Around the Blogs

Highlights from the blogs over the last week...

27 May
The Vote No blog picks up on a letter written into the Dominion Post by blogger Dave Crampton, shining the torch on inconsistency from Unicef. One moment they're saying that children should be treated as adults when it comes to parental-correction, and then in the next breath they're opposed to young children appearing in court - as they are, afterall - by definition, children!

Surely it is inconsistent to advocate that children should be treated the same as adults under the law generally, then campaign that they shouldn't be under another law that does not fit your ideology.

28 May
David Farrar posts a salient letter to the editor from a Maori man who is a Manakau City Councillor, below is a short excerpt which is dryly amusing,

It is really disappointing that many local Maori leaders are trying to separate Maori from the rest of the population by supporting sparate Maori councillors...
From personal experience I believe the main reason there are not more Maori in local body politics is because not many stand.

29 May
Albert Mohler is concerned about the txting epidemic, and warns parents...

In the fourth quarter of 2008 American teenagers sent and received an average of 2,272 text messages per month.  That, dear friends, is nothing to LOL about...
Authorities now blame excessive texting for sleep deprivation, distraction in school, poor grades, and even repetitive stress injuries.  These teens are texting while they should be sleeping, and they are sleeping with the cell phone set to vibrate so that they can respond to texts from friends without waking parents...
Teens should not be allowed to sleep with cell phones in the bedroom, and parents need to set clear parameters for the use of phones for both voice calls and text messages.  Commonsense rules will go a long way toward restoring sanity.

He's dead right, cellphones can make it really easy for family members young and old to keep in touch. However there is something wrong when young children are given free reign to a tool with this much scope and power.

30 May
"The more I know about science and technology, the more I believe there has to be a God." says Scrubone in his post listing 20 foolish reasons that people give for rejecting Christianity, and here's number one...

1. God is wrathful, jealous, hateful, and kills nations of people like it is a bodily function. He is certainly not just or “holy” in nature.

Actually, the Bible records that man rejected God and chose death. Let me say that again: it’s our choice. If you don’t believe me, look around you today – the world continues to reject even the very basic principles (such as not committing adultery) which we know will lead to a more peaceful society.

And Constant Joy has an article from Denver Post columnist David Harsanyi who writes on the changing attitude towards abortion that is sweeping across America...

What happened? Is it possible that the nation has undergone a gigantic attitudinal shift on the fundamental issue of abortion in only three years' time? Logically, it seems that the entire framing of the debate has become antiquated and far too simplistic for the questions we face. Anecdotally, I would say it's possible.

I know I've changed my views.

Abortion Case Gets Green Light for High Court Hearing

The Right to Life NZ blog reports,

The High Court in Wellington has advised that a hearing has been set down for Monday, 20 July 2009 before Justice Miller. Right to Life will seek at this hearing to have Justice Miller issue clear declarations to the Abortion Supervisory Committee [ASC] setting out the statutory powers and duties of the ASC. These declaratory orders have the effect of declaring the law and the way in which it should be applied as set out in the fuller reasons given by Justice Miller in his judgment.

The declaratory orders should have been given in the June 2008 High Court Case. However with this technicality out of the way, the ASC will be able to again appeal against Justice Miller's 2008 ruling at the Court of Appeal. Justice Miller's ruling in 2008 contained the following statements which threw the ASC - and indeed the entire anti-life lobby in New Zealand, into such a panic...

“There is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants. Indeed, the [Abortion Supervisory] Committee itself has stated that the law is being used more liberally than Parliament intended...

...The [Abortion Supervisory Committee] has misinterpreted its functions and powers under the abortion law, reasoning incorrectly that Wall v Livingston means it may not review or scrutinise the decisions of certifying consultants.”

Right to Life will also make an cross-appeal at the Court of Appeal hearing, "challenging Justice Miller’s findings in his judgment that there was no basis in law for declaring that unborn children were legal persons with human rights under the law". Right to Life's cross-appeal is important, yet an unrelated and secondary issue to the crux of the case, which is Justice Miller's ruling that the ASC has indeed been allowing many illegal abortions to take place in New Zealand.

I Slayed Them With My Jokes

Claire Trevett at the Herald has obtained a copy of the unauthenticated Budget-week diary of John Key and Bill English... here's an excerpt,

Wednesday - John:
Go to a school in Tawa to read to the children. It went well, I slayed them with my jokes. I told them we'd be reading a big blue book in Parliament soon. There's lots of red inside it, of course, but I tell them not to worry about that - we were sorting it out.
One of the books I read them was called Billy McBrown about a boy who puts socks on his head and tomatoes on his nose and "laughs like a clown". I remember how I made Bill backtrack on the cycleway money and get a warm fuzzy feeling.
Labour is already starting to attack us on "broken promises" after our very subtle hints that the next lots of tax cuts will go. They had the barefaced cheek to hold up my campaign promises sheet with big red crosses marked on it. I fended it off by saying it looked more like Labour's seating plan after the election. But I do worry this will be dubbed the Budget of death by cancelling cuts. Bill isn't helping by saying nobody's bank accounts would be better off after the Budget. He thought he was being funny, but his jokes don't slay them like mine. Head off to look for lucky cufflinks.

hat tip: Kiwiblog

Spotlight on NZ Abortion Law

I had an article published in the 18/May edition of CANTA, the magazine of the University of Canterbury Students' Association. It was entitled NZ Abortion Law Under the Spotlight, and not surprisingly has received some interest from other students.

On 15 December 1977, the National Government passed the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Bill into law. The long title of the Act mentions that it was enacted “to provide for the circumstances and procedures under which abortions may be authorised after having full regard to the rights of the unborn child.” 

This was designed to ban abortions in all but the most extreme cases. It established the Abortion Supervisory Committee (ASC), and laid out the grounds on which an abortion could legally be performed. The ASC selects a number of certifying consultants who assess women seeking to have an abortion. Two of these certifying consultants must then establish that the woman’s life or her physical or mental health is in serious danger before an abortion may proceed.

In 2007, 98.7% of the 18,382 certified abortions performed in New Zealand were approved on the grounds of the mental health of the mother being at risk. The vast majority of this figure actually represents “convenience-abortions”, since the mother’s health was not sufficiently endangered as to warrant an abortion under the law.

Indeed the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act 1977, Section 37 (2) states that an abortion is only justified if it “is immediately necessary to save the life of the patient or to prevent serious permanent injury to her physical or mental health”. The Crimes Act 1961, Section 182 (2) also states that the only exception where an abortion is justified is if it is “in good faith for the preservation of the life of the mother”.

In New Zealand, the number of pregnancies presenting a serious threat to the mother is under 1%. With approximately 78,000 known pregnancies in 2007, you would expect the number of abortions to have been around 780. Why then, were there over 18,000 abortions performed?

Click here to read the rest of the article. Because the outcome of the Court of Appeal case was so unexpected, the article had to be altered at the last minute, however the version that made it into CANTA was not the most recent one, and requires the following correction:

However in an unexpected turn of events, the Court of Appeal dismissed the case on Tuesday, determining that the original case should be re-heard in the High Court, saying the case was outside its jurisdiction. This will probably take place some time next year.

should be...

However in an unexpected turn of events, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the ASC on Tuesday, saying the case was outside its jurisdiction. Right to Life and the ASC will return to the High Court at an early date, where they will seek to clarify the declaratory orders of Justice Miller. The original ruling by Justice Miller still stands, and the case will not need to be re-heard.

Timeless Cinematic Moments 14

Timeless Cinematic moments continues...

Eowyn and Faramir are two of the most sacrificial and noble characters in Peter Jackson's adaptation of Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. Gandalf has just crowned Aragorn as king of Gondor, and the crowd are beside themselves. Viggo Mortenson is filling his lungs with air, preparing to sing his wonderful solo piece, but Faramir (David Wenham) and Eowyn (Miranda Otto) appear to not really be paying attention to anything other than each other. Eowyn's exemplary and selfless nature is a perfect compliment for Faramir's incredible humility, bravery and loyalty. There are many timeless cinematic moments in the Return of the King, but this scene is a highlight.

Abortion: A Liberal Perspective

Libertarians and other liberals generally hold to Mill's principle that any action is permissible so long as it does not (a) harm anyone else, (b) unless they give consent. Abortion is an action which not only harms another human, but is done without the consent of the pre-born baby. Therefore a pro-abortion stance is absolutely irreconcilable with a liberal worldview. As a member of the liberal ACT Party, I have confronted fellow members with this paradox, but am yet to hear a rational response. Matt Flannagan at the MandM blog has written an article on the illiberality of abortion, and a few excerpts are below...

It is worth noting that two very common tactics of avoiding this conclusion fail. The first is to defend abortion, on the basis of the perceived positive social consequences of ‘liberal’ abortion laws. In popular political discourse, and in some feminist writings, abortion is defended on consequentialist grounds; it is argued that abortion prevents unwanted children, children who are likely to be poor, abused, neglected or engage in crime. It is hailed as a solution to over-population and the existence of handicapped people. It prevents adult and teenage women from falling into economic hardship and stress and enables them to complete their education, pursue their careers and so on...

In summation, liberal proponents of the non-initiation of force principle can only support abortion if they are willing to be inconsistent and arbitrary in their application of the principle or if they are willing to endorse not just infanticide but the eating of newborn infants or state mandated vegetarianism or coercive abortions. These policies are an anathema to most liberals; as such, abortion is not liberal.

Matt is a Classical Liberal who did his PhD on Abortion as arbitrary Feticide, and is well-qualified to write on this subject. Click here to read the rest of his article.

500th Post

not going to make too much of a big deal about it...

A mate sent through a chain email full of pictures, and this was one of them...

Have been giving anarchism a bit of thought lately, and also just submitted an essay which discusses the advantages of anarchism. I thought I'd may as well share a bit of that...

The most prevalent form of anarchism today is social anarchism, an ideology which calls for the removal of the state and rejects the concept of private property. Social anarchists hold that “property is theft” (Proudhon, 1970, p.12) and that the only people entitled to own land are the workers who “create wealth” on that land. This is a poorly-thought-out principle though, as it fails to account for the land-owner who facilitates this creation of wealth and the fact that the workers themselves have voluntarily entered into a contract with the land-owner. Anarcho-syndicalism is one road down which social anarchists hope to travel in order to reach their utopia. It hopes to overthrow the bourgeoisie through a number of different actions taken by massive worker’s unions. Stirner discredits this position with his teaching that though people are equal, their possessions need not be. In ‘The Ego and Its Own’ which he wrote in 1845, Stirner states “But, even if the persons have become equal, yet their possessions have not” (Stirner, 1845, pp.152-163). Social anarchism is a corruption of anarchism in its purest sense as it attempts to lay out a social structure which individuals must fit into, thus undermining the concept of anarchism. Therefore this paper will focus instead on individualist anarchism...

The inevitable question arises: in an anarchical state, what eventuates when there is a clash due to the choices made by two parties? Stirner taught that all individuals are faced with two options in such a situation. “The combat of self-assertion is unavoidable… The victor becomes the lord, the vanquished one the subject: the former exercises supremacy and ‘rights of supremacy,’ the latter fulfils in awe and deference the "duties of a subject." (Stirner, 1845, pp.9-17). This understanding of individualist anarchism holds that no-one is answerable to anyone-else and at the end of the day it comes down to one’s ability to defend one’s self. Casting aside Mill’s harm principle, Stirner ignored anything or anyone outside of himself, claiming “If it is right for me, it is right.” He went on to explain, “my freedom is diminished even by my not being able to carry out my will on another” (Stirner, 1845, pp.203-225). Primitive as this may seem, it is not only the purest strain of anarchism; it is also the ultimate definition of freedom. By refusing to acknowledge the rights of others, or to accept a responsibility to value the rights of others, Stirner adopted a consistent and rational position, not only with himself at the center of the universe, but rather, as all that ever mattered. “Let me then likewise concern myself for myself, who am equally with God the nothing of all others, who am my all, who am the only one (Stirner, 1845, pp.3-7)...

Max Stirner... his book "The Ego and Its Own" is weird, otherworldy... I'm not sure that he was all there. Anyway, click here to read the rest of the essay if you like.

Gimme a Break...

I'm going to take a week or two off blogging. Have got a couple of projects on the go, an impatient customer, a couple of events to help organise - not to mention two or three essays...

Keep an eye on Prolife UC's blog...

Be seeing y'all.

Around the Blogs

8 May

The Libertarianz Party issued a press release, offering their condolences to the family of Constable Len Snee who was shot dead in the line of duty during the Napier

"The death of police officer Senior Constable Len Snee, who paid the ultimate price yesterday while fighting the government's War on Drugs™, is a tragedy," said Libertarianz Drugs Spokesman, Luke Howison. "No doubt the gunman responsible for his death will be justly punished," says Howison," but those in government who authorise and continually escalate the War on Drugs™, and those who voted them in, must also shoulder some measure of blame for Constable Snee's death...

10 May

Scrubone at the Half Done blog posts a quote from C.H. Spurgeon,

Because God will never leave nor forsake us, we may well be content with such things as we have. Since the Lord is ours, we cannot be left without a friend, a treasure, and a dwelling place. This assurance may make us feel quite independent of men. Under such high patronage we do not feel tempted to cringe before our fellowmen and ask of them permission to call our lives our own; but what we say we boldly say and defy contradiction...

11 May

Samuel Dennis also comments on the death of Constable Len Snee,

Anything is a weapon. I have been working on the farm today, and as I write this am wearing a sheath knife on my belt. That is highly lethal (I kill sheep with it), but I can buy that wherever I like with no licence at all. And if I couldn’t buy it, I could easily make one with a chunk of steel and an angle grinder.

You can kill a lot more people with a car than a gun, and you don’t even need a driver’s licence to buy a car. Or you could use an axe, a machete, a kitchen knife, a chainsaw – the average home is a formidable arsenal of lethal weapons...

Meanwhile, the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary - Albert Mohler appears to be slaughtering a sacred cow in his post entitled Why Mother's Day is a Bad Idea. However be sure to read the full article for the twist at the end...

Sentiment drives Mother's Day as a gargantuan observance. We Americans feel better about ourselves when we honor motherhood -- or when we spend a few dollars on overpriced greeting cards, flowers, and food and convince ourselves that this is honoring our mothers.

There is nothing wrong about sentiment in itself, but there is something pornographic about the bathos of sentimentalism that this observance produces -- a sentimentalism so often devoid of content...

12 May

Dave at Big News sheds light on some shoddy research on smacking in NZ,

The project - funded by a well-known anti smacking organisation that gets 40% of its income from the taxpayer - looked at the submissions to the select committee on the Section 59 legislation. Researchers examined two particular contrasting social viewpoints of children - children as "human beings" and as "human becomings" - and whether these two viewpoints were implicated in people's views on the use of physical punishment...
...Just who do researchers think they are? It looked like the "conclusions" to the report were written before the hypotheses. Perhaps that is why the hypotheses weren't even tested in a way that provides reliability and validity throughout the wider population...

And David Farrar draws attention to Colin Espiner's tantrum over Christine Rankin's appointment as a Families Commissioner,

...What the hell is Colin Espiner on?... Bad enough to focus on her marriages, as if never being divorced is a pre-requisite. But what the hell does the death of the former wife of her husband have to do with it, except to almost imply she was responsible for the death.

Bad Govt. Department Just Got Better

The Families Commission is another one of those superfluous government departments which sticks a dirty great suction hose into the Government's slush fund of tax-payer dollars, and delivers relatively very little. Not only this, but the commission is necessarily obsolete, seeing as our country currently has the laws in place that necessary to ensure the well-being of families. However dark, foreboding clouds sometimes have a silver-lining...

Family First NZ is welcoming the appointment of child advocate Christine Rankin and Parents Inc’s Bruce Pilbrow as Families Commissioners. - Press Release, 12 May 2009

Sue Bradford is not happy however, as Christine Rankin and Bruce Pilbrow are pro-family, and opposed to unnecessary government intrusion into family. She complained on her Twitter, page,

Shocked by news Christine Rankin has been appointed a Families Commissioner - major threat to their good work, about to do media release.

Hahaha. I don't like the Families Commission, but I like Christine Rankin on the Families Commission!

It looks like Stuff's political editor Colin Espiner is upset too, as he has the spade out, attempting to dig dirt on Christine in his article by making an amateur lists of bullet-points which he seems to believe are reasons why she should not have been appointed.

Hat tip: Big News

NZ Anti-Life Lobby Running Scared

The Women's National Abortion Action Campaign (WONAAC) is the latest of several other anti-life groups in New Zealand to join in the smear-campaign against Right to Life NZ. In their 10 May press release, they write,

The anti-abortion group Right to Life has spent at least $86,000 harassing the women of New Zealand – much of it on a court case that resumes in the Court of Appeal on Tuesday – and the Women’s National Abortion Action Campaign has a simple question: Where’s all that money coming from?

Without missing a beat, the Society For Promotion Of Community Standards responds,

Most will see this for what it is - a last minute desperate smear campaign directed at a properly constituted Incorporated Society that publicly discloses its audited financial accounts every year via the Companies website, as well as its objectives.

Towards the bottom of their press release, WONAAC's Alison McCulloch accuses Right to Life of having an hidden agenda,

“It’s not just about abortion. It never is,” Ms. McCulloch said. “It’s about a minority morals agenda that opposes sex education, contraception, civil unions and gay marriage. Embryos have human rights, gays and women don’t.”

Observe the ruthless fervour of this anti-life lobby-group. They resort to grossly misrepresenting Right to Life, by claiming that Right to Life belives that gays and women do not have human rights.

McCulloch has the disconcerting habit of constantly refering to the unborn child simply as a "fertilized egg". Ultimately, all of us - including McCulloch, are fertilized eggs. However it is a bizarre way in which to refer to an unborn child, who at just 5 weeks old has a steady heart-beat and a separate set of DNA from its mother.

Abortion Law Reform Assn. Misleading Public

Dr. Margaret Sparrow of The Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand (ALRANZ) authored a press release yesterday, entitled MPs Must Oppose Anti-Abortion Legal Challenge. It is reproduced below, with my comments.

The Abortion Law Reform Association today called on Members of Parliament to publicly support the Abortion Supervisory Committee [ASC] in its court battle this week against the anti-abortion group Right to Life.

ALRANZ launches into its press release, promoting the misconception that this case is about the ASC vs. Right to Life. On the contrary, it is the ASC appealing the ruling of Justice Miller of the High Court, who ruled that the ASC had misinterpreted its functions. Right to Life will be represented at the court by their Queen's Counsel, Peter McKensie who will be supporting the original ruling.

“The Crown lawyers defending the ASC, and in turn the reproductive rights of New Zealand women, need to be given the full backing of legislators in the face of a case that is aimed at ending access to safe abortions,” Alranz president Margaret Sparrow said today.

Margaret here intentionally misrepresents Right to Life's case, claiming that they are aiming to end access to safe abortions. However, Right to Life is making the case that New Zealand's abortion law should be applied correctly - nothing more.

The case, which began in 2005, will be heard Tuesday and Wednesday at the Court of Appeal in Wellington. At the hearing, the ASC plans to challenge a decision made last year in the High Court in which Justice Miller questioned the legality of many abortions in New Zealand. Right to Life is cross-appealing, essentially seeking to ban all abortions by arguing that embryos should be given full human rights. The group is also challenging abortion counselling in New Zealand.

Again, a shameless perversion of the nature of Right to Life's case by Margaret Sparrow who is an anti-life extremist. In this case, Right to Life is not seeking to ban all abortions. Rather, they are calling for New Zealand's abortion law to be applied correctly; as it was intended when it was passed in 1977.

The vague reference to Right to Life's challenge of abortion counselling in New Zealand is crafted to paint the organisation in a bad light. However the truth behind this statement is that Justice Miller confirmed Right to Life's concern that the certifying consultants (abortion counsellors) in New Zealand were indeed not carrying out their duty in a satisfactory manner.

“Right to Life has been able to advance this case, at great cost to the government and even greater risk to women, in part because of New Zealand’s inadequate abortion laws,” Dr. Sparrow said.

Incorrect. Right to Life took the ASC to court because they were failing in their responsibilities to women and their unborn babies, by neglecting to ensure that the law was being applied correctly.

“Around 98% of abortions are granted under the mental health ground because New Zealand women do not have full reproductive rights,” Dr. Sparrow said. “It is this kind of legislative hypocrisy that groups like Right to Life continue to exploit through the courts.”

(Rolls eyes) It is not Right to Life who is exploiting the law Dr. Sparrow. As you know, it is the certifying consultants who are exploiting the mental health ground, and allowing so many unlawful abortions to be performed.

Dr. Sparrow said New Zealand should follow the Australian state of Victoria and decriminalise abortion, but until it did, Parliament must defend the status quo. “If not, there will be a return to the trans-Tasman abortion trade that flourished in the 1970s as well as to unsafe providers, do-it-your-selfers and over-the-Internet abortion pills.

I blogged about Victoria's new horrific abortion-on-demand law in September 2008, where I wrote:

In passing this bill into law, Australia joins ranks with the few other countries who allow abortion up till birth. Under their new law, it will be legal to end the life of a little baby just minutes before it would have been naturally born. This is due to the fact that the bill does not specify at what number of weeks abortion may not take place - or, may only take place if the mother's life is at "serious risk".

No thanks. Australia can keep their bloody abortion law - and Dr. Sparrow if they'll take her.

ACT Goes Offside: Takes One For The Team

ACT has sold its soul to the devil the National Government, giving three decididing votes in favour of Chester Borrows' totalitarian Prohibition of Gang Insignia Bill on its third and final reading. The new law is in direct contradiction with ACT's founding principle, that of valuing and upholding individual's freedom of choice - obviously within reason. I understand the reasoning behind such a U-turn: ACT needs to swallow some of National's dead fish in order to buy their support for the likes of ACT's 3 Strikes bill, or Boscawen's ammendment to the newly repealed Section 59 of the Crimes Act. However for a party based on principle as opposed to common-sense or majority-opinion, it is unacceptable.

At the bill's first reading on 16 April 2008, Rodney Hide delivered a powerful speech against it, an excerpt of which is below,

I am so pleased that Mr Chester Borrows has relieved me of the obligation of voting for this shocking Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill. I said that the ACT party would vote for the bill to go to a select committee. We could never vote for its third reading, but I thought the debate would be useful. But now Labour, in a fit of “election-itis”, is voting for the bill. So I have been to see Mr Borrows, who has kindly said I can vote against it, which I feel so much better about.

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. The promoter of the bill knows that it will not work. Members of Labour and New Zealand First, who are voting for the bill, know that it will not work. If they had any courage of their convictions that this bill will work, they would make it nationwide so that patches could not be worn from Kaitāia to Bluff. 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...

The concern that we have about gangs is not about what they wear; it is about what they do. Our concern is when they intimidate us, threaten us, and beat us—and not just gangs or those wearing a patch do that. We have all manner of intimidation and threats to our property from all sorts of people. That is what we should be attending to in upholding our law. I see there is a by-law protecting us from gangs. Well, I will tell members about one horrible gang: it is a gang that has taken more property than any other gang in our history, that wears insignia, that threatens our rights, and that has taken away our right to free speech. That gang should be banned. That gang is the Labour Party. The good news is that at least under this bill the Wanganui District Council could ban the wearing of the Labour Party patch in its area. I would quite like to do that in Epsom, and so would the people of Epsom.

Let us have some sense, let us let Chester Borrows do his electioneering and George Hawkins do his electioneering, but in this Parliament let us please aspire to something greater for our nation than this rubbish. - Hansard, 16 April 08

At the bill's second reading (post 08 election), ACT's law & order spokesman David Garrett explained that Chester Borrows had brushed away all fears, and that considering the few ammendments (such as the lowering of the fine) that had been made, ACT was justified in making a U-turn on the bill...

ACT voted against this bill at its first reading last year. We did so not because we supported gangs but because of a concern that innocent New Zealanders could be caught up in its provisions. I must say that I think Ms Turei makes a very valid point, unfortunately. I do not mean that sarcastically against her, but the removal of patches per se may well cause confusion, and difficulties with scarves wrapped around hands and with the other kinds of tags that are used by these clowns. If only they were clowns. ACT was originally concerned that legitimate motorcycle enthusiasts, youth groups, and even church members could fall foul of this law, and so voted against it. Following the passage of the bill through the select committee process, Mr Borrows has sought our support for this bill, and has addressed many of our concerns. - Hansard, 4 March 09

For crying out loud, how unprincipled can you get? In this speech it is impossible to differentiate ACT from National. Firstly, the law is only applicable within the region of Wanganui. Secondly, the law specifies particular gangs that will be targetted: in order to get around the law, all you need to do is create a gang and give it a different name. You'll be sweet... until the Wanganui District Council passes a bylaw, adding your gang to the list of those who are prohibited from wearing their insignia in public. (refer, page 4 of the Bills Digest 1597). Thirdly, what has happened to freedom of expression and association in our free land New Zealand, that a law should be passed, criminalizing a minority group for merely displaying their solidarity in public? Notwithstanding, all five of ACT's MPs voted in favour of the bill at its second reading.

The Hansard of the third reading of the bill has not yet been released, however the journalists in the press gallery bring us up to speed...

[The bill] passed last night only after three Act MPs, including leader Rodney Hide, reversed their earlier opposition.

During the bill's first reading, Mr Hide called it "rubbish", saying he could never support it because it would breach people's fundamental right to wear what they wanted.

Last night, he said he changed his mind after Act MP David Garrett visited Wanganui this week and was assured by local police that it would be enforced and have an effect.

The votes of Mr Hide and Act conservatives Mr Garrett and John Boscawen enabled the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill to pass by 62 votes to 59. - NZ Herald, 7 May 09

"David Garrett was assured by local police that it would be enforced and have an effect."
<sarcasm>Hah, what were we so concerned about? everything will be ok if that's the case!</sarcasm>

As Samuel Dennis noted, it is admirable that ACT allowed it's members to vote according to their convictions, however it is nonetheless inexcusable that the 3 MPs who voted for the bill are voting against the convictions of the vast majority of their supporters who voted them in.

Although it is a necessary evil in Parliament that compromises must sometimes be made for the greater good, ACT on Campus along with a number of ACT members believe that supporting this bill was not an option. Nonetheless, we continue to stand by our party, acknowledging that this is only one relatively minor failing. ACT continutes to be a shining - if somewhat dulled of late, defender of liberty and stalwart for freedom of choice, standing head and shoulders and torso above the rest of Parliament.

Related post: ACTually Authoritarian, 10 March 09

Weekly Joke

The weekly jokes haven't been very weekly in recent weeks. I've been busy with various projects and study. Weak excuse I know. But we can have a good laugh at this gem I found at the-jokes.com,

True story from a Novell NetWire System Operator:

Tech support: Hello, this is Tech Support.
Caller: Is this tech support?
Tech support: Yes, it is. How may I help you?
Caller: The cup holder on my PC is broken and I am within my warranty period. How do I go about getting that fixed?
Tech Support: I'm sorry, but did you say a cup holder?
Caller: Yes, it's attached to the front of my computer.
Tech Support: Please excuse me if I seem a bit stumped. It's because I am. Did you receive this as part of a promotional, at a trade show? How did you get this cup holder? Does it have any trademark on it?
Caller: It came with my computer, I don't know anything about a promotional. It just has "4X" on it.

At this point, the Tech Rep had to mute the caller, because he couldn't hold back the laughter. The caller had been using the load drawer of the CD-ROM drive as a cup holder, and snapped it off the drive!

excuse the foolish puns... it's 2:30am, I think that may have something to do with it.

Around the Blogs

5 May
Eric Crampton at the economically liberal Offsetting Behaviour blog comments on legislation on harm minimization, and how it doesn't work,

...when the costs are tallied correctly, smokers save the government money: they die earlier of cheaper diseases.

"Based on surveys of smokers in the United States and Spain, for instance, he demonstrates that smokers actually overestimate the dangers of smoking, indicating that they are well aware of the risks involved in their choice to smoke. And while smoking does increase medical costs to the states, Viscusi finds that these costs are more than financially balanced by the premature mortality of smokers, which reduces their demands on state pension and health programs, so that, on average, smoking either pays for itself or generates revenues for the states." (Kip Viscusi)

Second, it's unclear whether these "cost the health system money" effects really are inefficiencies. They're called fiscal externalities, and are of pretty dubious status regardless of the direction of the sign.

And Dave at Big News comments on the rigged selection of the Labour Candidate for Mount Albert...

Phil Goff [said David] Shearer won the floor vote on BFM today.

Goff: I went to the selection committee with eight really superb candidates.... David Shearer, aah won the unanimous support of the panel, locals , and err, the NZ Council
Presenter: How many were on the panel
Goff: ..and he won the vote on the floor
Presenter: How many were on the panel
Goff: Aah there's six on the panel plus the floor vote which that counts for one, but he won the floor vote.

But a comment on The Standard blog said the following

No way did shearer win the floor vote. You have been misinformed.There were a lot of angry people leaving that hall yesterday. Might as well have been the National party for all the democracy of the selection.

And Theresa at the Utterance blog has a bee under her bonnet, launching a full-out attack against all cyclists...

b) According to me the environment includes visual things. You are damaging the environment if you wear those tight bikie outfits. The only people who are allowed to do that are professional cyclists who are going give something back by winning the Tour de France or a medal.

c) Apparently if you cycle regularly you can expect to have an accident at least once a year. Blood spattered on the road isn't a good look for our visually friendly environment.

d) You annoy drivers. It's called road rage and can lead to accidents of all kinds. It can also lead to verbal or other abuse of passengers who are probably children. So, if you don't want the people next door's kid to hear their mum swear and scream, don't ride your bike.

...what is there to say? Sounds like someone who hasn't ridden a bike a heck of a lot ;)

6 May
ACT on Campus issues a press release on the burning of the New Zealand Flag at Victoria University of Wellington earlier today,

ACT on Campus spokesman Peter McCaffrey today urged the Victoria University of Wellington Students’ Association (VUWSA) to condemn the burning of the New Zealand flag on university property.
“The New Zealand flag was today burnt by a group of students, including a former student union president, who attended a VUWSA organised Student Representative Council meeting,” Mr McCaffrey said...
“Given that students are forced to join students’ associations, no Victoria student has chosen to give VUWSA permission to speak on their behalf. Clearly the association’s actions do not represent student’s views.”

And David Farrar lists the most complained about adverts in 2008 including,

1. Tui Beer, billboard. “Let’s take a moment this Christmas to think about Christ... Yeah Right - Tui”. (86 complaints). Settled, when withdrawn by advertiser.

What happened to freedom of speech? This advert is a perfectly legitimate insight into the way that Kiwis on the whole view Christmas. One other complaint of interest was,

2. 2. Brandex Adventure Sports Ltd, television. Skins sportswear, touting the physicality of African-American athletes, saying they have a “warrior” mentality and “killer instinct”. (73). Upheld, racial stereotyping.

NZ Abortion Law Under Question: Anti-Life Lobby Panics

My latest post on JillStanek.com

A monumental case is brewing in New Zealand, the biggest development since abortion was legalized in 1977.

Justice Forrest Miller, High Court judge in the June 2008 case of Right to Life NZ v. The Abortion Supervisory Committee, made a statement which put panic into the complacent members of the anti-life lobby in NZ, while pro-life groups rallied at the official recognition of what they had been saying for so long:

There is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants. Indeed, the [Abortion Supervisory] Committee itself has stated that the law is being used more liberally than Parliament intended... ...The [ASC] has misinterpreted its functions and powers under the abortion law, reasoning incorrectly that Wall v Livingston means it may not review or scrutinise the decisions of certifying consultants.

98.7% of the 18k+ abortions performed in 2007 were justified on the grounds of the mental health of the mother being at risk. It is patently obvious that 98.7% of pregnant women in NZ are not mentally unfit to give birth to their unborn children. The vast majority of this figure actually represents "convenience abortions."

Click here to continue reading the article

Endangered Species to Run for Mt. Albert

The Kiwi Party have announced that they will be running a candidate for the electorate of Mt. Albert. Helen Clark was the MP for Mt. Albert, but once she left for her position at the UN, the electorate is up for a by-election.

"The Kiwi Party has today completed its candidate selection for the Mt Albert by-election and chosen Simonne Dyer. In the 2008 elections she was no. 5 on the Kiwi Party list... No other candidate in this by-election will be speaking about the importance of returning our nation to its foundational values. Labour, National, Act and the Greens have all played a part in passing legislation in Parliament that has undermined the 'timeless values' that have made our nation great in the past." - Kiwi Party

In it's current form, The Kiwi Party will not enter Parliament at the 2011 election. While the "Christian values" parties of New Zealand are unable to, or refuse to work together, it is folly to throw away your vote on any such party. At the last election the Kiwi Party wasted 12,755 party votes which would have otherwise likely gone to ACT or National - thereby strengthening the current Government.

Simmone had far better enjoy her retirement years and visit her 23 grandchildren rather than fight this lost battle for the electorate of Mt. Albert.

Related Reading: Christian Vote 2008 - my sypnopsis of the 5 parties Christians were likely to vote for at the 2008 General Election. The article includes extensive insight into the problems with the Kiwi Party.

Children Need Mum and Dad

The Supreme Court in the State of Iowa in the US has recently passed into law an act allowing for homosexual marriage. The Court's review of the law blatantly ignored concerns regarding the implications for children brought up by two "parents" in a same-sex marriage, relegating the issue to a footnote, saying:

“The research appears to strongly support the conclusion that same-sex couples foster the same wholesome environment as opposite-sex couples and suggests that the traditional notion that children need a mother and a father to be raised into healthy, well-adjusted adults is based more on stereotype than anything else.”

Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., writing for NCRegister.com responded,

The court offers no citations to any evidence in support of this remarkable claim. If we took that statement out of the context of the same-sex “marriage” debate and applied it generally throughout society, we would create enormous problems. But put that point to one side for now. Just realize that the Supreme Court of Iowa did not do the public the courtesy of citing a single source in support of this claim...

...The debate over marriage hinges in large part on what people think is the subject: Advocates of genderless marriage believe it is about fairness and equality. Advocates of conjugal marriage believe it is about the role of marriage. By dismissing testimony so obviously germane to the functions of marriage in society, the Iowa courts prejudged the case and tacitly declared equality to be the only issue.

What an utterly ridiculous, amateur and unfounded assertion for the Supreme Court to be making; that in terms of raising children, "same-sex couples foster the same wholesome environment as opposite-sex couples". It is empirically evident that two homosexual adults are less able unable to provide children with the stability and security that is essential for every child as he or she grows up.

NZ Needs a School Voucher System

...for the same reason that ACC should be sold to the private sector or shut down, and compulsory health-insurance through private firms be implemented.  Below is an excerpt from Dr. Muriel Newman's latest article for the New Zealand Centre for Political Research entitled, Time to Modernise Education...

"We believe that the growing role that government has played in financing and administering schooling has led not only to enormous waste of taxpayers’ money but also to a far poorer educational system than would have developed had voluntary cooperation continued to play a larger role." - Milton and Rose Friedman, “Free to Choose”.

It is 193 years since the first school opened its doors in New Zealand. On August 12th, 1816 Thomas Kendall established a missionary school for 33 pupils at Rangihoua in the northern Bay of Islands.[1] Seven years later in 1923 a second missionary school was opened near the Stone Store in Kerikeri, and this time adult students were permitted.

As New Zealand’s settler population increased, education flourished. Those early schools were private enterprises, run largely by the churches. It wasn’t until 1852, when the Constitution Act established the provinces that councils began to assume responsibility for education.[2] By 1867 schools were spread throughout the country, including secondary colleges in the major population centres. There were even plans for a University.

However, in 1877 the Education Act changed the face of schooling in New Zealand, with responsibility for education passing onto central government through the imposition of a national system of “free, compulsory, and secular” education. This move effectively socialised education in New Zealand, with the result that for the last 142 years, the government has effectively been responsible for the funding, regulation, and delivery of primary and secondary education services in this country. The problem is, however – as Milton and Rose Friedman pointed out in their opening quote - that whenever a monopoly provider is protected from competition, the incentives for improving services, increasing quality, lifting productivity, innovating, or minimising costs are either very weak or altogether absent.

Click here to continue reading this excellent article

An education-voucher system is the obvious step ahead if the Government hopes to combat New Zealand's bleak academic horizon. Rather than forcing parents to effectively pay twice for their child's education if they opt for a private-school, a school-voucher system would enable the parents to direct the child-specific government funding to the school of their choice, be it a state school or a private school. Confronted with a host of higher-performing private schools, it would quickly become evident that there was no longer any need for the State to run any primary/secondary educational institutions.

Dr. Muriel Newman was a founding member of the ACT Party, and served from 1996 - 2005 as a Member of Parliament. She now runs the New Zealand Centre for Political Research (NZCPR), a high-profile conservative think-tank which embraces economic liberalism.

Health Commissioner: Women Must Be Offered to View Ultrasound

The Health Commissioner has recently made an important and historic decision that women considering an abortion when undergoing an ultra sound scan have a right to be offered the opportunity to view a scan of their baby in the womb...

...It is known from studies conducted in the United States that inviting women to view a scan results in many women after seeing their baby to decide against an abortion and choose life for her baby." - Right to Life Press Release 2/05/09

Background: In November 2008, Right to Life NZ contacted the various district health boards throughout New Zealand, asking them what their policy was on pregnant women being offered to see an ultrasound picture of their unborn baby. The Waikato DHB had the audacity to state that "to offer a woman an opportunity to view her scan would be an infringement of a patient’s rights." Following this, Right to Life contacted the Health Commissioner Ron Paterson, to alert him to the Waikato DHB's actions.

Late in April, the Health Commissioner advised Right to Life that he had acted upon the information they had provided, writing...

“I have carefully considered the issue you have raised. Clearly, a woman undergoing an ultrasound scan has the right to view her scan. As you have recognised, she also has the right to decide not to view the scan. In order to exercise this choice, a woman will know that she is able to view the scan. I have written to Waikato DHB reminding them of Right 6 of the Code, which states that consumers have the right to the information that a reasonable consumer, in that consumer’s circumstances, would expect to receive. In my view, this would generally include the information that the woman may view the scan should she wish.” - RTL

In New Zealand, the law states that women have the right to view the ultrasound scan of their unborn baby if they desire. However many sonographers have the screen facing away from the woman, and refrain from telling their client that they may view the screen if they wish. It is imperative for us to understand that the Health Commissioner is not saying that women must be shown the screen, rather that the women must be offered to view the screen if they wish. The recent action taken by the Health Commissioner is ground-breaking, as it means that the woman's right to be offered to view the ultrasound image of their unborn baby will be properly enforced.

The sonographer moves the transducer over the mother's abdomen

"Ultrasound is the use of sound waves to obtain an image or picture of various organs and tissues in the body. During Ultrasound, a transducer is used to transmit harmless, high frequency sound waves through your body. The transducer picks up the echoes of these waves and converts them into an image on a TV monitor." - www.radconlr.com

Obama Has Innocent Blood On His Hands

What happens to babies that survive a failed abortion attempt? President of the United States, Barack Obama believes that they should be left to die. Some background on this from BornAliveTruth.org...

As an Illinois State Senator, Barack Obama opposed the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act. The legislation defined any infant born alive as a "person” who deserves full legal protection...

...Obama actively opposed the legislation in the Illinois State Senate. In 2001, he voted no in committee, spoke against it on the Senate floor, and voted present on the floor. In 2002, he voted no in committee, spoke against it on the Senate floor, and voted no on the floor. Obama was the sole senator to ever speak against it on the Senate floor.

Gianna Jessen - herself an abortion survivor spoke out against Obama's viciously anti-life ideology in her TV advert. Pro-life blogger Jill Stanek who worked as a nurse, and witnessed this horrific practice commented that the hospital where she worked "was leaving babies who survived induced labor abortions to die in the soiled utility room." Jill personally held one of these infants 45 minutes until he gasped his last breath.

In 2002, Born Alive passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate and by overwhelming voice vote in the House. On August 5, President George W. Bush signed the bill into law.
Despite that, numerous accounts from various parts of the country document abortion survivors are still being medically neglected until the die or outright killed – infanticide. - BornAliveTruth.org

Shoot First, Police Arrive Later

"Zhuofeng 'Titan' Jiang, a Tokoroa takeaway owner who shot a masked gunman in the leg after wrestling a semi-automatic .22 rifle off him could end up being charged for defending himself.
Aotea Chinese Takeaways owner Zhuofeng "Titan" Jiang, 25, grabbed the rifle as the gunman pointed it at Mr Jiang's 19-year-old cousin and demanded money from the till about 9.45pm on Monday.
The gunman had already fired a warning shot into the floor. Another shot went off as the men wrestled with the rifle.
When Mr Jiang got hold of the rifle he fired two shots, one into the floor, and another into the man's leg, to stop him from being attacked.
The gunman screamed in pain after being shot and fled.
Mr Jiang said yesterday that he was not a hero. "I was not scared. I would do it again. I hate these people. I will never give them any money." - Dom Post 29/4/09

Titan is a sterling example of an independent and free-thinking citizen. A "fat man, 6ft tall, wearing dark-coloured clothing." points a semi-auto Sterling 20 rifle at his kid cousin, and he responds with decisive skill, disarming the low-life and putting him out of action. However this comment from the Detective Senior Sergeant Todd Pearce of the NZ Police is alarming,

"This situation could easily have resulted in a fatality and it could have easily been one of victims that had been shot or killed... Fighting back, when firearms are involved, dramatically increases the dangers to everyone present and should not be considered or attempted." - NZ Herald 28/4/09

To heck with that. If you find yourself in a situation like Titan, it is up to you to weigh up the situation and determine whether or not you have a decent chance of overpowering the attacker. As a citizen, you have the freedom to defend yourself and the other innocent people caught up in an assault. It is an incredibly dangerous mindset to fall into, that we put our trust in the police (the state) to save us whenever we are under threat of physical harm.
Anyway, the police apparently took 18 minutes to turn up on the scene - by which time the incident was over and the attacker had run away. In most assault cases, all the police can really do is to turn up with the body-bags. I am in no way dissing the Police-force; they do a great job, but they are not omnipresent.

If Swine Flu, Pigs Might Fly

Around the Blogs

New (roughly) weekly feature for the blog: a round-up of great posts. Just a few for this first time...

21 April
Jeff Jones at the Abort73.com blog comments on the death of embryonic stem-cell research (ESC),

Dr. Yamanaka, the man who discovered how to make adult skin cells act like embryonic stem cells, said the following in a NY Times article: "When I saw the embryo, I suddenly realized there was such a small difference between it and my daughters. I thought, we can't keep destroying embryos for our research. There must be another way."...
...Dr. Oz said: "The stem cell debate is dead." He went onto explain that embryonic stem cell research has not been successful at curing diseases, but adult stem research has. He believed we could see cures for diabetes, Parkinson's disease, heart disease, etc. within 10 years.

24 April
Whaleoil suggests a novel new security measure on aeroplanes.

Issue every passenger with a Glock with one bullet. You can't hijack a plane with one bullet and if you try the other 20 people will shoot you dead faster than fly on sh**.
After the successful end of the flight you simply hand in the Glocks to the flight attendent and exit the plane.

28 April
Labour considers David Shearer as their candidate for the seat of Mt. Albert. To Labour's distress, the VRWC bloggers are delighted, as Shearer has previously advocated private armies. David Farrar comments,

Shearer has an even better idea:

"The prospect that private military companies might gain some degree of legitimacy within the international community begs the question as to whether these firms could take on UN peacekeeping functions and improve on UN effort."

An excellent idea. I am sure the new UNDP Administator would whole heartedly agree that UN peace keeping forces should be replaced by Executive Outcomes and Sandline. I do hope someone asks her her view.

"There is no denying that they are cheaper than UN operations. EO cost Sierra Leone’s governmen$t35 million for the 22 months it was there, versus a planned UN operation budgeted at $47 million for eight months."

Attack of the Clones

screenshot from Starwars: Attack of the Clones (2002)

We thought human-cloning was years away... just like living on the moon would not eventuate for many years.  US reproductive scientist Dr. Panayiotis Zavo claims to have cloned 14 human embryos, implanting 11 of them in 4 women - but as yet he has not been successful, and the pregnancies have failed.  Below is an excerpt from the article at LifeSiteNews.com,

"There is absolutely no doubt about it, and I may not be the one that does it, but the cloned child is coming. There is absolutely no way that it will not happen," Dr. Zavos said.

"If we intensify our efforts, we can have a cloned baby within a year or two," he said. In 2004, Dr. Zavos claimed to have transferred a cloned human embryo into a woman's womb, but did not produce evidence at the time to back up the claim.

A segment of the film depicting the recent procedures made available to the press shows Dr. Zavos, dressed in surgical scrubs and sitting at a microscope, interspersed with photos of what appear to be cells. The footage featured in a documentary aired Wednesday on the Discovery Channel in Britain.

"We managed to write chapter one," Zavos said. "Chapter two, we will have a child a parent can take home and raise as a cloned child."

Agence France Presse reported that the experiment was carried out in a secret location in the Middle East to avoid legislation in the US that bans "human cloning," that is, "reproductive cloning."

Ethicists and scientists were quick to condemn Zavos' claim, maintaining that cloned human embryos cannot be created "safely." The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) issued a statement calling attempts at "human cloning" unethical. The ASRM, however, in quoting a previous decision, employed the shorthand expression "human cloning" to mean only the creation of cloned embryos for purposes of reproduction, not the creation of human clones as such.

Cloning may be immoral, but what is more certain is that the research being done on cloning of embryos is definitely immoral. The number of very young unborn babies that these evil scientists are using and killing in their experiments is incredibly high, and absolutely unjustifiable.

hat-tip: SemperVita blog