NZ Child Killing Lobby Feeling the Heat

The pro-abortion lobby in New Zealand is coming under pressure from a growing number of people and groups speaking out against the injustice of abortion.

The Herald reported on Friday, 19 Feb:

"Anti-abortion doctors have gone to court to challenge new Medical Council guidelines on how physicians with personal objections to abortion must deal with patients. One of the doctors is believed to be Mary English, a Wellington GP and wife of Deputy Prime Minister Bill English..." (continue reading)

The new guidelines state that doctors must tell mothers concerned about their pregnancy, that abortion is one of the options. This is the first time this issue has come up in New Zealand, and comes hot on the heels of the recent assault on freedom of conscience in Victoria, Australia which requires pro-life doctors to refer women to pro-abortion doctors if they themselves are not willing to recommend that the mother has her pre-born baby killed by abortion.

And Stop Family Planning, supported by many pro-family and pro-life organisations is maintaining the pressure on the Family Planning Association who have applied to the Abortion Supervisory Committee for a licence to kill pre-born babies up to 9weeks. Representatives from StopFPA and Prolife NZ have requested a meeting with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health, and planning is under way for future marches in the Country's major cities.

Right to Life is heading back to the Court of Appeal on May 4-5 following the Abortion Supervisory Committee contesting several findings of Justice Miller. One of his comments was that,

"there is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants.”

Right to Life is a non-profit organization that seeks to be a voice influencing legislation in New Zealand on behalf of those who have absolutely no chance of themselves altering the law which concerns them. The Crown (The Abortion Supervisory Committee) has virtually unlimited funds with which it can fight the findings of Justice Miller in the High Court in July 2008.

Abortion takes the life of a helpless and innocent pre-born human person, without their consent being asked for, or given. Death by abortion is often painful to the child it is killing, and can cause medical complications and lasting psychological trauma to the mothers of the killed children. The abortion industry in new Zealand has been growing more and more arrogant, with calls from retired abortionist Margaret Sparrow and her little organisation, the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand - for abortion to be completely decriminalised as it is in Victoria, Australia. ALRANZ also supports the killing of late-term disabled babies. Now the tide is turning the other way, as New Zealanders acknowledge that our abortion rate (aprox 18,000 every year) is unacceptably high, and that it is outrageous that girls of any age may have their baby killed by abortion without her parents giving consent, or even being given notification.

Pro-Abortion Feminists Outraged at Optional Ultrasound

Utah House of Representatives Republican, Carl Wimmer

Andrew Jenkins, a writer at the Feminists for Choice Death blog and "a self-proclaimed queer feminist" is having kittens. He is upset by the introduction of a bill set to be debated in early 2010, into the Utah House of Representatives by Republican Representative Carl Wimmer. Wimmer is a strongly conservative politician with a mission to chip away at Roe v. Wade which he correctly states has legalised "no reason" abortion in the United States. In 2009 Wimmer sponsored two incrementally pro-life bills. The first, HB222 was entitled "The Unborn Child Pain Prevention Act" and requires that doctors who are going to commit an abortion on a child must inform the mother that the child may feel pain, and requires that the doctor offer an anesthetic to alleviate the pain for the foetus. The second bill Wimmer co-sponsored established in law that an unlawful abortion was the equivalent of a 2nd degree homicide. While being strongly pro-life, Wimmer justly supports permission of abortions in extreme cases only. Utah has a population of 2.7 million and, as a largely conservative state, lays claim to a relatively low total of 4,000 abortions being committed each year out of 3 abortion mills. Low perhaps, but still approximately 4,000 too many abortions and 3 too many abortion clinics. The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform states that only 1% of abortions occur because of rape or incest, 6% occur because of potential possible health problems while the vast majority, 93% are committed for social reasons - where it is claimed that an abortion will improve the future of the mother or remove an "inevitable future of pain and poverty" for the foetus.

The latest pro-life bill introduced by Wimmer would require that abortionists must provide an image of the fetus on an ultrasound along with an optional detailed description of what is on the screen. The Salt Lake Tribune explains the situation,

Current law says women planning abortions must be told they have the right to view an ultrasound. Wimmer's changes go further and say that if an ultrasound is performed, the images must be displayed so that the woman can see them, if she wants. And, if she desires, the person performing the ultrasound must provide a "detailed description" of what is on the screen, including the dimensions of the fetus, description of its heart and presence of other organs and external body parts.

Naturally pro-abortion feminists and those with a vested interest in the continuation of liberal abortion laws are fuming. Wimmer correctly summarises their motivation,

"They're in the abortion market to make money. The more ultrasounds they show, the fewer abortions they're going to be able to do."

Wimmer drafted the bill with the national anti-abortion organization, Americans United for Life. AUL states that by showing the mother an image of her pre-born child, a bond will be established which leads to the woman no longer feeling ambivalence towards the life growing within her. This phenomena is pretty straight-forward. Until a mother sees or touches her child - at any stage in his/her development, the level of responsiblity or love which she feels for the child will be significantly lower than when she does see and hold her child. However Andrew Jenkins of Feminsts for Death lashes out at Wimmer for his part in "making the already difficult decision to have an abortion even harder".

"Unfortunately for women in the state of Utah, Wimmer is pushing for more invasive restrictions that would dramatically challenge a women’s right to choice. Rep. Carl Wimmer’s bill would require that a doctor provide an image of the fetus on an ultrasound along with a detailed description of what is on the screen. Although this so-called attempt at establishing a “bond” between a mother and her fetus is still optional, the very idea of this legislation is cloaked in anti-choice language that views women as agentless and incapable of coming to their own conclusions about what is best for their bodies and their lives. Despite the fact that this bill remains seemingly optional for women seeking an abortion, it is most certainly a part of a larger anti-choice agenda to coerce women out of choosing abortion."

Jenkins is incorrect to state that doctors will be required to provide the image and a detailed description, in fact he contradicts himself in the next sentence when he acknowledges that these procedural changes will be optional with the woman determining what she does/does not wish to know about her pre-born child, or the procedure which will tear it to pieces, forcefully sucking it out of her body through a hose. He comments that, "Regardless of how difficult of a decision it may be, it remains a decision that each woman should have the autonomous right to make on her own." However, ironically - and this is typical of the pro-abortion lobby, he is absolutely opposed to women being given the option of a wider range of information being made available to them to allow them to make a better-informed choice.

Health Care Bill Shaky as Abortion Amendment Defeated

Senator Ben Nelson, Nebraska

Democrat Senator Ben Nelson's amendment to remove Federal funding for abortions from the Health Care Bill was defeated with 54 votes against, 45 for in the Senate on Tuesday. However as Katie Connolly says, what will matter most is not Tuesday's Senate debate, but rather where the Nelson/Stupak language ends up in the reconciliation process. It was sponsor of the original bill, Bart Stupak who himself said, “I don’t think we will prevail in the Senate.”

Politico.com reports on Nelson's threat of filibustering if sufficient changes are not made to the bill when he said on 19 Nov that he would seek to prevent health reform from moving to final passage if restrictions on federal funding for abortion weren’t tightened during the amendment process. He added, “there are a lot of other things that could keep me from supporting it in the end as well.”

With 51% of US Citizens now declaring themselves to be pro-life in the recent Gallup poll, it is important that they now put pressure on their Senators to oppose the passing of the Bill unless significant alterations are made regarding the funding of abortions in health insurance policies, according to the language found in the Stupak/Nelson amendments. Because if the Bill does get through in its current state, health-insurance policies which contain federal funding for abortion coverage will be permitted to be sold. The jist of the Stupak/Nelson amendment to the bill then, is that abortion insurance would be permitted as a part of a complete health-insurance plan, but only if that plan did not receive partial funding through Medicare, the United States equivalent to ACC.

New Zealand currently has 100% tax-payer funded abortions for all citizens and permanent residents. This means that a portion of every taxed dollar Kiwis earn goes towards the 18,000 abortions committed in New Zealand every year. Let's hope that the US is able to avoid sinking down to this deplorable level of government endorsed and funded injustice, this silent holocaust.

Amendment Removing Abortion from US Healthcare Bill Passed

This is huge news. The Stupak/Pitts amendment which ensures that federal funding for abortion will be kept out of the HealthCare Bill has passed, 240-194 in the House of Congress in the United States.

Following the surprise move by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to allow a vote on the amendment, LifeNews.com reported comments on the amendment made by Douglas Johnson, the director of the National Right to Life Committee,

"This will be one of the most important roll call votes that U.S. House members ever casts on a pro-life issue," he said. "Any lawmaker who votes against the Stupak-Pitts Amendment is, in effect, voting in favor of establishing a federal government program that will directly fund abortion on demand, with federal funds."

On Saturday evening, 64 Democrats voted with 176 Republicans to support the amendment to the bill. CEO of Planned Parenthood Cecile Richards is understandably quite upset at this outcome, claiming that the new bill will,

"restrict women’s access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market, undermining the ability of women to purchase private health plans that cover abortion, even if they pay for most of the premiums with their own money."

However this is not the case as Jill Stanek explained on Saturday before the vote,

This amendment keeps the status quo. It is identical to the current federal employees' insurance plan, which does not cover abortion. Currently, if a pregnant mother who works for the federal government wants to abort, she can do so with her own money.

Under the Stupak/Pitts amendment any low-income pregnant mother who would get her insurance through the government would have to do to the same. Or if she has a private insurance plan that is subsidized by the federal government, that private company could not pay for her abortion.

This is a massive victory for pro-lifers in the States. The Healthcare Reform Bill may have passed through Congress, however it has done so without cover being provided for abortions. David Brody at the Christian Broadcasting Network writes,

"if you just heard a loud thud, well that was pro-choice liberals in the House plopping down in their seats dumbfounded and frustrated as can be. Not only does their healthcare reform bill not contain a "robust" public option but it now contains this new pro-life language. This is a horrible turn of events for House liberals. You can be sure they'll be pressure on Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer to strip this language out in conference (if the bill makes it that far) but for now this vote tonight is something pro-choice liberals will lose some sleep over."

New Zealand already has government-funded abortions for all permanent residents and citizens. To our shame, we are absolutely complacent about this, not even blinking when being told that our tax-money funds this "core health service", abortion. These abortions are on demand and a large number of them are very likely being carried out in breach of the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act of 1977 which states that abortion is illegal except in a very few circumstances. Pro-lifers in the US have a real fight on their hands to keep their country from slipping down the path of tax-payer funded child-killing as we have in New Zealand.

Voluntary Student Union Membership on the Cards

Had my second TV interview on Monday. The first was with TV3 just prior to election '08, about Jacket-gate. TV3's reporter, Sia Aston covered the issue of voluntary student union membership today, with Roger Douglas's reform bill set to go to its first reading with Government support on Wednesday. She googled "compulsory + student + union", clicked through to my article about the corruption at VUSA, followed it through to my Facebook page and messaged me, asking for an interview.

The interview went well, however Sia took just one of my comments, focusing instead on a confused NZUSA rep, and UCSA president Steve Jukes verbosely defending the current fascist structure of student politics. While I acknowledge that many student associations and their respective execs, (my own at Canterbury included), do a great deal of work on behalf of students, it is clear that there is an unacceptable level of corruption going on, among a list of other undesirable outcomes of having compulsory unions. As I said to the reporter Lachlan,

"Look at the UCSA for example. At the recent student union elections candidates were called upont to submit a photo and a summary of what they stood for, for the student mag CANTA. One candidate didn't even submit anything but still got elected onto the exec. Or the AGM which took place shortly before the election, CANTA advertised "Free hamburgers, sausage sizzle and $5 jugs of beer" for those who attended the meeting. It was held in the casual setting of an outdoor amphitheatre, adjacent to the student pub, with a quorum of 200 students from a student membership of over 15,000. And no surprises as to what was on the agenda: a move to increase the salaries of those on the exec, with the president on well over $40,000 pa. - money taken forcefully from thousands of other students who probably didn't even know this was going on."

I will say more about the University of Canterbury Students Association in the future, but the above is a sumamry to give you an idea of why I and so many others throughout New Zealand are glad to see the VSM bill before Parliament, and to see the all-too-often anti-democratic National government pledging to support the bill to it's first reading and the select committee process.

Why I Oppose Legalising Marijuana

a marijuana/cannabis leaf

On 2 July I discussed Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei's bill to decriminalise marijuana for medicinal purposes. A couple of weeks later I posted an exclusive interview I took with a marijuana user. Today I will explain why I oppose legalising marijuana but support its decriminalisation for both medicinal and recreational use. However I will make it absolutely clear that I am opposed to and would discourage people from using marijuana for recreational purposes.

First I need to clear up my intentionally misleading title and perhaps confusing introduction to this post by drawing a distinction between decriminalisation and legalisation. As far as I can tell, there is nothing in society that the government should specifically legalise, as such an action implies that the government has the inherent authority to permit or deny a particular thing or activity. For example, what would you wish to happen if it were currently the case that the possession, trade and consumption of bread was illegal? Should the government pass a law legalising bread - or would it be better if they instead decriminalised bread - on the grounds that the state has no jurisdiction to legislate for or against it? What about your very existence: should living be legal? The government has no authority to specifically permit the continuation of the life of an individual. Such a decision can surely only be made by the individual. So in the case of marijuana, it should either be either illegal or simply not ruled upon at all. Refraining from making a ruling on something allows for individuals to make decisions unaffected by an assumed belief that the government has endorsed it by actively legalising it. It is preferable to passively permit a harmful activity (such as bungy-jumping) or substance (such as marijuana) than to actively permit it as would be the case if marijuana were legalised.

I could employ the argument that the use of marijuana is justified for the purpose of pain-relief and then follow on from this that it therefore has a legitimate use, and subsequently question the justification of a statuatory line of distinction between medicinal and recreational use. Alternatively I could take the line that marijuana is far less harmful to the body than glue-sniffing or methamphetamine for instance, and should therefore not be legislated against as these other harder drugs are. Again, I could compare the adverse effects of the recreational abuse of marijuana with the destructive effects of drunkeness, concluding that if alcohol is not legislated against then neither should marijuana be. However useful these arguments may be, this post will support decriminalisation from another angle.

The issue of whether an action or thing should be permissible or not is usually blindingly simple. If it does not adversely affect a third party against their will, then the law has no place in the matter. Although I hold that our very bodies are a gift to each of us from God, and that we should value and care for these "jars of clay", the government does not have jurisdiction to force us to be good. The question of how far this principle is to be taken is fundamental to the euthanasia/suicide debate. Should people have the right to choose how to end their own lives - and in what circumstances? But this is an issue for another post.

But what about when marijuana harms innocent bystanders such as children living in the house of a marijuana user, or neighbors upset with the odour wafting over the fence in the evening? First I must demonstrate that this question is baseless as it directs blame at the medium of the damage instead of accusing the perpetrator of the damage. If, on the subject of loud music I asked, "What about when loud music harms innocent bystanders...", it is generally accepted that it would be an incorrect response to ban music. Instead, people should be free to play music so long as it does not adversely affect others. Music played too loud is harmful to the ears and is therefore should not be imposed upon anyone without their prior consent. If certain people wish to enjoy such loud music and knowingly damage their hearing, then that is their prerogative. The government has no mandate to legislate on acceptable decibel levels for music when nobody's hearing is being damaged against their will. Our frustration and anger at loud music played at night by the neighbors should not be targeted at the music itself, but at the immature idiots who are abusing it. They are welcome to either turn down the volume, plug in headphones or drive out into the country and crank up the stereo, but it is unacceptable to harm others against their will.

The question should then be rephrased, "What about when marijuana-users harm innocent buystanders..." The subject then becomes the perpetrator of the harm rather than the medium. Marijuana use is detrimental to the human body, and it is therefore unfair to subject young children to its smoke as they do not have the ability or knowledge to know how to handle such an environment. The solution is clear: people who are unable to give consent (children), or who do not give consent to be affected by others using marijuana in their environment - must not have the same imposed upon them. Since we have already found that the problem is not the medium but the perpetrator, it is clear that either the perpetrator or the bystander must be removed from the environment. An example of this would be where marijuana users find some place else to smoke their weed so that harm to bystanders is significantly reduced or completely removed.

Lets decriminalise marijuana for both medicinal and recreational purposes and allow New Zealand to move forward into the 21st Century on this matter.

Abortion Case Goes Back to Court of Appeal

Prolife NZ has responded to the news that Right to Life and the anti-life Abortion Supervisory Committee are set to head back to the Court of Appeal early next year.

"Prolife NZ is today welcoming the news that Right to Life will again be representing the unborn in the Court of Appeal. On 20 August 2009 The Abortion Supervisory Committee (ASC) filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal against Justice Miller’s 9 June 2008 judgement. Right to Life will once again cross-appeal on behalf of the unborn children in New Zealand who are unable to speak for themselves.

In his 9 June 2008 judgement, Justice Miller stated that ‘There is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants,’ and ‘The [ASC] has misinterpreted its functions and powers under the abortion law.’

“Why is the ASC so desperate to reject the Justice’s judgement in a bid to retain what is essentially abortion on demand? The ASC was established by Parliament to ensure that New Zealand’s abortion law is carried out as it was originally intended.”

Click here to continue reading the media release. The ASC is intent on ignoring Justice Miller's damning June 2008 judgement of their poor record at ensuring the proper application of abortion law. Not only are they concerned at the implications of the Justice's findings, but they are upset that Right to Life is set to be awarded costs (aprox $40,000) for the case so far. Right to Life on the other hand is welcoming this second Court of Appeal hearing as "an opportunity to represent their case for the legal recognition of the unborn child from conception as a human being".

Real Resource Management

Reading through a few of the 3439 submissions to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee and came across one from the Centre for Resource Mangement Studies (CRMA), dated 21 July. The CRMA brings to the commitee's attention the relevance that changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA) has to the restructuring of the proposed new Auckland Super City. The RMA is a law in New Zealand with the stated purpose of "promoting the sustainable management of natural and physical resources." You can read the CRMA's submission here, but below are a few excerpts which just scream out freedom and progress.

Last week the Rodney District Council declined an application by a Maori-based joint venture to develop a luxury resort on Te Arai Beach, near Mangawhai.

This was celebrated by many as a ‘victory for the community,’ although we can presume that this ‘community’ does not include many of the unemployed tradesmen in the area, or the young people who might have found employment in the 180 chalet complex.

Some months ago another proposal for a luxury resort on the Te Arai point was ended when the ARC bought the property, for a Regional Park, from the project financier – leaving the developer, and the resort operator I was negotiating with, high and dry.

A third resort project, also in Mangawhai, is teetering on a knife-edge, dependent on whether the Kaipara District Council will process the application to expand the facilities to meet the needs of the US operator as a non-notified application. It has taken two years to get the present proposal through the system. If the additions are notified the investors may have to wait a further two years – and they simply will not do so.

So one small town on the East Coast of Northland faces the prospect of three resorts being abandoned because of the RMA process – even though all these resorts were intended to be ready in time for the Rugby World Cup...

...Any RMA decision-maker is required to finally assess any application against Part 2 of the Act, and, given the present wording of the Act, the ecosystems or natural character, will almost always trump economic development and job creation.

Luxury resorts are naturally built in locations of great beauty and natural character. That means they cannot get built in New Zealand because the protection of that natural beauty and character almost always trumps economic development and employment. The current wording of the Act says economic growth and development are not matters of national importance, or indeed of any importance at all. The developer cannot compete with the national importance accorded to the natural and physical resources of the environment...

...We are in a time of crisis and the ordinary people are expecting Government to provide a stimulus to economic development, productivity and employment. But Government cannot fund this activity – it does not have the cash and cannot borrow more. Our credit rating is vulnerable.

The key is to remove these obstacles and mop up the unemployed in privately funded construction projects and the downstream activities they generate.

The Centre believes these extraordinary times legitimise a major re-write of Part 2 of the Act.

The submission follows this introduction with the proposed re-write; I have included a few of these below,

Section 6 (b) The protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development. 

Pedantic legislation on the protection of landscapes can be vague and extremely detrimental to proposed investments in an area. Such legislation often takes the form of opposing windmill farms or deforestation.

Section 6 (g) The efficient use and development of natural and physical resources, and in particular –

(i) the use of market mechanisms to promote their efficient allocation.
(ii) the need to promote this efficient use by reducing transaction costs to a reasonable minimum.
(iii) by councils collecting data bases relating to previous applications so that applicants do not have to provide information already provided by previous applicants.
(iv) The need for communities to have access to locally sourced mineral aggregates for construction purposes.

The Act also states that regard must be given to a number of things including,

• Any finite characteristics of natural and physical resources,
• the effects of climate change, and
• the benefits to be derived from the use and development of renewable energy.

To which the CRMA suggests the Committee read Julian Simon, strike out the reference to climate change and ask what benefits there are from using renewable energy. Love it.

I was interested to note that ACT MP Sir Roger Douglas, ex-Leader of the National Party, Don Brash  and highly-successful businessman and ACT supporter Alan Gibbs are all trustees on the board of the CRMA.

Exclusive: Interview With a Cannabis User

An interview I have taken with a cannabis user who has requested to remain anonymous. There is a great deal of speculation among those who oppose decriminalising marijuana. Many approach the subject with pre-conceptions and with no first-hand, accurate or balanced understanding of the issue. Here is an opportunity to hear first-hand, what someone on "the other side" of the debate has to say on a whole range of aspects of marijuana - from how you use it and how it feels to thoughts on the legal side of the issue.


When did you start using marijuana?
beginning of 2008. Oh no maybe end of 2007.


how were you introduced to using weed?
ok, a family member - we were drinking, and a family member invited me to join them.

were you pressured into it?
no, not really, I just thought I'd give it a go, but I was quite drunk so you know, it probably wouldn't have taken much to pressure me into it anyway. Yeah, it's often the way a lot of people first smoke it, aye - drunk, drinking. They'll be at a party and someone will have some and offer... weed and alcohol is a pretty weird mix. You get real spaced out, aye. It's not something I like doing. I don't even drink alcohol anymore.

so you're saying you wouldn't have begun using it if you weren't drunk?
nah, I probably would have - it just happened to be the way I was introduced to it - on subsequent times smoking it, I wasn't drunk.

how do you use weed?
any number of ways, a spiff which is just a joint rolled with tobacco, or just a straight joint which is just weed rolled in paper, um a bong which is like a water pipe that you draw the smoke through the water, or a buckie where you cut the bottom of a 1.5 liter bottle, put a cone piece in, push it down into the water and then light the weed above the water, then take the cap off and suck it down real quick, or push it back into the water and suck it up that way, or um a lungie where you have a big 1.5 liter coke bottle or something with a bag on the end, a bag taped on the end so it's airtight and you light the cone piece on the top and the weed, then you pull the bag out and then, then it fills up with smoke you know, then you push the bag down and then you take the cap off and suck it in...

far out... what other ways are there?
well there's cones, glass pipes, metal pipes or whatever... oh spots, of course - spots. They're usually done on electric elements or on a, on a gas ring - you put knives to heat up, and then you roll up a little bit of weed and put it on the knife - squeeze it between two knives while someone with a glass bottle with the bottom smashed off it um, draws it up - takes two people to do that, but it's - it's the most efficient way of smoking weed that I've found. Um, there's vapourisers too but I've never used them, they're expensive.

What other ways are there?
There's can cones, where you get a empty coke can or whatever, bourbon can, whatever you've got and you, all you do is you flatten it a bit on the top, stab a couple of holes through it with something small, then stick the weed on top and light it through the holes in the can, sort of drink it through the can. It's a real rangi way and apparently it's bad for you 'cause you get aluminum poisoning or something. I dunno, what other ways are there... Oh you can make cones out of things like apples and stuff, so you smoke weed that way. Or um, light-bulbs. you get a straw and you put the weed in the bulb - take the end off the light-bulb - get a straw on the end of it and you light the weed from underneath and heat up the light-bulb, kinda like a cheap, free vapouriser. Then you just suck the smoke up the straw.

What sort of environment are you in when you are using weed?
Depends. I'm usually just with friends or family or just by myself. just quiet, you know, evenings or whatever.

How often do you use it, or have used it in the past?
At most, like daily - at most like a couple of times a day.

How much would you consume at one time? - can you measure it in grams?
Oh, two cone-packings which might be a quarter of a gram.

How does using weed make you feel?
Relaxed, just quite mellow aye, pretty happy sometimes - depends, the effects are sometimes like - if you just smoke a wee bit, you just feel a bit mellow and stuff - makes you feel tired sometimes. You just fall asleep sometimes. Yeah, just mellow and relaxed, just quite a joyful mood, quite a happy sort of mood, I dunno, you like to talk a bit

Would you say you do things you normally wouldn't do?
Ah, no not really at all aye - just maybe, I do dumb stuff sometimes, like try and trim my beard and it doesn't work. Mostly do what you do normally.

How does it affect things going on around you?
Well it depends what it is - sometimes you look at things, you get a different perspective on things. Yeah sometimes you just look at things a bit differently - a bit more objectively than you do when you're straight. I don't know why that is.

Do you feel that using it could lead you to breaking the law - or offend or hurt people?
No - I mean apart from that I am breaking the law

(laughter)

Yes I guess in that respect - like I don't suddenly get the urge to go out and like, rob an old granny flat or something, or assault a granny or something. I'd rather just listen to music - or play a video game

How do you feel about using it when you know it's against the law?
It doesn't bother me that much.

Would you say it's not a just law?
Yeah I think so - it's something that grows in the ground. I'm pretty sure that right at the start - God says that we've been given every plant that bears seed, and guess what - it's a plant that bears seed, and I'm pretty sure that overrules any laws in countries. How can you outlaw a herb? It's really like, ridiculous - it's not even consistent with the law in New Zealand. I mean, how come there's an item on Trademe for $20 which with normal household implements can be changed into a class A drug. How does that make sense, and that's legal! Why is that legal?

What is it?
You turn San Pedro cactus into mescaline so like cactus juice - the cactus is legal and you buy foot-long pieces on Trademe for 20 bucks, and a foot just happens to be the right amount - when you cook it up it's just the right amount for a trip - funny that, but it's legal.

Would you say the drug laws in New Zealand are unfair?
Well, I think so because when you look at statistics in New Zealand there are thousands of hospitalisations for alcohol per year. Hundreds and hundreds of deaths caused by alcohol - and when you compare that to the relative effects of other drugs - albeit used by less of the population - it's still a lower ratio, so why is something like alcohol which has known risks - it's considered to have greater health-risks than cannabis, and more addictive, and yet it's legal - that doesn't make sense to me.

How do various substances affect your ability to do things?
Weed can sometimes make you feel a bit lazy because you feel so mellow you don't do anything, but you can still do everything if you put your mind to it you can read and you can study - I did my tax return while I was stoned, you know.

What about driving?
I think I drive fine while I'm stoned. And like, other people being in the car have never commented on any peculiar behaviour about my driving when I've been stoned.

And comparing that with driving when you've had a can of beer?
A can of beer, (laughs) ... I would drive fine. If I was drunk, obviously you can't drive - you do dumb stuff. Like you think it's funny to go 130 down a small side-street - well at least that's my experience of driving drunk.

But you wouldn't do that after using weed?
No - the worst thing that happens is I get a bit lost when I'm driving - it gets a bit confusing about where you are - nah, you're usually - I find I'm a really polite and courteous driver when I'm stoned aye.

How does using weed enhance music and things?
Colours are brighter, more vivid - music just, I dunno - it just seems to come alive, aye and you, your heart starts racing and - I find I feel quite euphoric when I listen to music with headphones on - dark room or something, so you're not distracted, just listening to music - like you do...

Sounds really cool.
Obviously, playing computer games is quite good.

Does it improve your skill?
No, not really aye, sometimes I forget to do things and stuff - I don't play as well probably - it's still good fun. Games that I don't know, I struggle to play when I'm stoned.

I can't watch TV when I'm stoned. When you watch TV when you're stoned you analyse the whole TV show - you look at the plot and you go, man that's a rubbish plot and you go why does the director choose that shot? and you know, you can break down the whole TV show and see you know, you can sort of see through the acting if it's not good, so you can't watch bad movies when you're stoned like you know you've got to watch really well acted ones like um, Pulp Fiction - I enjoyed Pulp Fiction - have you ever seen it?

Yeah - I was freaked out
It's got some pretty bad bits in it, but...

It's got some pretty good actors in it, Samuel L. Jackson...
John Travolta, Bruce Willis, Uma Thurman...

Ok, should weed be made legal?
Yeah I think so. I don't understand why it's illegal.

Would you vote for the Legalise Cannabis party of New Zealand?
Nah, not really.

It's not that much of an issue for you?
Nah, cause the laws are so lax on it in New Zealand anyway - you know, there doesn't seem to be that much risk of being prosecuted.

What about the health risks? Aren't you worried about what it's doing to your lungs or your heart?
You hear such widely-varying stories - so it's hard to really know, but I've read a reasonable bit of research that indicates that smoking through a bong is um, quite good because it eliminates a lot of the tars and harmful chemicals and things that you would normally inhale even in a cigarette and things as well. I'm told that it has less health risks than tobacco - because of all the chemicals that are put on tobacco when it's grown - so you know. Like when I was smoking cigarettes I smoked like you know, 5 or 10 a day or whatever whereas I'm not smoking anywhere near that much weed. So I'm not getting all that smoke...

So smoking weed instead of cigarettes - are you saving money?
I'm not saving all that much money to be honest, but it is a bit cheaper than my tobacco habit.

How much does it cost?
Oh, $250 an ounce. That lasts me 4 - 5 months. That's pretty cheap, you know - I know buy it from a guy who knows a grower - but most people pay about $350.

What do you think about marijuana used for medicinal purposes?
It can be pretty good for pain relief. Some people find it better for pain relief than I do. Some people like it for their back, I don't use it for my back, but I have muscle-aches and that - I find it works rather well. And generally because it relaxes your whole demeanor you feel less stressed out - pain and things. But to be honest, I'd say that I use it more recreationally than medicinally.

Do you use it to combat depression or sorrow?
(pause) That's a pretty personal question...

Yeah I know.
Maybe initially, when I was smoking it, like I was in a dark place but um, but yeah you know I was going through a rough patch. You know, at the time when I started smoking I was in a pretty bad place. But since then you know, my life's a lot better than it was so, perhaps back then I smoked it to get away from reality or something, but now I just do it 'cause I enjoy it. I don't feel you know, depressed when I smoke or anything.

What's your thoughts on using a substance like this for, you know, escaping reality for a bit.
You know, when you're - when you start to rely on a drug I think that's when the addiction - that's when you start to get psychologically addicted. So I try not to... If you ever think "Oh I need to have a smoke", that's that's the best time not to have one. I do something else 'cause then you don't become reliant on it.

So you weren't at any stage addicted to weed?
I don't find it addictive at all. The only thing is that if I don't smoke, sometimes I struggle with sleep. It says on the New Zealand Health website - if you stop smoking for 3 weeks, that sort of thing goes away. But it's never concerned me that much.

The two most academically intelligent people I know are both pot smokers aye which is quite funny. One is doing a PhD at University. The girl who's doing the PhD - you know, I've discussed the health risks with her, and she's quite knowledgeable on the subject and she believes the health risks are quite low. She explained the effects of other drugs as well. Like she believes psychedelics are very low health risk.

What do you think - is weed a gateway drug?
I don't know - I disagree with the idea. I think weed and other drugs - especially chemicals - it's a separate issue. I know some people that aren't really interested in doing other drugs that smoke weed, so I think - when you look at the amount of people in New Zealand that smoke weed, compared to that of using other drugs, it's very low - you know, cannabis is a lot higher percentage. It's a separate issue. I can see how being introduced to a drug by someone who sells pot... it can be an easy way to be introduced to a drug - especially if you go to their parties or whatever - so in that respect it can be a gateway drug. It's more about the lifestyle you're living - that will allow you to be... I mean if you just have your pot and have nothing to do with anything else... you do your own thing.

Do you have to be strong-willed about it?
For me, It doesn't really interest me to like, go to parties with people who have got those kind of drugs. You know, I don't lead that kind of life - so it's not really - it doesn't really bother me, so I don't get exposed to any other drugs. I don't know if it's like that for other people. Like I have been when I've been at parties like that.

What other drugs have you tried?
Recreationally, ritalin which was kinda fun, but you know, it's not something I'd ever do again. I just don't like taking chemicals, and it feels like - to me, the chemicals should be illegal. I know that I'm really doing wrong when I'm taking them. You know, there's a reason they're illegal - they're quite dangerous. You know like, ritalin, class B - it has its risks. But other than that, like I've taken a few class C drugs like valium and codeine and stuff. Pretty lame. I tried nutmeg once - it did nothing. It's supposed to make you stoned for like 3 days or something...

(laughter)

But it didn't do anything... it just gave me bad nutmeg burps... I drank heaps of the stuff, like 60 grams of nutmeg - it did nothing. Oh, I've done hash - an extract of weed.

Tell me about hash
I don't know much about hash, only done it once - just got really stoned.

How would you feel if your children were using weed?
I don't have any children.

But if you did?
Depends what age they are.

15?
Nah, they shouldn't be smoking at 15 'cause there's a lot of medical evidence that shows psychological disorders associated with smoking marijuana at a age under 18 - there's a significantly increased risk - at least in research I've read... Like if it was legalised I would never you know, it should be 18+, 21+ or something.

If you were a father, would you tend to steer your children away from drug use? How would you approach that?
I can't say - I'm not a father - too difficult for me to say at this point in my life, like what I would do. I might feel differently about it then. Yeah I can't really say right now.

Would you feel happy if...
Depends if it affected their lives probably - what manner it affected their lives, like because some people you know, don't go to school when they smoke pot and that kind of thing. So obviously that would be bad.

Right, thanks a lot - this has been really interesting.
No worries.

Give Me Something For The Pain

smoking a joint

"Give me something for the pain, Give me something for the blues..." - the Stereo sitting under the single raised bunk bed is playing the Bon Jovi tape that I bought along with a collection of classic 80's tapes in a multi-fluorescent patterned cassette-tape carry-bag at a garage sale a while back. My cup of coffee is empty and the heat from my computer's power-supply helps prevent my blood from freezing in my arteries as I sit in this freezer they call my room. I am reminded of the Medicinal Cannabis Ammendment Bill which Metiria Turei put in the ballot back in June 2006. Its first reading was tonight where it was defeated with 34 in favour and 86 against.

All five ACT MPs voted in favour of the bill which would have made a provision in the Misuse of Drugs Act for seriously sick people to use marijuana for pain relief. Obviously the bill's intention was to get a foot in the door for the ultimate decriminalisation of marijuana use and sale, however it was introduced under the banner of improving health-care in New Zealand. This is a standard method of bringing about social change, as can be illustrated with the passing of Sue Bradford's Anti-Smacking Law. It was passed under the guise of lowering child-abuse, however its passing is merely one step in the agenda to make children autonomous from their parents: wards of the state.

"We would be sending a signal that it's okay," said National MP Jonathan Coleman who is also a doctor. This is a commonly held postion however it doesn't make sense. There are plenty of things that are not ok, and yet we do not legislate against them. By simply decriminalising weed, the government would be admitting that something was illegal that should not have been. Rather than positively making the drug legal, they are instead passively decriminalising it: making no ruling either for or against it.

Why should weed be illegal? "Because it's bad for society" comes the standard reply. Apply this principle consistently across all facets of society, and you have a totalitarian state where even an individual's thoughts which are deemed to negatively affect society are legislated against. There are so many things that are bad for society. Letting young children watch too much low-quality television will wreck their minds, however there is no legislation against this. Why not? Quite simply because it is a matter of what is often called "common sense". Legislating against the excessive watching of low-quality television by young children is not the correct way to address the problem. Likewise, legislating against the use of marajuana is not the correct way to address the problem of the abuse of this drug.

Coming soon at StarStuddedSuperStep.com: An exclusive interview with a marijuana user. If you have a question you would like me to ask, please leave it as a comment.

ALRANZ & Pro-Life Groups In Agreement

Following the release of the 2008 abortion statistics by Stats NZ, Dr. Margaret Sparrow, President of the Abortion Law Reform Association [ALRANZ] made the following statement,

“We would like to see the abortion law reflecting what happens. We totally agree with the anti-abortion groups who say that it is ridiculous that 98 per cent of abortions in New Zealand are done on mental health grounds, because that is patently a farce.”

I pretty much agree. However it is patently unjust to base legislation on a moral issue like this simply on "what happens". Using this logic, we could pass a law to legalise rape - simply because an extremely large number of rapes were taking place. David Lane of the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards made the following comment,

Dr Sparrow was for many years the Director of the Parkview Abortion facility in Wellington and during this time terminated the lives of thousands of unborn children, her statement must be taken very seriously. Dr Sparrow is stating clearly that certifying consultants are using mental health grounds to authorise abortions to provide abortion on demand, abortion on demand is unlawful. The Crimes Act requires that doctors must have good faith in their belief that the continued life of the unborn child represents a serious threat to the mental health of the woman. The failure of doctors to have good faith renders the abortion unlawful. Dr Sparrow’s statement indicates that many unborn children are being deprived of their lives unlawfully. This is a serious injustice and a violation of the right to life of unborn children. It also undermines the rule of law.

Dr. Sparrow is an anti-life extremist who is calling for abortion on demand in New Zealand. While her solution to the high number of unlawful abortions is deplorable, she is correct that the application of NZ's abortion law is farcical.

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.

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.

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.

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

Public Holidays Don't Work

The title of this post is very misleading. I am a supporter of a country having days which it sets apart as public holidays. However, I am opposed to restrictions against working on public holidays. You could rephrase the title then, "On public holidays, don't work".

"New Zealand's Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act 1990 specifies three-and-a-half days each year on which most New Zealand retailers must close – Christmas Day, Good Friday, Easter Sunday and until 1pm on Anzac Day." - Department of Labour.

What gives our Government the right to dictate hours or days in which two consenting parties may not conduct business? It is completely tyrannical and unjust for the state to declare that trading on arguably arbitrary days of the year should be illegal, on threat of a fine of up to $1000. Easter Sunday isn't even a public holiday; it is in fact, classed as a "religious day". Why the heck should all non-Christians be compelled to observe a religious day that they do not even hold sacred?

But that is merely the beginning of the traditionalist madness. Some stores are allowed to remain open. Garden centres, petrol stations, daries (corner-stores), souvenir shops, fast-food restaurants and pharmacies are granted exemption from the trading restrictions on these three-and-a-half days. I find it hard to believe that our Parliament is paid with taxpayer dollars to come up with such stupid, pathetic, pedantic and arbitrary legislation as this. Why 1pm on Anzac Day? Why garden centres

Regulatory Reform Minister Rodney Hide - a long-time campaigner against the Easter trading laws - has called the red tape and unnecessary bureaucracy "ridiculous". "Garden centres can open on Easter Sunday but the Mitre 10 hardware shop nearby, which also sells plants, can't," he said in March. - Stuff, 4/10/09

Of all our public holidays, I see Anzac day as being the most worthy of being honoured by the nation with trading restrictions, although even then it is hard to reconcile this with the freedom of the people to go about their business as they see fit. Anzac day is truly an event that our whole country can and should embrace, honouring the brave men and women who sacrificed so much for us; apathetic and ungrateful generations that we are.

David Farrar at Kiwiblog commented in his Annual Rant on Easter Trading, "I doubt there is any law as inconsistent and illogical as our current Easter shop trading laws... And that is before we even deal with regional anomalies. Shops in Queenstown can open, but not Wanaka. Taupo is okay, but not Rotorua". Fellow-Christian blogger Dave at Big News writes, "As far as I'm concerned, if [Easter Sunday] is not a public holiday, the shops can stay open, and I don't care what other Christians think of that." Dave should probably be consistent and go further to say that shops should be be open or close at their own discretion.

Lucyna Maria at NZ Conservative blog takes up the (surprise!) conservative line, "All I really have to say is that if NZ enforcing a religious holiday that harks back to the distant past when Sunday was a no-work day and one of the last vestiges of our Christian heritage, if that is a bad thing, then God help us... Seriously, there are worse things than having one Sunday of the year enforced as a mandatory day off". Lucyna employs a bad argument though. The fact that there are "worse things" than banning trading on Easter Sunday does nothing to redeem an inane law. And who's to say that "enforcing a religious holiday" necessarily entails criminalising people who wish to trade on that religious holiday?

Laila Harre, spokeswomen of the National Distribution Union says, "Our Easter trading laws are not just silly rules, they are there to ensure a bare minimum of non-trading days that celebrate and encourage family life, community activity and religious observances over narrow commercial interest." - Stuff, 9/4/09

Finally, I must disagree with my friend Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First...

The two bills before Parliament that would extend shop trading to all or some locations on Good Friday and Easter Sunday have not had time to be debated and therefore won’t apply this Easter.
“That is great news for workers,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First. “As families throughout NZ take time out for family holidays, camps, reunions, Easter church events, cultural and recreational events over this Easter weekend, kiwis employed in the retail industry should also be able to enjoy the public holidays and extended weekend.”
...For the sake of families and the well-being of our nation, keep the public holidays. - Family First, 5/4/07

I agree that we need to keep our public holidays, however it is small-minded to presume that the only way that families will be able to enjoy a public holiday is to ban them from working on those days.

Click here for a list of New Zealand's public holidays.

ACTually Authoritarian

"This isn't an agreement cobbled together out of self-interest, but one developed through our shared vision to create a better and brighter future for New Zealand." - Rodney Hide in ACT's press release, National-ACT Confidence & Supply Agreement Announcement, 16/11/2008.

In a 4 March press release, Rodney Hide says "Garden centres can open on Easter Sunday but the Mitre 10 hardware shop nearby, which also sells plants, cannot. That is ridiculous... People just want to get on with their lives unhindered by silly rules." That's a classic ACT position - government should keep out of people's lives.

The Prohibition of Gang Insignia Bill...

Lindsay Mitchell notes that both Rodney Hide and Heather Roy were strongly opposed to the gang-patch ban as late in the game as September 2008 - and yet today, both are singing a different tune. The ACT party is supporting National's Chester Borrows' gang-patch ban, presumably to buy National's support for ACT's 3 Strikes and You're Out policy. It's a given that some compromise is necessary if you want to get anywhere in Parliament - however ACT's support of National's bill is unacceptable. There are two major problems with the proposed law. Firstly, it is restricting the freedom of citizens; in their freedom of expression. They will not be allowed to display gang-patches on their clothes or vehicles. Secondly, the bill is unjust because it will only apply to people living within a certain area of New Zealand. Only those living in the Wanganui District will be subject to this law currently being pushed through back down in Wellington.


Samuel Dennis saliently observes, "This gang patches law is not only unprincipled, it makes life a lot harder for the police. Currently the gang members make policing easy by wearing nice uniforms saying in effect "Check me, I probably did it". If they are forced to wear civilian clothes, crime fighting will be far harder."

What is the argument against displaying gang insignia on your person, or on your vehicle in public? Surely any such argument is one that will lead down the slippery slope of restricting people's freedom of expression - for the greater good. ACT is letting itself down by supporting this authoritarian bill.

"We accept that allowing the Wanganui District Council to make these bylaws could be perceived to breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, but we think for the safety and security of the residents of Wanganui these powers are desirable." says the select committee looking after the bill. Ahem, excuse me... did I hear that right?

What's next? Is ACT going to support a move to ban t-shirts that have a Christian message on them, or that say something along the lines of "Abortion is Murder"?

Family First Calls for Referendum to be Dumped

In their latest press release, Family First takes a step out on the ice and makes the sensible suggestion that the Government should forget about the postal referendum on the legality of smacking, that is scheduled for mid-this-year.  Instead of wasting $8,000,000 of tax-payer's money on a lengthy and drawn-out postal referendum, Family First is calling for the Governement to simply glance at the 390,000 signatures that were submitted, listen to the people of New Zealand, and go ahead and repeal Section 59 of the crimes act.

“If the government is serious about cost cutting, tightening our financial belts and prioritised spending to the frontline, it makes far more sense to divert that amount of money to more teachers, nurses, doctors and cops...
The law can be easily fixed by removing the criminality of parents who use reasonable force for the purpose of correcting their children but at the same time having clear statutory limits on what constitutes reasonable force.”

They dumped the anti-democratic Electoral Finance Act.  Now it's time for the anti-family Section 59 to be repealed.

Electoral Commission Targetting ACT

The Electoral Commission has ruled that Rodney Hide's yellow jacket jacket was potentially in breach of the Electoral Finance Act and has passed the matter on to the police. If the police decide to prosecute Mr. Hide, he will face a fine of up to $10,000, while the ACT Party will also face a fine of up to $40,000. What I find intriguing, is that the Electoral Commission has ignored all the other complaints that I have submitted regarding possible breaches of the Electoral Finance Act by other political parties. Below is a short summary of each of these complaints.

1. Greens campaign website carries no authorisation statement - 26 August 08
The Green Party's (now defunct) campaign website address was www.votegreen.org.nz. For a screen-shot of the website, click here (as at 11:30pm, 25 August). It is very clear from this screenshot that there was no authorisation statement on the website - which, is encouraging people to vote "for or against" a political party. The response from the Electoral Commission can be summed up in this extract from an email I received, "...the url [www.votegreen.org.nz] did not appear on the page itself, and indeed would only have appeared in the address bar (which you control, not the Green Party) when you typed it in." Such a response is very subjective; the matter deserved further investigation rather than simply a *clever* answer from the Commission.

2. National campaign video - 10 October 08
The Electoral Finance Act states that authorisation statements must be visible and readable. The authorisation statement at the end of National's latest campaign video on YouTube did carry an authorisation statement at the end, but it was very fuzzy, and impossible to read, and thus breached the act. The response from the Commission read,

"We have considered the YouTube page and note that while the promoter statement on the video was blurry, did think that it was just readable, at least on the monitors we are using. In addition, at the top of the page on which the video appears is a National Party banner with an eminently readable promoter statement (a copy of which I attach). This would conclude the matter from our perspective."

This response ignores the fact that on the page for viewing the video, there is no authorisation statement. As for the statement being "just readable", that is pathetic.

3. Labour Online advert - 10 October 08
The Labour Party purchased a package of Google adverts - one of the most common adverts you will see online. The breach is detailed here at the Don't Vote Labour blog. In this instance, Labour has placed a Google Ad which promotes the Labour party, and yet carries no authorisation statement. The Commission's response to this complaint was,

"As you will be aware, the Electoral Commission's primary focus in its role of overseeing political party advertising in election year is assisting participants to comply with their obligations under the law. As you point out, Labour Party google ads now contain promoter statements. In light of this we will not be taking further action on this matter."

It would be better if the Commission would tell us what is really going on. They are in fact, assisting participants to comply with the law - so long as they are not the ACT Party. I have made more than just the three complaints listed above. However the Commission has demonstrated incredible leniancy with these other parties, offering trite reasons as to why they had decided not to pursue what were quite obviously potential breaches of the new Electoral Finance Act.

EFA Threatens Rodney's Wardrobe

"Act leader Rodney Hide's canary-yellow jacket has fallen foul of the Electoral Finance Act.  The Electoral Commission wrote to Mr Hide yesterday, saying that under the act the jacket might be an "election advertisement" and therefore required an authorising statement." - NZ Herald, 4 Nov 08

The article in the Herald continues... "The letter quoted the query as saying the garment that "contains the Act logo [and] the slogan 'the guts to do what's right' was worn in public by you in Newmarket and does not contain a promoter statement". The person who made the query also gave the commission a newspaper article about the jacket and two photos of Mr Hide wearing it."

Huh.  Now, who could that have been?