National MP Richard Worth has begun his campaign to regain Epsom by attacking ACT leader Rodney Hide for supporting "widespread drug legalisation". Hide is the leader of the self-proclaimed "liberal party", so you'd expect him to have liberal views on the issue (such as those seen in his profile on the NORML website). But when asked about it by the media, he was instead downright evasive, saying that he was "just not interested in commenting on [Worth's] letter" and
Mr Hide: "It [cannabis decriminalisation] hasn't come up for a vote but certainly if it did it would get interesting because I think it's an important debate to have."Herald: "Are you saying you don't have a view?"
Mr Hide: "No, I'm saying it hasn't come up for a vote."
Some liberal. Some "liberal party". The only area ACT seems to have the courage of its stated convictions is on tax. On every other issue of freedom - on prostitution, on flag burning, on civil unions, and gay marriage - they advocated or voted with the conservatives. And now they're fudging on drugs. You really have to wonder why they claim to be "liberals" at all...
Update: deleted duplicate text. I should really take more care before I post...
Update 2: Removed incorrect link to abortion. Oh, I'd linked to a vote - but it was the wrong one. For the record, ACT overwhelmingly voted against Judith Collins' parental notification amendment. And a good thing, too.
My impression upon reading this article: Hide doesn't have the courage of his convictions (assuming he has some on issues other than lower taxes). Maybe he's worried that if he states "Yes, drug laws should be liberalized, and here's x good reasons why..." the media will crucify him.
ReplyDeletePlenty of urban liberal types in Epsom might be open to reason on this issue, though.
?Rodney, Heather and all of the then ACT caucus but Franks voted
ReplyDeleteagainst Judith Collins' ghastly
antiabortion amendment to the Care of Children Act 2004. And he supported civil unions throughout the process.
On some issues, they are good centre-right social liberals, and I have no trouble accepting them as such.
Craig Y
I think ACTites regard themselves as "libertarians", which makes their attitude towards Cannabis even odder than if they were "liberals." A better description of this party is "propertarian", a term that recently turned up on a US blog (please don't ask me which one - I didn't take note at the time!)
ReplyDeleteCraig: Excuse me while I kick myself - I'd linked to the wrong post, about Stephen Franks' attempt to gut the Human Rights Act and allow outright discrimination on the basis of marriage (or rather, against the unmarried; discrimination in reverse would still have been forbidden). I've removed the link re abortion and posted a correction.
ReplyDeleteRodney did indeed support civil unions. But he was in the minority of his party, just as he was on prostitution. I'd like to think that things have changed now that Franks, Newman and Eckhoff are out of Parliament, but judging from their performance so far (voting for the marriage bill - something I expected both Rodney and Heather to oppose) it looks like quite the opposite has occured. Now that there's only two of them, they seem to be trying even harder to suck up to the social conservatives who fund them, rather than being a consistently liberal party.
Bluntly, the only freedom ACT can be trusted to support is the freedom of the rich not to pay taxes.
Rodney would personally support decriminalisation of cannabis, I am rather sure of it - but ACT's major funders are conservative - which is why it struggles to be consistently liberal.
ReplyDeleteIf only ACT could realise there is a constituency for people who believe in less government across the board!
I would argue civil unions/gay marriage could be voted against on liberal grounds (an may well have been) the point being that it puts the government and a set of rules into ANOTHER set of relationships - where the desired outcome is getting them out of it.
ReplyDeleteTo use an analogy one might say if we wanted freedom we would let all the prisoners out of jail (and admit it if this is not feasible) but not put everyone else IN jail (even if that ensures equality).
I guess I agree on the flag burning and prostitution votes though.
Idiot. The word liberal refers to economic liberalism.
ReplyDeleteDrug legislation is covered by conscience voting, not much point for policy is there?
Anon: so where does Rodney's supposedly "liberal" conscience stand on the issue, then?
ReplyDeleteOh that's right - he won't tell us, because he's too busy trying to grub funding from social conservatives.
Depends on the drug. Yes to cannabis*, I'd drop E to a Class C, and still retain penalties for crystal meth/P.
ReplyDelete*But retain penalties for those who give it to kids and people experiencing schizophrenia, as it may exacerbate pre-existing psychotic episodes.
Craig Y.
Oh, and I know plenty of centre-right social liberals who'd regard themselves as free marketeers and
ReplyDeletesocial liberals on so-called conscience issues. And given that the Clark administration is Blairite in terms of much of its economic policy agenda apart from industrial relations and social policy, I'm not sure where one'd place the demarcation point these days.
Craig Y.
icehawk,
ReplyDeleteI can see that argument but there is no punishment for living together without a marraige licence (as opposed to driving without a drivers licence) and this is the main aspect of your example that makes me (and presumably others) find it disturbing.
And does that mean we can use your argument to say a liberal should support any government intervention or restriction on behaviour as long as they can find one that is analogous somwhere else?
> Or arguing that a libertarian could fairly support
they couldnt fairly suport it but that doesnt mean it isnt liberal given a "this or nothing" option
>Trying to have the law or system work unfairly is very different.
I think that is the thing being debated (and maybe you are right, I am just saying you COULD be wrong). I mean they may not be trying to make the law unfair.
I am sympathetic to that idea because on the two issues of druigs and civil unions I have a similar "I might take what I can get - but in a perfect world..." sort of view.
A socialist example might be having a government department for giving money to poor gay families could be socialist but not fair.
ReplyDeleteAs well as that, parent tracking
ReplyDeleteoccurs in lesbian/gay led families, which means that we don't have as much disposable incomes as our footloose and fancy free single equivalents.
As for poor lesbian and gay families, well, yes, ethnic minority and working-class same-sex led families exist, and income
redistribution policies should recognise that.
Craig Y.