“Good police officers are going to get hurt”
A good shorthand way to tell if Parliament is voting to remove people’s civil liberties is to look for those bills that the Greens, Act and the Maori Party oppose but Labour, National, United Future and New Zealand First support. Such is the case with Chester Burrows’ Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill. Which aims to ban people from wearing the patches of some gangs (but not others) in the very specific area of Wanganui. Yep, it’s as silly as that.
The Bill is currently before Select Committee and it turns out it’s not only silly, but it may well be dangerously counter productive according to one submitter, former top gang detective Cam Stokes:
“Gang members are unlikely to surrender their ‘colours’ lightly, particularly when they know they have to forfeit them to the Crown,” he said.
“Gang members are expected to do all they can to prevent this from happening. Good police officers are going to get hurt.”
Stokes noted that the bill would also make police officers’ job harder as well as more dangerous:
He said his former police colleagues, particularly gang detectives, were against the bill because it would make gang members harder to identify and therefore investigate.
Hmm, so much for the ‘tough on crime’ parties eh?
At the first reading of the bill Metiria said:
It will not solve the problems with gangs because those problems are significantly more complex than one’s fashion sense. Frankly, the bill does not deal with the issue of what a gang is. It identifies a particular subset of gangs-those that wear patches-as being the problem. What about all those other gangs that cause problems? What about the members of white power gangs, for example, who do not wear patches but have their own funny little uniform of no hair, big boots, and tight pants? What will this House do about them? Will it ban boots and tight pants? Will it ban the shaving of people’s heads?
While Rodney Hide noted:
This bill is right up there with the “Let’s Get Rid of Spray Cans in Manukau Bill” for all the same reasons. It does not address anything like the problem we confront with gangs. It will not work… We have the absurdity that, supposedly, gang members can wear their patches everywhere in New Zealand, bar Wanganui, and that somehow that is good lawmaking.
And Tariana Turia:
The key issue is that all this bill does is exclude, suppress, prohibit, and ban. All it does is close our eyes and put up walls to force our problems out of sight and out of mind. Banning people by virtue of the bulldog on their back will not address the real issues that this bill is supposedly about. If the problem is violence, then let us work together on strategies amongst our communities to achieve mauri ora for all the whÄ?nau. If the problem is criminal offending, then there are laws to address that, too, so let us look into the causes of crimes in the first instance, be they poverty, racism, alienation, unemployment, or drug and alcohol abuse.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:01 am
Yeah Frog, its “really silly” to want safe streets and for the folk of NZ to be able to walk down the street free of intimidation.
Why on earth are you so worried about the rights of criminals and gang members?
July 31st, 2008 at 10:13 am
Might pay to read the post big bro! Then, use ‘arguments’ and ‘reasoning’ to perhaps address the points in the post.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:14 am
Would anyone like to imagine NZ if the government consisted of just United Future and New Zealand first I’d shudder to think. Winston would probably make us all line up and put a special patch on our arms and we would all have to salute when ever we entered the room with a hail Winston.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:33 am
Winston would probably make us all line up and put a special patch on our arms
Rubbish, patches would be banned.
This is a stupid law, and does not address the problem. Just like s59, the EFA, the ETS etc etc.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:46 am
It is a stupid law. Simply apply existing organised crime laws and lock ‘em up.
As ZenTiger points out, NZ Parliament specialises in truly stupid laws, so why expect anything to change now?
July 31st, 2008 at 10:51 am
you need to correct the first paragraph Frog:
A good shorthand way to tell if Parliament is voting to remove people’s civil liberties is to look for those bills that the Greens, Act and the Maori Party oppose but Labour, National, United Future and New Zealand First support
That should of read.
A good shorthand way to tell if Parliament is voting to remove people’s civil liberties is to look for those bills that the Act Party oppose but Labour, National, United Future, Greens, Maori and New Zealand First support.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:38 am
turnip, is there a single bill that fills this criteria in the last 3 years?
July 31st, 2008 at 11:39 am
I’ll take a stab and say the Waste Minimisation Bill.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:40 am
Though it would have to be a 3rd reading for a vote to be totally valid, so scratch that.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:55 am
“”Gang members are unlikely to surrender their ‘colours’ lightly, particularly when they know they have to forfeit them to the Crown,” he said.
“Gang members are expected to do all they can to prevent this from happening. Good police officers are going to get hurt.”"
They don’t make the law but the power of police has been nobbled. As a policeman of yesteryear my grandfather used to scoff loudly at police arresting people who ran out on soccer fields in the 1960’s…..
Sure we need balance. Act is pro libertarian (mainly for the rich who can afford their own gated communities) the Maori Party?…say no more and the Greens (basically see law breakers as victims of the capitalist system.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:01 pm
The Invisible Hand does a good analysis of issues. Frogs are just “this is what we think and this is how we justify it. Compare the trade deficit argument.
http://tvhe.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/the-frogs-challenge-discuss-impor ts/
July 31st, 2008 at 12:46 pm
And of course if you are really worried about police officers being hurt in the line of duty you would support the issuing of tasers.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:18 pm
I was just thinking, gang patches make patched gang members so obvious, when most people wanting to cimmit serious crimes would try not to draw attention to themselves. Do the gangs used their patched members as decoys, to draw police attention away from their serious business, like methamphetamine production?
July 31st, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Perhaps there is ‘a time and a place’ for that.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:44 pm
This has to be one of the most authoritarian, not to mention most stupid, pieces of legislation ever.
“Welcome to the River City - where Work Will Set You Free!”
Personally, I prefer to see gang members patched up - that way I know who I’m dealing with and can choose to avoid them.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Glad to hear you are opposing this ridiculous bill. It will just make matters worse. Most groups thrive on persecution as it draws them together and makes them more committed to their cause, whatever that cause may be. Even the Christian Church is growing fastest in those countries where Christians are persecuted. Directly targeting gangs will make them stronger.
But as this method is ridiculous, how do you propose to actually reduce the gang problem? What do you think of this set of policies?
http://www.familyparty.org.nz/2_gang_prostitution.php
July 31st, 2008 at 3:52 pm
If you’ve got proof that a brothel/prostitute is dealing drugs, then go and tell the police that they’re they’re dealing drugs! Names, addresses, that sort of thing. Seeing as they’re legal, registered, pay tax and that sort of thing, that should be pretty easy. Just like saying that those in marketing do drugs - go there, arrest them.
Like BluePeter said - if there’s evidence, arrest them. That seems to be the FP’s approach with gangs (plus ‘more resources’).
July 31st, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Mr Dennis sorry but Wars on Drugs don’t work so the family parties policy is a waste of time. Also as a libertarian I can’t support any drug laws or prostitution laws.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Mr Dennis
A “war” on drugs is a waste of time as it has failed everywhere. What people do with their own bodies is no business of the state, so we’d be better off supplying cheaper, safer alternatives.
You can’t remove the desire.
Same goes with prostitution. If the someone wants to engage in an act for money, that is their business - no one elses.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Ok….so freely available drugs but kids are not allowed to eat pies in the school tuck shop.
This brain dead policy is not doing a lot for the stereotypical image of the drug loving Green party member.
Why not tell the truth guys and stop hiding behind the war on drugs argument, you want all drugs freely available!.
If this ever happens (and I doubt that it will) I hope you are brave enough to admit you are wrong when we have the massive surge in numbers suffering from addiction problems.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Typical BB change the argument, no one is talking about children yet you bring them into the discussion.
What a child eats is entirely up to the childs parents and certainly not the state, the state doesn’t get much say in how children are raised unless the parents are violating the childs rights.
Of course since the tuck shop is on school property then the state can stock it with what ever it likes.
Ok BB alcohol and smoking have had a huge impact on society, why does BB not support a war on alcohol and a war on smoking. We should ban people from drinking and smoking and lock everyone away, let me guess BB probably supports a raising the drinking age to 21.
Come on BB time for you to anti up don’t you think and push for a law that bans smoking and alcohol.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:58 pm
>>massive surge in numbers suffering from addiction problems.
We could easily offer cheap, non-addictive, (relatively) controlled highs. Just like we do with alcohol.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Turnip
“Come on BB time for you to anti up don’t you think and push for a law that bans smoking and alcohol”
Nope, I am pretty happy with the way things are thanks.
I note that you avoided the fact that freely available drugs would massively increase the addiction rate, but hey, as long as you and the rest of the druggies can get their fix who cares.
July 31st, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Now I have to go Turnip, I am off to the pub for a few beers and a couple of cigs.
July 31st, 2008 at 5:07 pm
The pseudo-liberals over here won’t approve of restrictions on serious vices like drugs or prostitution, but are quite happy to push restrictions on minor vices like fatty food and light bulbs. At least the libertarians are consistent in that they don’t want any of it to be restricted, and I do appreciate the logic behind that position even if I don’t completely agree with it.
The policy I linked to restricts serious problems such as drugs, and combats the action rather than the person. The key point is promoting stronger families to reduce the urge to get into gangs in the first place. Fighting drugs is a secondary measure for when this has failed.
Whether it would work better or worse than the libertarian approach is a matter that merits serious discussion, but ultimately I know I couldn’t persuade a die-hard libertarian to agree with it just as a die-hard conservative couldn’t be persuaded to agree with the libertarians. It is certainly much more logical than the pseudo-liberal Green approach anyway.
July 31st, 2008 at 5:10 pm
BP: “We could easily offer cheap, non-addictive, (relatively) controlled highs. Just like we do with alcohol.”
And those currently legal alternatives, primarily alcohol, are enough for most people. There is no need to allow harder drugs to be legal too, if you want to get intoxicated you can legally right now.
July 31st, 2008 at 5:18 pm
What are you talking about BB you made the Opinion not me so the burden of evidence rests with you.
Come on BB give me some evidence to support your “Opinion” that freely available drugs would massively increase the addiction rate.
Also please don’t call something a “Fact” when it isn’t, you must actually supply evidence.
But watch as I enter the BB zone of truthiness with my powerful “FACT”
Freely available drugs will massively decrease the addiction rate.
July 31st, 2008 at 5:38 pm
>>And those currently legal alternatives, primarily alcohol, are enough for most people. There is no need to allow harder drugs to be legal too, if you want to get intoxicated you can legally right now.
But that is a personal judgment. Someone else may prefer a different high. So long as their usage doesn’t affect you, any more so than their usage of alcohol, then what business is it of yours what they choose to do with their bodies?
What are we so worried about with low-risk, low impact narcotics? Someone might feel happier for an hour or two?
Heaven forbid….
July 31st, 2008 at 5:41 pm
>>quite happy to push restrictions on minor vices like fatty food and light bulbs
I’m not. I think the restrictions are equally ridiculous. But then I’m a liberal, not a Green.
Greens are not liberals. They share more in common with the command-n-control “we-know-best” socialists of old, like Banderton.
July 31st, 2008 at 5:56 pm
That was a good post Mr Dennis.
nobody likes us liberals if you are left/right leaning one minute you will agree with us and the next minute disagree.
As BluePeter pointed out the Greens aren’t really liberal, left/right political parties behave like a parent and treat the people as children telling us what to do and treating us as though they own us.
Of course I believe that you can’t get someone to do something by ordering them you need to convince them that its in their best interest. Remember all human beings are selfish.
Now if the Greens got some more Liberal ideals into them well then Labour and National might be in for a hiding.
July 31st, 2008 at 6:37 pm
BP and turnip: You are both right about the Greens, which is why I call them pseudo-liberal. I am not liberal or libertarian, as I do believe that those few things that do actually cause considerable harm should be restricted. However I have far more sympathy with libertarian beliefs than the restrictiveness of the Greens, and regulation should certainly be the exception rather than the rule. This is why I generally end up agreeing with you in most discussions we have here.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Whereas of course National and Labour will prohibit things like ecstasy which are not at all addictive, while supporting the manufacturers of already highly addictive pokie machines bringing out new models that are designed to be even more addictive.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Not too many Labour/nats supporters here. My guess is that the FP isn’t that keen on pokies either…
August 1st, 2008 at 10:04 am
Has there actually been an investigation into the relative addictiveness and health hazards posed by a range of legal and illegal drugs, by which they can be directly compared?
August 1st, 2008 at 10:13 am
There are a bunch there http://publicaddress.net/default,5103.sm#post5103 . They don’t always look at the legal drugs by the looks…
August 1st, 2008 at 11:39 am
Thanks for that. The link from there to the actual report is broken, actual report is here:
http://www.berl.co.nz/content/aboutberl/projects/2008/1031/zealand-ind ex.aspx
Unfortunately alcohol and tobacco weren’t included, this limits the report somewhat. It is very interesting, with stimulants (P etc) causing 42% of social cost, cannabis 33%. But without alcohol and tobacco being included it is impossible to compare the harm from cannabis to these drugs, which is essential to evaluate the Green’s position on cannabis. In practice it may be hard to do this anyway though because of people using multiple drugs, in particular it may be difficult to ascertain the relative contribution to cancer of cannabis and tobacco. It is a good start however.
August 1st, 2008 at 12:51 pm
My guess is that alcohol harm dwarfs the amount of social harm that the others inflict in total . That in itself is not a reason to legalise any, as increased availability could result in increased harm through ‘irresponsible’ use..?
The Green position is to decriminalise, not legalise, I think based on the harm which arresting people for a victimless crime (when used ‘responsibly’) does, and the amount of police resources that are consumed enforcing the illegal status of cannabis. This non-criminal status would appear to put it out on its own, with tobacco+alcohol on one side of the spectrum and the illegal drugs on the other (close to cannabis), so not sure what the effect of decriminalisation would be for social harm all up.
Would I be right in assuming that the FP would not look favourably upon privatising healthcare and internalising the costs of drug use to the individual, based on the possiblity that families could still be harmed through the use of the illegal drugs?
August 1st, 2008 at 1:59 pm
StephenR: I am not sure actually, there is no mention of privatising or not privatising healthcare on the website. However it does state
“# Prevention is the best policy
# A healthy lifestyle is a personal responsibility
# Healthy lifestyle choices are nurtured firstly in the home and should be complemented in our schools”
A healthy lifestyle is one without drugs, and it is a personal responsibility to ensure this, so your suggestion is not entirely incompatible. I doubt they have actually considered what you are proposing. The policy seems to be aimed at improving our public health system rather than radical reforms.
Maybe it might be an idea to say injuries arising through intoxication (legal or illegal) would be ineligible for ACC, or not receive the full entitlement? I understand much of the emergency departments’ time around the country is taken up dealing with drunken injuries, this could encourage people to be more responsible if they had to foot at least part of the bill. You would have to keep injuries to innocent parties eligible for ACC of course. This would be worth looking into in my opinion, but I don’t know what the FP view on it would be.
August 1st, 2008 at 2:37 pm
I agree with having to pay for drunken injuries, just as long as you get treatment whether you can pay or not. Would have to prove that alcohol was factor in causing the injury, which may open the way for court cases.
“A healthy lifestyle is a personal responsibility”
Would seem pretty keen for private healthcare there. If it’s public, then it becomes the responsibility of the state to do everything it can to make sure the citizens are healthy, so as to minimise costs to the state down the line.
“A healthy lifestyle is one without drugs, and it is a personal responsibility to ensure this”
Sounds like the Greens.
August 1st, 2008 at 3:21 pm
divide drugs into three groups:
group one;
- legal for personal consumption
- legal for personal production in personal use volumes.
- legal for distribution by licenced vendors only.
- legal for commercial production by licenced producers only.
group two;
- legal for consuption.
- illegal for production exept by licenced producers
- illegal for distribution except by licenced vendors.
group three;
- illegal to consume
- illegal to trade
- illegal to produce.
combine that with a age of consumption of 20 (and corrisponding voting age)(alcohol in pubs only for 18 to 20). make it illegal to be under the effects of drugs, inclding alcohol and tabacoo or in possesion of such drugs while under the age of consumption. Make it a regulation that any personal damages comung about due to personal actions will be served by hospitals but the full cost will be incured by the individual (including type 2 diabetes, lol). remove the insanity defence which can technically be used by individuals under the influence of drugs (though such drugs would be illegal anyway). remove ACC claims if the injury is self indiced or due to ones on negligence.
the advantage of this system is it puts all costs on the user, it removes the gateway effect, removes gang profits and with less dangerous drugs more readily availible it cuts demand and uptake for the harder more dangerous drugs. put weed in group one, e in group two and p in group three, lol, i dont have any problems with idiots overhydrating themselves aslong as its not on my wallet, call it natural selection.
plus if there is controlled distribution we can tax it, some of the tax being used for support and rehailitation services.
August 2nd, 2008 at 2:46 pm
I think its a valid point that drug policies need to take into account the age of the user.
More and more information keeps coming to light about the maturation processes of the human brain and psyche, and banning certain substances for under (say) 20 or 25 year olds makes sense to me.
Put hard-hitting policies into place for underage users and the pushers who target them, and leave the over 25s to get on with making their own choices.
Any policy has to be properly enforced though, and we just don’t have a strong enough/large enough police force.
Which is why the gang patch legislation wont have the expected outcome either.
August 2nd, 2008 at 5:29 pm
we dont neccacarily need a ‘bobby on every corner’, with useful laws and respect for those laws we need less police and with a community based approach crime is less tolerated, alot of studies ive been reading for one of my papers sugest that in new zealand and america the root of the problem is that the law is seen as something that does not have to be reguarded, particualy in certain minority communities, and a hatred of ‘the law’ is not uncommon, apparently. lol.
community policing seems to be an effective idea and the getting cops involved in schools is effective, though the former has little valid studies.
August 3rd, 2008 at 9:52 am
I was recently accosted by a geriatric thug from mongrel mob who threatened to kill me. So I don’t have much sympathy for gangs. But if I look back on those who have really done me over in the past, they have not been wearing gang patches, but suits and ties. So if we are going to be fashion police and get rid of gang patches then let’s be consistent and outlaw corporate attire. After all, it is only used a mark of position in the pecking order and as an instrument of intimidation.
August 3rd, 2008 at 4:11 pm
greens have got a hot button issue under their noses by sounds of it (herb legal status as fix for gang crime/ law and order problem in NZ).
good idea re r20 cannabis alcohol and tobacco - could be just the tonic. wonder if the cannabis party thought of that?
August 3rd, 2008 at 5:04 pm
also im reminded about the ‘largest gang in the country’. note how adding 3000 fuzz made no decernible positive impact on crime rate?
The greens ought to be putting the heat on bad policing (one particular law is disproportionately counterproductive)
August 3rd, 2008 at 8:25 pm
p.s. Sapient i think you mean we need fewer police, not ‘less police’. Less policing thats for sure, especially of the ubiquitious non crime on the statutes.
we also need fewer bad laws and less bad law!
I would like to see most of the police, crown prosecutors, judiciary and corrections grifters and ron mark and chester burrows and clayton cosgrove (tough on law and order blowhards) go and get real jobs. and those reserachers as BERL. what a ridiculously stupid report pretending the cost of enforcing laws is the cost of drug use…. what a crock of shite. do they really think everyone in NZ is an idiot?
one thing that struck me glancing through that drug-harm index was the cost to NZ of lsd ‘abuse’:
billion dollars of harm per kilogram. that works out as $50 per 50microgram tab. in other words the $40 cost to consumer for the little paper square and $10 for the gas to drive across town to buy it…well at least they got that one half right.
bulk lsd imports are very difficult to interdict apparently, because sniffer dogs dont detect it at the borders….lol
August 4th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Good suggestion Sapient. That would provide a lot more clarity, especially if the divisions were worked out on the basis of a comprehensive medical analysis.
The problem for any politician however is that if they say they will make, say, alcohol, tobacco and cannabis legal for 20 and up, the liberals will hound them for raising the age limit on alcohol and the conservatives will be against it for legalising cannabis.
In principle your plan is excellent. In practice it would be hard to get it through, the media controversy would all be over minor details, and it could emerge from select committee just as much a mess as the current laws. Ain’t politics wonderful!
August 4th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
weedeater - yup, fewer police, i dont make any claims to good grammar, lol, though i always notce it after i have pushed ‘post’.
The house needs less politics and more RealPolitick, then the politicans may accually do something good for the country, for a change.
i do think the vast majority are idiots, if they wernt they would ahve a thurst for knowledge and would of sort out facts and all our social problems and useless laws wouldint exist - democracy only works with an informed and interested electorate! lol
August 4th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
As a left-libertarian and a Green Party member, I’d have to say you need to get out of your shell a bit more on classifying politics, BP.
As a libertarian, I would’ve thought you would be totally against the government dictating obviously harmful diets to kids that cannot make a meaningful choice beyond their taste buds, and letting these kids bring junk to school from home if they are capable of doing so, instead.
August 4th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Ari you aren’t a Libertarian, well not unless you have redefined the word libertarian.
“Kids cannot make a meaningful choice beyond their taste buds”, Any choice’s for kids eating belongs with the kids parents not the state, thats what being libertarian means Ari.
A Libertarian equals the government doesn’t know best.
August 4th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Ari,
I AM against the government dictating food choices.
The Greens don’t have much in common with libertarianism. I define libertarian as “A belief that legitimate government should be small and should play only the most minimal possible role in economic, social and cultural life”
The Greens reaction to most problems is to ban something, using state violence to do so. “We know how to raise children. Here’s an anti-smacking law”. “Your kids aren’t eating what we think they should. Regulate food in schools (and elsewhere, coming soon!)”. “We’ll dictate how you talk about politics one year in three”. “We’ll dictate what you can and can’t build on your own land”.
How is that libertarian?
August 4th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
turnip and bp: Absolutely. On a few issues the Greens are liberal - drugs for instance, and gang patches. On most others they are (for want of a better word) anti-conservative - healthy food, smacking, anything to do with the environment. It is as though they have taken conservatism, put a mirror to it, and decided to have the state enforce the exact opposite policy in nearly every area.
Very roughly, they are liberal on anything that is currently illegal and anti-conservative on anything that is currently legal.
August 4th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
BP- Libertarianism encompasses a belief that personal freedom is paramount. Right-libertarians equate that with minimalistic government- barely enough to ensure rights and protection from hostile invaders, and maybe education. You’re already out of step with core right-libertarians if you’re after say, government-funded healthcare.
Left-libertarians believe that freedom can only be achieved by unburdening us from social problems that are not really decisions, such as poverty, poor education, encouragement towards bad diet, self-destructive thoughts fed to you by the mass media, and try to enforce the minimum effective amount of intervention to prevent or ameliorate these problems.
Of course, because left-libertarians came later, and so we get accused of being socialists, (despite a stong commitment to individualism and personal freedoms) social democrats, (despite our completely different justifications for our views) and of course, like you’re doing now, we get accused of just plain trying to make up a new doctrine. I direct you to the sum of human knowledge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_libertarianism
I belong to both left-libertarian schools of thought, and the Greens are the only party in New Zealand that have a commitment to solving social and environmental problems while maintaining the principles of individualism, decentralisation, and human rights.
As for how those policies are libertarian- simple. The government is merely another provider of services and goods. Being even more accountable than normal providers of services and goods, it can choose to restrict what it offers, including food sold in its schools.
As for your EFA rant, we’ve been over this a million times- it is a choice between having millions of paralell campaigns run by National and Labour while they edge out everyone else, or having rules that restrict political advertising. I do not feel advertising without raising a political issue counts as political speech in the sense of broadcasting an opinion, thus I am fine with the relatively wide restrictions placed on it by the EFA. You have a right to politics, not a right to partisanship.
August 4th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
No once again Ari you are not a Left-Libertarian either, I think you would actualy find that both BP and myself are almost Left-Libertarian since we believe in the need for some kind of safety net.
The difference between left and right libertarian is to do with ownership of property, while the right believe that if i plant my wheat field i then own the land. Where as the left believe that the land belongs to all and that if you plant the field of wheat either all the wheat belongs to the people or at least some of it does as a right to use the land.
You fail as a left-libertarian and come across as a left-Statist because you accept that the policy for school food is valid when it is not, this is not a left/right issue it is a libertarian/statist issue. The correct position is that the school tuck shop should offer a choice of food and should not restrict. Restriction Ari is always a Statist position and never a libertarian position, the only reason for restriction(laws) in society is to gaurd the individuals rights.
If you adhere to this Ari then you have a mental conflict when it comes to your support for drugs, since you are using this libertarian construct to support the removal of drug laws but ignoring it with the food issue.
You present to people like Mr Dennis as a conflicted individual where as when Mr Dennis deals with myself and BP he can easily understand where we are coming from.
August 4th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Ari,
Our political beliefs lie on a continuum. I am not hardcore Libertarian. As Turnip28 points out, I do feel the state has a safety net role. To not provide this level for people who cannot cope would result in huge social problems, and at a lot higher cost that simply paying the tax.
However, to describe the Greens as being libertarian is laughable. A Green party COULD be libertarian, but it certainly ‘aint this one. You’ve got too many ex-Communists in high positions who believe in top-down state control, and their tendencies are exhibited in the policies they support. Anti-smacking,
The EFA was intended to shut people up, and it is doing just that. The Greens voted against an amendment for residential addresses, amongst others, indicating they failed to understand the ramifications, in which case they are incompetent, or they wanted to closely monitor who was saying what. Doesn’t that smack of state control to you? That clause has nothing to do with big money backers, whom, incidentally, you’ve failed to stop.
>>The government is merely another provider of services and goods.
It is not. In many cases, we have no choice. ACC, IRD, most education, most healthcare. Open them to true competition, then I might agree with you.
But you want more control than that, eh….
August 4th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
I don’t think Ari is “conflicted” as such, I have been accused of being “confused” on this blog before when someone just disagreed with my logic and I don’t think that sort of terminology is helpful. I think Ari is quite sure of his/her views, they just aren’t using the correct word to describe them. He/she is trying to twist the meaning of “libertarian” to correspond with his/her beliefs, in order to put a label on his/her beliefs and possibly gain credibility with libertarians. This may well be subconscious and not deliberate.
This is typical of the left at the moment, twisting the meaning of words. For example, “tolerance” has always meant putting up with stuff that you don’t agree with. But the new meaning of “tolerance” seems to be agreeing that all views are equally valid - that is a massive change from the original meaning. It is vital that we preserve the meaning of words. Well done turnip outlining the definition of libertarian.
August 4th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Ari, Mr Dennis, BP, Turnip;
your comments confirm for me that we detract from the quality and inherent value of our discussions when we try to use labels that are two-dimensional.
There is no way someone can realistically call themselves a “left-libertarian and Green party member”, and expect that label to be meaningful to others (sorry Ari)
We need to move forward a little and realise that the old concepts of left and right wing politics were only useful when we were a more-or-less monocultural society.
These days we might be libertarian with respect to some issues, and very conservative on others.
It is a three dimensional spectrum. Not left/right anymore.
As far as I can tell (but I’m not a green party member) the Greens are not libertarian at all (except maybe re cannabis??)
For example, how can green policies move forward without strangling the rights of diesel-lovers?? How can that be libertarian??
August 4th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
>>we try to use labels that are two-dimensional.
Can you provide a list of labels that are two-dimensional, and a list of labels that are three dimensional, lest we miss a dimension somewhere?
Redefining language, especially in a politcal context, is a tactic. It is not a means to clarify, but a means to disguise and distort. The reason the Greens don’t like the term left is because the far-left, Communism, et al have all fallen from favour. If those terms were still in favour, they would certainly be using them.
Note how “right” is most frequently used pejoratively on this blog, indicating it does indeed have meaning, and it is used as a known point of reference.
If it walks like a duck…..
August 4th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
hmm, intriguing.
Turnip, im interested; would you call me libertairian from the views i espouse on this blog?
August 5th, 2008 at 8:29 am
BP: “Redefining language, especially in a politcal context, is a tactic. It is not a means to clarify, but a means to disguise and distort.”
Exactly.
August 5th, 2008 at 11:34 am
But if, as many are suggesting, the parties are moving away from their traditional (two-dimensional) position; eg National moves to the centre, Labour moves to the right, etc etc, isnt it necessary to drop the language of old??
Surely the greatest attempt to disguise and distort is to keep using an old label when it no longer applies.
I yearn for a political party that doesn’t position itself anywhere along the old political axis, but simply offers to vote according to either conscience, or according to the wishes of it’s polled electorate, or some combination of the two.
It wouldn’t be on the left, nor on the right, nor would it be “libertarian” or even “conservative”.
It would be anywhere within the spectrum depending upon the collective wisdom of the electorate. I know that sounds idealistic, but if that isn’t what our democracy is already aiming for then aren’t we fooling ourselves by asking the electorate to choose at election time?
If it’s good enough to choose once every three years why should our elected representatives not submit themselves every week to the will of the people??
No point having a government that has moved too far to one “side” if they are simply going to be dumped at election time becasue they don’t listen anymore.
Better to have a government that has the freedom to move any which way on issues, as the need arises.
Sounds spineless at first but its an idea whose time has come.
August 5th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
5alcp/intersectorial.htm
August 5th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
blue/red/ - bollocks. yellow best describes most of the political parties…
except the cannabis party whose policy encompasses green, libeterial and christian perspectives. THE PARTY THATS ACTUALLY REALLY TOUGH ON CRIME (and closing the gaps in NZ).
http://www.alcp.org.nz/2005alcp/intersectorial.htm
also look whose coming to nz
http://leap.cc/cms/index.php?name=Speakers&bio=237
Jerry Paridis (Vancouver) a judge with a truely moderate policy on gang crime (100%home grown).
August 5th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
blue, red - ‘crip’, ‘blood’, east side or west side, left, right. Note the mindless parallels?
Frog. can you hear me? The cannabis issue has been left right outside and you’ve got to help make amends.
When are you going to hammer a thread on the
need to change pot law that creates and fosters gang mentality, patches, intimidation, black marketing and alienation from rule of law in first place?
do you really think its good for NZ for the greens to convince themselves this is not a priority, and play up to the real JackBoot - silence and repression that rules the land and remains the albatross around green party necks?
Pot has been bread and butter of gang culture for 35 years or so now (pretty much around the same time undercover operations started and the scene got nasty). Now the pot networks have morphed into P thanks to idiotic ‘whole of govt’ approach to ignoring Dutch rationale (closing soft-hard link as noted by bloggers above) and pretending they dont know that prohibition is harm maximisation.
3000 extra police DONE NOTHING ONLY MADE IT WORSE.
those people who impinge on civil and human rights disproportionately (eg punishing and stigmatising people for use of medicine), need to be cracked down on (how about that, right wingers?!)
crack down on illiberal law!
August 5th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
greengeek:
We could ban all parties, go back to FPP and let people elect representatives based purely on their own individual ability to represent their electorate well. But it won’t happen as no party will vote themselves out of a job. And anyway, parties would just reform. People of similar views would start to help each other campaign, become more closely aligned, and soon you would have similar organisations again just called something else.
No, we need to elect people who represent our views. Simply because everyone else is electing people to represent their views, and their views may be different to our own.
There is disagreement among Christians whether there should be a Christian party in parliament or whether Christians should just be members of other parties and put their views forth within those. And if there were no extreme liberal parties (Green and to a lesser degree Act) this would work. But as these parties exist, (perfectly legitimately as there are voters who agree with them of course), we also need a Christian party to balance things back and bring policies back towards the centre line if we are to have centrist policy.
A centrist party such as you suggest would never work unless you could eliminate all extreme parties from both ends of the spectrum to keep policies from being drawn left or right. And this is unlikely to occur. So we are best voting for parties expressing views from either side (balancing each other out) and seeing healthy debate.
Politics is more entertaining this way too!
August 5th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
p.s. i see that Bailey Junr Kurariki is free again because the Judge could find ‘No evidence his cannabis use poses a undue risk to the community’
it was a silly ‘naughty’ rule all along:-)
NO VICTIM NO CRIME
August 5th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
weedeater
I bet you $50 (to the animal charity of your choice) that this low life Kurariki is convicted of another major crime within twelve months.
August 5th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
bb. you miss my point. if Kurariki does seriously fall off the rails, that will be because of the underlying context of ‘criminalisation’, the self fulfilling policy.
depending on just how much he has learned since age 12 -maybe he has realised that in general laws do actually warrant respect (ie dont burgle, bully, assault and/or kill people)…. while a certain other law is rotten to the core (you know which one, milked ad infinitum by the interagency departments tackling drug related crime($$$$$$$).
Currently by lumping a non crime in with real crimes, that is really spinning the moral compass of Kiwis, and we have alienation, hatered of the system and other people as a result. That is a fact, bb, we have a dangerously disreputable rule of law on the loose in NZ ($$$$$$$), and needing to be roped in (hemp is useful after all).
That’s all i’m trying to point out to frog an freinds, that if Greens really care about making NZ good, this one issue, the one which got them elected in the first place, needs to be NAILED.
So, sorry bb, i cant accept the bet, as it is loaded in your favour. Bailey is predisposed to failure, along with all the other junior gangsters in NZ. (But i have a little faith in him, all the same, hope he doesnt disappoint).
Change the law on pot, and then we have an even playing field.
The greens have an opportunity this election to rise to the real social justice challenge. Weedeater cant force Russell, Jeanette and Meyt to get with the programme, but he’s sure tryin!
August 5th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Mr Dennis - how about merging the ALCP with the christian parties and forming the Christian Cannabis Coalition Party? CCCP !
(apolgies to those of u who heard that one before)- gotta admit Mr D we have a lot in common especially with that mention of god’s seed bearing herb in Genesis and all that? what dy reckon?
One stipulation however. Peter Dunne and Judy Turner not welcome (lol).
August 5th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Weedeater
Are you seriously trying to tell me that Kurariki is a VICTIM?, and that if he does offend it is because he was sent to prison?
And by the way, the wager I offered was based on him committing a SERIOUS crime, while I am not about to debate the issue of dope being a serious crime with you I am prepared to re issue the wager with the rider that any conviction for pot is not a part of the bet.
So just to clarify, the wager is this, that within twelve months Kuraiki commits and is convicted of another MAJOR crime (rape, murder, class A or B drug dealing etc) if he is not then I will deposit $50 to the animal charity of your choice in the name of the Green party or any name you so choose, if he does then you admit that he is nothing more than a low life who should have never been let out in the first place.
August 5th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
> I yearn for a political party that doesn’t position itself anywhere along the old political axis,
There is no old political axis this side of ‘climate change and all that that means’ -
> but simply offers to vote according to either conscience, or according to the wishes of it’s polled electorate, or some combination of the two.
I would be happy for a politician to be prepared to put his/her choices on the table, adhere to them and be prepared to resign rather than compromise. Now there would be a political innovation.
For example, it doesnt appear to matter which political party or member of the house - none are prepared despite a legacy of failure to hold the war on drugs ‘to account’ yet they wax lyrical about being tough on crime. Why is this? Is it because there are more votes in not actually fixing things, because it three years later and countless speeches and media releases later leaves the endless promises “were getting more resources, we argued for more resources, we delivered more resources” vote for me and I will give you more of the same.
The sign of a succesful policy delivering a safer community is not a 1000 more police & more jail beds, it is 1000 less police and closing jails. Those who tout such ‘get tough’ drivel for your vote should be electoraly punished for ‘promising failure’.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Weedeater:
A very interesting suggestion! The problem is that Christians are generally conservative, and although some of us may have some sympathy for the views of ALCP (I am undecided on the best policy here but certainly appreciate the logic of your position), there are many, possibly the majority, of Christians who would disagree. It is a very divisive issue.
However good the policy itself, the practical fact is that a Christian party that was opposed to cannabis decriminalisation would probably receive more votes than one that supported this policy. And the role of a Christian party is to promote conservative policies in many different areas, for which they need to actually get into parliament and need a lot of votes to do so. This policy could turn away more voters than it attracted, reducing their ability to influence all other issues. This is the reality of politics.
Having said that however, if there is a Christian party in parliament after this election, I would encourage you to present your views to them. Most Christians will want to reduce overall drug use and associated harm. Although you will find therefore that most Christians are ardently opposed to cannabis use, they may be able to appreciate the logic of the policy as part of a wider drugs strategy if it brought the trade into the open and allowed regulation and honest education about the health implications of use, while freeing up resources to tackle harder drugs. It would depend on the actual details of the policy. Such a party would need to discuss such a policy with their constituents before supporting it in parliament of course, again for the practical reason of votes, and would probably be divided and only willing to vote on a conscience basis. That is the practical reality of politics.
It is a difficult issue, as you can see!
August 6th, 2008 at 11:12 am
“It is a very divisive issue.”
Probably because it’s a very emotive issue. ‘Reefer Madness’ and all that jazz.
August 8th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Thanks Mr Dennis. hopefully we’ll succesfully negotiate what law Jesus would most like to get changed this election….as i said the removal of cannabis from its erronious ‘criminal’ status, encompasses green libiterian and Christian principles.
I any christian can credibly explain how God wants us to trample the holy bhang leaf under foot, i’ll be waiting to say: ‘year right’
Maybe cannabis law reform issue is divisive StephenR, because it is the litmus test of who is liberal minded and who is small minded.
forget left and right. there are two types of people in Nz. Those who agree cannabis should be ‘decriminalised/legalised’,and those who dont. (bigots and good people)
NZ is basically divided on that basis, and its quite similar to Apartheid, and something equally deserving of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
cheers
August 8th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Weedeater
When you write rubbish like this…. “Maybe cannabis law reform issue is divisive StephenR, because it is the litmus test of who is liberal minded and who is small minded”…..it proves that you have lost the debate or you are unable to counter those apposed to you.
August 8th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
no acutally you lost that debate ages ago bb, by bald-faced and malicious denial about the efficacy of med pot, you shot yourself in the foot and well and truely demonstrated your ignorance/prejudice.
You lost all credibility that day bb (not that you ever had any)
i seem to recall stephenR furnished a extensively long list of medicinal benefits. at th time. Want me to find that link and remind other bloggers what a small minded pig you are?
August 8th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
And of course you really know that your opponent has no credible counter argument is when they resort to abuse.
Weedeater why not just come out as say you are a dope head and want to be able to smoke pot when and where you feel the urge.
It is of course the height if hypocrisy given that your party wants to ban everything else that MIGHT be bad for ones health.
But then the Greens are fairly well known for their double standards.
August 8th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
not abuse, bb, just stating fact. you are demonstrating ’small-minded views’, and false ’strawman’ arguments….(piggish behavior!)
smoke pot?: no, Weedeater consumes medicinal doses (eaten/swallowed) in moderation. No one in cannabis-law-reform just wants to smoke pot we simply want death to the black market and pernicious law enforcement.
Cannabis is actually quite useful, and doesnt have to be smoked. bb. open your mind, it is prohibition that is toxic and crimnogenic, and denies a valuable resource and cottage industry.
Repealing it will save YOUR taxes too, - and get rid of thousands of useless problem-milking bureaucrats, cops, and general parasites. I would have thought you’d be keen that proposition, bb? LESS GOVERNMENT, Less taxes? Cottage industry. ALL GOOD, BRO.
and there wont be a matrix of dysfunction any more in nz with the self fulfilling policy expunged.
Hypocrisy?:if it meant what the law says, bb, nZ would need to imprison 373000 naughty cannabis people. Do you want to pay for the 1000 new prisons?
Green party?: no im not a member but they are not as hypocritical as you would characterise the frog people, just concerned about pollution and abuse of human rights. sounds good to me.
prohibition is policy pollution too, so good on them Greenies for wanting to ban it (even though they are chicken about fronting up with any advocacy).
double standards?: you mean like cannabis vs alcohol and tobacco as identified by the health select committee cannabis inquiry in 1998 (double standards impede credibility of drug prention campaigns…)?
Tell us all about the merits and benefits of prohibition, bb. But i can tell you in advance, there arent any. Only lies, like your one about med pot being a fantasy….well, not according to the American Therapeutics Association…
August 9th, 2008 at 12:21 am
Weedeater, no advantages? are you blind? can you not see that criminalising victimless activities helps to put more cops into jobs, more prison guards into jobs, increase govt debt and remove a source of taxation? not to mention it makes all those evil people in pain suffer and it delivers drug companies record profits! how can criminalisation be bad if it accheives so much? lol
August 9th, 2008 at 8:46 am
True, but over the course of a three year stint, our elected member often does not continue to accurately represent our initial view. Witness section 59 repeal.
But what if there was a party who genuinely offered to represent the majority view: ie: take a herald digipoll and vote according to the result.
It would not necessarily produce a traditional “centrist” view. If 80% of people want the right to smack their kid does that make it “centrist”? Not in my view. In fact wanting the right to smack your kids is really an extreme view, but one that most people know is necessary because humans are still part of the animal world.
In fact you could say that wanting the right to smack kids is something extreme right wing, a-la ACT party. Yet still, the overwhelming majority wanted that right.
I believe policy made according to polled results would be very good for NZ. I didnt used to believe that 20 years ago. Then I thought it was weak of political parties to give in to public demand.
Now I realise the damaging effect a government can have by not hearing the electorate.
A good example of this is something like Rogernomics; something that was foisted on us for “our own good”. In reality the people (given a choice) would have chosen to move much more slowly with those reforms.
But is a Christian view centrist?? Not from the point of view of most citizens. And yet, most people would be in agreement with the christian view of smacking/discipline. That is a good example of how the collective view would have been the right one, even though it was an extreme right wing view.
I put it to you that “christian” views are actually a collection of both left wing and right wing concepts. This serves as a perfect example of why we should not give our support to a party that assumes it has to be either “left” or “right”.
The left/right division is just an immature view of how to polarise issues when they dont need to be that polar.
Getting back to the original issue, I bet if you polled the electorate you would find an overwhelming majority actually dont care if people belong to a club/group/gang, they just want crime, violence, and intimidation stopped.
In most peoples minds it is an issue about having sufficient police numbers and suitable methods of detection and enforcement, rather than about stopping people from associating.
August 9th, 2008 at 9:48 am
I agree with much of what you have said greengeek. No, the Christian view is certainly not centrist. It is sometimes centrist, sometimes moderately and sometimes extremely in one direction, depending on the issue. The point is that it is in the opposite direction to where the liberal parties are usually pushing. Thus having both views balances out parliament and brings the policies that actually result back towards the centre-line.
Christian views are most certainly a collection of left and right-wing concepts, and that division is not always the best way to define politics.
“True, but over the course of a three year stint, our elected member often does not continue to accurately represent our initial view. Witness section 59 repeal.”
This is a major issue in politics. I am standing for The Family Party, and we recognise this strongly. United Future used to represent Christian / conservative views, but Peter Dunne has failed to do so for several pieces of legislation, and recently has come out with quite a pro-abortion view. This is not what Christians voted for when they voted UF in.
This is why we have Christianity entrenched in our party constitution, unlike any other party. It means we are based on Christianity and will always push that perspective. You know exactly where we stand. Other parties that seem to push conservative views can be taken over by other interests, our constitution aims to prevent this. That doesn’t mean you have to be a Christian to vote for the party of course. It just means you know exactly what we stand for and will always stand for.
“I bet if you polled the electorate you would find an overwhelming majority actually dont care if people belong to a club/group/gang, they just want crime, violence, and intimidation stopped.”
Absolutely. Policies that target gangs directly (such as the patch ban) will never work, as it is not the gang that is the problem, but the crime they commit. You need to target the crime itself.
August 9th, 2008 at 11:04 am
weedeater, I may have provided some sort of link re: health benefits, but at the same time there are enough health hazards to constitute a burden on public health (although presumably we already have that). Legalising and thus tax it would mitigate that effect, or of course the privatisation of health could be another option.
August 9th, 2008 at 11:14 am
All very well being principled Christians Mr Dennis, which on the face of it would appear to simplify things, as you say. However, one could easily produce a ‘christianity spectrum’ a la the famous political spectrum (like on gblog, as you know). So I think the question is not ‘are they christian or not?’, it is more ‘how christian are they?’ i.e. ‘how do they choose to interpret christianity and the bible?’ Some of the stuff on the website is a bit vague, but you can understand there could be many different christian parties around if people wanted…
August 9th, 2008 at 11:22 am
“However, one could easily produce a ‘christianity spectrum’ a la the famous political spectrum (like on gblog, as you know). So I think the question is not ‘are they christian or not?’, it is more ‘how christian are they?’ i.e. ‘how do they choose to interpret christianity and the bible?’”
Absolutely StephenR. There are heaps of different views within Christianity, but the basic principles are the same. At least you narrow the spectrum a lot from just saying “conservative values” plus whatever seems popular right now to get us a few votes…
Keep an eye out for a major website upgrade shortly with far more detailed policies. It should have been up already but these things always take longer than you think.
August 9th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Heh, I look forward to the ‘how we’re going to convince atheists, agnostics and non-christians to get over the inevitable cringe upon seeing ‘christian values all over the website’ section. Yes the policy could just be solid and people might get over that, but it’ll take some doing.
August 9th, 2008 at 11:42 am
As for difference in christian parties, i think we already have a parallel re: capitalism - both major parties are market capitalist parties, one is just higher-taxing and one is just lower-taxing. Economically, not a lot of left/right there. The basic principles are the same(?)
August 9th, 2008 at 11:52 am
We don’t need to convince the entire country to vote for us. But there are a good chunk of the population who believe in conservative values, some of whom have voted for UF in recent years, and others who vote for Labour and National for various reasons. Some Christians even vote Green because they feel the environment is very important. There are a lot of conservatives out there.
At its peak Christian Heritage gained 2.4% of the vote, purely pushing the Christian line and while competing with Future NZ for this vote (which gained 1.1%) - total 3.5% to Christian parties. This is well above the level Act is polling at present. And our policies, when updated soon, should have wider appeal than just to Christians. There are plenty of disgruntled UF voters to pick up, and National voters that are annoyed about them adopting all of Labour’s major policies. We are already polling equal to UF whenever minor party results are reported, and haven’t started campaigning nationwide yet. Only the election can tell, but certainly watch this space.
August 9th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Interesting. Well one thing to do may be to agitate for changing the undemocratic 5% threshold MMP has…
August 9th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
First we have to get an electorate seat to do so, but I fully agree.
August 9th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Stephen
I agree about the threshold, it is undemocratic and should be raised to 10%
August 9th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Fair enough, that would get rid of the Greens and NZ First, ensuring we had a National government after the election. About the same overall result as abolishing the threshold.
August 9th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Eaither get rid of the threshold or allow STV when voting for a party.
August 9th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
I was thinking more ‘enough votes to gain one seat in Parliament’ e.g. 2,286,190 voters in 2005 divided by say 120 seats = 19,051 votes per seat. So if you get that 19,000 a seat would be gained. However there would probably still be electorate seats so the sums would be changed somewhat. I just think it’s ridiculous that so many peoples’ votes are ignored simply because they didn’t reach an arbitary number! You could currently get 100,000 party votes and not get a seat, while a muppet like Anderton or anyone number of others gets in.
I am perhaps not being practical though.
August 9th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
StephenR - I think you’re spot on here. It is all about representation. Personally, I despise the loopy socially conservative politics of outfits like the Family Party and the Kiwi Party. But the reality is that a significant number of people support these parties, and those people should not be denied representation in Parliament, much as having them represented there would make me personally want to puke.
August 9th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Yes you are both right Stephen and Toad. Even the loopy socially liberal parties like the Greens have a democratic right to be represented!
August 9th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
And, Mr Dennis, it appears that loopy social conservatives agree with loopy social liberals on at least one policy - raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour.
That is another great thing about MMP - that parties that come from quite divergent ideological positions can still work together on those policies they have in common.
August 10th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Love to know BB’s reasoning re: democracy on the 10% thing…not sure i’ll get it though.
August 10th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Stephen
I am always happy to answer questions.
The reason behind the 5% being moved to 10% is simple, already we have seen parties (not just the Greens) with very little support force their policies onto the people of NZ when they have no mandate or support from the public for these policies.
It does not matter how you “spin” it any party with 5% support that can push its unpopular and unwanted agenda onto the public is not democratic.
August 10th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Cheers,
It would seem that the vast majority of legislation during this 9 years has been Labour party legislation, with a small (proportionate?) sprinkling of Green, NZF, UF, and Alliance policies. It seems to be your view that a large number of votes cast (about 200,000 (~10%) using numbers from the last election) every election should not count?
August 10th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Of course they count, however I suspect that you have no problem with the policies of the Greens, NZF, UF or Alliance being undemocratically forced upon us because you do not find to much wrong with those policies.
However, should the unthinkable happen and a kiwi version of the National Front made the 5% threshold, to retain power Helen Clark decided to do a deal with them to form a coalition govt and appointed Mr Kyle Chapman as minister of immigration, would you think that was democratic?
August 10th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
I think in that case, BB, Helen would pull the moral card and declare herself unable to form a government and the governer-general would be forced to call a second general election. tat is of course assuming national didint choose to go with them eaither.
August 10th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
I’m very confused about the real role/value of the governer general. I thought he/she was supposed to ensure the government properly represented the wishes of the people.
If not, he/she is expected to dissolve parliament in order to give the people a voice once more.
If that is the GGs role, why did nothing happen when the S59 repeal went through against the express wishes of the vast majority??
What checks and balances are there in reality?
August 10th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
I think it is safe to say that the Nat’s have more credibility than that Sapient, after all they do not have a leader like Helen Clark who has famously said “I will be as nasty, vicious and deceitful as I need to be to gain power”.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Greengeek
That is never going to happen as long as Clark appoints her political friends to the role of GG.
I agree that S59 and the atrocious EFB should have been enough for the GG to call Clark to heel and threaten her with dissolving Parliament.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
The governer-general is the Queens representitive in New Zealand, he holds all powers of state and the state can only exercise those powers through his permissions. It is his responsibility to dissolve parliment and call a general election when requested by the current prime minister or when no party in the house of representitives can demonstrate the confidence of the house.
The governer-general in New Zealand has not ruled against the will of parliment this century, though the austrailian one did relativly recently, and this caused a massive uproar in aussie. Since then the Queen has ensured all commonwealth constitutional monarchies such as ourself that she and her representitives will never interfare in the will of the house of representitives.
The governer general can be thought of as an unelected president whom because of no election has no mandate and mearly gives the royal asscent and follows the wishes of the house. lol.
It is a vital part of our electral system as without him, eg if we became a republic, we would need a president or atleast a bi-cameral parlimentry system. and in the event of a president unless we apointed one without the will of the people (making it essentially a monarchy again) that president would have a mandate and be able to exercise their veto legitimatly over the decisons fo the house, much like in america.
Our parlimentry system is currently by far one of the bast in the world, particuarly due to our select commities and MMP. if we were to become a republic we would gain essentially nothing and would loose such a system.
We could impliment a upper house composed of the electorate MP’s and eperate them out from the house of representitives and state that they arenot allowed to be affiliated to any party and give them veto when certain majorities are not met in the house or in the people. we would also need to impliment a constitutional court and formally codify and entrench our constitution. but sort of all that we are better as we are presently.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
BB, firstly, it was mearly a point as if national did go with them and could demonstrate the confidence of the house then the governer general would have no ability to call a general election.
Also, asstated above, it is now outside of the governer generals powere to not give the royal asscent as the Queen has explicitly dtated she will not intervene after the mess that happened in australia.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
I should also add to my above rant that the fact that our constitution is not codified and is only partiallyand lightly entrenched (some documents require a super-majority) is part of the strength of our parlimentry system and as allowed us to create what we have today.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
I had no idea that the GG did not have that power any longer.
It is time we had a upper house I think.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
That being the case, lets just save the money and stop the pretence. Get rid of the GG.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
“That being the case, lets just save the money and stop the pretence. Get rid of the GG”
Yep, sell the GG residence and use the money to fund Herceptain.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
lol, we save massive amounts of money by having the GG, if we didint we would have to fund a whole political system which would probally be several times the size of what we have presently, not to mentia all the aides and such.
But on that subject; how would you propose we impliment an upper house? using the model I proposed with independant electorate MP’s? Its not ideal but I think its the most practical compromise, personally.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
” …how would you propose we impliment an upper house?”
I’d look for people of wisdom. I guess that means older people with a proven track record, and regarded with respect by the general populace.
I think that might only leave Sir Edmund Hillary, and we know he’s not available.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Lol, well personally I think that it was a good thing we got rid of our old bi-cameral system with its, essentially, house of lords; I would hate to create it again, though there is a certain allure to a higher chamber bases on merit, lol, could get messy though.
I would rather a upper house which was electedon some basis by the population. to me using independant electoral MP’s and denying the uper house policy making privledges, giving them only the power of granting the Royal Ascent (republican ascent?/Peoples Ascent?). I Think that along with a constitutional court and a Citizens Initiated Referedum (I know that sounds against my usual “people are stupid” statement) that is binding over a certain super majority level, may well work quite well, though the system that the swiss have should be avoided due to the overbearing complexity and beurocracy.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Sapient
Yep, lets have truly independent Lords (for want of a better term) who are elected to sit in the upper house, I can see no reason why we would need anymore than about 20 of them and their election cycle could and should be timed to fall in the middle of a govt term.
Sir Ed was/is exactly the type of person you would NOT want in the upper house, anybody who spent a life time agitating for the Labour party is hardly going to be independent.
Of course these people would have political leanings but as long as they were not obvious or so strong that they clouded their judgment then I see nothing wrong.
An upper house should have the power to order a govt to make sure that any citizens initiated referendum (such as the S59 petition) does include the referendum at the same time as the general election.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Yes, the upper house should be able to order the house of representitives to follow referenda and the contitutional court should be able to rule on the constitutionality of new laws.
For any change to the constitution a super majority should be reached in referenda and in both houses.
Falling in the middle of the term or constantly cycling would be good in my eyes.
Yeah, the problem is finding a way to fairly select and elect those independant lords. Prehaps we could vastly increase electorate size to make 21 in total and have the electorate elections staged at different times in the parlimentry cycle so we are constantly renewing the members. The electorate way seems less than ideal to me but its the best I can think of that would have some degree of equality; maybe they could be elected based on their accheivements and their individual political views? using STV?
Hmmm…
August 10th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Till we find a better system, how about we keep the GG, but ensure he becomes a non-political appointment (maybe a retired high court judge??)
Then we give him the power (responsibility) of refusing to sign off any law passed by parliament if said law has a disapproval rating of 75% or over (like s59 and EFB)
How to measure the disapproval level? A herald digipoll or similar would be perfectly adequate as there would be very few circumstances where the 75% would be reached. It is actually pretty obvious when the public is up in arms.
Any other laws would be passed just as freely as they do today; this would just be a way of avoiding the worst excesses.
August 10th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
well currently the queen selects the GG, usually from a number of people of which some are put foward by the current prime minister.
The problem with that is the people just beleive what the media says, even when it has little factual basis so it could lead to a big influence by big money through advertising.
if public awareness programs were run and civics was taught in schools and their was a state pollster, then prehaps that would work, though id prefer 80% as the populas would still be highly reactionary.
August 10th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Greengeek
Have you ever met ONE judge who has a true grasp of what really happens in the real world?.
No public servants or retired Judges for me.
The Business world is full of people from both sides of the political world, there are plenty who could do the job fantastically, the one that immediately comes to mind is Sir John Anderson.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
a few lingering wonky green (behind the ear) perceptions of cannabis and the ‘law’ …youre not sure what overall social harms would increase with decriminalisation? stephenR
well the news is all good, grasshopper , green party policy isnt just decriminalisation, but i was given to understand numerous times by the late rod donald, that green party policy was ‘no penalty for adults cannabis possession and cultivation’, which is in effect legalisation.
A STEP WHICH CAN BE TAKEN IN CONFIDENCE, NOW NOT IN 15 YEARS when the hole is quadrillions of $$$$$$$$ deeper. WHEN THE GREENS FINALLY DO SOME RESEARCH AND ADVOCACY.
‘every heard the expression ‘all it takes for evil to flourish if for good men and womin to hang around and do nothing collecting fat salaries in parliament’?
two nz select committes on cannbis in the last decade concluded prohibition was not controling cannabis and not limiting use. The corrorolary is that it might as well be legal (instead of ‘harmful’ black market)
In a nut shell, frog, ‘applying basic cost-benefit criteria) that means prohibition is worse than totally useless
- so i’d up the scrutiny on the pot issue if i was u frog…
because nandor goes quiet and nz doent talk abour cannabi for 6 years frog, do you think a bogus and wrong law becomes ‘ok’ again??
a prohibition which dismally fails to equitably control weed (and other illicit commodities), has only NEGATIVE effects.
the list of grifter industries Sapient provides comprises a ‘missapropriation’ and Liability to the taxpayer… How about getting on to the SFO about the SFP - NZ government funding growth in gangs and organised crime.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
that is meant as a suggestion to you, Frog. How about getting on to the Serious Fraud Office(sfo), about the Self Fulfilling Policy(sfp)? CRIMINALISATION.
you see it isnt actually harm minimisation Frog. its Harm maximisation.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Police sure love policing pot it seems.
15,000 cannabis arrests per year in NZ - nice one Helen….
August 10th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
I seem to remember hearing from some family friends hat happened to be police officers that when they incinerated the weed officers would tend to stand downwind of the ‘destruction’. shows how much faith they have in the law the police, lol
August 10th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
yes there would possibly be some excellent ‘vaporisation’ downwind without breathing too much smoke, (i imagine they burn it on wood pyre rather than using too much accelerant….)
incidently vaporisation and ‘pills’ and weedeater’s bhang are mode of use issues -methods of harm reduction. Has the green party heard of ‘harm reduction’ at all? Other methods of harm reduction are expunging convictions and stopping the arrests. when i said 15000 arrests per annum, i meant to say that is actually 15,000 ‘convictions’. Arrests are probably far more and how much grief and degradation is involved for each plea bargain and diversion.
there are also no records of how many cannabis ‘warnings’ are made, and how much cannabis is seized in this situation where the cop ‘appears nice’ but has just stolen gear easily traded as black market currency ($300 per ounce). Cops use such pot for narc, undercovers, freinds, dealers or just smoke it themselves.
bustees frequently tell this sort of story: “cops took 3 oz and a couple of small plants that were just budding real nice, but when it got to court there was only 1 oz, but that was good because it meant i only got a $250 fine and and 20hrs community service instead of something far more serious…”.
August 10th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
on the subject of objectionable laws… I seem to recall that there was a campeign afew years back after the word ‘bugger’ was legalised or some sort? are their accually words that are deamed illegal? or is it just when they are deamed to be used to intentially offend? thinking words are offensive does more dameage than the words themselves, lol.
And another; public nudity. Why is that illegal? cause some people consider the human body to be objectional? seeing nude people isint damaging to children! whats damaging is the whole ‘be asshamed of your body’ crud that this society shouts out. nude is natural, to be asshamed of ones body is unnatural and damaging!
August 11th, 2008 at 2:56 am
I am confused people in this thread are placing the current New Zealand political system up on a pedestal and claiming its great. What utter rubbish
New Zealand has a very weak political system with far too much power residing with the executive branch and no checks and balance’s.
We have no Bill of Rights and no constitution protected from the government. Since a constitution is designed to limit the power of government such a constitution should be impossible for the parliment to change.
If a party gained a majority number of seats in the New Zealand parliment it could enact any legislation it liked including rouding up the opposition party and placing them in jail. It could dis-enfranchise citizens and legally round them up and place them in prison.
We should seperate the executive and legislative, provide a constitutional court and an entrenched constitution.
Unbridled power by Geoffrey Palmer is a good book talking about the weakness of the NZ political system, although he reaches the false conclusion that MMP fixed everything and somehow is Bill of Rights Joke legislation that he got passed was wonderful when its a complete pile of crap.
August 11th, 2008 at 7:48 am
Turnip; we do apparently have a Bill of Rights. I have a copy of it but don’t remember who gave it to me.
I have no idea if it has any legal standing or not.
I agree, we need better checks and balances. But how to achieve it without too much extra cost?
August 11th, 2008 at 7:58 am
We have a Bill called the Bill of Rights but we don’t have a REAL Bill of Rights.
Parliment can ignore the Bill of Rights and Parliment can change the Bill of Rights. Note the purpose of a Bill of Rights and indeed a constitution is to protect the citizens from the unbridled power of parliment. In New Zealand the Fox guards the Hen house.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:01 am
Also we have people like Keith Locke from the green party who as far as I am aware as never spoken in Parliment about New Zealands lack of a REAL Bill of Rights.
He seems to go on and on about other countries lack of rights, but never talks about it in New Zealand I wonder why?
I can think of 2 governments who have abused powers, the Muldoon National government and the Helen Clarke government. We need a constitution entrenched and protected designed to limit the likes of a Muldoon or a Clarke in the future. Absolute power is too easy to aquire in
NZ.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:41 am