Hone, Hone, Hone

OK, so I know Hone Harawira likes to play the rebel, but praising Osama bin Laden as a freedom fighter? For fuck's sake, the man was a mass-murderer. It was wrong to execute him without trial, and wrong to take pleasure in his death, but that doesn't mean anyone should delude themselves that he was some sort of noble figure. There is no nobility in killing people, no matter what your cause. Killers should be shunned and despised, not celebrated as heroes.

New Fisk

If this is a US victory, does that mean its forces should go home now?

Canada: An illustration of the unfairness of FPP

Canada went to the polls yesterday. As I noted in my posted yesterday, Canada uses an unfair electoral system, and the results were disproportionate. How disproportionate? Take a look at the table below:

Party	%vote	Seats	% Seats
Conservative	39.62	167	54.2
New Democrat	30.63	102	33.1
Liberal	18.91	34	11.04
Bloc Québécois	6.04	4	1.3
Green	3.91	1	0.32

(For the wonks, the result has a Gallagher Index of 12.58. New Zealand's last election, our worst under MMP, had a Gallagher Index of 3.84)

So the Conservatives get to govern, despite being rejected by a clear majority of the Canadian people, thanks to an electoral system which inflates a plurality into a majority, while under-representing everyone else. It is not acceptable for a supposedly democratic nation to be governed in this way; Canada desperately needs electoral reform.

Meanwhile, its a stark warning of the consequences of the electoral system the right want to foist upon us here. Don't let them do it.

The SAS takes prisoners after all

So, having denied for years that the SAS takes prisoners in Afghanistan, the government has now admitted that they do:

KEITH LOCKE (Green) to the Minister of Defence: Has New Zealand’s SAS detained anyone during its operations or joint operations with other forces since being redeployed to Afghanistan in 2009?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence): On 30 January the New Zealand SAS detained a mid-level Taliban commander in response to a tasking by the International Security Assistance Force, because the Afghan authorities, including the crisis response unit, were not available at the time. That person was transferred to a United States facility at Bagram, and is now being held at a joint US-Afghan facility at Parwan. The detainee is being monitored by New Zealand officials in accordance with our responsibilities under international law. The last visit to the detainee was by New Zealand officials on 25 April. His principal complaint was that he was unhappy at being held by infidels, but had no other concerns.

So, despite having transferred prisoners to US torture in 2002, the SAS have done it again. And they've been sent to Bagram, the Afghan Guantanamo, where prisoners have been tortured and even murdered. The good news is that this time, there is proper monitoring. But given the US's past treatment of prisoners, I wouldn't consider them suitable custodians for a dog, let alone a human being.

Meanwhile, this again calls the Jerry Mateparae's testimony to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee into question. In 2010, he told them [PDF] that

the SAS has no authority to exercise control over detainees, even when its personnel are present at the arrest, as the detainees are subject to Afghan law. The SAS’s role is to provide support and training for the Afghan authorities.

This is clearly inconsistent with Mapp's answer yesterday. Either something changed, or Mataparae lied to Parliament. We deserve to know which is the case.

Return of the Zombie Member's Day

Today is a Member's Day. Unfortunately, its the same as the last one, with the chief order of business being the committee stage of Heather Roy's Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill, still dragging itself along behind a bunch of boring private and local bills.

There are now seven theoretical member's days between now and the election. I think we can expect to lose one or two of them to urgency as the government tries to wrap up its legislative program before the House rises. Unfortunately that's enough time for Roy's bill to get through, even if Labour talks out every local bill to its maximum length.

Justice for Ian Tomlinson?

In 2009, a UK police officer beat newspaper-seller Ian Tomlinson from behind during a protest. Tomlinson, whose hands were in his pockets and who posed no threat to police, died shortly afterwards, his insides pulped by the blow. Today, a coronial jury found that Tomlinson's death was unlawful, a result of that blow from behind. As a result, the Crown prosecution Service, who had originally refused to do anything (despite clear video evidence of the beating and a recommendation from the Independent Police Complaints Commission that the officer be prosecuted), will now be reconsidering whether to lay manslaughter charges.

I hope they do. A man is dead. He deserves justice. And the police need to be held accountable when they overstep the mark, as has clearly happened in this case. Another whitewash is not acceptable. There must be justice for this killing.

A revenge killing

And now it comes out: Osama bin Laden was unarmed when he was killed. This wasn't a death in a firefight, but an execution, a revenge killing. Calling it "justice" sullies the word.

And I thought the difference between Us and Them was that We didn't shoot unarmed people. But I guess that's gone the same way as "we don't torture"...

New Fisk

Was he betrayed? Of course. Pakistan knew Bin Laden's hiding place all along
A close encounter with the man who shook the world
My deadliest moment with the world's most dangerous men

Canada votes

Last month, Stephen Harper's Conservatives became the first ever Canadian Government to be found in contempt of Parliament, causing early elections. Today, it looks like that government has been re-elected. As I watch, it looks like they're on track for 165 seats, a comfortable majority in Canadian terms. Meanwhile, the New Democratic Party, Canada's equivalent of the Alliance, looks to have won over a hundred seats, supplanting the Liberals (Canada's "natural party of government") as Opposition. Many of their gains have come at the expense of the Liberals, but their primary victim has been the separatist Bloc Québécois, who have been reduced from 49 seats to a mere handful.

Canada uses an unfair electoral system, so the result is massively disproportionate. I'll do a full table when final results are in, but the Greens and Liberals and Bloc have been robbed of representation, in order to provide an artificial majority for a party which has won a mere 40% of the vote. Canada clearly needs a fair electoral system. Sadly, neither of its two traditional major parties seem keen on one.

A massive relaxation of the law

I've read a little more of the Law Commission's report on the Misuse of Drugs Act. The central thrust of their recommendations is for a massive relaxation of the law and a shift from persecution to harm minimisation. Some of the measures they recommend:

• Drug classifications to be made by Parliament on the advice of an expert committee, rather than the Minister by Order in Council. Which means no more sudden reclassifications because Peter Dunne or Jim Anderton saw someone having fun.
• Removing the current presumption that possession of more than a specified amount is for the purposes of supply. This effectively assumes the defendant guilty, and is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act. Instead, they recommend a new offence of "aggravated possession".
• A presumption against imprisonment for "social dealing" (meaning supply to friends where there is no profit motive). The Law Commission recognises that this isn't a problem, and sticking people in jail for it creates more problems than it solves.
• Moving from prosecution for personal possession and use to a mandatory cautioning scheme. Instead of the government wasting money taking people to court for drug use, the police will warn them a specified number of times (depending on the class of drug), with the final warning including advice on addiction treatment.
• For those who are prosecuted following a final warning for personal use and possession, a presumption against imprisonment.
• Retention of warrantless search powers, with the exception of the power to search places in the case of class C drugs. So the police won't be able to invite themselves in if they "smell cannabis".

These changes would make a real difference and reduce the amount of harm caused by the war on drugs. And they certainly seem like a much better way to unclog the courts than eliminating the right to trial by jury. So of course, the government will ignore them.

The LawCom hates the War on Drugs

Back in 2007, the government asked the Law Commission to review the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 with an eye to modernising it and brining it into line with the principle of harm minimisation and our obligations under international law. Today, they reported back. Its a substantial report - two fat PDFs - and it will take a while to digest. But just skimming the Forward shows that substantial changes are in store:

the 1975 statute is inconsistent with the official drug policy adopted in New Zealand. That policy is based on the principle of harm minimisation and supports a balance of measures under the pillars of supply control, demand reduction and problem limitation. The Misuse of Drugs Act, however, emphasises the supply problem whilst distinctly neglecting these other two important pillars. Much greater legislative recognition of demand reduction and harm reduction strategies is needed.

Third, the existing supply control focussed approach consumes a very considerable resource through demands on detection, enforcement, justice and corrections.

Fourth, there are adverse social consequences from a distinctly punitive approach to lower level offending. Quite large numbers of young New Zealanders receive criminal convictions – which might subsist for life – as a result of minor drug offences. This is a disproportionate response to the harm those offences cause. More can be done through the criminal justice system to achieve better outcomes for those individuals and for society at large.

Or, to summarise, the war on Drugs is a waste of time and money and we can do much better by caring a little less about what people stick into their bodies.

Somehow, I suspect that this broad, evidence-based conclusion is not going to be acceptable to the government. Its an election year, and they have a Tough On Crime drum to bang; they don't want petty things like evidence getting in the way of that.

James Hansen tour

Climate change scientist James Hansen is touring New Zealand this month, including public lectures in Auckland, Palmerston North, Wellington, Dunedin, Christchurch and Gore. His topic is "Climate Change: a scientific, moral and legal issue":

Dr Hansen will explain why it is impossible to get climate change under control and preserve a decent future for our grandchildren unless we leave most of the remaining coal in the ground. To quote: "Human-made climate change is a moral issue. It pits the rich and the powerful against the young and the unborn, against the defenseless and against nature. Climate change is a political issue. But politics fails when there is a revolving door between government and the fossil fuel-industrial complex. Climate change is a legal issue. The judiciary provides the possibility of holding our governments accountable for their duty to protect the public interest."

Moe information, including lecture dates, here.

Who do you believe?

Last week, in an article in Metro, journalist Jon Stephenson revealed how NZ government policies had made the SAS complicit in torture. In the process, he raised serious questions about the suitability of Governor-General designate Jerry Mateparae, who appears to have lied to Parliament in an effort to cover up the policy.

Yesterday, in response to calls from the Greens and Labour (who are implicated as well), as well as human rights group Amnesty International for a full and independent inquiry, both the Prime Minister and the defence force responded. Both basically called Stephenson a liar who had fabricated his story.

So, its basically a question of who you believe: a journalist with sources, or a government and military with a history of deceit and every reason to lie.

Not much of a contest, is it?

The Greens and America

Over the weekend, Wikileaks released 1500 New Zealand-related US diplomatic cables. People have been browsing through them since, and Stuff this morning reports on an interesting one: 09WELLINGTON223: Engaging an MP critic of Afghan combat ops. The critic in question is Green MP Kennedy Graham. The US charge d'affaires David Keegan invited him to lunch, with the explicit purpose of "establish[ing] the beginnings of a warm and respectful relationship with Graham" so as to blunt the Greens' attitude to America's wars. This is apparently part of an ongoing program, which has also included co-leaders Russel Norman (who was given a trip to the US to examine their climate change policy) and Metiria Turei. From the cable, Keegan thought his lobbying of Graham was successful, based on Graham's admission that he "does not always subscribe to the majority view of his party's caucus" and his differences in tone when criticising US policy. I'm not so sure. From the cable:

[Graham] steadfastly, yet evenly, re-asserted that OEF [the US occupation of Afghanistan] presently operates under an imprecise mandate and that only an explicit UN resolution can provide correction. The former NZ and UN diplomat Graham, predictably, proved his internationalist credentials and demonstrated that he is likely to become one of the NZ Parliament's strongest advocates of multilateralism. He underscored his OEF position by arguing that strengthening the rule of international law, through national action as provided for and in the UN Charter, is the most effective way of promoting international and national security for all nations and their peoples.

Those views - a strong commitment to human rights and international law - are the real problem for the US given its recent behaviour and desire to make everyone complicit in their crimes. And there is not the slightest indication that they have changed. And while the US may consider it a victory to swap Keith Locke for Graham, I'm not so sure about that either.

Meanwhile, Russel Norman's response to the story leaves a lot to be desired - first "object[ing] to the US cables being handled as if they were truth" (when fellow Green MP Gareth Hughes is doing exactly that) and denying that the US has seduced them. That may be so, but at the same time, the US operates those visitor programs for a purpose, and they expect, on average, to get something out of them. Norman may not like people being reminded of that fact, but it is the truth. And if he didn't want it to sully his reputation as a critic of US policy, then perhaps he shouldn't have gone.

This doesn't solve anything

As I type this, I'm waiting for President Obama's already long-delayed late-night address, in which he is expected to announce that Osama bin Laden has been assassinated. As with the execution of Saddam Hussein, it was morally wrong, and it is unlikely to resolve anything.

On the first point, everyone deserves a fair trial, and no-one deserves to be executed. That applies to monsters like Saddam Hussein, and it certainly applies to mass-murderers like Osama bin Laden. Killing people for their crimes is wrong. Killing them without a fair trial is worse. It is not justice; it is murder. Those taking satisfaction in it, are vengeful sadists, with the ethics of kitten-strangling psychopaths who kill for pleasure.

(Phil Goff is apparently one of those psychopaths. I will not support anyone who supports extrajudicial execution, and such a person is unfit to hold a seat in the New Zealand Parliament, let alone be its Prime Minister).

Secondly, while Americans are already cheering the death, it doesn't actually solve anything. This is the real world, not a fantasy novel. The world is not suddenly set to rights because the Dark Lord is dead. To point out the obvious, the Taliban are fighting their own war, not bin Laden's; they are not going to lay down their arms because an old man is dead. Likewise, al Qaeda as an organisation isn't going to magically disappear with bin Laden's death, and the long war he has started is not going to end - not as long as the US keeps murdering innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be justice, not murder, which ends that terrorist campaign.

The only positive aspect of this is that it now gives the US an excuse to declare victory in Afghanistan and go home, and cease providing more recruits for terrorist networks with their presence and impunity. The sooner they do so, the better.

Brownlee can sell Christchurch

The Press this morning has an unpleasant revelation about the government's recently-passed earthquake legislation: it allows Gerry Brownlee to decide, by himself, to sell Christchurch's strategic assets.

Such decisions must normally be announced in the long-term plan and approved by a special consultative procedure. But under Brownlee's earthquake legislation, the Recovery Strategy (which his minions write and he approves) becomes part of all council planning documents, and prevails over them. Which allows Brownlee to bypass all the normal safeguards and force Christchurch to sell its family silver to fund his recovery plans.

Brownlee of course assures us he won't use this power. But quite apart from questions of trust, the decision should not be his to make in the first place. Decisions on what assets they should own and what they should sell are the proper domain of the people of Christchurch, not some government Minister with an ideological agenda and donors demanding favours. But then, the same could be said of the entire recovery strategy itself.

Meanwhile, its a bit rich for Labour to be complaining about this now. After all, they voted to give Brownlee this power, even after specific amendments to prevent such local body privatisation were defeated. If it was such a red line, they should have voted against the bill. Their failure to do so makes them look like cowardly hypocrites.

New Fisk

'We will never cease our struggle until we bring down Assad'

Goff's empty threat

It's Monday, so that means it must be time for the regular weekly failure by Phil Goff. This week's fuck-up? refusing to work with Hone Harawira's Mana Party:

Labour leader Phil Goff has ruled out working with anyone in the Mana Party formed by renegade MP Hone Harawira at the weekend.

[...]

Mr Goff had previously ruled out working with Mr Harawira after the November general election.

Labour spokeswoman Vikki Carter said Mr Goff had now extended that decision to any MP who enlists with the Mana Party.

He could not work with anyone who worked for a party with values and core policy shaped by Mr Harawira, she said.

While the Mana Party is led by Harawira, it is also clearly on the left, and therefore a natural ally. And while its obviously a lot further left than Goff - a former RogerNome - is comfortable with, working out how to work together despite such differences is what the coalition process is for. There's no suggestion yet that Harawira will be as retrograde in coalition talks as, say, Don Brash, and given the presence of Sue Bradford I'd regard that as highly unlikely. As her Parliamentary record on youth rates, mothers in prison, and child beating show, she excels in finding ways to work together. Goff ruling them out is therefore simply shooting himself in the foot. So why's he doing it?

One obvious reason is to try and prevent left-wing Labour voters from backing Hone to pull Labour left; pre-emptively saying "he will have no influence" weakens that tactic. But there's also an obvious element of pandering to racism. Hone is a hate-figure among rednecks, and Goff wants to signal that they can safely vote Labour without fear he'll go into coalition with an "uppity Maori". Neither shows Goff in a good light.

But besides that, the threat is empty. If Hone's votes are crucial to Goff becoming Prime Minister, this declaration will be forgotten in an instant (just as Key's promise that Brash won't be deputy PM or Finance Minister will be). It's simply a hypocritical exercise which needlessly alienates a natural ally, and which only a fool would believe. But maybe Goff (and his advisors) think we are all fools.

New Fisk

I may need 'space' to get over this linguistic crime

The done thing

Yesterday Hone Harawira launched his new Mana Party. He also made a shock announcement that he would resign from Parliament to force a by-election - something he had denied on The Nation just that morning. People are already complaining about the cost, calling the by-election "unnecessary", but I beg to differ. Seeking a new mandate from your voters when you switch allegiance or found a new party is the done thing in New Zealand. Winston did it, and Tariana did it, because they both knew that if they did not, then they would be criticised as lacking a mandate by their former colleagues and the media. As for doing it in election year, Winston's by-election was in April, just 8 months out from the 1993 general election. Yes, it costs money, but that's the price of democracy. And if we weren't paying it, the same people now complaining about the cost would be questioning Harawira's legitimacy as a representative because he had not sought such a mandate.

(They're already smearing him by saying he's doing it for the money; Graeme Edgeler puts paid to that silly idea here)

Hone's big mistake in this isn't calling a by-election, but lying about his plans just a few hours beforehand. Journalists hate being lied to, and they're taking revenge the best way they know how: by wilfully misrepresenting Hone's position (e.g. Patrick Gower's lies about him wanting to "abolish all taxes"; actually Hone wants to abolish GST). It certainly shows that our media aren't the neutral purveyors of information they pretend to be.