Kiwiblog

Gerry Brownlee has announced an action plan for unlocking and maximising New Zealand’s petroleum potential, primarily offshore.

“New Zealand’s largely unexplored petroleum resource could be one of the country’s most significant economic opportunities. A successful and flourishing petroleum industry will be a significant and essential contributor to lifting New Zealand’s economic performance going forward and to improving the quality of life for all New Zealanders,” he said.

Currently the petroleum sector accounts for around $3 billion per annum of New Zealand’s export revenue. Should the estimated resources in our unexplored basins be developed, this could increase to $30 billion per annum in export revenue by 2025. Crown receipts alone could increase to more than $10 billion per annum over the next 40 years.

That would help take care of the deficit!

As I have said before, if we want to be able to fund the same level of healthcare, of universities, of schools as Australia, we need to be increasing our national wealth. All power to Gerry.

National MPs have set up a blog, joining Labour with Red Alert and the Greens with Frog Blog.

As I understand it, the blog is not focused on politics so much as MPs experiences. So you’ve got Eric Roy talking about water for Southland, Hekia Parata on Armistice Day and Simon Bridges gets to talk about “Hot Milk” Lingerie!

Armed Police behind these are a common sight in Cairo. They are to protect from bomb blasts primarily.Terrorist attacks are fairly regular in Egypt – around once a year.

Flew to Kuwait on Tuesday. Had a couple of hours in the Egypt Air lounge so thought I would kill the time by playing an old computer game, I hadn’t played for a few months – Desert Hawk.

It’s a typical shoot up game. You have a helicopter and blow up buildings, tanks, planes and other choppers with around a dozen different weapons. Anyway I’d never taken much notice of what I was blowing up before – you basically destroy everything.

After quarter of an hour or so playing the game, I had a nagging feeling something was not good. So I looked more closely at the buildings that show between stages. Hmmn they have those skinny tall towers on them. What I now know to be minarets. Oh so that means all those buildings are mosques. Hmmmn. Maybe playing this game in the middle of Cairo Airport is not such a good idea after all!

Flight to Kuwait was pretty ugly – packed full, and the guy next to me fell asleep in a way he was leaning into my seat. It was a very long three hours on board.

Purchased my Visa after getting some local currency. I love how you can just stick your credit card in an ATM in almost any country, and get out cash. I did miscalculate though. I just assumed the Kuwaiti currency was equal to or less than the NZ dollar, so figured 200 Kuwait dinars would be enough to cover any incidentals for a couple of days. Turns out you get five NZ dollars to every Kuwaiti dinar so that is way too much. I’ll exchange some back when I leave. I did actually note all he currency values down before I left, but didn’t have the info on hand.

Emily, whom I’m staying with, met me at the airport. She has adapted well to the local customs – especially the aggressive driving manoeuvres and assorted curses.

This isn’t the car before it rained, but afterwards. There is so much dust here, than when it rains, well it almost rains mud. Yuck. Normally I find the rain refreshing, but not in Kuwait. Have met quite a few Kiwi expats here and they do like it here, but that is one part that takes some getting used to.

Em was playing netball last night, so I went along to that. Mainly expats, but some of the local girls play also. There were five games on, and they ran short of officials, so I ended up scoring one of the games. I enjoyed twittering last night how I went to the netball and ended up scoring

I almost ending up refing also. I actually used to manage a netball team, when I was at university (long story) so do know the rules pretty well.

This is the view from the apartment, which I think is pretty damn good. So much prefer crashing with friends than hotels. Not too much to see in Kuwait, but going to some sightseeing this afternoon.

The Daily Telegraph reports:

Women should wear clothes that bare 40 per cent of their flesh to maximise their chances of attracting men, new scientific research indicates.

Not just that, but more:

The study, published in the journal Behaviour, found that the most popular women combined the 40 per cent rule with tight clothing and provocative dancing. The 15 per cent that combined all three criteria were approached by 40 men each.

Who would have thought – showing some flesh, tight clothing and dirty dancing may attract men. This is world class research from the University of Leeds.

They do find that there is such a thing as too much flesh:

Women who revealed around 40 per cent of their skin attracted twice as many men as those who covered up.

However, those who exposed any more than this also fared worse. Experts believe that showing too much flesh puts men off because it suggests they might be unfaithful.

Oh wow, really? That girl wearing the belt pretending to be a skirt isn’t going to want to settle down with me and have five kids?

Having just returned the Pyramids of Giza, I’ve now seen the sole remaining ancient wonder of the world. I’ve also seen some remains of the Lighthouse of Alexandria.

It turns out there is also a list of Seven Wonders of the Medieval World.

They are:

• Stonehenge – seen 2008
• Colosseum – seen 2004
• Catacombs of Kom el Shoqafa – seen 2009
• Great Wall of China – seen 2005
• Porcelain Tower of Nanjing
• Hagia Sophia – seen 2009
• Leaning Tower of Pisa

So five out of seven done.

I’ve also seen the Taj Mahal and the Cairo Citadel, which are on the backup list so to speak.

In terms of the modern wonders, there are lots of lists but going off the American Society of Civil Engineers, they list:

Channel Tunnel – seen 2008
CN Tower – seen 2005
Empire State Building – seen 2009
Golden Gate Bridge – seen 2007
Itaipu Dam
Delta Works
Panama Canal

So four of those down, three to go. Not that I decide where to go, just to see a so called wonder. But if one is in the neighbourhood, it’s silly not to make the effort to see one.

The Dominion Post reports:

Prime Minister John Key says he will not meet the Dalai Lama when he visits New Zealand next month.

The decision goes against Mr Key’s previous statements that he would meet the Tibetan spiritual leader if his diary permitted, but he denied it had been made after pressure from China.

“The reason simply is I’ve decided that I wouldn’t get a lot out of that particular meeting. I don’t see every religious leader that comes to town. I’ve seen him in the past, I may see him in the future.” …

He said the issue was not raised by Chinese president Hu Jintao during the Apec summit in Singapore at the weekend, and no other Chinese government agency had asked for a meeting not to proceed.

This is an appalling decision.It is bad enough China oppresses its own citizens, but even worse when the NZ Government effectively practises self-censorship so not to offend them.

Even worse is that this encourages China to carry on trying to dictate whom other countries can or can not meet. Just as the response to the Danish cartoons threats should have been every paper in the world publishing them, the response to China’s threats (and the are well known even if not repeated directly to the PM) over the Dalai Llama should be a policy to make sure one always meets with him.

One has to make the attempt to censor, counter-productive. That is the only way that they may learn and stop one day.

Again, this is an appalling decision.

You simply ask universities to let the SIS know if they think any of their students are constructing them.

No, I am not kidding. The Press reports:

New Zealand’s spy agency, the Security Intelligence Service (SIS), wants universities to alert the SIS to any illicit science relating to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

SIS director Dr Warren Tucker met the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors’ Committee (NZVCC) and sent university managers a letter and a brochure called A Guide to Weapons of Mass Destruction: Your Role in Preventing Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Well that makes me sleep better at night.

The Herald reports:

Controversial MP Hone Harawira has again stressed his determination to stay with the Maori Party, but admits “serious bridge building” is needed. …

I hope they do find way forward. I can’t see Harawira becoming an Independent MP as benefiting anyone (except Shane Jones). But it is possible too much water has gone under the bridge. Time will tell.

The Herald editorial says:

The Arts Foundation of New Zealand has created an embarrassment with one of its five “laureate” awards last night. Doubtless the decision to make one of the $50,000 awards to writer Witi Ihimaera was made long before his latest novel was found to include at least 16 unattributed passages that appear to be substantially the work of others.

Doubtless, too, the selection panel operates at arm’s length from the foundation set up to assist and promote cultural achievement of the highest quality in this country. But in the week since a reviewer’s concerns were reported by the New Zealand Listener, somebody at the foundation should have intervened.

It is incredible they did not. Timing is everything.

Inevitably his earlier work will be examined for similar lapses. If none comes to light, and the integrity of his future writing is beyond reproach, this episode may be regarded as aberrant. But not yet. This is not the moment for him to be hailed as a leading exponent of his art.

It strains belief that the Arts Foundation thinks it is. Ihimaera did not ask for its honour; recipients of Arts Foundation laureates are chosen by an appointed panel and notified of their good fortune. A $50,000 embarrassment would be hard to refuse.

Those who put him in this position have questions to answer. The selection panel consisted of Elizabeth Ellis, Jenny Harper, Derek Lardelli and two writers, Bill Manhire and Grant Smithies. Did they read the book? Did they miss the stylistic oddities that alerted the Listener’s Jolisa Gracewood? Do they think her revelations unimportant?

And think of the message it sends to every aspiring author – plagiarism is fine if you mix in the right circles.

You can make a submission until 10 December on the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill.

The bill is generally excellent – it merges the Electoral Commission and the Chief Electoral Office, and allows the Commission to give advice on the legality of propose ads etc.

The one change I would like is to the method of appointment of the Electoral Commissioners. The current bill provides for the Minister to (effectively) appoint them after consulting with other parties. I would like to see the appointments either made by Parliament directly, or for the consultation requirement to be made an agreement requirement.

The reason is that different Ministers interpret a consultation requirement in different ways. I know in the 1990s that National consulted Helen Clark as Opposition Leader on some appointments and actually withdrew proposed nominees after Clark objected.

But when Margaret Wilson was Attorney-General, she was terrible. Her idea of consultation was to send a letter out Friday notifying the name of the person she proposes to have Cabinet appoint on Monday.

I was hoping some MPs would touch on this issue in the first reading, and they did:

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) : The Labour Opposition will be supporting the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill. I thank the Minister of Justice for the consultative process that has surrounded this bill. He has properly engaged with Labour, as, indeed, I am sure he has with other parties in this House in the preparation of this bill. As a consequence of that, Labour members are happy to support it in its reference to a select committee. Initially, the Electoral Commission, which is a new body set up by this bill and not the current Electoral Commission, was to include the Secretary for Justice as a member. Labour and, I understand, some other parties said that would not be right. Of course, the Secretary for Justice is the head of a Government department, so it would not be appropriate for that office holder to hold a role on the new Electoral Commission. The Minister agreed with that, so the commission will now be fully independent, and we agree that that is appropriate.

This is an example of good consultation. Simon Power had feedback from other parties, and modified the proposal. My concern is not about Simon as Minister of Justice failing to act on consultations. He won’t be Minister for ever, and my concern is some future Minister will act like Margaret Wilson and ignore any objections from consultation. That is why I think it should requirement agreement, not consultation.

I think there is still a question as to how the commission should be appointed. I have heard some people suggest that the commission ought to be appointed by Parliament, rather than by the Minister as part of the Government. I think that some people may submit on that issue to the select committee. We in Labour would be interested to hear from submitters and be informed by them on that matter.

I’m glad David Parker raised the issue, and hope that Labour will agree to a change – despite the fact they will be Government again one day.

The need for independence is even greater now, with the Chief Electoral Officer being one of the three Commissioners, as the CEO is the key individual who actually runs the election, and declares the result.

Previously the CEO was within the Ministry of Justice. So the State Services Commissioner appointed the Secretary of Justice and the Secretary of Justice appointed the CEO. While I don’t particularly like it being witin the Ministry of Justice, it did make it hard for a Minister to put in someone inappropriate.

Now though the Minister can appoint the Chief Electoral Officer directly. That is too great a power I submit.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) : I do not intend to take a long call on the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill. The Green Party will support its first reading to get it before the select committee. We look forward to submissions by the public on the bill. …

When the National Government consulted the Greens on the proposal, we suggested from the outset that an Officer of Parliament – type body should be established, that it would be preferable to ensure that the new agency is absolutely and fully independent of the Government, and does not report to a Minister. The Officer of Parliament model is used here in Aotearoa with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, for example. It is also used in Canada for their electoral organisation and management. It places the oversight of the body with Parliament, as opposed to a ministry of the Government managed by one particular political interest. It reinforces its role to oversee and enable free and fair elections, which is a core concern of the House of Representatives and of Parliament. Certainly an Officer of Parliament model would be perceived by the public as more truly independent and would have more ability to comment on how the electoral process is operating, because it would not report to a particular Minister in the executive.

I agree with Metiria that the Commission is most suitable to be an Officer of Parliament. If this change is not practical in the short-term, than a fallback option is to at least require the Minister to gain agreement, not just consultation, with a super-majority of parties on appointments.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) :

There is also the police, and I will speak a little bit about their function, because the police are the enforcement body as far as our electoral law is concerned.

Although Labour supports this bill being read a first time, we believe that the bill does not address the issue of the enforcement machinery when there is a breach of electoral law. I suggest that that might be something the select committee looks at. The problem that the police always have, of course, is that electoral offences never go to the top of the queue. The police will always be concerned with crimes against the person, and with dealing particularly with violent crime. They will never be able to prioritise electoral matters, nor will they necessarily have the forensic expertise to do so. These days those questions require skills in dealing with tracking donations and financial disclosures, and so on, which call for quite sophisticated levels of skill that are probably more properly found in organisations like the Serious Fraud Office rather than the police. It might well be that with the forensic skills that are required, it would be useful to think about having an enforcement function under this new independent Crown entity rather than the police being responsible for that function, if we are truly interested in bringing all the functions together in an expert body that has the resources and the time to deal with the questions before it.

I agree with Charles that the Police do not see electoral breaches as a priority and it would be better with the Commission. However that is not so much an issue for this bill, but more for the bill which will come out of the Govt’s electoral finance review.

The final point I make is that if one has a look at the explanatory note, one sees that one of the options canvassed was to have an Officer of Parliament for this function. Personally, I think that would have been the most compelling option to go for. The explanatory note suggests there was not enough time to get that sort of apparatus going before the next election. But if we really want a truly independent body, charged with the conduct of elections in an honest and serious way, then, given the conduct of our other Officers of Parliament, in whom we have enormous faith, then that seems to me to be the best way to go.

Excellent.

What has been nice is that all the Opposition praised Simon Power for his consultation with them over the bill. It is great to see the merger happening after years and years of no action, and electoral law should be an area of bipartisanship as much as possible – it is too important to be treated as a bauble of office, as some sort of winner takes all prize.

I hope other people take the time to do a submission. If you don’t, then no complaining if you wake up one day in the future to read that Winston Peters has been appointed as an Electoral Commissioner

What better way to spend a Monday than looking around the sole remaining wonder of the ancient world.

The pyramids are in the desert, but at the very border of Cairo. So it is very easy to get to them.

These are the three main Giza pyramids. The one on the left is actually the largest – known as the Great Pyramid of Giza. The pyramids are far older than the tombs at the Valley of the Kings. They date back to around 2560 BC, so are around 4,550 years old.

Rather than just drive up to the pyramids, I got dropped off in the desert, and enjoyed a walk through the desert. You really soak up the atmosphere that way.

This is the Great Pyramid of Giza up close. It is estimated to have around 2.3 million blocks in total, weighing 5.9 million tonnes. You wouldn’t want someone to drop it on you!

It is thought to have taken 20 years to build, which meant moving 800 tonnes of stone a day. And they were not just dumped down. The four sides have a mean error of only 58 mm.

The blocks have got worn over the years, but for 4,500 years of wear and tear they are holding up pretty good.

You can climb up the first few layers, but are not allowed to ascend to the top anymore.

A lone camel crossing the desert behind.

I declined to go on the camels as I had been warned that the price you negotiate is only for getting onto the camel, and that afterwards you also have to negotiate a price to be helped off, and by then you are in a weak bargaining position.

This is the smallest (but still large) of the three – the pyramid of Menkaure. The Great Pyramid is Khufu’s

And this is the Pyramid of Khafre.

At the apex of Khafre’s pyramid, its “coat” is still in place. The Pharoah’s didn’t actually want people climbing their tombs, so they smoothe rteh pyramids out. But over time much of the outer layer has disappeared, exposing the surface below.

I think most people can identify the Great Sphinx. It is within walking distance of the three main pyramids. It is 74 metres tall. There is great debate about when it as created. Most think at the time of the pyramids, but some say it pre-dates them and may be over 5,000 years old.

These shops are within 200 metres of the Sphinx. Sacrilege!

This is the Pyramid of Djoser, over at Saqqara. It was the first Egyptian pyramid and is 4,700 years old.

In the sand, you can see many fragments of pottery and other artefacts from the Pyramids.

This is the general Memphis area, famous for its palm trees. Memphis was the capital of Egypt until 2200 BC.

On the way home, went past the Saladin Citadel of Cairo. Ran out of time to look around it, so will keep for my return trip!

The Law Commission published yesterday a report and recommendations to Government on suppression order. One chapter deals with the Internet, which I will talk about in more detail. First the major recommendations:

• starting point for considering publication of evidence and names should be a presumption of open justice
• suppression should only be used in exceptional cases where there were compelling reasons
• grounds on which suppression may be granted need to be clarified and tightened
• development of a national register of suppression orders should be advanced as a matter of high priority.

These all seem good and sensible moves to me. The use of suppression orders has been growing, and they should be the exception, not the rule. Having tighter criteria is a good step in the right direction.

I am especially pleased to see the recommendation for a register of suppression orders. It is very difficult to sometimes know what has or has not been suppressed. And this is a complaint not just from me, but from many in the media.

With regards to the Internet, they recommend:

Where an Internet service provider or content host becomes aware that they are carrying or hosting information that they know is in breach of a suppression order, it should be an offence for them to fail to remove the information or to fail to block access to it as soon as reasonably practicable.

The wording here is somewhat vague.  Under the best case scenario this is not greatly different from the status quo. ISPs already have an implicit obligation to remove material if it is in breach of a suppression order.

But what has not been defined is is what they mean by carrying information, and what they mean by “become aware”. It is one thing to require an ISP to remove material hosted by that ISP. It is quite another to require them to try and block information from other sources.  That would be highly undesirable, plus it won’t work. ISPs should be responsible (once notified) of material on their own networks, but not be ordered to block overseas sites such as Wikileaks etc.

What constitutes bringing the information to the attention of an ISP will need clarification also. I have no problem with an ISP having to remove material upon official request by the Solicitor-General and Crown Law. But just having a member of the public allege hosted material breaches a suppression order should not be enough. The ISP is not competent to decide what is or is not a breach of a suppression order – hence it should be an official agency that has to make the request.

So overall the main recommendations look to be a move in the right direction. The recommendation relating to the Internet is too vague to be able to say for sure at this stage.

In a fit of good timing, there is a seminar on the 3rd of December where some of these issues can be discussed and debated.  The seminar, titled R v The Internet, is hosted by InternetNZ, the Law Commission and the Ministry of Justice.

The seminar is at Te Papa, and has an impressive line up of speakers, including:

Hon Christopher Finlayson, Attorney-General
David Collins QC, Solicitor- General
Tony Smith, Dean, VUW Law School
Steven Price, Barrister & author of Media Minefield
Robert Lithgow QC
Brent Edwards, Media Committee, EPMU
Warren Young, Deputy President, Law Commission
Judge David Harvey
Sinead Bouchier, Group Online Editor, Fairfax
Ursula Cheer, Associate Professor of Law, University of Canterbury

I’m also taking part in one of the panels. I think it will be a fascinating day. It is intended for legal, media, and Internet professionals, and anyone can register to attend for $100 + GST. You can also apply for a discounted rate.

Did anyone else see the irony that at the recent APEC meeting you had Russia and China urging the United States not to be protectionist?

Hasn’t the world changed!

Belle de Jour is the pen name of the blogger who wrote Diary of a London Call Girl. A TV series, based on her diaries, starred Billie Piper.

Bele has outed herself to The Times. Her real name is Brooke Magnanti, and her background is not what most would expect for a hooker – even a high class one.

Brooke, or Dr Magnanti, specialises in developmental neurotoxicology and cancer epidemiology. She has a PhD in informatics, epidemiology and forensic science and is part of a team researching the effects of exposure to the pesticide chlorpyrifos on foetuses and infants.

She took up prostitution, charging 300 pounds an hour, to help keep her out of debt, when she was studying for her PhD.

On Sunday took the train down from Alexandria. Only had to “tip” two police officers today. I have learnt that the worst question in the world you can hear in Egypt is “Hello Sir, what country are you from?”.

In New Zealand, you ask somewhere where they are from as a genuine conversation starter. Here it is a prelude to a mugging. You see they have craftily picked a question that is hard to avoid without being rude. You are obviously from somewhere and your instinct is to say where from.

The moment you do, it is all over. Like a limpet the person attaches to you talking about how good New Zealand (land of milk) is and how much they like New Zealanders and just for you they will tell you something about the local facility. Never mind you didn’t want to know, or already did know. You are then obliged to hand over some money for this favour.

My suggestion is to carry lots of small currency.

Anyway once I got to Cairo, checked in at the hotel, and discovered the swimming pool is one of those ones with a bar in the middle of it. Nice.

I’m not sure I have mentioned this before, but to respect local customs I have not worn shorts outside at all. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Now I have avoided the very hottest months but it has still got up to around 30 degrees, and even in shorts that is hot – especially for me who still has an internal thermostat attuned to Dunedin climate. So swimming pools are a welcome relief.

This is the view from my room.  What a great location to be staying. Met up with a friend, and we enjoyed the view from the balcony for hours.

Decided to go to the famous National Museum of Egypt. Even better learnt it was only a couple of kms away, so could walk there, avoiding a taxi driver negotiation.

The bridge over the Nile has these lion statues at each end.

The Cairo International Film Festival is very highly regarded, and a source of pride to many in Egypt.

The Cairo Tower. It is 187 metres tall and has a restaurant at the top. It is mainly used for TV signals

This is the famous Egyptian Museum. The sheer amount of artifacts is staggering, and you could easily spend days here. The treasures from King Tut’s tomb are amazing, as are his two gold coffins. The wooden outer coffin and the mummy itself remain in his tomb in the Valley of the Kings.

Everyone says this is a must see, and they are right. Both the quantity and quality of material is vast.

1. Cactus Kate blogs on how APN  is now advising staff to self censor articles, rather than get legal advice on what they can say, as the legal advice costs too much. Incredible.
2. Clare Curran blogs on how a town in Ohio got its entire municipal Wi-Fi network closed down by the MPAA, because one person in town downloaded a movie. This is why termination should not be a remedy under s92A. And don’t even start me on ACTA – a treaty that may remove our right to even decide what our laws should be on copyright infringement and the Internet.
3. Whale Oil celebrates the cessation of funding to Te Reo Marama, whose dubious activities he has highlighted thanks to the OIA.
4. Aaron Bhatnagar is celebrating that Dick Hubbard wants to stand for the new Auckland Council to support Len Brown. Len, Sue Bradford, Dick Hubbard – what a combination.
5. The Dim-Post highlights Trevor Mallard’s political strategy. Some very perceptive comments in the thread.

[UPDATE: NZ Herald says post on APN is not correct (which is good). See story on Herald site plus comment in thread from Herald]

The Herald reports:

Motorcyclists revving up for a mass rally at Parliament at noon tomorrow fear crippling accident-compensation levy rises will force some to scrimp on safety gear and courses.

Hundreds of bikers are expected to roar off from Whangarei and Auckland this morning for a two-day “Damn the Levies” protest ride to the capital.

Police expect the number to swell to 3500 as they are joined by others along the way and from the South Island.

I’ve got no problems with there being a protest. Good on them for getting involved. While I support the principle that if you choose a more dangerous form of transport, you should pay for the increased risk, there are some legitimate questions over whether the exact amounts proposed are fair.

But none of that excuses the stupidity of this statement:

But although the motorcyclists are angry about being singled out for annual levy rises of between $198 for mopeds and $493 for 600cc-plus machines, the Bikers Rights Organisation reports growing public support for their cause.

“Many of the general public are really affronted – they see it as just the thin edge of the wedge to a wholesale decimation of the ACC scheme,” Auckland branch president Les Mason said yesterday. “If they can get away with it with motorcyclists, who’s next?”

This is simply moronic. Increasing the levies is not decimating the ACC scheme – it is in fact the exact opposite – it is trying to raise the revenue to keep the scheme going,

What will decimate the scheme is not having levies increase, as Mr Mason wants.

Now as I said the motorcyclists have some valid points – especially about people who own more than one motorcycle – and I support some changes there.

But is is fundamentally dishonest to suggest their opposition to paying higher levies (I don’t like my levies going up either) is about stopping the scheme getting “decimated”.They are parroting nonsense from Labour.

This is like someone campaigning against higher bank fees on the basis increasing bank fees will decimate the banking sector.

The Herald reports:

The Sensible Sentencing Trust has been warned it is going too far by calling on its members to break the law and defy court orders that censor victim impact statements.

Trust chairman Garth McVicar yesterday said members would say whatever they wanted in court until the law was changed.

His comments follow the news that Gil Elliott, father of murder victim Sophie, was forced to read a censored version of the statement he had prepared.

But the Law Society said the trust was using the wrong strategy if it wanted change.

Mr McVicar said the trust would run the “civil disobedience campaign” until Justice Minister Simon Power changed the law to give victims greater freedom with their statements.

The Herald yesterday revealed that sections of Mr Elliott’s statement had been crossed out at the judge’s request the night before Clayton Weatherston was to be sentenced.

Mr Elliott said it meant he did not get to “have a crack” at Weatherston, who stabbed his daughter 216 times.

There are two issues here – both the “censoring” of victim impact statements, and the way it is done.

From all accounts the process is very insensitive to victims families. They spends day and weeks working on their statements and then the day before court get sent the officially approved version. That is crappy.

The content issue is more difficult. First off I have to say they Courts should be more liberal as to what they allow. The trial is over. The sentencing is being dine by a Judge who will know what to take into account, and what not to. So let the victims and their families actually have the chance to say what they think. Especially when they have had to endure the trial.

Now that is not an argument for no rules at all. I don’t think we want victims or their families able to get up and say I hope you get killed in jail etc.

Mr McVicar said the campaign had been planned for some time and several members yet to present their statements in court had committed to reading them in full.

He said the campaign would go on, even though Mr Power had assured him yesterday that changes to statement rules would be announced by Christmas.

Personally I would wait to see what the changes are – Christmas is barely a month away.

Law Society president-elect Jonathan Temm said the issue was not going to be solved by contempt of court.

“You cannot bring the court into disrespect simply because it is bound by the law of the land.”

Mr Temm agreed that while improvements could be made to the process, the campaign was the wrong way to do it.

He questioned whether the Sensible Sentencing Trust would be satisfied even if the law was changed.

“Victims may be able to spend an hour on their feet, railing against the crime, have everybody listen to their anguish and pain and grief, and flog some individual.

“But no amount of victim latitude at sentencing is going to bring back the loved ones or heal the crushed bones.”

With all respect to Mr Temm, victims and their families know that. But there can be something very therapeutic in being able to look the killer in the eye and tell them they are scum of the earth.

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS

What the law does now:

* Victims can speak of the impact of any physical injury or emotional harm suffered through the offence.
* They can also describe any loss of, or damage to, property and any other effects of the offence.
* They cannot criticise the offender or the justice system.

What the Sensible Sentencing Trust wants:

* Victims to be able to give their opinion on the sentence length, and argue for it to be increased to reflect any lack of remorse or misrepresentation of the victim during the trial.
* Victims to be able to ask a court to order specific reparation or compensation.
* Victims to be allowed to draw attention to any disgraceful conduct and attitude during the trail by the offender or their family or supporters.

I don’t see anything objectionable in those changes. The Judge will decide on the basis of case law the sentence, but why not allow the family of the victim, or the victim, to at least have their voice heard on desired sentencing. The prosecution doesn’t speak for them always. Of course the Court will be bound be precedent, but what is the harm by giving them a say?

The Herald reports:

The Government’s biggest home visiting programme is under review after researchers found its US counterpart failed to reduce child abuse.

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett has called for an evaluationof the former Labour Government’s flagship Family Start programme, which costs $29 million a year.

Ahem. That programme was not a Labour flagship. It was started by National in the late 1990s.

It follows the discovery by American researchers that Healthy Start in Hawaii – the model for the New Zealand version – did not prevent abuse, mainly because workers did not have enough training to recognise the danger signs and take action.

The researchers also found the strategy had shifted from home visitors identifying the key triggers of abuse – such as violence, drug and alcohol abuse and post-natal depression – to “strength-based” goal-setting by the families themselves.

One mother’s goal, approved by the home visitor, was “to be happy”.

Hmmn. I not conversant with the details of how it has morphed over time, but it used to be regarded very highly as making a real difference with some dysfunctional families. It sounds like they are skimping on training, and have gone a bit politically correct if it is now all about goal setting instead of identifying and preventing abuse.

Professor Anne Duggan, who led the research into Healthy Start and is working as a visiting specialist in Auckland, said New Zealand’s Family Start seemed to be “a wonderful resource for families” and she did not think it should be scrapped.

I would hope it is not scrapped also. If changes are needed, change them but the concept of a one stop support shop for families is I think a very sound one.

Oh and can some-one shoot the sub-editor:

FAMILY START
* Cost: $29 million a year
* Created by Labour in 1998
* Goal: Providing home-based support for families with high needs and identifying key triggers before problems occur.
* Problem: Lack of training to recognise danger signs of child abuse.
* Researchers found that Healthy Start in Hawaii, on which Family Start was based, did not prevent abuse and merely allowed families to set their own targets.

I can almost excuse a general assumption being wrong about which Government started it, but not knowing Labour was not Government in 1998 is inexcusable.

Alexandria is a lovely city – most of all it is clean, unlike Luxor and much of Cairo. It makes such a difference not having dirt and dust everywhere.

The hotel arranged a driver and car for only NZ$12 an hour. Unlike Luxor where there are formal tours, Alexandria is more the place where you just go the places you want to. I also did not want to be a full day tour, as the reason I chose Alexandria was partly just to have a nice place to relax for at least half a day. Holidays can be very exhausting!

This is the Bibliotheca Alexandrina, which is Latin for Library of Alexandria. It is to commerorate the original Library of Alexandria whose loss is one of history’s tragedies.

The ancient library was thought to be the largest in the world, The exact size is unknown but most estimates are that it was in the hundreds of thousands. The world would be a different place today if that knowledge had survived. Knowledge is what separates us from the cavemen.

The Bibliotheca Alexandrina is near the site of the original Library, and has shelf space for eight million books. It is also unique, being the only facility that has a copy and external backup of the Internet Archive.

This is the Citadel of Qaitbay. The citadel is around 550 years old, but prior to that the site was the location of the Lighthouse of Alexandria – one of the seven wonders of the ancient world.The lighthouse was built just after 300 BC and as destroyed in earthquakes in the 1300s.

The citadel is a pretty cool fort to look around in its own right also.

A view of the harbour and Alexandria from the Citadel.

This is Pompey’s Pillar. It is so named as legend had it that Pompey’s ashes were sprinkled at the vase of the pillar. This is unlikely though as it turned out it was constructed in 293 AD for the Emperor Diocletian.

Pompey was murdered by Ptolemy XIII in 48BC. The King thought doing so would please Caesar, but in fact Caesar was appalled that such a great Roman (even if his opponent) was killed in such a way.

The Pillar is 30 meters high and weighs 396 tons. and surrounded by various other artifacts, and also the subterranean remains of a Serapeum. This was a must see.

This is a photo down in the Catacombs of Kom el Shoqafa, one of the seven wonders of the Middle Ages. You go down a large spiral staircase to get to them.

Technically cameras are banned from the Catacombs but technically a Blackberry is not a camera

The planks are quite wobbly and trust me you don’t want to find out what the water is like!

These are horse bones – possibly killed during the razing of Alexandrina by Emperor Caracalla. The Catcombs were actually discovered by a donkey in 1900 when it disappeared down a previously unknown shaft. My guide told me that the donkey owner was very upset, and tried to get his donkey back, and only when they realized it had fallen 20 metres did they realise it was beyond help.

Also went to the Alexandrina National Museum. It isn’t a huge museum but worth checking out. This is a bust of Emperor Hadrian – one of the better Roman Emperors.

Also ran out of books to read (I’m onto book eight already) so managed to track down a bookstore that sold some English books. Like everything else, one had to haggle the prices. Managed to pick up three old Egyptian detective novels by Elizabeth Peters that kept me occupied on the train.

Big Day Out has withdrawn the invitation to Beenie Man, which is the right thing to do.

Prior to that, No Right Turn blogged (as I did) that he did not agree with Charles Chauvel’s call to ban Beenie Man from entering New Zealand. He says:

In case Chauvel has forgotten, we are a country which supposedly respects freedom of speech. And that liberty applies to people we disagree with as well as those we like. The widely accepted limit on freedom of speech is “shouting fire in a crowded theatre”. While Beenie man’s music is hateful, like David Irving’s, it simply does not reach that standard. I am not denying the social consequences of his hate, but they are far too distributed and distant to provide a justification for censorship.

Now as I said, I agree with NRT that banning Beenie Man on the basis of some previous songs is inappropriate. But it has got me wondering – where do you draw that line, the so called shouting fire in a crowded theatre.

Wikipedia says:

The lyrics to some of his songs have been criticized for inciting the murder of homosexuals, with lyrics such as, “I’m dreaming of a new Jamaica, come to execute all the gays”[17]. In “Mi Nah Wallah”, he says he would like to cut the throats of all gay men.[18] In “Bad Man Chi Chi Man” the lyric instructs listeners to kill gay deejays, and in “Han Up Deh”, the lyric suggests hanging lesbians with a long piece of rope.

Now since 2005 he hasn’t performed such lyrics. He claims that by homosexuals he meant pedophiles – old men picking up young boys. Personally I regard that excuse as disingenuous considering one of his lyrics is also about hanging lesbians. But the fact is he has not sung such lyrics or advocated such acts since 2005.

The question I ponder is, what if he still advocated such actions through his songs. Would that be sufficient reason to bar him entry?

I think of the comparison to David Irving, whom I also did not think should be banned. Irving is an anti-semite and a Holocaust denier. But he doesn’t actually advocate the executions of Jews. If someone actually did actively advocate the extermination of Jews, I would say that crosses the line.

Now likewise, if Beenie Man still actively advocated the murder of gays and lesbians, I think that would cross the line. There is a difference between mere bigotry and actual incitement to violence.

I’d be interested to hear NRT’s thoughts (and others) on where he thinks the line is. Of course to some degree the line might be like spam – hard to define, but you know it when you see it.