Freedom of speech cuts both ways

The publication of those cartoons has continued to spark protests around the world. In Auckland, seven hundred members of the local Muslim community marched up Queen Street in protest. In London, a similar size protest marched to the Danish embassy holding placards calling for those who insult Islam to be beheaded, butchered and slain. Many - including the Tories - are outraged by this, but they shouldn't be. After all, freedom of speech cuts both ways; you cannot (consistently) insist that people have the right to insult and offend Muslims, but that the latter are not allowed to be insulting and offensive in return.

The placards in London were undoubtedly insulting and offensive - but they did not go beyond the limits of freedom of speech. The opinions expressed are little different to those expressed by pro-death penalty protestors, or those who think that all homosexuals should be killed. And I take exactly the same attitude towards them: while I disagree violently with their position, and will oppose them with every means at my disposal, I cannot question their right to hold or express such views. They're not attacking people, they're not burning buildings, they're not drawing up hit-lists and issuing specific death-threats, and so there is simply no case for suppression. People are allowed to be wrong, and they're allowed to be arseholes - and that applies to the protestors every bit as much as the newspapers.

Death squads in Iraq

The BBC has another story about a group of Sunni men in Baghdad who were arrested by Iraqi Interior Ministry troops - and whose bodies have since been found dumped on the outskirts of town, bearing multiple gunshot wounds.

Is this really what we invaded Iraq for? To replace a government in which death squads kidnapped, tortured and terrorised opponents of the regime with one where exactly the same happens, only to different people?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Unfortunately, it is Iraqis who are now suffering for ours.

No freedom of speech in Jordan

A couple of days ago, the editor of Jordan's AL-Shihan published those cartoons, with an editorial calling on Muslims to "be reasonable" and asking

What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?

First, he was fired by the newspaper's owners. Now, he has been arrested and charged with "insulting religion" under Jordan's press laws. There's no indication of what the penalty is, but it is probably a few years in jail.

It is of course outrageous that anybody could face prosecution and jail for printing cartoons and asking unwelcome questions about violence and religion - but before anyone gets on their high horse about it, remember that New Zealand still has a law against blasphemous libel on the books, and that if those cartoons had been about Jesus, anyone publishing them in New Zealand would technically have been liable to a year's imprisonment. If we want the moral high ground on freedom of speech, shouldn't we remove the beam from our own eye first? Anything less is simply hypocrisy.

Brash admits reality

Don Brash had admitted that National's "next Tuesday" Treaty claims policy, under which all claims would have to be filed by the end of 2006, and all filed grievances settled by 2010, is unrealistic. I would have added "unjust" and "deliberately designed to rule out claims on administrative grounds", but its good to see him showing some sign of wanting to rejoin the reality-based community on this. Unfortunately, Brash doesn't say what the replacement policy will be, only that it will be discussed at National's post-Waitangi caucus meeting. But almost any policy (other than "next Monday" or ruling out claims altogether) is better than "next Tuesday".

As for what policy in this area should be, I'd suggest "as fast as is compatible with justice". Because that's ultimately what the process is about - justice. Righting the wrongs of the past. Justice delayed is justice denied, but rushing things may mean that there is no justice at all. If we want to solve these historic grievances and make sure the settlement lasts, we need to do it properly. That means a full investigation into the past, and a full accounting of the wrongs done. This takes time, but it is an absolutely vital part of the process. We can't even begin to make things right unless we acknowledge what was wrong in the first place.

If we want to speed up the process, then the first step is to resource the Waitangi Tribunal and Office of Treaty Settlements properly so they can investigate and hear more claims. The second is to commit more funds for settlements - easy given the pittance we currently spend. The third is for the government to ensure that settlement bills are given a high priority on the Parliamentary agenda. There's an obvious way that National and NZFirst can demonstrate their desire for a faster process: by giving (or even asking for) leave for those bills to be pushed up the queue, and helping them progress through the House with all speed. But somehow, I think they'd rather pick the scab for votes than do anything constructive.

Creating casus bellum

Has anybody heard of the Gleiwitz incident? In an effort to justify invading Poland, the Nazis staged an attack by "Polish insurgents" on a German radio station - thus creating cassus bellum for public consumption.

According to today's Independent, George Bush wanted to use the same sort of trick to justify invading Iraq:

George Bush considered provoking a war with Saddam Hussein's regime by flying a United States spyplane over Iraq bearing UN colours, enticing the Iraqis to take a shot at it, according to a leaked memorandum of a meeting between the US President and Tony Blair.

The two leaders were worried by the lack of hard evidence that Saddam Hussein had broken UN resolutions, though they were privately convinced that he had. According to the memorandum, Mr Bush said: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."

I think this speaks for itself about the strength of their "justifications" and their honesty with the public.

In the ballot II

Here's another batch of private member's bills currently in the ballot. The previous batch can be found here.

Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill (Jeanette Fitzsimons): This bill would amend the RMA to allow local bodies to consider the effects on climate change when granting air discharge consents. They used to have this power, but it was removed by the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Act 2004, on the basis that the government would develop a national policy statement instead. This hasn't happened, and in the meantime projects such as Marsden B are slipping through the gap.

Head of State Referenda Bill (Keith Locke): This bill provides for a series of referenda on the selection of our head of state, and ultimately whether we become a republic. As with the MMP referenda, it would use a two stage process. The first would ask the public to choose between the status quo, a head of state appointed by Parliament, or one directly elected by the people. If either of the latter two options is successful, there would be a second, run-off referendum between that option and the status quo. If we choose an appointed or elected head of state, the monarchy would be abolished, and a "twink" republic established.

The bill has received substantial attention in republican circles, and Lewis has a detailed analysis here. I've also got some minor comments here. This is a bill I would very much like to see drawn, though the time may not yet be right.

Land Transport (Left Hand Law) Amendment Bill (Dr Lockwood Smith): This bill would amend the Land Transport Act 1998 in an effort to improve traffic flow on the roads and enhance road safety. It would require slow-moving vehicles to use the left-most lane on multi-lane highways, or pull over to allow other traffic to pass on narrower roads. It would also allow cars to freely turn left at red lights. Another "pet peeve" bill, clearly born of being stuck behind too many tractors.

Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill (Steve Chadwick): Another Easter Sunday trading bill. Unlike Jacqui Dean's version, this would put the decision in the hands of local authorities (provided they follow a special consultative procedure) rather than central government, and includes the standard protective clause for workers in affected areas so that they do not have to work on Easter Sunday by default. IMHO, it's the better of the two bills; if we're going to allow geographic exclusions to the law, then it seems to be that those decisions should be in the hands of local communities rather than central government. But I'm also not sure whether the special consultative process is robust enough compared to (say) a local referendum held alongside local body elections.

I'll do another post when more bills trickle in. Many MPs are still not back at Parliament, and so haven't been able to respond to my inquiries yet.

What denigrates Islam?

Te Radar uses his Friday Herald column (offline) to weigh in on those offensive cartoons, arguing that "taking the mickey [is] a non-negotiable core tradition". He also has this to say:

I am rather perplexed why those people who are calling for the cartoonists, their editors, the publishers, and hapless newspaper delivery children to be exterminated aren't offended by those activities that truly denigrate their religion far more than satirisation.

Stoning people to death for consensual sex, so-called honour killings - especially of women who have supposedly brought dishonour on their families by having the audacity to be raped - the beheading of innocent hostages, and suicide bombings, all often conducted in the name of Islam, seem to have escaped the attention of those whose wrath, rather than their funny bone, was tickled by the Danish lampooners.

Which is exactly the point that some of the cartoons were trying to make.

Words and actions

Yesterday, George W Bush said that the US was "addicted to oil" and promised to "break this addiction" to avoid dependance on "unstable parts of the world". Today, in a conference call with reporters, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said that he didn't really mean it. Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that the Energy Department is laying off renewable energy researchers, particularly those studying wind and biofuels - both of which Bush specifically mentioned in his speech as being alternatives to fossil fuels. So, does Bush not know, or does he really think that people wouldn't notice that his actions do not match his words?

Good news from America

The US is scrapping cotton subsidies. While good for Texan farmers, these are a major distortion to world trade, and mean that poor farmers in third world nations (who ironically grow a better product) can't compete against dumped American cotton. Brazil, a major cotton producer, took the US to the WTO over this and won. However, the US dragged its feet on complying with the WTO decision, and it took the threat of trade sanctions to get them to finally act. But now they have, and both the Senate and House of Representatives have voted to comply with the WTO's ruling.

This is great news for poorer countries, and it shows that the US can be made to abide by international rules every so often. Now, if only we can get them to do that for torture...

More wind

Maori incorporation Taharoa C is planning a 100MW wind farm at Taharoa in the King Country. One drawback is that there are no transmission cables there yet - but Ventus Energy is also planning a ~36 MW wind farm at Taumatatotara, which is right next door. This should allow the costs of transmission equipment to be shared, or repaid more quickly that if there was only a single facility.

Despite the claims of the Waikato Times, this won't be "one of the biggest [wind farms] the country". By the time it is built, it will have been eclipsed by Project Westwind, the Hawkes Bay Wind Farm, and far larger facilities. But every little bit helps, and it will still be a step forward towards a more sustainable future.

Blasphemy by example

(Being an impious and irreverent attempt to report on the cause of New Zealand's only trial for blasphemous libel).

Stand-To: Good Friday Morning, by Siegfried Sassoon:

I’d been on duty from two till four.
I went and stared at the dug-out door.
Down in the frowst I heard them snore.
‘Stand to!’ Somebody grunted and swore.
Dawn was misty; the skies were still;
Larks were singing, discordant, shrill;
They seemed happy; but I felt ill.
Deep in water I splashed my way
Up the trench to our bogged front line.
Rain had fallen the whole damned night.
O Jesus, send me a wound to-day,
And I’ll believe in Your bread and wine,
And get my bloody old sins washed white!

For publishing this poem, the editor of the Maoriland Worker, John Glover, was charged with blasphemous libel - an offence carrying a penalty of up to one year's imprisonment. After a short deliberation, he was acquitted - but the jury added a rider that "similar publications of such literature ought to be discouraged".

(Sources: The King v. Glover [1922] GLR 185; Siegfried Sassoon, Stand-to: Good Friday Morning, Batleby.com).

Offensive cartoons and blasphemous libel

A couple of months ago, Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a set of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. These were considered grossly offensive by Muslims (both because a few verge on outright religious vilification, and because depicting their prophet is considered idolatry by many Muslims), and the publication resulted in protests, diplomatic complaints (by people who had clearly never heard the phrase "a free press"), and boycotts against Danish firms. Of course, suppressing something simply makes it spread, and overnight seven newspapers in France, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, and Spain republished the cartoons. And locally, DPF has got into the act as well - resulting in the usual unseemly display in his comments, of course.

Many of the cartoons are excellent social commentary on violence, Islam, intimidation and censorship. Some are offensive. And as mentioned above, some verge on outright religious vilification (DPF has naturally chosen one of the latter - a crude depiction of Mohammed with a bomb for a turban, which captures the views of his readers so well). But as I've said before on many occasions, there is no right not to be offended. I'm not publishing them here, because frankly I don't want to attract the sort of people who would want to look at them - but I don't for a moment think that people shouldn't be allowed to publish them.

But apart from providing an opportunity to once again restate my opposition to censorship and hate speech laws, DPFs posting also allows me to make another point: that

if he had published an equivalent cartoon about Jesus, he could have gone to jail.

While supposedly a free country, we still have a law against blasphemous libel on the books, imposing a penalty of up to one year's imprisonment for publishing material which speaks of God "irreverently" or "impiously". It is considered by most legal commentators to apply exclusively to the Christian religion. The law has only been used once, in 1922, and the jury refused to convict (see R v Glover, [1922] GLR 185). But several publications and institutions have been threatened with it since, notably the Massey University capping magazine Masskerade in 1970, and Te Papa over the "virgin in a condom" exhibition in the 90's. And the fact that the law has fallen into disuse and is widely considered dead does not mean that it cannot be revived - the prosecution of Tim Selwyn for sedition is proof enough of that.

This law violates freedom of expression. It violates freedom of religion. It violates the separation of church and state and the principle that the government should not promote or protect one faith over another. As such, it has no place on the books of a modern, secular, liberal democracy like New Zealand. Unfortunately, the last attempt to repeal it - as part of the 1989 rewrite of the Crimes Act - died in committee. And so we are still stuck with this archaic law, which could be dredged up at any time to protect one religion over others.

During the election campaign, numerous National MPs voiced their opposition to hate-speech legislation designed to protect gays from vilification, on the grounds that freedom of expression was sacrosanct. But blasphemous libel is nothing more than hate-speech protection for (the Christian version of) god. I am currently seeking an MP to front a private member's bill to repeal this archaic law. It would be nice if one of those MPs showed some consistency and volunteered.

Update (03/02/06): Added link to Glover case.

Symbolic

The USS Ronald Reagan is in Australian waters at the moment, and visited Brisbane last week. And ever since, bags of trash from the carrier have been washing up on Queensland beaches. That's right, they just dump them overboard.

Kindof symbolic, isn't it?

Something to go to in Auckland

SuperSizeMyPay will be holding a public rally in support of low paid workers.

Fast food and other low paid workers will be giving first hand accounts of the effects of poverty-wages, age-based pay discrimination and insecure hours. There will be community speakers talking about the effects on the broader community as well as bands and comedians between speakers.

The aim is to build a broad-based campaign for a higher minimum wage and an end to youth rates now. It will also be a show of public support for Sue Bradford's Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill, which will have its first reading on the 15th of February.

If you're interested, the rally is on Sunday, February 12th, at the Auckland Town Hall, Queen Street.

New Zealand and the axis of impunity

A couple of months ago, I posted a map of the axis of impunity - those countries which have signed so-called "Article 98" agreements with the USA exempting US citizens from ICC jurisdiction. The map was based on a list from Citizens for Global Solutions, which also included information on who had firmly rejected such an agreement. One striking absence from that part of the list was New Zealand.

So, I asked, using the Official Information Act to request copies of any documents relating to Article 98 agreements, their legality, and any general policy towards signing them, as well as whether any countries had requested such an agreement and any documents or advice relating to such requests. Unfortunately, the OIA has an exemption for information which is likely to prejudice the international relations of the New Zealand government, and this severely restricted the information I was able to obtain. However, I did get some answers. The most important one is this:

In 2002 the New Zealand Government received a request from the United States to enter an "Article 98" agreement. The New Zealand Government is a strong supporter of the International Criminal Court and considers that the Rome Statute contains sufficient safeguards to protect against frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions. The New Zealand Government does not share the United States' concerns about the International Criminal Court. As a consequence the New Zealand Government has not entered into such an agreement with the United States.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has documents on its files relating to the United States' request. However, these documents cannot be disclosed to you as disclosure would prejudice the international relations of the New Zealand Government [OIA: s 6(a)]

I also received three documents: An MFAT briefing dated 12 December, 2002, titled "International Criminal Court: US Request For Article 98 Agreement", one dated 16th December, 2002, titled "Parliamentarians for Global Action: International Criminal Court", and an extract from a briefing for the Parliamentarians for Global Action conference in Ottawa in November 2002. All are heavily censored, sometimes comically. Guys, we know Romania's Article 98 agreement is a cause of tension with the EU. The most interesting censorship is a constant reference to a "[DELETED] US campaign" against the ICC. From the context its fairly clearly a country (the names are sometimes reversed) - so which is it? Israel? China? And why is MFAT covering their arse?

The first document contains a fairly thorough look at the issues around Article 98 agreements, though much is excised. In particular, opinion on the scope of Article 98 has been censored - though elsewhere it states that

Even if the question of the legality of new agreements is settled we consider that, at the most, article 98(2) contemplates a Status of Forces type agreement

And

We do not interpret Article 98(2) as authorising agreements that could potentially cover all the citizens of a state irrespective of the circumstances.

Some attention is paid to the EU decision, which has as bedrock principles that any agreement can only apply to persons formally "sent" to the host nation (in other words, military and diplomatic personnel, not former heads of state on European holidays), and that they cannot create impunity: the agreement must create an obligation for the US to investigate and prosecute. The EU also rules out reciprocity; they want their people to be subject to international law. The third document says that New Zealand

would also regard these guidelines as the bottom line for any negotiations. Indications are, however, that an agreement along these lines is not acceptable to the United States...

(Original emphasis)

The most interesting section is on our existing arrangements with the United States which could fall under Article 98. There's diplomatic immunity of course - though the Pinochet case shows that that's not all its cracked up to be. We also have an extradition treaty with the United States, which bars resurrender to a third state of a person extradited. Unfortunately, they've censored the block discussing the legal implications of this, but I think extradition requires charging someone, which means it may not be too much of a problem. More interestingly, there is also the Antarctica Memorandum of Understanding (1958), which is a SOFA-type arrangement covering US personnel (both military and civilian) working for the American Antarctic program. From the look of it, this grants immunity to New Zealand law for any offence "affecting only United States personnel or property or committed in the performance of official duty", but requires the US to "take whatever steps are necessary to punish personnel who have committed acts which are offences" against New Zealand law. Again, the legal implications are censored, but from the look of it this would grant immunity from the ICC for anyone covered (though again it would also require the US to act). And as a scary side note, that "official duty" clause grants US personnel complete impunity if they set up a secret torture camp in New Zealand. The document notes elsewhere that the MOU is in need of updating - but I don't think that that little loophole is what they had in mind.

(There's an obvious followup request here for copies of the relevant treaties, though I may be able to find them elsewhere).

Finally, there's a list of "talking points for use if the issue is raised by US contacts". These basically mirror the answer above ("we do not share these concerns" etc), and have a clear statement that

We would not be willing to enter an agreement that would put us in breach of our existing obligations under the Rome Statute, and possibly also other international obligations, including those under extradition treaties with other states.

So, we are not willing to be part of the Axis of Impunity. I never really thought we would be, but its always good to know...

Fire up the welcome wagon

Tony Blair will be visiting New Zealand in March.

He's not Musharraf, but he's still guilty of waging an illegal war of aggression in Iraq. And we should make sure that he and everybody else knows it.

A victory for freedom of speech in the UK

The British government has lost two crucial votes in the House of Commons on the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill. The bill extends existing racial hatred provisions to cover the incitement of religious hatred as well. The bill was opposed by a broad coalition of civil liberties groups, as well as by a majority of the House of Lords, who amended it to outlaw only "threatening" (rather than merely "insulting" or "abusive") language and to require that incitement be intentional rather than reckless. Today, those amendments were confirmed by the House of Commons, after a massive backbench rebellion and many abstentions. And to add to the egg on the government's face, Tony Blair abstained on an amendment which was subsequently lost by a single vote.

But the real significance of this defeat isn't the bill in question, but the one to come. If Blair can't maintian his majority on religious hatred, then he has little chance of being able to maintain it on his draconian anti-terrorism legislation and its controversial offences of "encouraging" and "glorifying" terrorism. Hopefully we'll see another rebellion in a few months which will result in these clauses - and ideally, most of the bill - being consigned to the dustbin where they belong.

Devolving carbon credits

I've been trying to put together a comprehensive post on the reported thaw in relations between the government and the New Zealand Forest Owners Association, and the interaction of forestry and greenhouse policy. Unfortunately, it just doesn't seem to be working out. What I can say though is that the NZFOA's desired policy - devolution of carbon credits to forest owners - is a dumb idea which makes absolutely no sense under the Protocol. Why? Because under the Kyoto Protocol's rules, carbon credits from forest sinks are essentially borrowed, in that there is a consequent carbon liability if the trees are cut down. Plantation forestry is all about cutting trees down to sell the timber, which makes devolving to plantation owners singularly pointless: any credits sold will simply have to be bought back later. The only way forest owners could profit from devolution is if we ignore the science and devolve only credits, or if they use corporate shell games and strategic bankruptcies to scam the profits while abandoning the liabilities. Needless to say, I don't think either is really a desirable option.

Old Fisk

My challenge for Steven Spielberg
Osama bin Laden: Is it him? Almost certainly

In the ballot

The other day I blogged about the increased importance of private member's bills in the current Parliament, and the very real prospect of the Opposition being able to advance their own program through such bills. Since then I've been working my way through the list of member's bills in the last Parliamentary Bulletin, contacting MPs and asking for more information. Here's some of the information I've received so far. Each of these bills is still in the ballot, and may be drawn at the next drawing in February.

Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill (Jo Goodhew): This would make District Health Boards New Zealand subject to the Official Information Act. DHBNZ is an organisation established by the 21 DHBs "to assist [them] in meeting their objectives and accountabilities to the Crown" and to represent their interests. It is not a government entity, and so is not currently subject to the OIA.

This sounds suspicious - and it is - but DHBNZ is not the only body in this role of being a "private" representative of fully public entities. The New Zealand School Trustees Association also springs to mind. And this sort of thing is exactly what you'd expect given the separation of policy advice and delivery seen in the health and education systems. One of the chief reasons this was done was to prevent policy being "captured" by delivery agencies - which tells you immediately that those agencies have policy interests which they need to represent to government. Clubbing together to pool resources and provide a unified voice on common interests is an obvious step for such bodies, hence entities such as DHBNZ. But such entities aren't really private, and should probably be subject to the OIA. They should probably be dealt with wholesale rather than piecemeal, however.

Control of Noisy Exhausts Bill (Nicky Wagner): This would crack down on "boy racers" driving noisy vehicles by setting a standard noise test as part of the warrant of fitness, and by providing police with "proper, standardised instruments to measure noise levels" (the current test being rather subjective and generally not policed). From the wealth of information provided, Wagner clearly feels very strongly about the scourge of noisy cars and wants something done about it. Fairly trivial.

Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill (Jacqui Dean): This would amend the Shop Trading Hours Repeal Act 1990 to allow shops in scheduled "visitor districts" to open on Easter Sunday. The only such district scheduled is Wanaka - though I think some other places may be covered by other legislation, and Steve Chadwick has a similar bill in the ballot aimed at freeing up shop trading in Rotorua. As an interesting point, the existing act (which allowed shops to open on most public holidays) inserted a set of protective provisions into every existing employment agreement, preventing workers from being forced to work on those holidays even if their workplace was allowed to open. These provisions could only be removed by mutual agreement. Dean's bill would shift the balance in favour of the employer, allowing such protective clauses to be inserted only by mutual agreement - meaning that they will not happen; The net effect will be to make employees in scheduled districts worse off than they were before.

Residential Tenancies (Damage Insurance) Amendment Bill (Maryan Street): This would amend the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to protect individual tenants against personal liability for damage caused by others. Basically, in cases of shared tenancy (your standard flat, in other words), tenants are jointly liable for damage to the property, and where one of them behaves negligently (say, smoking in bed, or leaving a pan full of hot oil on the element), the others may be held liable. There have been cases recently of insurance companies suing tenants for the actions of their flatmates; this bill would effectively end that practice. Instead, landlords would be required to insure tenants against the cost of damage caused by others; they (or their insurers) could still sue the responsible party where damage is intentional, but they would no longer be able to hold people liable for actions which were not of their doing.

Any costs will be able to be passed on, and the chief losers would seem to be the marketing departments of insurance companies, who have taken to using the threat of liability for flatmate stupidity as a sales tool.

I'll do another post on more bills in a day or two, once I've got more information.