Scoop Has Feedback
Forgive me for I was wrong
The latest billboard erected by Greenpeace in Wellington reflects a growing awareness and disquiet over this government's, and particularly the Prime Minister's, inability to listen to the people.
Hopes by Greenpeace to see the Prime Minister make an historic turnaround and extend the GE moratorium through an urgent act of parliament are bound to fall on deaf ears.
Such an action would be tantamount to an admission of failure. Have you ever heard a leftwing academic admit to being wrong. No....neither have I.
Mirek Marcanik Wellingon
The Episcopal 'church' in the U.S has been targeted and now the Presbytarian 'church' in our country, by the homosexual lobby group with it's agenda to change the way we think. But the Truth about the Gospel of Jesus Christ is being revealed to them and it is not about buildings nor denominations.....for them to 'take over' Christ's Church they would need to live 'inside' His disciples, but hey, it's too late, for by the Power of His Holy Spirit, Christ Himself resides there and no one can snatch us out of His hands!
Nadine Tauri - Riverton.
SAVING THE FAMILY
The USA is currently engaged in its 2nd Civil War - the contest to save the family - and all societies are now facing the same threat.
But are we as informed or transparent in dealing with this threat?
Remember - freedom is not a self-perpetuating endowment! We must get involved and "let our voices he beard."
See: www.worldfamilypolicycenter.org "There is no doubt that it is around the family and the home that all the greatest virtues, the most dominating virtues of human society, are created, strengthened and maintained." - Winston Churchill Every civilization in history has the family at its foundation.
We have to speak up now to defeat cultural Marxism.
The political process is only as good as the people that get involved. The price of apathy is that you abdicate power and become subject to inferior rulers.
Paul de Wet
Letter to the Editor
The government has lost its way on the foreshore and seabed issue. After dragging Maori through a pointless consultation exercise, which set Maori and Pakeha against one another, they must by now realise that they got it all horribly wrong.
The solution that seems to be eluding them is remarkably simple. The Crown should hold title to the foreshore and seabed in trust for Maori and all New Zealanders.
d.s. you use in your articles the name : israelean occupying force for the israelian 'army'. that is wrong. it is called : IDF : israelian destruction force.
Cost of Freedom**
In any war, the cost of freedom is High. This is what helps keep us free as a nation! Do you think it best to wait on another much more serious attack on this country?? And when that happens how will you feel if we could have done something--anything about it??
If this would have been our mind set in WW1 or WW2, do you think you and I would be living in the freedom you now take for granted? NOT**
This man Saddam tortured & killed hundred and Thousands of his own people--Babies--Women--Men. All innocent people. If for no other purpose, was this not reason enough?????
If a member of your own family was in Jeopardy--In danger of losing their live to a dictator, what would your response have been?
Ultimately we are all responsible on planet earth for the well being of each other.
My advice: GET WITH THE PROGRAM! Quit trying to find an ulterior motive behind everything we do in this country. Were going to make mistakes since no one here is perfect. This stuff happens. Always has--Always will!
If we don't change our mind set as a whole, one day, you'll awake and find your precious freedom gone! THEN WHAT WILL YOU DO? TOO LATE THEN MY FRIEND.
Later--Rick Corbin---Pittsburgh Pa, USA
It's funny how you aim to show 'reality' yet completely and assumedly purposefully overlook the fact that Saddam Hussain murdered and tortured tens of thousands of people. If ten years od sanctions and diplomatic action didn't stop him then what other option was there than to go to war. While I applaud your decision to publish images which may usually not make it through the censors I believe that a little more objectivity is needed, a protestor who was shot by a police pellet gun??? What about some of the images where protestors are throwing bricks at police and smashing windows??? Like it or not there's more to reality than your one-sided view.
Dominic - Australia
Selling Land A Mistake
New Zealand is making the same mistake Maori did. We’re selling our land.
Indeed, New Zealand is one of the few countries in the world that allows its land to be traded globally. Most countries only allow foreigners to lease land for 30 or 60 years after which it is repatriated.
Real Estate Agents in Auckland tell me that they are in regular contact with buyers in China and Hong Kong. Properties are advertised internationally via the internet.
We sit scratching our heads wondering why our land values are increasing. It is obvious. Instead of a market of 4 million potential puchasers, we have a market of 6,000 million.
I say we should only allow New Zealand Citizens to own land in New Zealand. Otherwise, we will lose our competitive advantage in agriculture and our children and grand-children will live in shoe boxes.
People think that Maori ceded sovereignty when they signed the treaty. In fact they ceded sovereignty when they sold their land. We should learn from Maori and retain our sovereignty.
Michael Williams - Auckland
Letter to the Editor
With 496 of the 1400 complaints received by the Commissioner for Children relating to the interventional conduct of Child, Youth & Family,it is clear that the Children, Young Persons & Families Act represents a gross miscarriage of justice against New Zealand families, and must be immediately reviewed. Placing wide ranging co-ercive and child intervention powers into the hands of a CYFS workforce which has less than 40% of its social workers holding any form of tertiary qualification, and without the ability to be prosecuted for negligent or abusive practice, is a formula for disaster. Minister of CYFS Ruth Dyson, CEO Jackie Pivac, & Chief Social Worker Shannon Pakura regularly express "regret", "sympathy", and "empathy" for the families they contribute to ruining (including neglecting Ron Burrows concerns for Coral), yet they never mention what puntive actions they will take agains ll rise to the challenge of rectifying the gross abuse of CYFS power on our most vulnerable citizens?
Stephen D Taylor - Auckland
Mr Paul Holmes
I quite agree Mr Holmes shouldn't have made his tongue-in-cheek "cheeky darkie" comment. I told TVNZ and the ZB network that they should tell him he's a "cheeky Honky" for daring to make such a comment but that they shouldn't sack him. Why?
1. Well, that would be tantamount to letting foreigners dictate whom we should employ as broadcasters and
2. (even more importantly) it would be depriving ordinary people-in-the-street of one of their all-too-few champions.
Mr Holmes is, I agree, not a good broadcaster (he dithers, repeats himself and constantly interrupts the people he is interviewing) but that's not the point. It's an unfair world that allows me to call him something far worse than he called the Secretary of that useless organisation known as United Nations just because I'm a nobody and am entitled to freedom of speech and he is a national celebrity so therefore ISN'T entitled to the same freedom. Since I am quite sure neither the ZB network nor TVNZ will hand on my "cheeky honky" comment to Mr Holmes, I sent it to him myself. I'm sure he will take it in the spirit in which it was intended. At least he has a sense of humour!
Laraine, Author of The Obsidian Quest
**Finalist in the Dream Realm Awards 2001**
Prize-winning story The Little Dragon Without Fire now on sale at http://www.diskuspublishing.com/littledragon.html Web site: http://lbarker.orcon.net.nz
Laraine Anne Barker – NZ
Social marketing or is it "Social modification"?
Whatever "spin" Trevor Mallard tries to put on "Social marketing in the public sector" (his speech to the opening of the inaugural Social Marketing For Social Profit Conference 16 Oct) it still amounts to "social engineering" by the government.
Mr Mallard states in his address "Some social change takes place naturally. When it seems that change won't occur naturally, the Government can intervene through legislation and regulation. But in some instances it is not possible or appropriate for the Government to legislate. That's when Government turns to its agencies in the public sector, and their partners, to encourage change through other means."
The presumption in this statement is that a government knows what is good social change and what is not.
This is a false presumption. Why? Because the concept of what may be good and what may be bad to any group of individuals is based on their ethnicity, upbringing and ideological persuasion.
Therefore, for a government to resort to "Social Marketing" or engineering in order to effect a change in social behaviour is imposing the will or ideology of one group on the whole.
This is totally wrong and against all democratic principles.
Guidelines for social behaviour are already in place. How these are interpreted by society is determined by society through the freedom to exercise choice, not legislation or social engineering.
The evidence of what has happened to New Zealand society as a result of politically correct social engineering over the past 20 years and particularly since 1999 is there for all to see:
- we are a nation more divided than we have ever been;
- people are afraid to speak their mind in case they cause offence;
- individuals are afraid to stage "unofficial" events in case someone gets hurt;
- playgrounds have become places of physical mediocrity and danger;
- Christian symbols on buildings are being challenged;
- what's mine has become yours and what's yours is your own;
- we advocate a "Do as I say, not as I do" attitude;
- we encourage our young to "be themselves" then abrogate all responsibility for their actions when things turn to custard;
- welfare and social security have become the "must have" rather than a backstop.
This list goes on.
It is time for New Zealand society to stop being apathetic, take back the reins of responsibility for their actions and tell Mr Mallard and the government what they can do with their social marketing and experimentation.
Mirek Marcanik - Wellington NZ
NZ A Democracy?
Is New Zealand a democracy? Our current government was elected democratically. But there it seems is where democracy stops. Labour thinks that its election night victory is a mandate to do whatever it pleases for the next 3 years. If we look at history e.g. Homosexual Law reform, Prostitution Law Reform, the Seabed & Foreshore issue and now the removal of access to the Privy Council & lifting the GE moratorium, they have a clear history of ignoring the wishes of the voter. All of these issues generated massive voter opposition yet Labour pressed ahead anyway. Is this democracy? I suggest it is autocratic and condescending. Labour doesn’t believe that we the voters know what is good for our country so they ignore us. The scariest part is that voters forget these snubs quickly and return them to office. This is what they are counting on.
Paul James Gilbertson – Christchurch NZ
Why is racism
Paul Homles has to step down and give others young NZ opportunity. To do the good work With good manner and accept ethic. (NZ is a peace country no room for such racist)
Steve – NZ
Jay Shaft - in the very first interview of his 5 part series when the first soldier he (supposedly) "spoke" to (fresh from Iraq) said to Jay that he "saw 30 guys die" (in Iraq).
MAN, that must have been one busy soldier to be exactly where 10% of the total troop deaths in Iraq were at all times and not be dead himself!
YOUR BUSTED GUYS, AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE A GOOD REASON, I AM E-MAILING JEFF RENSE AND TELLING HIM TO PULL THIS DRIBBLE ARTICLE OFF HIS SITE BECAUSE EVEN THE ALIEN STUFF ON JEFF'S WEBSITE IS MORE BELIEVABLE THAT THIS JAY SHAFT GUY!
Sincerely, Dean A. Doepke, Wautoma, Wisconsin, USA
A conservative dictator
According to the Prime Minister she is "absolutely committed to a conservative court which upholds the laws and traditions of New Zealand".
This is ripe and a total dichotomy coming from the lips of one who controls the government with a dictatorial hand and completely ignores the democratic process in presiding over a cadre of extreme left wing individuals hell bent on pushing through bills and legislation that have far reaching impact without due consideration or consultation with the people that put her where she is, the public.
A public that is indicating that while it may be relatively ambivalent toward the prospect of a New Zealand Supreme Court or Republicanism for that matter, it does wish to have its views expressed, heard and considered before the government takes what can only be described as unilateral action.
What is her reasoning? The voters gave her a mandate. Excuse me! The voters certainly gave her a mandate to govern on their behalf but not to dictate. Therein lies the dichotomy. How can one be "committed to a conservative court" while dictating how it shall be established?
Mirek Marcanik - Wellington
Draco Would Be Proud.
Oct 14 2003 was a Red-Letter day in New Zealand’s history. This was the day that a minority government finally showed that New Zealand was no longer a democracy. In the space of a few hours, the minority Labour government both removed citizens’ right to seek real justice and committed the country to being a GE laboratory. Draco would be proud of the deliberate deletion of New Zealand’s democracy.
On the former, Labour only needed Green Party support to ram through legislation abolishing people’s right to access the Privy Council as the final Court of Appeal. There was no public support for this abolition. In fact, people wanted a Referendum to express their opinions.
Maori wanted the Privy Council retained and the Green Party, who constantly spouts rhetoric about “always honouring the Treaty of Waitangi”, knew this. Democracy demands that the people’s wishes be heeded. Democracy was perverted. Labour got Green Party support and passed the legislation by a majority of three. All other Parties opposed it.
On the latter, Labour’s support came from every Party except the Green Party, New Zealand First and the Progressive Coalition of two people; the latter Parties committing themselves only at the last moment.. The legislation was passed. Again, there was no public support for lifting the moratorium on GE. Again, people wanted a Referendum to express their opinions; opinions supported by growing volumes of evidence showing how corrupt GE really is.
I used to have some respect for the Green Party. I didn’t always agree with their policies, but I thought they, at least, had some political integrity. But no more. The Green Party could have respected people’s wishes for a Referendum on the Privy Council. Instead, their true colours are now evident.
As for the so-called Labour Party; they came to power under the banner of ‘Third Way Social Democracy’. Does anyone remember that ill-defined electoral catch-cry? The ‘Third Way’ is, according to Anthony Giddens (incidentally, Giddens is Tony Blair’s favourite political guru) all about ‘democratising democracy’, ‘devolving power to the people’, ‘constitutional reform directed towards greater transparency and openness’, ‘a State/Civil society partnership’ and a few other similar phrases. As we’ve seen in Britain, the ‘Third Way’ is a pipe-dream.
New Zealand smoked from the same British pipe and we now have the inevitable hangover. The real agenda of ‘Third Way’ democracy is Globalisation; Giddens says as much, but in prettier language. Globalisation is all about concentrating power in the hands of Corporate puppets while making access to redress more difficult to the citizenry. Globalisation is about dismantling democracy.
New Zealand doesn’t have to go down the path of unbridled globalisation. We don’t have to ‘follow the leader’. We can be the leader, but to do so will demand much more political will than any of our current so-called ‘democratically elected’ representatives. What we have now is a Right-Wing that hasn’t had an original thought in decades, a morally bankrupt Centre and a Left-Wing without vertebrae. Even my home-town representative is known as the government’s representative in Napier, instead of Napier’s representative in the government.
There is an alternative to the downward spiral, the path we currently tread. It will take some truly creative people to pull us out of this nose-dive, but, as a very wise friend of mine says, there’s always a creative solution to any problem if you’re open to it. I’m definitely open to creative solutions; are you?
Dave Taggart, Napier.
Bush CIA leak.
Clinton had Monica in the White House and didn't inhale. Bush has a traitor in the White House and didn't inhale either. His traitor didn't say CIA operative, just operative, assuming after giving the name and discription of her specific activities, Novac would assume she was sewing machine operator or telephone operator, etc. not that she was working with the CIA. (Yah, right!) Sounds like "didn't inhale" to me.
George Jenney – USA
Do you have any images of the mass murders that Sad-dam did to his own people? I'm sure if you dig deep enough you can get some of when he gassed the Kurds or the images of shallow mass graves of the Iraqi's he had murdered. These images are lame compared to the 35 years of his domination of the region. How about some of when he over-ran Kewait and murdered countless men, women and children mercilessly, all for the oil reserves? Good luck on your efforts.
Stan – USA
It's the IDF, not the IOF..... Date sent: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:23:49 -0400
Your article in yesterday's Scoop leaves much to be desired. You pretend that Israeli actions occur in a vacuum. If it weren't for Palestinian Arab attacks (and there have been more than 20,000 of them over the last 3 years alone), there wouldn't be any Israeli actions. How would the New Zealand government respond to 20,000 acts of violence?
And, it's the IDF (Israel Defence Force), NOT the IOF (Israel Occupation Force), as the leftist writer calls them.
Joel S. Keller - North Ridgeville, OH - USA
Basic Tenet of Political System Abandoned
Dear Sir Can someone please tell me when we abandoned the basic tenet of our political system, which is Democracy (for any Labour Party misandrists who can read)? When did we allow unilateral dictatorship to enter into our political arena? And why do we allow it to continue?
I thought it bad enough when the Female politicians of this country unashamedly and foolishly deserted their fellow sisters by allowing the Prostitution Reform Bill to be passed into law. Now we suffer another ignominy with our Country’s Leadership dictatorially forcing our hand to change the legal system, without full consultation and without listening to the consultation that they did enter into. Hear this Helen and Margaret – 60% of the 315 submissions did not vote for the new court system. Where I come from that is a majority. Listen to the majority! We don’t want to have a politically appointed and manipulated judiciary system. I thought us Men had poor listening skills!
It’s obvious that Men have to step up and reclaim our Government because what we have today is an egocentric farce. I cast my vote as the first vote of no confidence in our current government.
David Williams – Auckland NZ
Labour’s position on the Privy Council is an enormous breach of the power that they wield in the so-called democratic process of this country. Already they have shown themselves unable to listen to the majority, on many issues, this joining a long list of snubs of voters’ wishes. They are not governing in a democratic manner. Labour DOES NOT have a mandate to pass this legislation into law. They received only 41% of the vote at the last election. That is NOT by any stretch of the imagination a mandate, particularly when you take into account what the submissions to parliament have been saying. The Greens certainly do not have a mandate. They promised during the last election not to support the severing of ties to the Privy Council. This is the same sort of political arrogance displayed by the official in the United Nations that recently called New Zealanders ignorant. The only ignorance I see displayed by the New Zealand public is not rising up and throwing their government out of office for not listening.
Paul Gilbertson – Christchurch NZ
Underage Drinking Penalties
What a ridiculous yet sadly predictable outcome for Aucklands Mikano Restaurant in being penalised 11 days and over $100,000 in takings for serving underage drinkers, while the 3 underage girls responsible for this hospitality debacle get off with a "warning". ALAC applauds tougher business penalties, yet is silent on the joke which is the legislative drinking age that permits younger teenagers to pass as older adults in the first place. The parental response? Pay the bill and take their wee dears home, teaching them that "Daddy's chequebook" will save the day, and that they do not have to face the consequences of their fraudulent actions. Ahhh, the "children’s rights" brigade will be a happy bunch, while other erstwhile and responsible parents once again tear out their hair in frustration. I absolutely pity the men that these three girls eventually marry - hope they've got liabilit
Stephen D. Taylor – Auckland, NZ
RE: March for a GE Free NZ
you may be interested to know that the Prime Minister dismissed the anti-GE marches held on Saturday in an interview with Mike Hosking on Breakfast, TV One, on Monday 13th October saying in effect that "...in my day, I went on plenty of marches, much bigger than those ones [the anti-GE ones]..." (this isn't a direct quote - just paraphrasing what she said!)
Christopher Dempsey – NZ
GE Fantastic Opportunity
GE fantastic opportunity
Within 10 to 15 years the world will be totally GE contaminated. Like virginity, once lost, your GE free status can never be regained.
Begin an Island; NZ has an amazing opportunity to stay GE free. Instead of debating lifting the moratorium, we should be declaring NZ as a totally GE free nation.
Some people will try and tell us we will loose too much money if we don’t allow GE, and some MP’s pretend to personally guarantee that GE field trials will not contaminate NZ – what rubbish.
Conversely, staying GE free will give us far higher personal and financial advantages in the long run. Image the value of seed & food grown in the only remaining GE Free nation (NZ) left in the world.
Remember, once GE spreads throughout NZ, it cannot be taken back. Keep it in the lab, not in the NZ field.
It seems that every time a violent crime against children is perpetrated by a drug crazed, violent criminal whose undisciplined life shows no regard for authority or for children, the “anti-smacking brigade” gets up in arms to change the law and “repeal section 59”. When will we realise that fundamental to the epidemic of violent crime in our society is the breakdown of the traditional family unit and the increasing lack of effective discipline in the home and in the classroom? Furthermore, the perpetual use of violent videos and video-games, etc., coupled with the use of mind-altering drugs, are attributable as major factors of criminal behaviour rather than the use of firm and loving parental discipline when appropriate. Such correction may on occasion warrant the use of a short, sharp smack on the rear end or hand. (NB: A punch in the face is not reasonable force therefore should be treated as a crime under current legislation.)
Let’s get real: Proper use of smacking, administered sparingly by responsible parents or caregivers, does not produce violent criminals, it produces respect for authority and the realisation that behaviour has consequences.
L D Church - Upper Hutt, NZ - Chairman for PROMOTE
I address myself to their Marxist majesties, who dare to over-ride the People who appoint their servants; the Government! Is it true that the people of New Zealand are so ignorant, that they can't make a choice via referendum, concerning the Privy Council! Well you pig-ignorant Kiwis, if this is true; you are also too stupid to vote for anything beyond your next meal! Therefore the Government does not carry a mandate from intelligent beings! Are you gutsy Kiwis, willing to stand up and fight? Or are you ignorant, dopey nitwits? Is this a People who wish to control their future; or a people without a future to control? Wake up thickwits
Have a nice day
Alan Bevin – Hastings, NZ
Foxton drag strip racket
The kind of rowdy drag racing being argued for Foxton (Evening Standard, Sat 11 Oct 03) has been a thrill for decades.
Fascinating though, is that MidCentral Health now dares to question the noise levels in view of damage to the ears of the participants.
The proposers admit measuring 108dBa even 30 metres distance from the vehicles. (Even that level damages hearing.) Bystanders closer would get vastly more than that, because noise increases enormously with nearness. Note: Tararua Rodders Presdient, Mr. Windley claims that the noise would be similar to road traffic. Not true. Heavy road traffic is about 80 dBa, and he admits his vehicle was 108 dBa. That's the difference between a phone ringing and a loud motor mower.
I ask you to please help the public understand what the the measured noise levels mean in real terms:
From medical website http://www.natus.com/information/noise_neonate/
60 dBA Normal conversation
70 dBA Vacuum cleaner.
80 dBA Heavy traffic or a phone ringing.
90 dBA Pneumatic drill (Hearing loss with persistent exposure)
100 dBA Loud motor mower
120 dBA A boom box stereo in a car can get this loud. (Pain and distress.)
140 dBA Airport plane is 30 metres overhead.
It's also fair to confront the promoters with the question of why the noise actually needs to be so loud. Vehicle performance is just as good with a muffled exhaust system of suitable cross sectional area to vent the gases with equal ease like most cars on the roads. Rather, it seems that the extreme noisiness is a known symbol of bully-boy competitive power and domination over others, e.g. Hastings even named their venue "Thunderpark", now closed down. When the "others" are neighbours in their homes, and farm animals, it's understandable when resistance arises to motorsports.
Foxton Mayor Robinson tries to excuse the blaring motor sport noise by referring to NZAF training aircraft that also continually impose objectionable racket on the area, as if that makes it okay. I hope the victims of all these kinds of preventable racket (cars, aircraft and trains), will collaborate to strongly oppose the thoughtless abuse that so degrades their enjoyment of life.
Bruce Thomson - Co-ordinator, Citizens Against Rowdy Motoring, Palmerston North
Immigration and Skilled Labour
New Zealand needs to re-examine the case for mass immigration.
We’re told that there is a “shortage of skilled labour”, that "Business demands more skilled migrants” and that we need to "grow the economy".
But what's in "growing the economy" for me?
My salary reduces for every foreign accountant we bring in - supply and demand, pure and simple. The fewer accountants, the more I earn.
Our young people leave the country to earn more money. With less immigration they would earn more money at home.
As an employer, it is frustrating that so many migrant applicants don’t have adequate communication skills.
As an Aucklander, I know that the more migrants we take in, the longer it will take me to drive to work.
I don't care if GDP grows; I want to see GDP per person grow.
If we have a skills shortage we should train people. If skilled labour is too expensive the market will employ it more productively.
We have many unemployed people in this country, the more enterprising of whom are on sickness and invalid benefit. We should find jobs for them first.
The Asian economies grew without immigration. Why shouldn't ours?
Yours faithfully Michael Williams – Auckland, NZ
Paul Holmes resignation
Yes he should be fired
Arnold and Lay in LA
Regarding the story of Arnold attending the meeting at the Peninsula Hotel called by Ken Lay of Enron: The original stories from the San Francisco Chronicle in 2001 are available at www.sfgate.com in the archives. Lots of other stories about it at the time. Arnold's a fool to pretend to "forget" when the articles are available.
Carolyn – USA
The Harm Is Already Done
I Have Read The Speech Of President Bush And That Of Mr.Kofi Annan. I Have Tried To See Where Mr.Annan Faulted But Honestly, To No Avail.Therefore I Find It Difficult To Understand Mr.Paul Holmes.His Comments Are Nothing But Racial.To Me, No Amount Of Apologies Can Erase What He Has Said And He Should Be Left To His Own Conscience Because A Leopard Cannot Change It's Skin.I Believe Mr.Kofi Annan Himself Is Not Perturbed. To My Opinion It Has Come At A Good Time For The World To Know That Racialism Lingers On And The World Should Do Well To Fight It. Thank You
Rexford Assasie Oppong – United Kingdom
Labour Dismantling Traditional NZ
I am writing to say that I have grave misgivings over the abuse of power implemented by our government in the removal of the right of New Zealanders to appeal to the Privy Council and the installation of a politically appointed supreme court. It seem obvious to me that this labour government is dismantling traditional New Zealand and re writing it's history and future to suit it's (the government's)agenda without informing it's constituants properly. The margin of 52% is not enough to make such a drastic change to our legal system (which historically has been quite effective). Business in NZ is apposed, 85 out of 86 local authorites are opposed and Maori do not want the change. What do we have to do to get Helen clark and co to take notice? Thomas Jefferson, 3rd US President said "It is error alone which needs the support of government - truth can stand by itself" Regards
Yours faithfully Neal Sales – NZ
Smacking Same As Hitting?
Is spanking really the same as hitting? The Prime Minister thinks it is. So does Steve Maharey. Let’s try it: “The batter spanks a home run.” “A mugger spanks his victim.” “You spanked the nail on the head!” No. It is obvious that spanking and hitting are totally different in their motivations, objectives and actions. This constant equating of spanking with hitting by people who should know better clearly indicates one of two things: they are totally ignorant of the ancient parenting skill and training tool of spanking or they are running an agenda-driven propaganda campaign.
Craig Smith – Palmerston North, NZ
Paul Holmes on Kofi Anann
The failure of Paul Holmes' employers to sack him is evidence that some white people still don't appreciate how damaging this kind of racial 'attack' can be to non whites, yes attack! So, who or what is a darkie? 'Mitsubishi' probably thought he was talking about them as well! And how about the aboriginal people of New Zealand?
Holmes should be sacked for his racist comments - if he can say such things about the black Secretary General of the UN, what can he possibly think of other 'lesser' blacks? The TV station management itself must be reacist to have tolerated this without giving him the sack so far.
Neil Hammond - London, UK.
Holmes’ Comments Racist
Holmes should be sacked for his racist comments - if he can say such things about the black Secretary General of the UN, what can he possibly think of other 'lesser' blacks? The TV station management itself must be reacist to have tolerated this without giving him the sack so far.
MP - claims versus behaviour... ACT MP's proclaim the value of classical liberalism - this could be good if these principles are properly understood and consistently applied. The most important qualities required for public service are a] honesty, and b] wisdom. Let's consider the required qualities of honesty and wisdom and the behaviour of certain MP's who supported the Prostitution Bill. Wisdom is: the ability to see the end result of the acts we commit and the beliefs we espouse. I read with keen interest, the ACT publication: "Old Values, New Ideas - from ACT Members of Parliament" Wellington 2002 published by ACT NZ Parliamentary Office. After reading this book, I believed that ACT was onto something good. It may be inevitable given the fickle whimsical nature of politics itself, but my hope was undermined when certain ACT MP's in particular supported the Prostitution Bill. I'm a little confused now and - from talking with other people who were interested in ACT's policies - I suspect that I'm not the only confused voter. Do those ACT MP's who supported the legalising of prostitution still claim to espouse "Old Values"? ACT also allegedly espouses "classical liberalism". But I wonder if ACT espouses authentic classical liberalism, or counterfeit classical liberalism? Classical liberalism is not simply about classical economics. Classical liberalism is mostly about classical political principles (of which there is a rich 2000 year heritage and tradition). Classical economics is sub-set of classical liberalism. Classical economics is not simply about the superficial economic/material/property rights analysis of public choices. All questions of public choice cannot be reduced to a mere economic calculus concerning property rights. That is too superficial - it is mere materialism or economism. Authentic classical liberalism was and is moralistic in many respects - it allows for and requires moral choices in public life (in accordance with republicanism/majoritarianism). Allow me to demonstrate by referring to an authoritative text of classical liberals - a text dealing with classical economics (since "law and economics" is the flavour of the month ala the Chicago school etc): I purchased a book from the director of "The New Zealand Institute for Liberal Values" - Jim Peron (a so-called classical liberal). This book ("Economics in One Lesson") was authored by classical economist writer Henry Hazlitt. In the foreword, Mr Hazlitt indicates that Ludwig von Mises read and commented on his manuscript and the cover indicates that classical economists such as FA Hayek, HL Mencken and Milton Friedman endorse this book. I quote from this locus classicus of classic liberal economists: Henry Hazlitt: “Just as there is no technical improvement that would not hurt someone, so there is no change in public taste or morals, even for the better, that would not hurt someone. An increase in sobriety would put thousands of bartenders out of business. A decline in gambling would force croupiers and racing touts to seek more productive occupations. A growth of male chastity would ruin the oldest profession in the world.” There is obviously an inescapable antagonism between the interests of the whole community. Every choice involves a trade off between alternative choices - there will sometimes be winners and losers (particularly in matters of moral principle). The only question in such matters is: whose values/principles should prevail? The answer is obviously that the best values and interests of the community should prevail and this obviously requires that a value judgement be exercised in many public choices. This value judgement is implicit in many public choices - whether we recognise and admit it or not. True classical liberals trace the full costs and consequences of economic and political choices. Again Mr Hazlitt: Henry Hazlitt: “Economics…is a science of recognizing secondary consequences. It is also a science of seeing general consequences. It is the science of tracing the effects of some proposed or existing policy not only on some special interest in the short run, but on the general interest in the long run…economics is a science of tracing consequences…it is a science of recognising inevitable consequences…inevitable consequences are not necessarily obvious consequences…For depth in economics consists in looking for all the consequences of a policy instead of merely resting one’s gaze on those immediately visible…To see the problem as a whole, and not in fragments: that is the goal of economic science.”
This text of classical economics (although referring to economic analysis) shows that even in questions of material efficiency, we must always fully trace all causes and all costs and all consequences of each choice. If I referred to texts of classical liberalism dealing with political choice (e.g. Jefferson, Locke, Burke, etc), the point could be made more directly. Real classical liberalism contemplates moral choices in many areas. If classical liberalism is re-defined, re-drafted and thus corrupted, twisted and changed to become amoral and thus immoral, then it is ignoring the unseen and long term consequences of public choices. It is not fully tracing all the consequences and thus not fully taking into account the consequences of choosing unbelief - it understates the tragic consequences and costs of a value-free society. A latin maxim says: "A cause of the cause, is also a cause of the effect." Legalised vice (prostitution, gambling, pornography, etc) is a root cause of the breakdown of virtue and morality; family values and relationships; and of the family structure in society - and thus a breakdown of the foundation of the nation. The family is the moral incubator of society. Aristotle showed 2000 years ago that "the home is the private source of public virtue". If we properly trace and analyse all the effects of legalising immoral behaviour such as prostitution, we see that such vices if legalised, will assault dignity, respect, morality, physical health, family relationships and family values and overall freedom, and will exact a massive long term social, economic, legal and political cost on our whole society. I therefore exhort the ACT party to be true to the TRUE principles of classical liberalism as understood by Jefferson etc - and not as abused and mis-interpreted by certain contemporary so-called "classical liberals" who in fact depart from the cornerstone of classical liberal principles, i.e. moral sentiments.
Adam Smith, John Lock, Isaac Newton and Einstein, etc - all our modern systems of economics, politics, science etc were all articulated by highly moralistic people - people of unambiguous faith. Authentic Classical Liberalism is moralistic in many respects and is predicated on the assumption that freedom is only possible where people recognise the need for wise structure and order - for civic virtue. Otherwise it's not authentic classical liberalism - it's a cheap and nasty counterfeit. It's only in the last fifty years that so-called classical liberals have eliminated talk of virtue from their writings.
Classical liberalism has a rich 2000 year heritage and tradition of consistency in principle and values (e.g. see "The Triumph of Liberty" by Jim Powell - Free Press for a 2000 year history of the major characters involved. Jim starts with the Roman Cicero and ends with modern leaders like Regan and Thatcher).
If ACT MP's persist in claiming to be classical liberals - then they should in fairness act like classical liberals "whate'r thy art; act well thy part." If it's an alternative left-wing "classical liberalism" which ACT is in fact espousing, then that fact should be disclosed to avoid confusion.
Otherwise, to be fair and accurate, drop the pretensions and leave the claim to those who are in fact faithful to such classical principles.
Claim instead to espouse a particular brand of Austrian economics which is blind to morality (certain Austrian economists are moralistic, some aren't).
I noted that with the Prostitution Bill - the ACT MP's who supported this legislation, tried to excuse or justify such conduct by referring to "classical liberalism". Now, they may vote as their conscience guides them or doesn't guide them, but they are - with respect - confused if they think classical liberalism precludes them from making moral choices, or if they think it offers any excuse or justification for choosing unbelief, for immoral, value-free legislation. No amount of philosophising or ideology or dogmatising can justify or excuse choices which are utterly devoid of common sense and moral sense.
Authentic classical liberalism has due regard to republicanism (what Jefferson called "the mother principle" - and which he equated with "majoritarianism"). Classical liberalism has due regard for popular sovereignty. The Prostitution Bill was laregly unpolular. Why ignore the will of the majority - who are overwhelmingly opposed to prostitution? This is highly illiberal and unfaithful to true classical liberalism.
Not all legislation is morally based. But concerning that legislation which is morally based (e.g. criminal law, family law, etc), let us think straight and act straight!
We should remember that no political ideology or school of thought on its own is the saviour of society. Economic theory and economic models aren't the appropriate paradigm for making decisions on policy or legislation which involves moral principles (e.g. criminal law, family law, etc). Who can measure the value and dignity of human relationships and human life?
Prostitution should be illegal. It is immoral and criminal.
Any behaviour which is in bad taste, which is indecent, and undermines public morality and goodness (e.g. safety, health, etc) should be illegal (e.g. similiar to the logic underpinning, for example, laws which require vehicle owners and drivers to wear seat-belts when driving).
Many of our laws protect innocent third parties even though the wrongdoer might claim that he is only exercising his personal legal rights - to use his life or property as he wishes (e.g. driving your car without wearing a seat-belt). Such laws obviously also protect the driver himself - even if it is against his own wilfull desires to drive without a seat-belt. Such protective laws are found in every field of law - corporations law, employment law, property law, environmental law, media law, competition law, trust law, etc. All these fields of law recognise that consent doesn't save illegal, immoral, unconscionable or inequitable contracts or conduct.
Why do liberals think that it is wise to argue that consent can excuse or justify immoral conduct and its consequences?
Consent between informed adults doesn't save the immoral behaviour. Even though vice is often (and often not!) occuring between consenting adults, such consent doesn't elevate vice into virtue. There is no magic in consent whereby vice becomes virtue.
As the Romans showed 2000 years ago, a peoples systematic diet shapes their appetite. People are conditioned by the laws and by the mass media. Addictive practices (vice is typically addictive) are hyper-conditioning and habit forming. Addictive behaviour crystallises into habit; habit solidifies into character; and character becomes destiny.
Systematic demoralising of the law and a systematic flood of filth in the media will brutalise any population.
"Following the path of least resistance makes both men and rivers crooked."
We need moral leadership in government and in the mass media.
ACT is correct in seeking for a more minimalist government - for less taxation and more freedom. That's great. We need more economic liberalisation and competition (e.g. in the education industry) but we also need more conservative social policies and laws (safeguarding family values, etc).
We need laissez faire economics and conservative social policy (i.e. liberty in non-essentials (materialism) with unity in essentials (moral principles).
In all policies - put the family first. You must stand up to the moral drift in our society. Moral drift is a global pandemic worse than AIDS or terrorism.
Prostitution, gambling, abortion, pornography, and other vices should all be illegal - as they once were. Then we might regain the peace and dignity which has been lost in modern society. Ralph Waldo Emerson: "Nothing can establish peace but the triumph of principles."
Politics, law, and economics are all games where moral principles are often at stake. As President John Adams (2nd US President) said: "In politics, the middle road is no road at all."
Paul de Wet – Auckland