Left, Right, March

As they say a week is a long time in politics and recent weeks have shown the truth of this axiom with the rise from the dead of ACT and the creation of the Mana party to add a second “Maori” party to the mix.

This once again raised the whole left vs right issue in the public arena with ACT being labelled as a party of failed Neo Liberal politics and Right Wing ideologs. I think the chances of the users of those phrases having a good grasp on their meaning is likely to be low never mind the people hearing these “slogans”. But it was a clear attempt by some people to paint them as right wing extremists who would do terrible things if they ever got any power.

This right versus left debate is a constant mystery to me. Given that there are intelligent people on each side of the debate (and as much as each side would like to pretend otherwise there are) equally skilled and educated and dealing with the same set of facts (eg economic indicators or data on education etc) how do we constantly come up with such opposing views on the best way forward.

Well my first culprit is single issue ism as represented by The Mana party, their stated goal is the advancement of Maori. Which sounds fine especially when they trot out the predictable statistics about the high crime, low employment, high poverty, low educational achievement etc that ascribe to Maori. But what is unsaid is advancement at the expense of whom as by definition they don’t care about any other group. And assuming we can engineer some win win outcomes so no one is disadvantaged, what is the Mana party policy on censorship or scientific research e.g. non Maori issues. To take a more substantive issue what is the Mana policy on roading as presumably there is no advancement of Maori per se in better (or worse) roads. So without the annoying need to worry about others they can promote policy that doesn’t really make sense in a total solution, to take a silly example they could promote separate lanes for Maori on Auckland motorways to provide better transport options for Maori, over all this is silly but from a Mana party point of view perfectly fine.

I mention this as it seems to me that there is a lot of single issue ism on the left wing of politics in my mind, the criticism of ACT most often trotted out is that there policies are not good for poor people and we need to do more for the “bottom of the heap”. They of course would deny this as they have a view that their policies are good for all. So without getting into the policy argument this is another example of single issue ism, promoting the bottom of the heap is no different than a suggestion that anyone earning over $200k has probably done enough and shouldn’t pay tax. Supporting poor people is more morally justifiable and therefore has a higher feel good factor.

A recent example of this was Labour suggesting that GST be eliminated from “basic food” as a way to help the less well off make ends meet in tough economic times. So this sounds good right, a policy to help poor folk but overlooking a raft of difficulties in defining basic food, they failed to articulate where the additional revenue would come from to cover the new hole they would create in the governments revenues.

So let’s stamp out single issue ism, which when you listen applies to a lot of things people promote, challenge them to explain the full consequences of their idea, who benefits and who pays and what behaviours might this promote. For example cereal would probably make the list for “basic food” but does this include Cafe style muesli or sugar laden coco pops (a chocolate milkshake only crunchy according to the manufacturer) If there was a 15% price advantage the manufacturers would be trying hard to ensure they were.

Teach a man to fish...

So I was listening to the radio and heard a young woman talking about eliminating poverty in the Pacific, which included in her mind all the countries that boarded the Pacific. So full marks for ambition as that is quite a bit of territory to cover and I couldn’t help admiring the energy and enthusiasm she was bringing to her project.


At this point I would like to say she is doing a lot more to help in this area than I am ever going to and all efforts to help ones fellow humans should be applauded and encouraged but........ (bet you saw that coming right)

........ she was, in general terms, talking about giving poor people stuff as the solution to the problem, she spoke of hoping she could persuade governments and others to forgive debt so that these poor nations weren’t paying “crippling” interest costs instead of using the money to better themselves. She seemed to be oblivious to the fact that the countries had presumably spent the borrowed money on something which presumably didn’t help much, not sure why giving them more money would change anything.

She talked about an “army” of volunteers giving their time and skill to complete projects within the country like building a pharmacy, or a school or a hospital. Which is a great plan to a point given that presumably there is not pharmacy etc at the location that you choose, however this is just another variation on the give the poor people stuff view of the world, not to mention potentially naive about the cost effectiveness of such an idea.

Is it effective for me to ship myself to Cambodia (for example) for a period of time in order to deliver my skills to the local people. Either I deliver my specialist skills which are likely in low demand in an under developed country (just about no matter what your skills are unless you happen to be a builder or a farmer or a doctor) or for me to be an amateur builder etc where my main claim to usefulness is that I am a willing pair of hands. Frankly if willing to help is in short supply in the group you are trying to help then give up straight away.

So one idea that did resonate was of course the building of a school(s) and presumably the associated staffing and materials that a school needs. We see time and time again that education raises all manner of outcomes and is the foundation for progress. I don’t understand why this idea is so often over looked it is after all the whole basis for the success of the human race, it is because we learned “stuff” that we progressed.

One of the really huge things we learned to do was farm, and most importantly produce enough food in an efficient manner to allow us to turn our attention to other tasks like making better weapons to wipe out the other tribe we didn’t like, but ignoring that for the moment. This is something NZ does really well (farming) so as a focus we should teach the “poor” folk to be better farmers. Now I am aware that not all poor people are rural peasants but there sure are a chunk to be making a start with. We can leave the city folk to others there are enough poor folk for us all to have plenty.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime, not to mention his kids etc. So lets stop giving poor people stuff, lets trying walking beside them to help them out. Having said that the radio guest is still doing a lot more than most of us.

Hey Tiki

So it seems like a bad week for individual rights and freedoms, in the news has been the arrest of Tiki Tanne is a singer apparently of some renown, I say apparently as before he got arrested I had no idea he existed. I doubt he would be bothered by that as I don’t think I am his target demographic.

He was arrested for “disorderly behaviour likely to cause violence to start or continue” which is my first point, isn’t this a somewhat doubtful charge? The phrase “likely to cause” is a bit problematic for me as you appear to be arresting someone for something that might happen in the future. If the charge was “possessing a car likely to be driven above the speed limit” how would we feel about it. Should we be arresting someone for something they are “likely” to do.

The behaviour in question was singing a song which I believe is called and presumably has as part of the lyrics “F... the police”. Exercising what could only be termed as dubious judgement Tiki did this while some members of the police force were in the bar. Although unknown to me as I wasn’t there the likely sequence of events after that point is probably fairly obvious.

So what happened to Article 14 of the Bill or Rights? Which says, “Freedom of expression: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.” What happened to Tiki’s freedom of expression?

Now as with all things there are limits to your right to Freedom of expression and although I don’t like the phrase you can’t go around spewing forth “hate speech” which is where the above charge comes in, not withstanding my disquiet about its drafting.

However the song in total is not a pleasant one and not my taste however it is talking about the experience of black Americans dealing with police officers and implies racism within the American police force and the line in question is an openly rebellious retort to what the writer perceives as injustice. In context that doesn’t really sound like something to be to bothered about. It isn’t after all even talking about the NZ Police force.

But ignoring all of that a bigger question for me is how we have ended up with a society that finds this sort of material acceptable. No matter how you dress it up it is at the very least disrespectful or impolite to be singing such a song, but I suspect it represents at least to a part of our society a disenfranchisement from the main stream as represented by police officers and other society authority figures. Isn’t that the real problem, because if they don’t respect the police who have powers I will never have then what’s the chance that the rest of us will be respected by this group. And this disconnected group is growing and not simply represented by those that listen to Rap music. This is the social ill, societal fracture and it won’t be fixed by throwing Rap singers into Jail.

To prove that we are not the only ones looking at symptoms rather than causes, France has this week outlawed Muslim women covering their faces in public. Hands up any one who can thinking of something wrong with that idea. Anyone without a hand up, I don’t think you are paying attention.

Libya-rate us please.

So what’s the story with the “coalition of the willing” bombing Libya?


Yes I know what the UN resolution said, that it was to protect civilians from being killed by Gaddafi’s armed forces, but really is that what is going on here?

So I would be the first to admit that I don’t know much about Libya or about Colonel Gaddafi except what I have read over the years in the media. Their biggest claim to fame seems to be sponsoring the terrorists who conducted the Pan Am bombing over Lockerbie.

A brief review of the history of the country is typical of countries in the area, given that it borders on the Mediterranean it has been tied up with Greek and Roman conquest and all that sort of stuff but more latterly has been a colony of Italy, when African colonies where popular with European powers and then when they got bored with the place they put in place a king who was then the subject of a coup by our old friend Colonel Gaddafi in 1969.

Then with a volatile mix of Muslim fundamentalism and a socialist agenda of some sort he set about being the world’s pain in the butt. Usually such behaviours are short lived but with the handy backing of oil revenues, which I cynically observe the west never deprived him of, Colonel Gaddafi kept up this adolescent acting out for some 30 odd years.

But of recent years he has been behaving and the West has slowly welcomed him back into the old boys club with Britain famously finding an excuse to release the Lockerbie bomber because he was dying of cancer, later miraculously cured by the fantastic medical system in Libya (shouldn’t they send him back now he is better?) And including Libya serving on the UN security council in 2007 and the USA deleting Libya from its list of terrorist states.

However old times appear not to be forgotten, faced with a “popular” uprising (meaning one that is large enough to attract media attention from the journalists that missed out on the Tunisia and Egypt scoop) the “coalition of the willing” has joined in on the side of the “rebels”.

So this is where I come a bit unstuck, yes we know that the government in Libya is unelected, mind you they have never ever had an elected government so I am not sure how that is such a big deal. The country was being reformed through contact and trade etc and Colonel Gaddafi had renounced the use of violence and seemed to be sticking with that, hence the thawing of east west relations. Then because some of the citizens started shooting people (we seem to overlook the fact that although they are poorly organised and not much of a fighting force we are not talking about the rebels being a bunch of peaceful demonstrators) and the government decided to use force to sort them out, the west suddenly took sides and started bombing things and people.

If I were to hit the streets in NZ brandishing a weapon or otherwise making a pain of myself, I too would meet some force. Firstly in the form of the boys and girls in blue and if I and my mates were being too much trouble I may even meet the green crew. Because trying to overthrow the government by force in this country is considered to be treason, much the same as I suspect it is in Libya. Yes, yes I remember they are unelected and so there is no other method of getting rid of the Libyan government, but we aren’t very consistent here are we.

What about Fiji, don’t see any one bombing them. What about the IRA? not too many US jets supporting them (Libya did so that might be the problem). And others besides

And what do these “rebels” stand for? There is no cohesive leadership structure and no one is guaranteeing that they will hold elections either. Some Muslim states don’t have a great track record of supporting freedom of opinion and with or without the Colonel Libya is still a muslim state.

But I guess it is time he got his just deserts for all that trouble he caused for all those years, pity about the peasants that get killed while their leaders play international chess.

Lie to me.

So in the words of the fictional Dr Gregory House “Everybody Lies”, and yes we all do it but most of us restrict this to social lies, you know the “does my bum look fat in these” type of lies (the answer not the question) or the “I love it just what I wanted” option. We all know that sort of stuff that makes for an ability to operate in a social group without offending everyone. What’s more when we hear these potential lies (sometimes you really do love the gift) we understand the rules and accept the practice.


On the other hand there are lies we do not find so acceptable and these are generally of the self serving kind that have the potential to damage others. The “I didn’t break the window, he did” type of lies. The motivation for these lies is of course obvious, we wish to avoid the consequences of our actions or perhaps even worse persuade others to action for our own benefit. The “buy this perfume and be instantly desirable” type lie.

Now I understand personal motivations for actions that benefit you, we are after all pretty selfish organisms it is the process by which we ensure our survival. But there is another form which I really don’t understand at all and that is when you lie for no obvious personal benefit.

So once upon a time I was on a flight from Dunedin to Auckland which lands at Wellington on the way to put down some passengers and pick up others. The flight was running late (as usual but that is another story) and so the Auckland bound passengers were asked to remain on the plane. After a while an announcement was made telling us that the plane had encountered an “engineering issue” that needed rectified and there would be a delay. Duly the situation was sorted and the Wellington passengers joined the plane, however they reported that the plane was delayed due to “crew change problems”. Now I neither know nor care which one of these options was correct but clearly one group had been lied to and for no good reason, which ever option was the truth was just as useful a reason as the other option. Potentially neither was the truth and there was a third reason but that would have been ok too I suppose. So why did they do it.

My thought on this little incident is that the marketing “spin doctoring” is so out of hand within Air New Zealand that they now find it difficult to tell the truth. They are too worried that they will “look bad”. You see attendance to an engineering issue might make them seem careful and caring. Not having the right staff in the right place potentially makes you look sloppy and careless. Maybe it is that sort of thinking that drives this sort of behaviour.

A current example that is more serious than a mildly interesting anecdote is the continual lies that swirl around the new Stadium here in Dunedin, the recent statements regarding the $5M of “extras” is a prime example, no doubt some of what was said was true but other things beggar belief.

So none of these are actual quotes but for example, internal signage was the responsibility of the naming sponsor but this has failed to come to fruition. Really? Well if it was agreed with them why not sue them for performance rather than revert to the rate payer. How about this as a reason, it wasn’t agreed. I have no knowledge of the agreement but I bet if it was agreed the rate payers would not be paying.

How about, the catering contractor is contributing $3M to kitchen fit out but a further $2.5M is required. Really? Are you trying to tell me it costs $5.5M to fit out a kitchen, that is an awful lot of pots pans and plates etc. Again I have no actual knowledge but this statement doesn’t ring true with me.

And what about, when the stadium was designed large replay screens were not in use in stadiums and are now common place. Now this is definitely wrong as Carisbrook has had one for years or did they never look at Carisbrook before deciding it was a no go option.

You see that is the big problem with “spin doctoring” the truth, eventually we doubt everything corporate’s say be it the truth or otherwise. And what’s in it for the spin doctors, just as with my Air NZ example often the truth would have done just as well and eventually we would believe you and trust you. Isn’t a trusted brand what marketers strive for? Corporate truth telling would be a useful start.

Rule Victoria..

Victoria was Queen of England from 1837 to 1901, from the age of 18 to 81 which has a nice symmetry about it, this is of course the formative years of our nation (the treaty was signed in 1840) and other commonwealth nations. These years are known as the Victorian era and were an unprecedented period of industry, trade and conquest as Britain surged ahead on all fronts.


Many of the values, ideas and institutions that have sway today owe a great deal to this period of change and advancement and at times I wonder if we aren’t still living in a version of that same era. It was Queen Victoria and her rather prudish ideas about sex that gave us separate male and female toilets rather than the uni-sex arrangements common on continental Europe as an example of her direct influence but mostly it was the driving engine of the industrial revolution that made this time one of such change and influence rather than the queen herself.

It was a time when science was hitting its straps and dabbling in science became a popular pastime amongst the gentry. One of the things of interest became the past or perhaps more particularly antiquity. While Britain was charging around the globe grabbing countries it was also doing a bit of looting on the side. Not that the Victorians would have thought of it that way but the British Museum is not filled with priceless artefacts like the Elgin Marbles because they were presented as gifts, they were mostly taken as of right. (although in the case of the Marbles there was some doubtful paper work associated with them that might have given Lord Elgin permission, not withstanding that the Greek government would now like them back) The “desecration” or destruction of historic sites was not of much concern to these folk provided that bagged a mummy or two to show the folks back home how the trip went.

Another popular pastime were Barrow parties, and it did not involve moving the food in a wheelbarrow it was when the group would identify an ancient burial mound (known as a Barrow) and dig it up for a days entertainment and see what if anything was buried in there. This was done with no scientific rigour much less respect for the fact that the barrow was destroyed in the process.

Along side this sort of “fun” was wholesale development of Britain and many of the grand buildings to be seen in various British towns today were built in the Victorian era (including the British Museum building). This sort of thing lead to the enactment of The Ancient Monuments Act of 1882 which appointed an inspector who had little power other than to ask land owners nicely if they would mind awfully not desecrating the countries heritage. A short time after the act was passed a few individuals established the National Trust in 1884, which was a charity that tried to buy properties to protect them from redevelopment.

It is from these roots that our own Historic Places Trust and our ideas on preserving heritage spring from and as we can see it is a relatively modern idea that old buildings have some sort of value other than economic. Can you imagine the spluttering that would have erupted if you told a Victorian Gent that he couldn’t alter the look of his house because it was of “cultural or historical” significance?

Given the age of our country a lot of the buildings that have suffered structural damage in the recent Christchurch earthquake will owe some of their look to that great period of British expansion. They are also a product of that thinking when things were valued for their utility and the historic importance idea was still in its infancy, but that idea has now been thrust to centre stage as the powers that be consider saving or demolishing these "significant" buildings.

Significant above is in quotes because there are clearly arguments to be had, one mans trash and all that and none of this blog is an argument for the retention or destruction of these buildings but the generalised hand wringing that has accompanied the “red stickering” of many “historic” buildings in Christchurch is an interesting example of the ongoing clash between aesthetics, history, economics and land owners rights.

Which Victorian view will we adopt, progress and modernity or the preservation of history. Because in this case we have up to 50% (in terms of building numbers) destruction I suspect economics and progress will win out.

First The Good News...

The courts have overturned Wanganui’s ill advised by-law banning “gang patches” from the CBD.

So firstly the usual disclaimers, I don’t agree with the illegal activities of gangs, nor do I find their generally life style attractive, however....

Like them or loathe them they are members of our society and should therefore be afforded the same protection under the law as the rest of us. More importantly an attack on the civil liberties of this group is an attack on the civil liberties of us all.

There is no particular difference between a gang member wearing his “colours” and me walking down the street in my team’s rugby jersey. They both indicate affiliation to a certain group and presumably identification with whatever that group represents. The only difference is that the council has decided they don’t “like” gangs.
Well over and over in history we have seen examples of groups deciding they don’t like other groups and it seldom works out well. This is why we tolerate others in society and among other things allow them to dress as they please. Admittedly there are limits to the dress as you please rule, not wearing enough could get you into trouble and wearing clothing that is regarded as offensive also but these laws apply to all not just to a select group. If you want to try and use these laws to pick on gang patches be my guest but passing a specific law targeting a minority group, no matter how much you might dislike them leaves me nervous.

The other thing that interests me is, How is this going to help? Nobody in their right mind would imagine that gangs will suddenly fade out because they aren’t allowed to wear their patches in Wanganui’s CBD. They are even unlikely to disappear from Wanganui. One of the reasons people join gangs is no doubt a sense of isolation or exclusion from society and this rule is going to reinforce this rather than change anything. There are now “youth gangs” in Auckland modelled on The Bloods and Crypts who do not have patches but they are still a gang.

If you don’t like gangs how about you work on youth employment or tackle family violence or whatever else drives gang membership. As I have opined before simply banning stuff doesn’t work.

The other sighted reason is that people find the patches intimidating? Really? Personally I find the people inside the patches intimidating and I am confident that they can be plenty violent and intimidating without the patch if they choose to be. This is another example of a silly idea up there with micro chipping dogs to stop them biting people, actually why don’t we just micro chip gang members that should sort them out.

So in words much sharper than mine

First They came.. - Pastor Martin Niemoller

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Now the bad news.
As I understand it the court said that the process in creating the by-law was flawed not that the council couldn’t do it. So stand by for a potential further attack on your civil liberties by the Wanganui Council. Or feel free to email them at wdc@wanganui.govt.nz and tell them you object.