The government should not be prosecuting people for this

A couple in Christchurch are being prosecuted for consensual incest:

A brother and sister who met as young adults are now co-parenting a child in Christchurch and being dealt with on charges of incest.

[...]

Judge Saunders told the sister at her sentencing that it was not the more common incest situation where an older man had taken advantage of a daughter.

In this case they were siblings and there was only a small disparity in the ages. “You only came to know each other in more recent times and there was a relationship that developed of an inappropriate kind. That has resulted in you now having to take the main responsibility for bringing up the child.”

Its very hard to see why this is a crime at all. This is a relationship between consenting adults. There is no suggestion of a power imbalance or exploitation (and if there was, I'm sure the police would be pursuing much more serious charges). So what's the interest of the state in punishing it?

Basically, these people are being punished because their consensual relationship makes other people go "ick". And that's simply not a good reason, any more than it is for homosexuals, polys, multiracial couples or people who like peanut butter. People's consensual private relationships are their own business, and the state should stay out of them.

It makes you think

(Image stolen from @studentsnz)

Which is a no-brainer. Remove the sources of stress in people's lives - getting sick, having enough to live on, having enough time for themselves or to spend with their friends and family - and people are free to be happy.

All of these policies are affordable in New Zealand - its just a question of priorities. And our government (and its predecessors) has prioritised tax-cuts for the rich and billion-dollar giveaways to polluters over the needs of ordinary kiwis. It would be nice if we had a government - and a country - which worked for ordinary people, and not just the rich.

Hoist by his own petard

Last week, when we learned that rape and sexual abuse were rife in Australia's Pacific gulag, the Australian government responded in its usual bullying fashion, dismissing the claims as a "fabrication" and announcing that ten Save the Children staff would be investigated for leaking government information about them. The vehicle for that response was a leaked intelligence report by gulag servicing company Transfield - and now Immigration Minister Scott Morrison is being investigated for leaking it:

The Australian Federal Police has been asked to investigate Immigration Minister Scott Morrison and his staff for leaking details of a confidential internal security report from Nauru to a journalist.

It was reported in News Corp publications on Friday that internal Transfield security documents from the offshore processing centre in Nauru revealed that it was "probable" that Save the Children staff were encouraging asylum seekers to self harm.

Fairfax Media understands that select paragraphs from the confidential report were provided to the journalist.

Fair's fair. If the law says its a crime to leak confidential government information, then that law applies to Ministers as well as peons. Or is the law just a tool for the oppression of the weak by the strong?

We don't need new laws to fight terrorism

Over the past few days, John Key has been talking up the "threat" of kiwis fighting in Syria, and the need for new laws to stop them leaving or returning to New Zealand. On the latter point, there's an obvious freedom of movement issue: every person has the right to leave here, and every kiwi has the right to return. Cancelling of seizing passports and stranding people overseas violates that right unjustifiably. And if done without judicial process, it constitutes an extra-judicial punishment of exile - the sort of thing we criticise foreign regimes for doing.

What about punishing that tiny number of jihadis for fighting overseas? The way Key talks, you'd think that it wasn't a crime. But he's lying. The groups he is concerned about - IS and Al-Nuisrah - are both designated terrorist entities [see p. 149 - 150]. Which means that anyone recruiting for them, financing them, or participating in them is committing a crime punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment. New Zealand claims extraterritorial jurisdiction over its citizens for those crimes, so there's no doubt they can be prosecuted. In short: we don't need new laws to fight terrorism. All we need is for the police to do their jobs properly to enforce the old ones. And if they can't be arsed or don't want to do that before punishing people, then I think we have a much bigger and more immediate problem with them than with people leaving NZ to fight overseas.

Support Nicky Hager!

Last Thursday journalist Nicky Hager was raided by police in a blatant attempt at intimidation for writing Dirty Politics. Now he faces a prolonged and expensive legal process to get his computers, data and papers back. Newspapers have lawyers on staff to deal with problems like this, but independent journalists don't. So a friend of his has set up a GiveALittle campaign to help pay for his legal costs:

A dear friend of mine is a good friend of Nicky's and suggested this fund as a way to show our support for Nicky and to send a clear message that we will fight misuse of power in our little democracy. We also need to set a legal precedent that this use of power against journalists is not acceptable. If the legal work is done pro-bono then donations will go to support the work Nicky does as an investigative journalist.

You can donate to it here.

Protecting the press from the police

Over in the UK, police are increasingly abusing anti-terror laws to seize journalist's phone records in order to uncover their sources (today's example: they obtained the Sun's phone records for a year in an effort to identify one source). Now, the Interception of Communications Commissioner has launched an inquiry into the practice:

Acting Interception of Communications Commission Sir Paul Kennedy announced this morning that he has written to all chief constables and ordered them to provide full details of use of RIPA powers to identify journalistic sources. Head of is office Joanna Cavan acknowledged the role Press Gazette has played in bringing about the inquiry, saying the campaign had "helped to highlight public concerns".

[...]

"My office will undertake a full inquiry into these matters and report our findings to the Prime Minister and publically so as to develop clarity in relation to the scope and compliance of this activity.”

He also said: “I fully understand and share the concerns raised about the protection of journalistic sources so as to enable a free press.

Its good to hear, and maybe it'll result in a search power which respects journalistic privilege.

So what are the chances of a similar inquiry to combat such abuses here? Zero. For a start, there's no-one monitoring the police's use of search powers, no body with the task of ensuring they obey for the law. And then there's the problem that the police don't even keep records of how many times they use these powers (let alone how many times they use them against journalists).

We need to tighten the law here. A statutory reporting regime (as exists for surveillance warrants), limiting the seizure of telecommunications data to serious crime, and requiring the protection of privilege would be a good start.

New Fisk

Lebanon faces Isis and Nusra incursions – and an influx of refugees

A surprise policy

Remember National's social housing policy? The one they campaigned on? The one that talked about how much money they were spending and was all about upgrading and investing in state houses? Somehow, post-election, its transmogrified into selling off a third of the state housing stock:

Key signalled [the social housing sector] could be dramatically boosted, with the Housing NZ portfolio squeezed and a "substantial increase" in housing provided by social agencies.

Organisations such as the Salvation Army and Presbyterian Support could have a "much bigger role" as housing providers.

The mix between the Crown's existing stock and its investment in housing for low-income Kiwis that was provided by others was "wrong", Key said.

While the Government would not "go crazy" in selling existing Housing NZ stock, properties were often in the wrong place and the wrong size.

Housing NZ had already identified that about $5 billion of its stock was not fit for purpose, and English confirmed yesterday that there would be sales.

So, having squeezed eligibility so far that people living in garages aren't classed as desperate enough to need a state house, National is now going to basically exit the sector entirely and dump it on charities. Whose funding can then be cut in future to save money and provide tax cuts for the rich.

National didn't campaign on this, and it wasn't what we voted for. But they've never let that get in the way of anything. Charter schools, Ruthanasia - their electoral history is studded with examples of them saying one thing while seeking election, then doing something dramatically different once they've gained the Ministerial benches. One of their past leaders even talked openly about a "moral obligation to lie" about their policies. And this is just more of the same.

Explosive

The police have raided Nicky Hager's home and seized his computers. So, once again a journalist who has embarrassed the Prime Minister faces the full force of the state (though this time after the election - which is convenient for the Prime Minister). Its particularly outrageous because this is an explicit attempt to uncover his sources - something he has legal privilege against.

Hager has a statement here, and his lawyer is working on challenging the warrant. There's a process in the Search and Surveillance Act for that; the question is whether the police will obey it, or whether they're pretending that Hager isn't a journalist so they can go snooping. It'll also be interesting to find out whether they've used a production order to seize his phone records - a process which is being used overseas to bypass journalistic privilege.

Meanwhile, its also highly illuminating about police priorities. Break electoral law, and they do nothing. Pervert the course of justice, and they look the other way. Rape underage girls, and its too hard. But embarrass the Prime Minister, and they're kicking in doors. You'd almost think they were the jackbooted thugs of the powers-that-be, rather than neutral enforcers of the law...

Creeping surveillance

Techliberty has an update on police use of Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) technology. The key points:

• They have increased the number of ANPR vehicles, from 3 to 17. Its still low, but the fact that its creeping up is disturbing.
  
• They are targeting vehicles based on their expected driver, and their targeting database is already so large that 3-4 percent of vehicles passing an ANPR car are flagged.
  
• The cameras misread plates, meaning that there will be false positives 9and people stopped for no reason)
  
• They are retaining data for 48 hours, and openly talk about querying it afterwards to see if a particular vehicle has passed by.
  

The good news is that the cameras aren't networked, and there is no national database. Yet. The problem is that they're doing all of this in secret, without seeking consent from the public. And that's a very bad signal as to their motives and future plans.

Truth overboard

Last week we learned that Australia's "Pacific solution" had sunk to a new level of horror: systematic sexual abuse. Refugees, including children, had been forced to expose themselves to guards in exchange for showers, offered drugs for sex, forced to have sex for the entertainment of guards, and threatened with rape. The Australian government's response was swift: they dismissed the claims as a fabrication, and announced that 10 Save the Children staff would be deported from Nauru and investigated for leaking official information.

Of course, he lied, and his government's own documents show it:

Guardian Australia has obtained, from a number of sources, minutes of welfare meetings and a Transfield intelligence report, which detail some of the child protection and abuse concerns in Nauru camps.

Those documents show, in the week beginning 2 June:

• A 17-year-old boy who attempted suicide with a razor after being told he was not allowed access to the internet.
  
• A 16-year-old girl who told her case workers she had been tormented and sexually harassed by detention centre security guards. The girl reported a number of male Nauruan employees “have tried to hug her, kiss her, told her they would marry her and asked her to have a ‘sexy party’”.
  
• A 17-year-old boy who attempted suicide by strangling himself...

There's a lot more, and its unpleasant stuff. But it shows convincingly that this is a real problem, not a fabrication - and that the Australian government has known about it for some time, but done nothing about it, instead preferring to cover it up to protect their policy and their reputation. And that is absolutely vile.

A government which covers up child abuse does not deserve to be a government anymore. Its that simple. Throw the fuckers out.

New Fisk

Cameron talked the talk at conference. But after the bombing, what then?

A new Minister for spies

John Key announced his New Cabinet today, and in addition to the expected shuffling, there's also a surprise: a new Minister for National Security and Intelligence, seperate from the GCSB and SIS roles. The official excuse is that this mirrors arrangements in Australia and the UK - which is rather chilling when you think about the direction of their spy-policy, and two of the worst countries we could choose to emulate - and because of "changes" in our spy agencies (otherwise known as the metastasis of DPMC, which is consuming everything). But the real reason is to be found in the outline of portfolio responsibilities:

Parliamentary questions and Official Information Act requests will be dealt with by the appropriate Minister.

Key has created a whole new Ministerial position so he can retain control of the spies, while no longer having to answer questions about them (something which has exposed him in the last two years). And if any dirt emerges from the Snowden leaks, the new Minister (Chris Finlayson) gets to be scapegoat, while Key gets to walk away from the agencies he was supposed to be overseeing.

Equality is still 50 years away

The New Zealand Income Survey was released today, showing that the gender-pay gap in median hourly earnings had narrowed slightly from 10.1 to 9.9%. Which is progress, particularly given that we went backwards last year - but at this rate, equality is still 50 years away. Which simply isn't good enough.

Women shouldn't have to wait 50 more years for equal pay. Our government needs to do something. Sadly, I think its low on their priority list.

I hope UKanians all feel safer now

Back in March, when the British government decided that that we should all Be Scared of Syrian Terrorists, the first thing they did was arrest former Guantanamo bay detainnee Moazzam Begg and bang him up on terrorism charges for travelling to Syria. Before his arrest, he'd talked openly about how he had discussed his trips with MI5, and it turns out that this was all true. Yesterday, the prosecution was halted and he was formally acquitted after MI5 turned over intelligence material corroborating his defence. The stinky bit? They let him rot in jail for five months before doing so, and the police waited two more before admitting that they no longer had a case. Just to repeat that, Britain's spies and police let a man they knew was innocent of the charges against him rot in jail for seven months, despite having evidence that would exonerate him.

Someone should be going to jail for this. And it isn't Moazzem Begg.

But in addition to being an affront to justice and a very expensive human rights case, its also a massive own-goal in the "war on terror". Radicalisation and terrorist recruitment are driven by perceived injustice. And by openly persecuting an outspoken Muslim voice, the British government has turned itself into a recruiting sergeant for its enemies. I hope UKanians all feel safer now.

The real threat to the UK

The British government wants to ban "non-violent extremists" - that's Tory for "people the government doesn't like" - from appearing on TV or social media:

Radical Islamist extremists and neo-Nazis could be banned from making public appearances including on television under a gagging order proposed by the Conservatives with echoes of the broadcast ban that once applied to the voice of Gerry Adams.

[...]

May’s extremist disruption civil orders would contain wide-ranging restrictions on individuals who “undertake harmful activities” to spread, incite or justify hatred against people on grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation or disability.

The orders would be issued by a high court judge on an application from the police on the lower legal test of “balance of probabilities” rather than the stronger test of “beyond reasonable doubt”.

The restrictions are expected to include banning individuals from speaking at public events, protests and meetings, having to inform the police in advance of any public event, protest or meeting that they plan to attend, and banning individuals from particular public locations.

May also wants to include restrictions on banned individuals from broadcasting, from associating with named people, and restricting their use of social media or the internet by requiring them to submit in advance any proposed publication to the police.

(The last bit makes it clear that these people simply do not understand social media or how it has become the town square. In this day and age, a social media ban is like cutting out someone's tongue - something else the Tories probably agree with).

Once again I'm reminded of Lord Hoffmann's ruling on indefinite detention: "The real threat to the life of the nation... comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these".

I don't like radical Islamists or Neo-Nazis. But if they're not engaged in or advocating violence, there is no justification for censorship. In a democratic society, people get to peacefully make their case. That case may be deeply offensive, but freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from offence, and it doesn't apply only to people the government likes or who stay within the "approved" bounds of political discourse. It is acceptable in a democracy to peacefully advocate for radical change. And that is the end of the story.

A panopticon in Auckland

Live in Auckland? Smile, Auckland Transport will be watching everything you do:

Surveillance technology that uses high definition cameras and software that can put names to faces and owners to cars is coming to Auckland.

The surveillance has the capability to also scan social media and news websites.

Auckland Transport, the regional transport provider, announced the multi-million dollar deal in June, and California's Hewlett-Packard Development Company said today it has the contract.

Facial recognition, ANPR, individualised tracking, its like some nightmare from "Person of Interest". Auckland Transport have since denied some of the claims, saying that its all about traffic-flow management and that ANPR and facial recognition will not be used (and that no data will be shipped overseas to the NSA), but its all there in HP's press release:

In the first phase of the project, Auckland Transport will focus on improving public safety. Law enforcement will use HP Intelligent Scene Analysis System and license plate recognition for accurate identification and scene analysis for dangerous activities and analyzing safety threats from over 2,000 cameras deployed within Auckland. Going forward this information will be linked with rich insight from social media news sources to provide a comprehensive solution that can proactively identify breaking trends and respond to critical safety incidents for cyclists and transport users.

So, either Auckland Transport is lying, or their contractor has a very different idea of what this project is all about from the people paying for it (or maybe HP is just hoping to upsell later). Either way, we really have to ask why Auckland Transport is paying for a system with these capabilities (even if they won't be used yet), why its installing a (turnkey) mass-surveillance system without any public mandate. And we need to start looking at whether any of our other local authorities have been doing the same.

Fundamental incomprehension II

Another day, and another journalist who just doesn't get it about the Greens. This time its Duncan Garner:

The Green Party needs a serious rethink. For as long as they have been in Parliament, they have been a left wing party – linked to the fortunes of the Labour Party. The Greens have constantly ruled out voting confidence and supply in a National Government. It means they can only ever be in Government if Labour is in Government. And the truth is – even when the tide was in for the Labour Party - Helen Clark and co shafted them.

[...]

The truth is the Greens can go on about social justice and poverty until they’re Blue/Green in the face, it ain’t working for them. They need a total rethink and they need to position themselves as being able to support either a National or Labour Government. They need to be more than a protest vote.

There's the usual unstated assumption that the Greens (should) want power. But as I've pointed out before, they don't: they want change, and power is just one possible vehicle to pursue that. But there's also another one: that policy, and indeed a party's fundamental direction, is something that can just be altered at will to appeal to (as beltway journalists derisively call us) "the punters". That might be true of National, and of Labour before its 2012 democratisation. But its not true of the Greens. Their core values - including social justice - are set out in their charter. Their policy committee is entirely elected by the membership. And their decision-making process requires consensus, or, failing that, a 75% majority. If the Greens want to give in to highly-paid beltway journalists' calls to throw the poor overboard so they (and others like them) can safely vote for clean rivers without having to think about poverty and hungry kids, they can - but it would require the overwhelming approval of the membership, rather than just a few cuckoos at the top. Which I think we can safely say is not going to happen anytime soon. And if that refusal to compromise their fundamental values means that they stay as a 10% party (while other, larger parties, adopt all their policies), then I don't think they'll be unhappy with that. Because unlike Garner, they don't think that "winning" is solely determined by whether you get a Ministerial salary.

Parliament should decide

Yesterday John Key began laying the groundwork to deploy kiwi troops to Iraq to fight in another pointless American war. And with the Labour Party distracted by its autocannibalism, its left to Winston Peters to stand up for democratic values and argue that Parliament should decide:

New Zealand First Leader Rt Hon Winston Peters is calling for a vote in Parliament on whether New Zealand should have military involvement in the fight against ISIS in Iraq.

“We are gravely concerned that Prime Minister John Key is steering New Zealand towards involvement. He is bowing to pressure, as can be seen as he steers away from his previous comments.

“In June he effectively ruled out participation by saying that Iraq is ‘not a place New Zealand wants to be’. He said we had paid a ‘heavy price’ for being involved in Afghanistan, which New Zealand would not repeat ‘in a hurry’.

“Now Mr Key is saying he is looking at options.

“Committing our Defence Force to a new Middle East war should not be decided on the hoof, this is a matter of serious importance, and all members of Parliament must decide.

I agree with Winston. War isn't a trivial matter. Its significant enough that it requires a democratic stamp of approval. And in our democracy, that means that Parliament should debate and vote on it, and the government should obey. In practice, given our strong party system the government should have no trouble winning such a vote if it can convince its own MPs. But democratic principles require that it make the case publicly and win Parliamentary approval before sending troops to fight overseas.

We don't live in the C18th anymore. In theory, we no longer wage war for the entertainment and personal aggrandisement of the monarch. The age of absolute monarchy is well behind us. And its time our constitutional conventions on foreign policy caught up with that fact.

Australia to criminalise journalism

Imagine this scenario: Australian spies seeking to fight domestic terrorism borrow the tactics of their American counterparts and start running agent provocateurs to "flush out" those with terrorist leanings. But an operation goes horribly wrong, and actually results in a terrorist bombing, with explosives provided by the spies.

If the Australian government gets its way, reporting on such a bungle will soon be a crime:

Under the new laws, Australian Security Intelligence Organisation officers will now have greater immunity from prosecution if they commit a crime in the course of a "special intelligence operation".

Anyone who discloses information about such an operation – including whistleblowers, journalists and bloggers – faces five years in jail. If the disclosure endangers anyone's health or safety – or the effective conduct of an operation – then they face 10 years in jail.

The Attorney-General will decide whether an operation can be classed as a special intelligence operation after receiving an application from ASIO and there is no limit on how many operations can be designated as such.

The laws state only that ASIO officers must not be engaged in conduct that causes death or serious injury, involves a sexual offence against any person or the significant loss of or damage to property during the special operations.

But if there is a death, whether accidental or otherwise, the new laws prevent anyone publicly disclosing the death, the former independent national security legislation monitor, lawyer Bret Walker, SC, told Fairfax Media.

Note that torture is missing from that list of prohibited activities. So the Australian government can grant its spies immunity from prosecution for torture, and at the same time criminalise journalists for reporting on it. Ditto mass-surveillance, or spying on opposition MPs. Its a recipe for unaccountability and abuse of power. Which is the point. Australia's spies no longer want to be limited by its democracy, and their supine government is willing to rubberstamp it to avoid being called "soft on terrorism".

Lets just hope that this particular disease doesn't cross the Tasman. But with a majority government and a Prime Minister willing to pass any law his spies ask him to, it sadly can't be ruled out.