• Auckland gets Super City, govt cleans blood off jackboots

So, the government has rammed a jackboot up the the collective rectum of Aucklanders and passed a law bringing in the so-called Super City, under urgency no less (see my earlier post on that). Shortly before that the law banning gang patches in Wanganui was passed (yep, I covered that as well). Wanganui got a referendum on the spelling of their name, and Auckland got “bend over”.

When Herr Helen Clark was ousted last year I was hoping that we might have some relief from the dictatorial style of government. But National has clearly purchased Clark’s jackboots, and ACT has purchased her spare pair. I am particularly disappointed in ACT, who theoretically stand for freedom and choice.

The New Zealand government has absolute sovereignty and is no way accountable to the citizens. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

• David Garrett gives Helen Clark a digital salute

The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.

The Wombles of Wellington gave Herr Helen Clark a standing ovation in Parliament yesterday, in view of the fact that she’s been given a job at the UN a position beside the UN trough.

David Garrett refused to join in. That’s a laudable stance, but it is somewhat hypocritical because Garrett is like Clark insofar as he is willing to trample on human rights when it suits him: this is what Garrett said in regard to the three strikes law:

Mr Garrett is a hardliner who this week told the Herald that if three strikes was found to breach fundamental human rights, the solution was to change the Bill of Rights.

That quote is from an earlier post, which gives more details. When it comes to human rights, the only difference between Garrett and Clark is in their ability to impose their beliefs upon other people.

Related post:

• There is no such thing as “human rights”: a classical liberal perspective on the Electoral Finance Act

What do you think about Garrett hypocritically giving Clark the digital salute?

~~~~~~~~~~

• ACT Party tramples on freedom to get three strikes law

The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.

I have previously covered the Gang Insignia Bill here and here.

This is from the NZ Herald in regard to the Gang Insignia Bill:

Mr [Rodney] Hide said that while he objected to the ban “on principle”, the party had flip-flopped to try to get National’s support for its proposed “three strikes and you’re out” law. He denied it was part of a deal.
[...]
“We voted for it [the patch ban] because what it’s going to do is get three strikes through this Parliament.”
[...]
At its first reading in April, Mr Hide told Parliament he would happily vote against the bill because it was against the principles of freedom.

“Freedom is about the individual, and the measure of a free society is how we move to protect the minority from the majority. If the majority thinks that people wearing glasses should be locked up, that is not freedom or democracy,” he said.
[...]
[ACT MP] Mr Garrett is a hardliner who this week told the Herald that if three strikes was found to breach fundamental human rights, the solution was to change the Bill of Rights.

So, by Hide’s own definition the Gang Insignia Bill is against the principles of freedom and democracy, and Hide is now also opposed to the principles of freedom and democracy because he has voted for that law*.

Basically ACT is saying “We will sacrifice our principles and trample on freedom in order to keep our election promise of a three-strikes law. If that three-strikes law breaches the current definition of fundamental human rights we will simply change the definition of fundamental human rights”.

This illustrates the great danger that lies in the concept of “human rights” and in legislation that defines it: the definition of “human rights” can and does change without warning. As I said in my earlier post, there is no such thing as “human rights”, there are only personal and property rights. Only when personal and property rights are defined according to the non-aggression axiom are we safe from the depredations of politicians.

Laws such as the Bill of Rights are simply a means of restricting our rights to those which are defined in the legislation. If we were truly free there would be no need for such legislation, but instead we only have those rights which the state kindly allows us to have this week.

I really did expect better from the ACT Party, who should stop trampling on freedom and instead make a stand for it.

What do you think about ACT’s actions and the Gang Insignia Bill?

***********

*Compare this with what ACT MP Heather Roy said in September:

“Such moves are wrongly-focussed, token-ist and entirely predictable – hard-line policies to deal with gangs are reeled out by different Parties in the run up to every election,” Mrs Roy said.

“Clearly none of these ‘flash in a pan’ policies have worked – because they focus more on addressing the mayhem that individual gang members cause, rather than on initiatives that will hit gangs hardest and make it harder for them to operate.

“Legislation outlawing gangs and their insignia is just more law – we don’t need more laws, we need to enforce the ones we already have and give police the power to tackle lawlessness where and when it happens.
[...]
“This is political spin at its worst. Enforcing the laws and by-laws we already have, and following the money rather than the mayhem – a view reinforced by South Australia Premier Mike Rann in Auckland yesterday – is the real answer to dealing with gangs in New Zealand,” Mrs Roy said.

~~~~~~~~~~

Rodney Hide’s yellow jacket

The yellow jacket was a brilliant piece of advertising. Homepaddock has an excellent article showing the double standard in this country: a bathing suit with a Green logo is fine, a jacket with an ACT logo isn’t. Yes the Electoral Finance Act plus a corrupt Labour-appointed Electoral Commission equals Hide being referred to the police for wearing a jacket with a party logo.

If you believe that this country still has justice and truth, read the Homepaddock article, read the Electoral Commission decision she links to, and weep.

Hat tip: Kiwiblog

Update #1 Homepaddock is reporting that the Green swimsuit was fine because it had no slogan with the party logo, but Hide’s jacket wasn’t fine because it had a slogan with the party logo. I still say that this law came out of the southern end of a cow that was facing north. The cow’s name was…

The interesting thing is that one of Hide’s supporters made the complaint about the jacket, so this is clearly a publicity stunt intended to defame the EFA and increase the fame of Hide. Good on them.

This is an excellent illustration of what I said in my earlier post: the EFA does not breach “human rights” (there is no such thing), but it does breach property rights. In this case it prevents Rodney doing what he likes with the jacket that he owns.

Update #2 Madeleine has made a complaint about a labour candidate’s election shirt and it’s been kicked up to the Chief Electoral Office.

The National Party is a whore

Although, to be fair, it is no more whorish than any other party.

National has 59 seats in a 122-seat parliament so they can’t govern alone. ACT has 5 seats and they had a pre-election arrangement to support National, but the ideological differences are huge. The Maori Party also has 5 seats, is ideologically Left like National, and is willing to prostitute itself to get power.

So National is being friendly with both Maori and ACT, so if ACT won’t vote with National on a matter then National can still turn to Maori.

This is bad news for the Right because ACT does not hold the balance of power, and National is free to be as Socialist/Marxist as they truly want to be: their desires in that regard are well into the Red zone.

Also, how many billions will taxpayers be giving to Maori in return for their support of National?

The ironic thing is that parliament is full of Socialists/Marxists, but capitalism reigns when it comes to forming a government. “I’ll give you this if you give me that”, and so on.