Kiwiblog

Stephen Franks blogs:

Take a look at this NCPA collection of sobering figures (drawn from the work of a physics professor at UCAL Berkeley) for an explanation.

• China’s emissions intensity (CO₂ per dollar of GDP) is five times greater than that of the United States.

President Hu Jintao plans to reduce China’s CO₂ emissions per unit of GDP by 4 percent per year for 5 years. If carried on it would reduce China’s CO₂ emissions intensity 70 percent by 2040. But even if it works:

• If China cuts its emissions intensity 45% it will still surpass the U.S. in per capita annual CO₂ emissions by 2025.
• Indeed, every 10% cut in U.S. emissions would be negated by one year of China’s growth.
• Because China’s economy is growing by 10% p.a. a 4% cut in intensity is actually a 6% annual increase in emissions.
• CO₂ emissions are increasing similarly in India and other developing countries – far surpassing rich countries’ output.
• Even if China and India’s goals are met – and other developing countries make similar cuts- total atmospheric CO₂ would rise from 385 parts per million currently to 700 parts per million by 2080

The leaders of China and India can not risk constraining their growth, even if they were persuaded that they should give higher priority to CO2 emissions.

I did my own calculations a few weeks ago:

China said it will “endeavour” to cut the amount of carbon produced per unit of economic output by 40 to 45 percent by 2020 from 2005. The “carbon intensity” goal would let emissions keep rising, but more slowly than economic growth.

Now even putting aside the fact China won’t agree to any verification of their emissions (ie they can simply make up their figures), what does their pledge mean.

Let us assume that their business as usual case is that emissions will increase in line with economic growth.

Now their GDP in 2005 was US$2.24 trillion. In 2020 it is estimated to be around US14.6 trillion. That is a 640% increase in GDP.

Now if their emissions intensity is 40% less, then the increase in emissions will be 385%.

So China’s pledge is they will only increase emissions by 385% by 2020.

Now their level of emissions in 2006 was 6,103 million tons. So China’s projected increase in emissions is around 23,000 million tons. …

In fact China’s pledge to reduce intensity by 40% means their total level of emissions in 2020 could be as high as 33,000 million tons.

And you know what. That is more than the rest of the world produces today. The world, excluding China, produces 22,000 million tons. With China it is 28 million tons

So the entire world could go carbon neutral, and China would still push world emissions up 20% from 2006.

This is the reality the world faces. It does not matter what the USA does, what the EU does, even what India does. Global emissions are going to increase significantly, just from China alone.

Stephen Franks blogs on the Bill of Rights Act and the Financial Advisors Act:

Last evening Doug Bailey and Dr Andrew Butler of Russell McVeagh presented to the National Party’s Blue-Libs a plea for the party to  upgrade what Andrew called “the Bill of Not Quite Rights” (the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990). Among other recomendations Andrew urged strengthening the duty on the Attorney General to report on whether Bills before Parliament are inconsistent with NZBORA and a “forced response” from the government when there is an inconsistency,  requiring the government to say if and what it will do about  it.

Not a bad idea.

Among the Bills that desperately needed an adverse NZBORA opinion was what is now the Financial Advisers Act 2008. …

When it comes into force there will be a $100,000 fine for:

a) broker who explains on the radio or television why a company is doing well or badly and should be sold;

b) Brian Gaynor for any acid comments to discourage bad investment, or praise for strong companies, unless he can show that despite the common description of him as a funds manager he is actually entitled to an exception for journalists;

c) a broker who acts on phoned instructions from clients he’s known for decades, instead of insisting they give him orders in writing.

There’ll be a $5000 fine for:

a) b) a financially savvy blogger who earns money from ads on his blog, if he says something like, “steer clear of Bridgcorp/Blue Chip - Petriecivic/Bryers will lose your money”;

Sounds like a case of good intentions gone awry.

Very pleased to see some stories on Sophie Elliott, so that Weatherston’s warped version of reality is not the final say on her. The Herald reports:

While her family remember a loving daughter with everything to live for, prominent academics overseas have described her as having a “beautiful mind” and an exciting career ahead of her.

Peter Lambert, economics professor at the University of Oregon, Jean-Yves Duclos, editor of the Journal of Economic Inequality and economics professor at Laval University in Canada and Sir Tony Atkinson, professor of economics at Oxford University, said Sophie had remarkable ability for a young person, exhibited considerable prescience in her thinking and could have been a leader in the field of welfare economics.

Professor Lambert said a paper she wrote titled, Why measure inequality? A discussion of the concept of equality, which was published in this month’s edition of the Oxford University economics journal Oxonomics, was “easily the best essay on inequality” he had ever read.

Professor Duclos called the paper a “remarkable piece of research for such a young person”.

In a few paragraphs, Sophie had been able to strike right at the core of welfare economics and grasp many of its complex philosophical and ethical issues, he said.

“Elliott certainly had a beautiful mind.”

I recall reading, shortly after her murder, that her ambition was to be the first female Governor of the Reserve Bank, and thought what a wonderful ambition to have. And from the sounds of it, she may have got there if not for Weatherston.

Incidentially, does anyone have access to, or have a copy, of the paper which just got published? I’m interested to read it.

The Herald has a less flattering profile of Weatherston. While my thoughts are mainly with the Elliott family, I do feel great compassion for the Weatherston family also as they cope with the horror of what Clayton did and what he is.

They also talked to Lesley Elliott. I twittered yesterday that Lesley was my hero of the month for hugging after the verdict both Clayton’s mother, but also his lawyer – Judith Abblett-Kerr. True class. Lesley wants to:

In an interview with the Herald prior to the verdict, Mrs Elliott said she now wants to focus her energies on keeping young women away from abusive and dangerous relationships. Her daughter had complained of being assaulted by Weatherston prior to the killing.

“My legacy to Soph is to somehow get to girls in their late teens and twenties, when they start to date guys, and [explore] what is acceptable behaviour and what isn’t,” she told the Herald.

The sad reality is that if Sophie had dumped Weatherston the moment he became abusive, she might be alive today. And after he assaulted her she should have never seen him again. Her desire to try and end the relationship as friends, ironically acted against her.

The issue of whether provocation should be a partial defence to murder is canvassed in this article. I am with Women’s Refuge:

Women’s Refuge chief executive Heather Henare said: “Because of the way the defence was run, this trial became a perverse opportunity for a killer to continue to persecute his victim and her family after her death.

I actually think that was part of his plan all along.

“This trial turned justice inside out. The killer became the victim and Sophie Elliott was portrayed to us all as he chose to describe her. Unfortunately for Clayton Weatherston, the jury didn’t buy it and nor did the hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who watched him giggling on television.”

Never has a defence strategy so backfired, in my opinion.

Stuff reports that the provocation partial defence may go:

Killers will lose the right to claim provocation as a defence after murderer Clayton Weatherston’s attempt to smear his victim.

It is understood Justice Minister Simon Power wants the controversial defence scrapped as soon as possible and will announce his intentions today.

I think such a move would be exceptionally popular.

Stephen Franks argues for why the partial defence should be retained. He says Judges should set a higher threshold for its use, but it should be retained:

From this case the judges should take a lesson, and simplify the defence of provocation. It should only relate to what would provoke ordinary reasonable people, not drunks or P addicts or nut cases, or homophobes. The judges should now punish those who turn it into mockery.

From other cases they should accept that ordinary people want the law to distinguish between those who start fights or cause trouble, and those who respond even if their response is “disproportionate”.  The criminal should bear the risk of significant  disproportionality in the response to thuggery, rape or robbery , even if common sense says the defence can only go so far.

The Press reveals the Weatherston defence team tried to get photos of Sophie’s wounds supressed:

King told the court that the autopsy photographs were highly prejudicial because of their graphic and disturbing nature. “They illustrate the painful death of a beautiful young lady in her prime, and the injuries are simply horrific,” King submitted.

He said they provided little, if any, probative value and would “likely distract the jury from their proper task in assessing the partial defence of provocation”.

King entered a “back-up submission” that three photographs showing the injuries to Elliott’s face should be removed.

I thought that number and nature of the wounds was an essential part of the case. I’m glad the Court of Appeal dismissed the defence’s application.

The court ruled that the submissions were “hopeless” and the photographs were highly relevant to the issues at trial.

They had been carefully chosen to minimise their prejudicial effect as much as possible.

“Any remaining prejudicial effect is a natural consequence of the nature of the wounds inflicted by Mr Weatherston,” the court ruled.

Exactly.

Stephen Franks blogs on a column by Richard Fowler, the President of the Wellington District Law Society, regarding Fiji. Fowler has just returned from there and quotes Fowler:

Yet I am afraid that nothing about the present Fijian situation as outlined to me was that simple – particularly for Rule of Law type issues. I am no apologist for the 2006 coup but there are certainly some very odd aspects to the situation that do not sit easily with the abovementioned ’simple’ analysis. There is even a ‘back to front’ quality to much of it. The best I can do is pose for you the questions that started worrying me:

If Commodore Bainimarama was the counter-coup hero who removed George Speight in 2000, installed Quarase as interim Prime Minister, and then went back to his barracks rather like a latter day Garibaldi, what caused him to re-emerge and, for that matter so different from the previous coups, at glacial speed?

Why does the Labour party representing over 40% of the population and supported by most of the Fijian Indians, the people most obviously and adversely disenfranchised in the previous coups of 1987 and 2000, give some support to the interim government and even for a period participated in its cabinet?

I have to say that every Fijian Indian taxi driver I have had in the last couple of months has been 100% supportive of the coup, and saying how the NZ Government does not understand the situation.

Fowler goes on:

Contrary to what was suggested concerning a pervasive military presence in the New Zealand newspapers recently, in the whole of the week I was in Suva I never caught sight of one soldier and further the interim government during that week lost a very public Court challenge to the legitimacy of some of its actions and did not reach for extra-legal remedy.

Indeed, the Fijian Government has lost a considerable number of cases.

Who could blame the Fiji Law Society for cutting the interim government some slack in the light of the latter’s avowed intent to achieve a fairer electoral system that is not racially slanted in lieu of holding an election now which would just have the effect of perpetuating the old one? At what point does the Fiji Law Society cease to do so – because sooner or later the Commodore has to demonstrate meaningful progress? And where would that leave the participation of the Fiji Law Society up to that point?

I held my peace and boarded the plane thankful that no law society in New Zealand has ever had to face the issues the Fiji Law Society is facing.

I am one that supports Fiji not having a race based constitution, that marginalises one particular race. But that doesn’t mean the ends justify the means, and the Commodore should have stood for election on the grounds of changing it, not done a coup.

However the coup is now a reality, and the end game is going back to democracy. And as I said, I have no problems with holding a referendum on a new constitution first, and then elections.

But the problem is the Commodore is unable or unwilling to give any sort of timetable, to which he will be accountable. The longer it goes on, the more you suspect he will never give up power.

The challlenge for the Commodore is to turn rhetoric into reality and actually take steps towards elections. If he does so, then he will no doubt find sanctions start to get lifted. But if he doesn’t produce a timetable, then people will assume it is all about retaining power, not about changing the constitution.

Stephen Franks blogs:

Though I do not share the Invercargill Turks’ views on Israel in any degree, I defend them. I defend their right to express their views by shunning citizens of a state they consider to be evil. …

If a government agency acted as the Turks did it would be utterly wrong. The state weilds the coercive power of us all. It must be tolerant in a free society. Without proof of involvement in or support of unlawful acts the State certainly should not discriminate against New Zealand citizens simply because they are of a group in which some members have unpopular opinions.

But the vigour of our values (in the long term our freedoms) may depend on the willingness of individuals to be intolerant so long as they do not coerce their fellow citizens. So  I defend the right of any private citizen to shun whoever they want on their own property.

Stephen’s view is one shared by many on the right. That people have a right to be bigots. I have some sympathy for that view, but not without limits.

Taking the case of the Invercargill cafe owner, the most effective action in response has been privaye citizens saying we don’t like you because you are bigots. They have had protests outside, dozens of phone calls, and from all accounts are starting to regret their stance.

Those who oppose anti-discrimination laws see how they have often been used overseas to shut down unpopular speech, or prevent criticism of certain religions.

But on the other hand, do we want a society where cafes could display signs saying “No Jews allowed” or “No blacks work here”? The libertarian argument is that private reaction against such signs would probably be more effective than state action.

But we saw in Europe in the 30s what can happen, when the state does not prevent discrimination. Are we confident that would never occur?

At the end of the day I stop short of the position put forward by Stephen, that private discrimination should be legal.

Whanganui had a 3% lead in the party vote in 2005, and this expanded out to 22% in 2008. And the 3,500 majority for Borrows goes to 6,000.

Rangitikei sees a 25% lead in the party vote and Simon Power moves his majority from 9,000 to 11,000.

Tukituki has an 18% lead in the party vote, and a 2,600 majority for Craig Foss gets a boost thanks to Labour’s sacking of the local District Health Board to over 7,000.

Palmerston North has been held by Labour since 1978. The party vote was narrowly won by National but Labour’s Iain Lees-Galloway held off Malcolm Plimmer by 1,000 votes.

Wairarapa has National 17% ahead on the party vote. And John Hayes turns the seat safe with a 2,900 majority converting to 6,300 in 2008.

Otaki was a huge battle. I’ve door knocked Otaki in the past and it is not natural National territory in the Horowhenua parts. So winning the party vote by 8% is good for National after trailling by 3% last time. Darren Hughes put up a huge fight to protect his sub 400 majority but Nathan Guy grabbed the seat by almost 1,500.

In Wellington, Labour does a lot better starting with Mana. Labour remains 6% ahead on the party vote but reduced from 18% in 2005. Winnie Laban’s 6,800 majority shrinks only slightly to 5.300.

Rimutaka was the last hope for NZ First. Labour won the party vote there in 2005 by 11% and in 2008 by 0.3%. On the electorate vote just as narrow with Labour’s Chris Hipkins pipping Richard Whiteside by 600 votes. Ron Mark got a credible 5,000 votes but stll trailed by 7,000.

Hutt South is home to Wainuiomata and Trevor Mallard. Trevor delivered a party vote margin for Labour of 4% and a 3,600 majority for himself. In 2005 the party vote margin was 14% and the personal majority 6,600 so some movement there.

Rongotai is now the home of the Labour Deputy Leader. But even before her ascension, Rongotai gave Labour a massive 11% margin on the party vote – 43% to 32% for National. And her personal 13,000 majority in 2005 was only slightly dented to just under 8,000. If that is her low tide mark, she’ll be happy.

Wellington Central saw in 2005 a party vote for National of just 33%, Labour 43% and Greens around 16%. In 2008 it was National 36%, Labour 34% and Greens around 20%. Marian Hobbs had a 5,800 majority and Stephen Franks cut that to 1,500 against new MP Grant Robertson with some Green party votes giving Robertson their electorate vote to keep Franks out.

Ohariu was assumed by almost everyone to be safe as houses for Peter Dunne. But it got close this time. First on the party vote, National beat Labour 43% to 40% in 2005. This time it was 47% to 33%. On the candidate vote Peter Dunne dropped from 45% to 33% making him vulnerable. National’s Katrina Shanks lifted her vote from 21% to 26% and Labour’s Charles Chauvel from 26% to 30%. The Greens candidate got 7% of the vote and may have ironically saved the seat for Dunne.

Stephen Franks has blogged some photos of vandals destroying or defacing his signs. Go have a look in case you recognise them.

The vandalism is costing around $1,000 a week.

Two fun opportunities for people interested in the Wellington Central race.

First we have the four main candidates on Backbenches tonight. Stephen Franks, Grant Robertson, Sue Kedgley and Heather Roy. They’;; be talking about the economy, tax cuts and why you should vote for them!

I suspect a big audience tonight so pay to be there early. The show screens at 9.10 pm on TVNZ7.

Also iPredict has launched a set of three Wellington Central stocks.

You can invest in a Grant Robertson victory, a Stephen Franks victory or a “Other” victory in Wellington Central. The share will pay $1 if you win and the initial offer price is 55.5c for Grant, 43.5c for Stephen and 1c for Other.

Advanced investors can also buy a bundle of all three shares for exactly $1. If the combined price of all three is over $1, then you can make money buying the bundle and selling the individual stocks (or just the stock you think is over priced).

Congratulations to Jennifer (Jen) Savage from Wanganui Collegiate who won best overall speaker at the NZ Secondary Schools World Debating Champs.

Fellow New Zealanders Ben Kornfeld was 2nd and Holly Jenkins 4th.

As reported yesterday the team got all the way to the grand final and lost with the closest possible margin of 4-5.  The team captain is Maria English, and Stephen Franks points out (Stephen is on the board of Samuel Marsden – Maria’s school) that Maria has also a member of the N.Z. Secondary Schools Choir and was the winner of the 2008 Rodney Walshe Essay Competiton – the Ireland essay competition.

Was very impressed yesterday to see around 20 members of Stephen Franks’ campaign team out with placards at the intersection of Lampton Quay and Bowen Street. They must have arranged it in the few hours between the announcement at 12.30 pm and my bus going past at 4.30 pm.

Some photos from Stephen’s Blog:

The Young Nats out in force.

It was a good intersection they picked as you are literally in the middle of the traffic.

And some smart use of a construction site to get visibility.

The campaign didn’t feel real until I saw them all out campaigning!

Homepaddock has the full range of “If leaders were cars“.

Karl du Fresne blogs on a forum on media reporting of challenging stories such as the N&S Asian Angst, the Clydesdale research on Pacific immigration and the Danish cartoons. Karl makes many excellent points including:

I also expressed my firm belief that in a liberal democracy, the right to freedom of expression is far more precious than the right of a minority – in this case the Muslim community – not to be offended.

I’m not even sure there is a right not to be offended. I can maybe accept a right not to be vilified, but that is a very different thing. And Karl nails it again:

The greatest threat to the healthy process of disclosure and debate that followed the Clydesdale story is the belief that the state must protect us from harmful ideas because we’re not mature and intelligent enough to deal with them. Underlying this is a fundamental distrust of democracy.

Trevor at New Zeal profiles the Trotskyist background of Andrew Geddis, the Labour/Green appointed Chair of the electoral reform expert panel. Andrew is an expert in the area of political financing, and very respected. But when appointments are made without bipartisan consultation, then the background of appointees come under great scrutiny. All Labour had to do was ask National and other parties if they agreed with the proposed appointees, or have any names of their own they wished to propose.

Stephen Franks blogs on how spin should not save crap managers, applying it to the party that has managed NZ’s military, SOEs, and hspitals for the last nine years. A good read.

Stephen Franks has written a nice sequel to the Hollow Men, and has a screenplay of a scene involving Helen and Winston on Friday. Very very good. An extract:

WP So what’s your bone for the dogs. Spit it out. I’m not resigning. – you know what I’ve said – I’m not going down for this on my own sunshine. You put that loose-lipped idiot Glenn into this case.  You gave him no script, or didnt get him to stick to it. I had no clout with him after you canned that consulship cause it would be a bad look. I only met him a couple of times and the boorish shit left me in no doubt that he was only letting us have the money cause your guys told him to. I told him he could have that consulship so you’ve only got yourselves to blame when he got the pip.

HC – Thats the past. We are where we are and unless I look as if I’m in charge, and you look as if you accept the rules for the moment I’ll lose the power to manage this. Don’t underestimate this Winston. Even our trusties among the  journos are finding it hard to explain why you’re still standing with me beside you. None so far have tried to think past stupidities like my “determination to pass the ETS” and “keeping open a post-election coalition with you”

And the conclusion:

WP – A Privileges Committee roll-over doesn’t get me back if it’s the SFO investigation that’s the trouble.

HC – Look assuming you haven’t stolen the money you’ll be “cleared” when they say they are dropping the investigation cause there is no “fraud” cause the money ended up where it was supposed to. Only the Police deal with breaches of electoral law, and we can rely on them. So SFO will pull out leaving that electoral stuff alone.. The media chooks will treat ‘no further action’ as innocence, and so will your grey power.

WP – OK I’ll go along with it for the meantime. I’ll review it every day, and the moment I think you might renege, it’ll be Plan B.

Ficton or telepathy? You decide!

John Bishop at NBR looks at the chances of litigation post-election, quoting electoral law expert Hayden Wilson of legal firm Kensington Swan:

Electoral petitions in previous elections have not affected the overall outcome of an election, as the impact had been confined to just one electorate seat in each case. That changes under MMP.

“The most obvious example is Tauranga. If New Zealand First gets three or four percent of the party vote nationwide, but Winston Peters doesn’t win back Tauranga, he’d have all the incentive in the world to litigate the result,” Mr Wilson says.

“And if he were to get an election result overturned, he’d bring back a group of MPs which would change the whole make up of Parliament, and potentially who forms the government.”

Now Hayden is I think incorrect here. The assumption he is making is that if a party on election night (or 2 days later at the return of the writs) does not qualify for list seats in Parliament (you need 5% party vote or at least one electorate seat) and it later qualifies (by way of winning an electorate seat in a electoral petition), then the allocation of list seats is redone.

I actually wondered about this scenerio last election. What would happen if NZ First got 4% and lost Tauranga, but then won it in an electoral petition. Would they just get the MP for Tauranga or would they also get four list MPs on top, which they would have got if he had been declared the winner on the election night?

Well I asked the Chief Electoral Office what they would do in this scenario, and their advice to me was that ther is no mechanism to revise the allocation of List MPs. The Electoral Act puts an emphasis on certainity, and once the List MPs are allocated, an electoral petition in an electorate seat can not cause the allocation to be revised.

Another issue over-looked is that not all sucessful electoral petitions lead to the losing MP being declared the winner. If the petition is about whether certain votes should have been allowed, then the court can declare the loser the winner, on the basis of receieiving more valid votes. If the petition is about over-spending, then a sucessful petition merely means the MP loses his or her seat and a by-election is called.

However by-elections can lead to the seat swapping hands, which can lead to a change to who has a majority in Parliament, so there will still be an incentive to have electoral petitions – esp as the law is so unclear.

Mr Wilson said the Electoral Finance Act was having a chilling effect on campaigning.

“We’ve seen an increase in the number of people asking whether some action or statement they wish to make would be permitted or not under the EFA.

National’s Wellington Central candidate, former ACT MP and lawyer, Stephen Franks agrees that the Electoral Finance Act is depriving voters of important information about the candidates.

He says voters aren’t seeing a lot of the normal activities expected four months out from an election.

This part is absolutely correct. Linda Clark also wrote on this issue in the Listener. The EFA has almost muzzled the ability of electorate candidates to even get their name known to voters. The $20,000 limit was ridiculously low to start with (50c a voter) as a limit for three months. As a limit for all year, it has killed off almost all communications.

Mr Franks expects candidates will do more face to face meetings because they don’t count against the candidates spending cap, but signage and mailouts were a different matter.

“I was looking to have an electorate office with the usual 2.4m x 1.2m sign.

“The Electoral Commission wrote to candidates saying that signs like that were a campaign expense, and the Commission assessed the value of standard sign at $6 per sqm which was over $17 a day.

“Including construction and removal that came to about $4 600 for a four month campaign. That was almost a quarter of the campaign allowance for just one sign.”

“Alternatively with the campaign spending limit at $20 0000, I could have sent one postcard to about two thirds of the electorate,” he said.

The limit should be at least $1 a voter for a 90 day period. Even that is just enough for two direct mail letters.

The Wellington Central Campaign Launch is on Wednesday 6 August at the Paramount Theatre. For just $20 you get the launch plus the movie 4.

For tickets contact murraygibb@xtra.co.nz. Murray Gibb’s phone number is 04 475 4023 or 027 491 6956.

Stephen Franks blogs on the battle to save Crossways in Mt Victoria. I will be blogging on this myself during the week. It will be a tragedy if Mt Victoria loses what has been a focal point for the community. The City Council is justifying its lack of support by saying residents have lots of cafes nearby unlike suburbs further away from the city centre. A very very weak argument.

Keeping Stock blogs on an alarming suggestion by Auckland lawyer Catriona McLennan on Nine to Noon. She suggests that in rape trials, the burden of proof should be on the accused to prove there was consent. And this is not just a throw-away remark – she actually argues in favour of it against Kathryn Ryan for some time.

Whale Oil has been threatened with defamation by a lawyer acting for Pearl Going, who objects to comments he had made on her. The material has been removed from his blog after the blog hosting company was also threatened, but copies have sprung up on a dedicated blog hosted overseas.

I don’t intend to comment of the substance of the allegedly defamatory material, but would note that pressuring hosting companies to remove material, even after the blog author has asserted it is not defamatory and is willing to defend it in court, is not a particularly sensible tactic as it is so easy for the material to appear elsewhere – as has happened. Also of interest is that the lawyer for Pearl Going is Steven Price, who was very critical of the Listener for threatening the Hot Topic blogger with defamation.

This should not be taken as a suggestion that defamation laws do not or should not apply to the Internet. Of course they do. But more the appropriateness of targetting blog hosts if the blog author is willing to stand by their words and accept legal consequences for them.

The Dim Post has more satire, this one on how Winston is handling the Owen Gelnn scandal:

• Monday 2:00 PM: Hires two identical twins as press secretaries, one of whom always tells the truth while the other always lies.

• Wednesday 11:30 AM: Announces to press conference that he will explain everything but in doing so will be forced to reveal the secret surprise ending to Battlestar Galactica. Political media beg him to remain silent.

• Thursday 6:35 PM: Notifies Speaker Margaret Wilson that he is officially changing his alignment to Neutral Evil.

• Friday 10:30 AM: Recieves report back from Department of Statistics confirming that proportion of New Zealanders with IQ below 90 is still greater than 5%. Laughs heartily. Tells rest of country to go fuck themselves.

Heh.

Liberty Scott pings Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn for his comments on Gordon Brown approving a state funeral for Margaret Thatcher when she dies. The offending quote:

“On the plus side, it will at least give her victims a final chance to throw excrement and rotten fruit at her as she goes past“

As I/S goes on about how some on the right are often poisonous, spiteful and bitter, this quote brings to mind stones and glasshouses.

David Cohen looks at a case for Nicky Hager:

A column containing acidic opinions about a powerful political media personality mysteriously fails to show up on the author’s regular spot on her newspaper’s website. Another major news outlet, after allowing criticisms to be made of the same public figure on one of its shows, hurriedly issues a grovelling clarification. Does this sound like a case Nicky Hager ought to be investigating?

It would indeed if it weren’t the slightly inconvenient fact that the media power broker in question also happens to be the same gent.

In somewhat jest yesterday I referred to Stephen Frank’s as being a communist in his youth, in relation to a post on Barack Obama’s youth.

Stephen posts on his blog that a gentle correction I don’t have it right. He did travel to Mao’s China to see what life was like on a commune, but never was “duped” by communism. Indeed first hand experience would be enough for anyone sensible to see how flawed the ideology was.

I recommend people read the whole post – it is very interesting.

A particularly demented individual (a supporter of the accused who thinks Elliottt “deserved it”) has been trying to post details of the murder of Sophie Elliott to my blog for some months, which means sadly I was not at all surprised by the revelations in court that the poor girl was stabbed 216 times.

In fact the details are even worse than revealed in court, but thanks to the comments being caught in moderation no-one else has had to see them. They were enough to physically induce nausea in me and are the most unpleasant material ever posted here. They were all given over to the Police along with the IP details leading to a Dunedin location.

“He talked about Sophie calling him a retard. He got very distressed by it in part because he took it as an insult to his intelligence.”

Good God I called Miss Ten a retard or similar in front of two dozen staff yesterday. I hope she doesn’t kill me for it.

It distresses me to see people make excuses for what can only be described an evil sociopathic act. Yeah I know the trial is yet to happen, but the facts do not appear to be in dispute – the only issue will be if Clayton Weatherston claims insanity or provocation.  Is Weatherston bad or mad or both?

When confronted with such vile crimes, it is tempting to always try and conclude that the offender is mad, as in only a mad person could so such a thing. It is worth remembering though that legally the question isn’t whether someone is a sociopath, but whether they are capable of knowing right from wrong.

I feel very sorry for the Elliott family having to go through both the depositions and then inevitably a trial.
Stephen Franks blogs on how the court process is failing:

Four court attendances already when there is absolutely no doubt about the circumstances of her murder, yet the process had not even reached depositions. As a lawyer and a former law-maker I think they expected me to come up with some sophistry to justify what was happening to them.

I’m not a lawyer, but it would seem to me that when the facts are not in dispute, just the state of mind of the killer, that one could have an expedited process.

Please, if you comment, be careful. Despite the fact I have talked specifically about the case, be cautious in doing so. I will delete any comments which seek to blame the victim.

Stephen Franks has ordered a book: Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. I must borrow it after he gets it!

Jeanette Fitzsimons blogs, asking whether the wheels are falling off the ETS. She addresses the issue of the so called thermal moratorium and how Genesis, an SEO, is using a loophole to get around this.

Whale Oil has photos of more potential EFA breaches. Russell Fairbrother’s caravan certainly looks like an advertisement with statements about proud to support interest free loans, nuclear free NZ.

Blair Mulholland asks whether it is worse to have a swastika on your roof, or preventing someone from doing it. While I think Councils go way overboard with their controls on what you can do on your house, I think there is a property rights argument that there should be some restrictions. Put it like this. If you buy your place for $500,000 and someone buys the house either side of you and covers them in swastikas, or even paintings of men’s penises, then your house value will drop significantly as there won’t be many buyers. Note in this case the swastika was the Hindu one, not the Nazi one.

The Visible Hand in Economics looks at the case for and againgst a tax free threshold.

Jordan Carter looks at the travails of Gordon Brown in the UK.

One of the reasons I never intend to stand for Parliament is because you have to put up with humourless bastards, as Stephen Franks has found out with someone e-mailing the Herald complaining about the video I linked to yesterday.

Almost all humour will offend someone, somewhere. It’s inevitable. And I’m not sure I would call the comments here yesterday a “heated debate”, when it was mainly one person getting hysterical, and having the crap beaten out of him by everyone else.

A copy of the new anti-speeding advertisement from the Ministry of Transport

Hat Tip: Stephen Franks

Poneke has blogged a copy of his 2004 presentation to the Sceptics Society Conference, showing that the media generally are not sceptical of “alternative medicine” claims. It is an excellent read.

Stephen Franks points out that “that” ghastly song written by his rival Grant Robertson was intended for a fund-raiser at the Beehive for the Mary Potter Hospice, and that the Hospice has got damaged by the furore with donors threatening to pull funding if the song was used at the fundraiser. It was pulled, but really how on Earth did they ever think something like that would be suitable for a charity fundraiser.

To balance things up, I’ll link to Grant Robertson responding to Stephen on the issues of midwives and maternity care.  The response, missed the point to me. Women have basically lost the choice of having a GP deliver their children, as GPs have been driven out of the profession.

No Minister has this wonderful quote:

“Prince William landed his chopper in Kate Middleton’s back paddock.”

Heh Heh. Originally picked up by Iain Dale.

Whale Oil has discovered a new Helen Clark site. It gives a different message everytime. Just click reload.

The BBC has a homage of Donald Rumsfield’s best quotes.

Stephen Franks has raised the issue of the Hollow Men play with the Electoral Commission. Nicky Hager was a strong supporter of the Electoral Finance Act, so it would be very ironic if the play based on his book was shut down as it is now an illegal election advertisement.

Let us look at how it may be an advertisement. First take s5(1)(a)(i)

election advertisement means any form of words or graphics, or both, that can reasonably be regarded as … encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote, for 1 or more specified parties…

Now a play is a form of words and The Hollow Men certainly encourages people not to vote for National. So is it exempt? What are the seven exemptions in s5(2)?

1. electoral agency advertisements
2. editorial material in a periodical
3. radio or television programmes
4. media Internet sites
5. books
6. documents published to members or shareholders
7. blogs

So we have established that The Hollow Men play is almost certainly an election advertisement, and is not covered by any exemption. Next we ask is it “published” as defined in s4(1)?

publish, in relation to an advertisement, means to—

(a) print or insert in a periodical published or distributed in New Zealand; or
(b) issue, hand out, or display, to the public; or
(c) send to any member of the public by any means; or
(d) deliver to any member of the public, or leave at a place owned or occupied by a member of the public; or
(e) broadcast (for example, in the form of a radio or television broadcast); or
(f) include in a film or video displayed to the public; or
(g) disseminate to the public by means of the Internet or any other electronic medium; or
(h) store electronically in a way that is accessible to the public

We can rule out (a), (c), (g) and (h). But Stephen makes the case that a play can be considered to be displayed to the public, or delivered to any member of the public. Also if a PA system was used it could be caught up by (e) and if a promo clip for the play is put on You Tube, then that may breach (f).

One can’t say for sure that the Hollow Men play would or would not be illegal, but it shows how far reaching the law is.  It may escape the law only because it does not fit the definition of publish, even though it is defined as an election advertisement.

Now Nicky Hager should be very grateful to the anti-EFA lobbyists that we kicked up such a fuss about the select committee version of the EFB, that they deleted this clause in the definition for publish:

(i) bring to the notice of the public in any other manner

This was the infamous megaphone clause which the select committee added in. It got removed after protests.  But if that clause had remained in, then the case for The Hollow Men play being closed down by the Electoral Finance Act would have been greatly strengthened.

Stephen Franks is back blogging after National’s internal rules prevented him from doing so during the candidate selection process. The rules are to prevent what he calls “Clinton/Obama style fraticide” which is a great way of illustrating it.

Stephen hits back at distortions of his position on issues such as the Prostitution Reform and Civil Union Bills, and defends classicial liberals against what he labels collectivists who has stolen liberal clothing

Grant Robertson has also welcomed Stephen to the contest, and says he is looking forward to debating values, issues and policies. He says it would be good to hear Stephen’s views on National’s policy to keep core public service numbers constant for the next three years.

This might be the first ever contest where both major candidates blog. It will be great if we do get some useful discussions going between blogs.

They have just announced the results of the first ballot and Stephen Franks has won on the first ballot. He gave an exceptionally good speech.