Back in court

The Ahmed Zaoui case is back in court today, with the Supreme Court hearing arguments as to whether the Inspector-General must take Zaoui's human rights into account when reviewing the security risk certificate. This is the big decision, the one which decides whether Zaoui stays or goes, and I wish him luck.

No Tour!

The Greens have called for the Black Caps to cancel their upcoming tour of Zimbabwe - a call echoed by the Prime Minister as a "personal view". I agree wholeheartedly. The Zimbabwean government is a shitty little despotism which fixes elections, starves its political opponents, and engages in widespread human rights abuses - including torture. This is not the sort of regime we should be associating with, even on the sports field.

I'd suggest emailing New Zealand Cricket CEO Martin Sneddon to voice your opinion, but I don't have an email address for him. However, you could email Phil Goff to urge him to put his money where his mouth is and formally advise NZ Cricket that the tour will not be in New Zealand's foreign policy interests - or Don Brash, Peter Dunne, Peter Brown (because Winston still doesn't do email) and Rodney Hide to encourage them to declare their support for a boycott.

Politicising the public service

Don Brash has attacked the Police Commissioner for implementing the government's policy agenda. What would he prefer they do? Dig their heels in and say "no, we're not going to do this"?

Actually, he probably would. Which simply shows how short-sighted Brash has become in his pursuit of power.

In this country we have a neutral and professional public service. What this means is that politicians set policy and public servants - like the Police Commissioner - implement it. We do this for the simple reason that politicians are elected, while public servants are not.

If public servants are confronted with a policy agenda they believe is flawed, then it is their duty to advocate against it. But they must also accept that it is ultimately a decision for the Minister, and if they insist, public servants must obey. This is known in the trade as "swallowing dead rats". If someone cannot do that, then they have no place in the public service.

By demanding that the Police Commisioner criticise his Minister - and threatening their job if they do not - Don Brash is promoting a politicised public service, one which openly takes sides and backs a particular party. This would be a death-knell for professionalism, and the tradition of free and frank advice, and the result would be a public service staffed by party hacks and blinded by ideology, where promotion above a certain level depended on political compatibility with the government of the day, and whose management was purged with every change of government. It would also invite similar open criticism and subversion of his policy decisions if he should ever gain power. As someone who imagines himself Prime Minister one day, Brash ought to be aware of this; the fact that he has gone ahead anyway and demanded that public servants politicise themselves simply shows that he is completely unsuitable for the job.

Break out the barge poles

Despite polling at around 1%, Destiny New Zealand is confident of beating the 5% threshold at the election. But then there's this coment about their aspirations for government:

[Destiny New Zealand leader Richard Lewis] said Destiny's policies sat well with National and the party would look to enter into a coalition with National, if National won the election.

If I were National, I'd be breaking out the barge poles already...

Helping out

NZ Political Comment is advertising for a co-blogger to help him out. So if you've got some opinions, but maybe not enough to sustain a blog of your own, drop him a line. It's how I got into this, after all.

Meanwhile, I've been considering getting a co-blogger as well. Mostly this has been inspired by fear of impending jury service - I've been summonsed, there's a case which could last a month, and it would be good to have someone who could cover for me if need be. Though in all liklihood, I'll be rejected, or selected only for a short case, so it may not be necessary. Anyway, I'll muddle through somehow; if I can keep it up for four months without having enough time, I'm sure I'll be able to do another.

But I've also been toying with a more limited form of guest-blogging - providing a platform to people who want to do detailed policy analysis or a themed series, similar to those I've done on asset forfeiture or sedition. So, if you have a head for wonkery and an idea for such a series, feel free to make a pitch.

Executed without sentence

Saudi Arabia has reportedly executed six men without sentencing them to death. The men were jailed for five years in 1999 for abducting and robbing taxi drivers. When their sentence was up, they continued to be detained. When Amnesty International protested, they were executed. None were informed that they faced execution until they were about to be beheaded.

I oppose the death penalty - but this is not about the death penalty; it is about the minimum standards demanded of any justice system. Even countries which murder must abide by the basics of procedural fairness - including informing people of the charges against them, giving them a fair chance to present a defence and challenge the evidence, and telling them their sentence if they are convicted. Otherwise you don't have a justice system so much as a formalised system of lynching.

A timely reminder

Tomorrow is the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Buchenwald. The BBC has a photo gallery as a memorial. It's a timely reminder of what John Tamihere is "sick and tired" of hearing about.

Never again, by anyone, to anyone.

Candidate survey

I've finally got my act together and produced the candidate survey promised here. I'm currently building a candidate database before sending it out. In the meantime, are there any comments or suggestions, or obvious questions I've left off?

No Right Turn 2005 election candidate survey

Please provide a short summary of your views on the following issues. Note that we are not just seeking a yes/no answer, but an idea of the reasons you have for your position. If you'd rather not answer, just put "refuse to state".

Again, your answers (or refusal to answer) may be published.

Do you support or oppose:

• ...legalising marijuana (or pharmaceuticals based on it) for medical use?
• ...decriminalising marijuana for recreational use?
• ...raising the drinking age?
• ...allowing same-sex couples to adopt children?
• ...amending the Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples to marry?
• ...voluntary euthanasia or physician assisted suicide?
• ...the retention of sedition as a crime in the Crimes Act?
• ...the retention of blasphemous libel as a crime in the Crimes Act?
• ...further restrictions on hate speech?
• ...the use of indefinite detention without trial for those subject to a security risk certificate?
• ...Georgina Beyer's Human Rights (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill?
• ...Gordon Copeland's New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill?
• ...entrenching the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act as supreme law?
• ...New Zealand's participation in the International Criminal Court?

Finally,

• How do you think the government should have handled the Ahmed Zaoui case?

The survey will be accompanied by a cover letter explaining why I am seeking answers to these questions and how the list was compiled. I intend to publish the responses, either in bulk, or as an electorate-by electorate voting guide.

Update: Corrected stupid drinking age error.

Sick and tired

So, John Tamihere is sick and tired of hearing about the Holocaust? Well, I think people have finally grown sick and tired of hearing from him. The guy is simply a dick who seems to enjoy embarassing his party by shooting his mouth off. And I think their tolerance for that sort of bullshit has finally run out. On Three News this evening they were talking about deselection; others have called for him to be kicked out of the Labour Party. Either way, he probably won't go quietly. Which makes the cartoon in this weeks Listener of Tamihere as a suicide-bomber fairly apt...

New Fisk

At last, it is time to commemorate the end of one Middle East conflict

Not an isolated incident

It looks like the case of electoral fraud in Birmingham local body elections I blogged about last week was not an isolated incident. Another (UK) Labour councillor has just been sentenced to three and a half years in jail for an identical scheme to fraudulently fill out postal ballots.

This really does raise serious questions about the use of postal ballots in the upcoming British general election - questions that the LibDems, at least, want investigated.

Citizens

75 Afghans rescued at sea by the container ship Tampa yesterday became New Zealand citizens. It's an occasion for a small amount of national pride in the fact that we are a country that accepts people in need, rather than leaving them to drown. These people have already made a valuable contribution since arriving here in 2001; they've got jobs, made friends, done well in school - everything we ask for in a citizen. I really can't think of a more fitting end to (our part of) the Tampa saga than that they should join our whanau and become another stream in the braided river of New Zealand society.

Googlebombing strikes again

Via Nick Barlow: Guess who turns up if you enter "liar" into Google and hit "I'm feeling lucky"?

Incredibly frustrating

I've got a theory. Blogger is run by a cabal of interdimensional demons who feed off people's frustration. I've sat here for the last few hours endlessly clicking trying not only to post, but also to comment here and elsewhere, and all I get back is empty packets. If these keeps up, those demons are going to need liposuction.

Revenge

The opposition has got its revenge on the government for their gaming the Standing Orders to adjourn Parliament in the middle of a member's day so they could attend a state banquet - by doing a bit of gaming themselves after Question Time yesterday:

Under the rules any MP may at any time seek leave of the House to table a document or ask the House to take a certain course of action.

National and ACT MPs took turns to ask for leave to table each individual standing order - there are 397 - while National MP Nick Smith continually sought leave for Parliament to consider the members bill interrupted on Wednesday night by Dr Cullen.

Perfectly legal, and a potent reminder of why Parliamentary procedure should not be abused. And it was in a good cause - private members get very few opportunities to put legislation before the house, and that limited time is something that should be jealously protected. It is good to see National and ACT defending that time even for a bill they subsequently voted against.

But best of all, when the government finally relented and allowed debate to resume, the bill - Sue Kedgley's Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill - passed. It will now go to select committee for public submissions. Curiously, though, United Future refused to vote for it, saying that it was too costly for employers. I guess they're only friendly to the families of the rich...

Something I'd go to if I was in Wellington

The New Zealand Centre for Public Law and the CTU are hosting a public lecture by Professor Harry Glasbeek entitled "Wealth by Stealth: the nature of corporations at the beginning of the 21st century":

This lecture will explore themes in Professor Glasbeek's book Wealth by Stealth: Corporate Crime, Corporate Law and the Perversion of Democracy. Wealth by Stealth has been described as "a scathing introduction to the operations of the modern corporation, written by a corporate lawyer." In it Professor Glasbeek outlines how corporations have become so powerful that they are able to act without regard to the behaviour and laws governing citizens and other groups.

5.30-6.30pm, Thursday 14 April 2005, Izard Weston Lecture Theatre 4, First Floor, Old Government Buildings, Lambton Quay, Wellington. All welcome.

Acquisitions

Despite not having had time to read recently (something I'm working on fixing), I've still been buying books. Call it an addiction, if you will. Anyway, some recent acquisitions:

Tell Me No Lies - a collection of the triumphs of investigative journalism, edited by John Pilger
Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive, on how the fate of human societies is intimitely intertwined with how they treat their environments, by Jared Diamond
Why I Write, by George Orwell, which is one of those lovely cheapie "great ideas" volumes put out by Penguin. Reprinting these and making them available cheaply is a great idea in and of itself - though most are probably available at Gutenberg for free.

Anyway, now all I have to do is find time to read them, in between my other projects and catching up with the Hugos...

An interesting question

An interesting question arises from Don Brash's denial that Maori possessed property rights - namely, how that denial can be reconciled with his past support for the Treaty settlements process. In his infamous Orewa speech, Dr Brash declared that

Where there has been a clear breach of the Treaty - where land has been stolen, for example - then it is right that attempts to make amends should be made

and

Let me make it quite clear. National is absolutely committed to completing the settlement of historical grievances. We will ensure that the process is accelerated and brought to a conclusion

These are admirable sentiments - but strikingly at odds with the view he expressed today. Implicit in the idea of the stealing of land being "a clear breach of the treaty" is a recognition of ownership. But Brash has effectively denied that Maori owned anything. Which is it? Dr Brash owes us an explanation - which of these two incompatible positions he really believes, or, if he believes they can be reconciled, exactly how the rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga exercised over (say) some forested hills can lead to ownership, while that exercised over the foreshore cannot.

New kiwi blog

Work Without End - which is Make Tea Not War's new effort on work and society.

Recalling Prendergast

In his latest piece of pandering to the redneck vote, Don Brash is promising amendments to the Foreshore and Seabed Act to ensure that "the beaches belong to everyone". One change would be to "remove the jurisdiction of the Maori Land Court to hear claims for the foreshore and seabed". Given that the Maori Land Court is a specialist jurisdiction and claims of aboriginal title are precisely its area of competence, this is tantamount to an admission that the law is not on the government's side. It also displays a rather disturbing view (shared by many on the right) that the High Court would be less sympathetic to Maori claims - which given that the two courts interpret exactly the same law, says something about their views on judicial impartiality. But it's the second part which is the worst bit: removing rangatiratanga (authority) and kaitiakitanga (guardianship) as a basis for a customary rights claim.

To see why this is a Bad Thing, we have to unpack it a little. According to the doctrine of aboriginal title, indigenous peoples have property rights which survive a transfer of sovereignty. Such property rights are determined by whatever law or custom prevails at the time of settlement. In the case of Maori, that basically boils down to occupation and usage - or rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga. In other words, what Don Brash is saying is that Maori never had property rights.

This is a staggering view, both in its sheer ignorance and implicit racism, and one which is more characteristic of the nineteenth century than the modern era. In fact, what it most recalls is the ruling of Justice Prendergast in Wi Parata v Bishop of Wellington. In that case, Prendergast famously declared the Treaty to be "a simple nullity", as deals with "savages" and "barbarians" were not binding. However, he also argued that Maori could not possibly have property rights, because

[h]ad any body of law or custom, capable of being understood and administered by the Courts of a civilised country, been known to exist, the British Government would surely have provided for its recognition

- a proposition which nowdays would be treated with the scorn it deserves. But Prendergast wasn't serious in his assertion of government infalliability, as his treatment of the Native Rights Act 1865 shows. When faced with an explicit provision recognising "property, whether real or personal, of the Maori people" and "land held under Maori custom and usage", he airily declared that "a phrase in a statute cannot call what is non-existent into being". Maori could not own property, unless it had been granted to them by the crown.

New Zealand has moved on since then, but as with so many other things, Brash seems to remain firmly mired in the past.