and heat, or air travel, the inclusion of forestry and fertiliser more than make up for this). In order to produce a more comprehensive policy as Hooten suggests would require National to bite the bullet and directly target agricultural methane and nitrous oxide - something they have opposed since the 90's, and which their farming lobby would regard as a betrayal - or return to a broad-based carbon tax or emissions trading regime encompassing all emitters rather than just large ones. And in the wake of their opposition to the carbon tax (or indeed to any action outside the electricity sector), I really can't see them doing that.

Meanwhile, it is also worth pointing out that the most comprehensive climate change policy in the world is worthless if it is not implemented. This has been the bane of New Zealand climate change policy since 1990 - pursuing the mirage of perfect policy in preference to actually implementing any of it - and it will be the real test for Labour. Their policy, while having wide coverage, is far from perfect - it needs to be extended in some areas, and strengthened in others - but it is better to have even an imperfect plan implemented than continue to do nothing at all.

Sadly its only fiction

Hot on the heels of Death of a President comes a British offering: The Trial of Tony Blair, a satire exploring the possibility of Blair being put on trial for his decision to invade Iraq. sadly it is only fiction, but in the Guardian Philippe Sands (author of Lawless World) points out some of the possible ways by which it could become reality. While he's cynical about the prospects of there ever being justice for Iraq, he also points out that a surprising number of countries have incorporated the international crime of aggression into domestic law (sadly, the UK is not one of them). Which means that if he wants to avoid being Pinocheted in future, Blair will be forced to heed the same advice followed by Kissinger and now Rumsfeld: don't travel.

It's not justice, and its nowhere near enough. But the thought of one of the world's current leaders being forced to live a hunted existence for fear of being dragged into court and made to answer for his crimes does give me a certain amount of pleasure.

Law versus terror

Mounir al-Motassadek, a member of Al Qaeda's Hamburg Cell, has been convicted in Germany of providing logistical support to the 9/11 plotters and sentenced to 15 years in prison. And they did this not by using torture, secret "evidence", or lower judicial standards, but in an ordinary court, under ordinary rules, and normal standards of evidence. It may have taken five years, an appeal and a retrial, but in the battle of law against terror, law has clearly won the day - and no-one can say that he did not get a full hearing or a fair trial.

That's the difference between the rest of the world and the US on terrorism. We prefer proper courts and justice; they prefer torture and a lynchmob mentality. And by taking that path, they have handed the terrorists a resounding victory.

Fiji: Choudhry's betrayal

Former Fijian Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry, who was ousted by George Speight and President Iloilo during the 2000 coup, has joined Commodore Bainimarama's interim government as finance minister.

Up until now, Choudhry has denied supporting the coup. Now we know where he really stands. By joining the military regime, he implicitly lends his mana to the illegal and unconstitutional means by which it gained power - and to its policy of thuggery, oppression, and murder. I had expected better from him. But at the end of the day, he is just another politician - and one who clearly has no higher principles beyond his own pursuit of power.

Carbon neutrality

For those considering going carbon neutral this year, The Good Human has a guide to which company to choose for carbon offsets. As an American site, it focuses on American companies, however there is an option for New Zealanders: CarbonZero. They have a handy calculator which uses NZ rather than US emission levels (which matters particularly for electricity), and sell their credits for about NZ$22 / ton. Best of all, their credits come from native forest regeneration projects certified by EBEX21, which means there is a significant ecological co-benefit as well.

While I'm on the subject, Celsias.com - a New Zealand company which seems to be working towards a private cap and trade system - has a blog on climate change news.

(Hat tip: Carnival of the Green at Hippyshopper).

Blair's legacy

With Tony Blair expected to leave office sometime in the next few months, attention has turned to his legacy. And unfortunately for Blair, this may turn out to be something he didn't expect:

Gordon Brown signalled yesterday that as Prime Minister he would forge a foreign policy independent of the US and initiate "frank" relations with President George Bush.

And the reason for this is obvious: despite all of Blair's sycophancy and submission, his bootlicking and crawling, Britain has had nothign to show for it. There has been no quo pro to match blair's quid, except for 128 corpses. And I don't think that is what anyone had in mind.

Fiji: simple thuggery

It seems that the Fijian military have moved on from beating and killing their critics to simple thuggery, with the attack on a visiting British Army officer yesterday. According to the Fiji Times,

[T]he victim and a friend who is a police officer were returning from a nightclub in Suva when their taxi driver stopped at a military checkpoint.

The driver allegedly told the soldiers that his two passengers were making fun of them.

He said his son and the police officer told the driver to stop lying and take them home but by then the military officers had opened the door of the vehicle and took the two men up to the army camp for interrogation.

The man was beaten so severely he was judged medically unfit to travel by A&E doctors. He had been planning to return to the UK on Wdnesday. Still, at least he came out alive...

Israel plans insanity

According to the Sunday Times, Israel is planning a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran. This would not just be a crime against humanity and a gross violation of international law - it would also be an act of sheer insanity which would set the Middle East aflame and encourage the most vicious forms of retaliation (including chemical and biological weapons). The consequences could be disastrous not just for Iran and Israel, but for us all.

More on Christchurch's gang patch ban

Before Christmas, I commented on a proposal for the Christchurch City Council to enact a bylaw banning gang patches and colours and granting police the power to "arrest people hanging out in gangs in the city". I was rather curious about how far advanced this proposal was and whether either the city council or the police had considered its compatibility with either the Bill of Rights Act or Local Government Act, so I sent in a pair of OIA requests asking for all information on it. Unfortunately, the two bodies have been less than forthcoming.

According to a spokesperson for the Christchurch City Council, they have no information on it. The proposal was made by the Police, and the first they knew of it was when the Press asked the Mayor for comment. Meanwhile, according to the police,

there is no correspondence nor documentation relating to the proposal by the Christchurch City Council to ban gang patches or colours within the inner city... this correspondence does not exist, therefore your request cannot be met.

So apparently this proposal fell fully formed out of thin air, with no documents, no position papers, no advice, no correspondence, not even a press release or media notes, despite being the subject of a newspaper article. Either the Christchurch Area Commander was simply mouthing off about his authoritarian fantasies, or someone is lying to me. Actually, I think it was likely the former, but I'll do some further poking anyway, just in case it has advanced beyond that stage.

Reasons not visit America

Currently there are more than enough reasons not to visit or transit through the United States. Quite apart from the present administration's use of torture and violations of international law - reason enough to avoid the place simply on principle - there's also the intrusive, paranoid, and time-consuming border security. Currently, if you enter the US, even simply to pass through on the way to more desirable and legally respectable locations, you will be photographed and have two fingerprints taken. But according to the Guardian, all of that is about to get worse.

The most obvious change is that rather than having the prints of only two fingers taken, they will now take the whole set. But that's not the worst of it: your fingerprints will go into a Homeland Security database, along with those of suicide bombers and hijackers. So, tourists will be classed de facto as terrorists. But this doesn't just pose serious civil liberties issues within the United States - the database will be shared with other agencies and has no limits on international distribution, so your fingerprints may be made available to a host of other governments - including your own. Think about that for a minute: if a New Zealand, Australian or British politician or police official proposed fingerprinting the entire population and putting us in a central database to make the police's job easier, there would be an immense public outcry from people who think that the police should have some reasonable suspicion first, and that ordinary people going about their everyday business should not be subjected to intrusive surveillance or stuck on a database simply for administrative convenience. But our politicians won't have to propose that in the future, because they'll just be able to get our data from the Americans (at least if we are fool enough to travel there). American paranoia provides a convenient backdoor around our civil liberties.

But it gets worse. Not only do they want your fingerprints - they also want to be able to dig through your credit records and your email as well:

Britons already have their credit card details and email accounts inspected by the American authorities following a deal between the EU and the Department of Homeland Security. Now passengers face having all their credit card transactions traced when using one to book a flight. And travellers giving an email address to an airline will be open to having all messages they send and receive from that address scrutinised.

So travelling to the US is now a license to intercept your communications (which, given the way international intelligence cooperation works, means that they will then be shared back with domestic intelligence agencies). Warrants? What are they?

The British and European governments have already sold out their citizens to this regime, in secrecy, with apparently no objections. It will be interesting to see whether the New Zealand government raised any objection, or whether they meekly submitted to these ridiculous and intrusive demands.

Crivens!

Saturday's Dominion-Post had a (syndicated) interview with Terry Pratchett, which inted crypticly that in addition to the recent Hogfather miniseries (which is excellent, BTW), a US director was working on a Discworld movie adaptation. Looking on Wikipedia shows which book it is: The Wee Free Men

Crivens! Pictsies! Psycho scottish smurfs with drunkenness and violence! A frypan of fear! And of course a traditional faerie story about a stolen baby brother.

I'll be looking forward to this. Almost as much as I'm looking forward to Coraline...