The media reaction to the police raid on Nicky Hager’s house was predictable. See for instance the NZ Herald editorial on Friday 10 October. It is too close to home for them as well and they are right to be scared. This goes at least for the media, who take their jobs seriously and are not just cheerleaders for this National government.
We have to say that the police acted with a warrant issued by a judge and therefore the legality of their action cannot be questioned at this stage. However there doesn’t seem to be one and the same law for all.
If you break into a Labour Party computer and access confidential data and even boast about it to your political friends that seems to be ok with the police. No discernible action taken. Wouldn’t it be nice to have Mr Slater’s computer and other gadgets taken from him – and he is not just a witness but a perpetrator – to give us a break from his Hate Blog. There would even be a good chance that the police would find the evidence they would be looking for as Mr Slater proved to be stupid and lax with his precautions.
On the other hand Nicky Hager is not stupid and one would be very surprised if the police would find anything to identify the offender they are looking for. However they will find heaps of stuff any self-respecting journalist wouldn’t want anybody to see the least the government.
The timing is also revealing as one of the first acts of the new government after the election because it cannot be described otherwise. How else can a reasonable observer explain the difference between the police action and in-action other than being political. The police know who their masters are and don’t even need to be told.
And here is the thing. New Zealand once prided itself as not being corrupt where police acted at arms length without political influence. These times are truly gone. The police seem to make a habit of doing political favours to their masters especially concerning incidents around election time. Remember the persecution of the hapless cameraman unintentionally leaving his microphone in a very public place where Mr Key and the convicted fraudster Mr Banks had tea.
The only results so far have not been legal victories for the police but more or less successful intimidation not just of the victims of their actions but everyone critical of the government. That seems to be the (only) intention.
We are looking at corruption when we see that the government puts their cronies in charge of security services and then uses them for their own political benefit (like expediently dealing with Official Information Act requests). And now the police.
The real scary part is that the government is now using the old chestnut of “terrorism” to ever increase the police and security services powers to control its own people. Does anybody remember the “terrorism” of 1933 – the burning of the Reichstag/Parliament building in Berlin – and what happened next ?
Dear Gareth Morgan
We have followed your contributions to public discussion since the crazy days past 1984 when you were one true blue apostle of Roger Douglas’ neoliberal/neoconservative revolution. Then you seemed to have had sort of an epiphany during your motorbike rides across the globe. We detected some enlightened views when you crossed from Latin America to the USA from abject poverty to abundance. Then you seem to have spend some of your windfall on worthy causes like the Wellington Phoenix and environmental issues. However we now have to realise that deep down you have not changed that much from the economist of old.
On your blog of 23 September ‘Time for a Bluegreen Party‘ you as you later said slagged off the Green Party (1 October ‘Open Letter to Green Party Supporters: Why I slagged off your Party‘). You don’t seem to realise that in you own argument you contradicted your conclusion. How could the Greens possibly turn blue if (in your own words) “National threatens to propel NZ even further toward environmentally-degrading economic growth rather than the ideal of strong economic growth in harmony with environmental protection” or “National’s is more a green wash than a serious commitment to clever and clean growth.”
In reality the differences between National and the Green Party are not that much on environmental but on economic and for that matter social policies.
Here you show your true colours with the old chestnut of “the Green Party a real melon to mainstream New Zealand – a watermelon to be precise, far too red on the inside for middle New Zealand to stomach.” And the old tactic of name calling “rehashed socialism“( BooHoo, reds under the bed) instead of entering into an intelligent rational discussion and finding actual fault in the Green’s policies. This is disappointing as we expect better of you.
We remind you that New Zealand had a blue-green Party before called “Progressive Greens” contesting the 1996 elections getting 0.26 % of the vote. Their protagonist are still here as the National Party’s Bluegreens Advisory Group, which according to you “quickly cowers to the priorities of short-term unsustainable growth.”
Have you got any better suggestions how for instance to tackle the according to the Secretary of the UN defining issue of our time Climate Change other then voting for the Green Party.
With kind regards
Dr. Hans B. Grueber
In Saturday’s Herald John Roughan looking at the planned reform of the Resource Management Act suggests that there can be a fair contest between the economy and the environment (read more). He refers to decisions about a tunnel and monorail in Fiordland, which were turned down. This however does not give us any comfort as there were not contests between the economy and the environment because these proposals didn’t even make economic sense.
Gary Taylor as quoted is right when he says “economic and environmental matters would compete for primacy. We all know what they would mean for the environment.” We only have to reframe it to match the reality of the contest into Capitalism vs Nature to predict the dire results.
However it is only the old paradigm which turns it into a contest. It is not one or the other. There is (in the long run) no economy without or even against nature. One is based on the other. The sooner we get this into our heads the better for both.
After a crushing election defeat the Labour Party is looking to solve its leadership problems. However more importantly it should be and hopefully will be looking at its policy direction.
Some say it should lurch back to the right while others like columnist Dita de Boni in the NZ Herald say : Instead of trying to appeal to ‘middle New Zealand’, the party should stand by progressive values. Read full article here
Some central questions need to be answered like :
What if any progressive values are left within Labour since the 1984 Rogernomics experiment ?
What is the party’s purpose in politics anyway, to stick to and promote its core values or to gain power at any cost ?
Let us assume that the answers are no core values left worth fighting for or even worse that the purpose in politics is just to win power the result would be dire for our democracy. If this would be true for mainstream political parties we would be left with everyone aiming for the elusive ‘middle ground’ and the voter left with no other choice than the same milk either in a bottle or a carton.
Thanks to MMP we have a choice to vote for principled parties like the Greens without wasting our vote. Low fat milk in a green bottle.
New Zealand or rather New Zealanders who bothered to vote in the last election voted over 60% for right wing parties.
Among the many reasons like popularity of the incumbent PM, better resources, strategy, polling, spin of the ruling party, media bias, detractions etc two main reasons really stand out.
1. As so often the “Left” was divided and fighting each other over policies within the main opposition party and between the parties, which wanted to change the government. The “Right” on the other hand did not let policies get into the way to keep the eye on the ball, which is power. They had helped each other into safe seats and had the post-election deals already nicely sawn up.
2. The children of Ronald Reagan, Margret Thatcher and Roger Douglas are now coming home to vote. Everyone under 50 lived through his formative years under the neo-liberal / conservative ideology, which has become the new orthodoxy. Traditional values like support for or even empathy with the poor, co-operation for the common good, solidarity with your fellow men have been replaced by everybody for himself and “greed is good”.
Why is anybody surprised by the election results ?
Saturdays NZ Herald editorial (Read full article) made us speechless. It put totally different “crimes” in the same extradition pot. Cairns charged with perjury in the UK is called “brave” for going back to London to face the charges as if he had any choice. In the other category Kim Dotcom finds himself lumped together with a peadophile priest who is also fighting extradition.
The editor obviously does not or does not want to understand a few fundamental differences between these cases, which make the call for Dotcom to do the “honourable thing in law” quite ridiculous.
Let me tell you as a former lawyer that there is no such thing as “honourable in law”. It is either legal or not.
The main point however is that perjury and sexual offending are long established serious crimes and the UK and Australia have a non-political judiciary and the principle of fair trial.
In Dotcom’s case copyright violation is not even an extraditable offence and the US prosecutors had to tag on the spurious charge of money laundering to get extradition proceedings going. You thought and had legal advice that you had a legitimate business and invested its profits. Years later after unprecedented criminal proceedings – normally these cases are dealt with in civil law suits – you find that your business model broke copyright law and all of a sudden you also committed money laundering rules by investing the profits.
Secondly from the day of the raid on his mansion it has become clear that in the US Dotcom cannot expect a fair trial by an independent non-political judiciary. Unlike Mr Cairns Dotcom would not get bail in the US and the means to defend himself. He would simmer in jail on a thin mattress till he is done and accepts a plea-bargain. That is what is called justice in the US. If Dotcom would be my client I would also advise to take his chance with the NZ justice system rather than the US.
The Herald editorial is just another extension of government spin to malign a NZ resident now called “a guest” who invites “the likes” of Assange, Snowdon and Greenwald for voting advise. We followed their appearances closely and did not get any voting advice just journalists, lawyers and a whistleblower telling us things our government doesn’t want us to know.
Who is John Key’s little henchman in the Herald’s editorial office then?
Something spotted in Facebook:
“In the last week of the NZ election campaign 40 armed police and 2 helicopters descended on John Key’s mansion on behalf of an US rapper for copyright infringement”
It has been 15 years since our last cyber presence with our web-site
“Economic Myth Busters”. Reading the editorial after all that time it looks like it could have been written yesterday.
Inequality was a major issue during the recent election campaign even if “in the end” (JK) New Zealand voted for the status quo.
The only thing, which seems to have changed is the technology. We hope that you still manage to view the old web-site. The word “blog” was not even invented.
We hope that you will follow and comment on the sequel. We will try to not only make it relevant but also entertaining. Our own thoughts will be complimented with links to other articles and comments we like.
Have fun and we hope to hear from you.
This is still valid after 15 years