• NZ Govt supports Helen Clark for United Nations role

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

Dangerous animals should be kept in strong cages

A government press release says that

The New Zealand Government is providing strong support for the candidacy of Helen Clark for the position of Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

After Herr Helen get a taste of her own jackboot in the last election I thought that she’d get a Comintern/UN job. However, I was hoping that the UN had a post on Mars that they could send her to; they could send Heather Simpson (H2) as well and call the place Sappho.

Helen is clearly the wrong person for the UNDP job. Have a look at this from the press release:

Established in 1965 the UNDP is the most broadly focussed development agency in the UN system. By its mandate, UNDP has programmes in all developing countries, including those in the Pacific and is the largest provider of development assistance in the UN system. UNDP’s work focuses on democratic governance, poverty reduction, crisis prevention and recovery, energy and environment, and HIV/AIDS.

What would the woman who bought in the Electoral Finance Act* and who gave herself much more control over the police and courts know about “democratic governance”?

On the other hand, she’s probably an expert on HIV/AIDS in view of the fact that so many of her friends are homosexuals. Also, she’s definitely an expert on corruption and that is an essential qualification for anyone who wants to work at the UN.

Helen is all for one world government and I’m sure that the job will feed her lust for power. Birds of a feather flock together and I’m sure that she’ll be happy as a pig in muck when mixing with a bunch of totalitarian bureaucrats, handing out crackers to the unwashed proletariat whilst getting paid handsomely with money stolen from taxpayers.

I just wish that the White Witch would vanish into obscurity, or (preferably) vanish altogether. New Zealand should not elevate dangerous animals to positions of power.

What do you think about the idea of Helen working at the UNDP?

**********

* see my post There is no such thing as “human rights”: a classical liberal perspective on the Electoral Finance Act. That post a contains a link to a summary of the law.

~~~~~~~~~~

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.

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

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

I am a classical liberalist and you’re probably thinking that I’m strong on human rights, but that is not true: I believe that there is no such thing as “human rights”. Therefore I do not consider the evil Electoral Finance Act to be a breach of “human rights”*. Allow me to explain.

The fundamental principle of classical liberalism is the non-aggression axiom:

It is illicit to initiate or threaten invasive violence against a man or his legitimately owned property.

This covers personal rights and property rights, and what is usually called “the right to freedom of speech” is actually property rights, because I have the right to say whatever I like when I am using my own property. Three illustrations of this:

1) I have the right to print political pamphlets and give them away or sell them without hindrance because the pamphlets are my property.

2) I have the right to buy a hall and state my political opinions to whoever is in the hall because the hall is my property. I can also do the same in a rented hall if the rental contract allows this because I have purchased the right to use the hall for a period of time.

3) I have the right to purchase radio or television time and state my political beliefs. Naturally the station owners have the right to refuse to sell the time to me and listeners/viewers have the right to turn off their sets if they do not want to listen to me.

The EFA is not a breach of “human rights”, rather it is a breach of property rights. My money, or at least what is left after the State has stolen a good part of it, is my property, yet the State tells me what I can and cannot do with that money during election year. If I print a billboard that billboard is my property, but the State tells me that I must put an authorisation notice on the billboard, so the State is interfering with my property rights and putting words into my mouth.

The present definition of “human rights” is subjective and invites such evils as the EFA, the anti-smacking law and hate-speech laws. Only when “human rights” are redefined as property rights and personal rights in accordance with the non-aggression axiom can we have a consistent, logical and objective set of rights.

I am a classical liberalist and I believe that there is no such thing as “human rights”, but I am passionate about property and personal rights.

**********

Related post:
Insane rules for election day

The other day I spotted this egregious piece of hypocrisy from the Labour government – even if we do vote the same thing happens. Click on the picture for a full size view.

**********

*I have previously said that the EFA is an attack on the right to freedom of speech, which was a phenomenonological description given for clarity and brevity. Translation: I was describing the visible effect of the EFA, rather than the underlying mechanics of what the EFA does. It’s like saying “the sun has risen” rather than “the Earth has rotated and the Sun is now within my line of sight”; both are true, but one is simpler.

~~~~~~~~~~

Response from the Electoral Commission

In an earlier post I stated that I suspect that the Service and Food Workers Union used a “survey” as an election advertisement, but called it a survey so that it wouldn’t count towards their $120,000 spending limit. I raised my concerns with the electoral commission and here is their response in full:

I have now had an opportunity to consider the concerns you raise below.

An election advertisement is defined in section 5 of the Electoral Finance Act as:
(1) In this Act, election advertisement—

(a) means any form of words or graphics, or both, that can reasonably be regarded as doing 1 or more of the following:

(i) encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote, for 1 or more specified parties or for 1 or more candidates or for any combination of such parties and candidates:

(ii) encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote, for a type of party or for a type of candidate that is described or indicated by reference to views, positions, or policies that are or are not held, taken, or pursued (whether or not the name of a party or the name of a candidate is stated); and

(b) includes—

(i) a candidate advertisement; and

(ii) a party advertisement.

On viewing the webpages indicated, from the information you supplied there it appears that the survey does not contain any exhortations to vote or other information that might be reasonably regarded as encouraging or persuading voters to vote or not to vote in a particular manner.

In respect of the items published in the union periodical, there are a number of other exclusions in the Act which would cover these including being excluded from the definition of an election advertisement by section 5(2):

(f) a document published directly by—

(i) an incorporated body to its shareholders or members:

(ii) an unincorporated body to its members:

As a result, the items do not appear to come within the definition of election advertisements.    The publication of items which are not considered to be an election advertisement is not regulated by the Electoral Finance Act.

Regards
Deidre Brookes

Statutory Relationships Manager
Electoral Commission
DDI:  04 474 0673
Mobile:  021 0260 8928
Email:  deidre@elections.govt.nz
Web:  http://www.elections.org.nz
P O Box 3050
Wellington 6140

[emphasis added - I did not query the use of periodicals. The address is there so that you can make a complaint]

What a load of bunkum: the survey was clearly “encouraging or persuading voters”: remember that they are calling union members who are mainly at or not far above the minimum wage. Why would the Union be calling undecided voters if they were not intending to persuade voters? Do companies conducting genuine pre-election polls call undecided voters a second time?

Do you want the good news or the bad news first?

The bad news

We have a corrupt government and their servants at the Electoral Commission are protecting the friends of the Labour government in the unions  with a ruling such as this. The “survey” should be included in the SFWU tally of election expenses.

Also, note that union periodicals are not election advertisements under the Electoral Finance Act, when they clearly are election advertisements: the SFWU has exploited this by sending out a Spring issue, then a Summer issue in spring and two weeks before the election. Both were heavy with election advertisements.

The good news

We can use periodicals sent to members of organisations as blatant election advertisements.

This also gives those on the side of freedom, justice and truth (i.e. those opposed to the Labour/Green cabal) greater scope: the definition of what is not an election advertisement is broader than we thought. However, do not expect the same interpretations to apply if you are opposed to the White Witch.

Lynch the White Witch on November 8!

Update: I invited Deidre Brookes to respond to this post; she replied to my email but declined the invitation.

Update: union support for the Labour Party

In an earlier post I gave a transcript of a “survey” done by the Service and Food Workers Union which I believe is electioneering: now I have further information regarding this.

The SFWU is evidently confused: it wasn’t that long ago that they issued their “Spring” magazine, and now they’ve sent out their “Summer” magazine, also in spring. This just happened to arrive in members’ mailboxes about 18 days before the election and just happens to contain about 10.5 pages on the election (about a third of the magazine), including both covers. Helen Clark is mercifully absent this time but Sue Bradford gets a spot, which is enough to get me reaching for the pins. There’s an article on the phone survey that I covered – click on the picture to view it full size:

The article states that “the most important part of the survey reminds participants what Labour-led governments have achieved for working people over the last nine years as well as letting them know of some of the dangers that we would face if National got in” [emphasis added]. This supports my contention that this electioneering and that the cost should be counted under the Electoral Finance Act.

The article also states that 19% of those surveyed were undecided about who they were going to vote for, and says “We will make a second phone call to the ones who are yet to make up their minds.” So, those who join a union for better terms and conditions will find themselves hounded by that union prior to election day: if that isn’t electioneering, what is?

I have two objections to this, and both boil down to dishonesty:

1) unions state that their reason for existence is to help workers when in fact their real raison de’etre is the advancement of Socialist/Marxist politics.

2) the SFWU persists in calling this a survey (see the title of the article) when it is clearly electioneering.

However, lying is normal for Marxists so none of this surprises me.

Click here for an update to this post.

**********

Update: as I stated in one of the comments on this post, s 114(2)(b) of the Electoral Finance Act says that surveys are not counted as election expenses for third parties, so I wonder if the SFWU are falsely describing this as a survey so that it won’t count towards their $120,000 spending limit.