On Tuesday The Post published an op ed from me, arguing that the collapse of the rules based order meant that New Zealand should become the seventh state of Australia. I say:

Since World War II there has largely been a rules-based order which has been very beneficial to small countries like New Zealand. It has allowed us to prosper, and develop strong economic and political relationships with competing powers such as the US and China. The rules-based order was about more powerful countries agreeing to restrain their power, in the interests of global stability and security. …

New Zealand is a minnow country. We do not have, and never will have, the economic or military might to defend our interests. Our protection in the past was the rules-based order.

However Australia is what people call a medium power. We are already highly integrated into Australia with CER. Culturally we are very alike, and we are basically cousins. I say it is time we upgrade from cousins to siblings.

I look at what a combined Australia and New Zealand would be:

• A population of 33 million, taking us from 122nd most populous country to 47th.
• An economy of US$2 trillion (NZ$3.3 trillion) GDP, taking us from the 53rd largest economy to the 12th largest. We would be part of an economy larger than Spain, South Korea and Turkey.
• The combined defence force would have 70,000 active personnel and 35,000 reserves – around half as large as the United Kingdom’s. The defence budget of US$35 billion (NZD$58b) would be the 11th largest in the world – larger than Canada, Poland and Israel.

There has been quite a lot of interest in the argument. I seemingly managed to unite the entire NZ Parliament against me:

If there’s one thing party leaders from all sides of the political spectrum can agree on, it’s that New Zealand should not become Australia’s seventh state.

I am not at all surprised that no party leader would publicly agree with it. I partly wrote what I did, because I think it is a debate we should have – and one MPs can’t actually lead on.

The Post summarised reader response here.

Kevin Norquay does an analysis of the issue here.

Stuff has done an article on it. Also an article with a poll and feedback.

I was interviewed by Heather DPA on NewstalkZB about it.

Liam Hehir argues against.

I was also interviewed about it on The Platform Wednesday afternoon, Radio NZ Wednesday evening and should be on Three News tomorrow.

Also had a lot of interest in Australia with a radio interview with 4BC, and a TV interview with Channel 10. Also covered by 9 News.

My purpose in igniting the debate is I don’t think the status quo is going to work for us in the future. The world has changed, and it isn’t turning back. What we have seen as our strengths in the past, may now be weaknesses. As Canadian PM Mark Carney said “If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu”. And I don’t see how we get to be at the table when we are so small. Europe has the EU. Canada, Australia and the UK are medium powers, as are Japan and South Korea.

Anyway of course it won’t happen anytime soon, but I hope we do debate the issue, and especially the wider issue of what New Zealand needs to do in a might is right world to avoid being on the menu.

The Post reports:

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith and the Electoral Commission are in open disagreement over the date they will be able to deliver full election results, following Goldsmith’s controversial law aimed at speeding up the count.

The Electoral Commission confirmed last week following the announcement of the election for November 7 that full results ‒ including the impact of special votes ‒ would not come until 20 days after the election on November 27, the same period of time it took in 2023.

This is despite a law passed by Goldsmith late last year which banned voters from enrolling during the advance voting period or on election day, aimed at speeding up the final count ‒ with Goldsmith targeting a return to a two-week counting period.

While some elections are obvious enough to be called “on the night”, the tendency for special votes to change a few seats have held up coalition talks from starting in both the 2017 and the 2023 elections.

There is a simple solution here and that is for the Electoral Commission to release daily updates on the revised vote count post-election. This is absolutely standard practice around much of the world. It is ridiculous that on election night we have 100% transparency over the results and then you have a 20 day blackout where no-one but a couple of officials know what is happening with the vote count.

The reality is that by the end of Monday or Tuesday after the election, 90% or more of the special votes are probably counted and known. Daily updates would allow people to work out what the likely distribution of MPs are to a high degree of probability.

This is what used to happen in NZ when the Ministry of Justice used to do the vote count. But the Electoral Commission has refused to do this.

At 5 pm every day after E-Day the Electoral Commission should disclose the latest vote tallies. This would allow people to judge the very very likely final MPs numbers for the purpose of government formation.

IDEA reports on a recent decision from the Supreme Court of Fiji with regards to the 2013 constitution of Fiji.

They had to decide whether the 2013 or 1997 constitution of Fiji was valid, and as importantly whether the amendment provisions in the 2013 constitution were also valid.

The 2013 constitution was not democratically adopted. The Commodore promulgated it. However the Supreme Court found, despite this, it was valid:

The Court held that the 2013 Constitution was legally effective and so the Court did have jurisdiction. It did so by looking to the common law of Fiji, a source of law transplanted from Britain through colonisation and subsequently developed by Fijian courts to meet the circumstances of Fiji.

The common law rule of recognition allows a court to give legal recognition to a constitution that has become integrated into the life of the country and broadly accepted by the people, even though it was made unlawfully after a coup. Drawing on the criteria developed in the 2001 case of Fiji v Prasad, the Court held that the 2013 Constitution had provided the framework for government for 12 years, during which time three elections were held, over 400 laws passed by parliament and many public officials (including the judges themselves) had been appointed.

On this basis, the Court held that the 2013 Constitution was legally effective and provided the Supreme Court with jurisdiction to answer the questions referred to it by the Cabinet. This decision also confirmed that the 1997 Constitution no longer applies.

So that by itself is interesting. A constitution that was imposed by fiat, can become legitimate over time. But of more interest is the amendment provisions:

The Court held that the prohibition on making any changes to the amendment provision and the three-quarter majorities required in parliament and at referendum meant that there was no “workable” pathway to change the 2013 Constitution. It noted that these majorities were “unusually high” in comparison to past practice in Fiji and the constitutions of other democratic countries.

The constitution said that any amendment had to receive not just three quarters of those voting at a referendum, but three quarters of those eligible to vote. So if only 80% of Fijians voted, you would need 94% voting in favour to amend the constitution. The Supreme Court said that this meant there was no effective way to change the constitution, and hence was invalid.

A constitution must be amendable.

The court changed the requirement to only a two thirds majority in Parliament and a majority in a referendum of those who actually vote.

The importance to New Zealand is with regards to those who insist the Treaty of Waitangi is a constitutional document or supreme law, which can over-ride Parliament. If people want the Treaty to be supreme law or constitutional, then there has to be a workable way to amend the Treaty. In the absence of an ability to amend, it can not be a constitutional document.

My view is that the Treaty of Waitangi should be seen as asking to the US Declaration of Independence, rather than say the US Constitution. It is aspirational, not constitutional.

Ani O’Brien has a long and excellent piece on the failure of organ donation reform.

The TLDR version is:

• Strategy released in 2017
• Law change passed in 2019
• Funding of $3 million a year for implementing new strategy derived in Budget 2022
• Organ Donation NZ used all the new funding for existing operations, rather than implementing the new strategy to increase donor rates
• Donation rate in 2017 was 73 and in 2024 was just 70

It is simply unacceptable.

If you needed any more proof that Police Professional Conduct (i.e. the sub-department within the Police which deals with complaints about police misconduct) is biased and will not discipline its own officers, check out this article: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/ipca-finds-police-officers-use-of-force-on-woman-who-gave-him-thumbs-down-was-unlawful/ZNM5AU6NCZDZ3M4ZBBT5PVJ5LE/

A woman was driving when she saw a police car driving in the opposite direction. She held her hand out the window and gave him the thumbs down sign. That was the extent of what happened. The officer signalled for her to stop, but instead she drove 800 metres back to her parents’ house. He claimed that he thought she might be under the influence of drugs or alcohol, but the IPCA found (for a whole variety of reasons explained in its report) that giving him the thumbs down was the real reason he told her to stop.

When she arrived at her house, she asked if he was stopping her because of the thumbs down. According to the IPCA, he did not reply and asked instead for her driver’s licence and details. She refused to provide these and turned away. He then told the woman she was under arrest and tried to grab her. In the process, he tore her shirt and left her bra exposed. She ran off and yelled at her parents for help, and accidentally hurt his finger when she closed the door. (The IPCA found it was accidental.)

She changed her top and then came downstairs with her hands up as her mother tended his injured hand, and told him he could arrest her. He responded by pepper spraying her directly in the eyes multiple times and taking her into custody, even though she had her hands up when she was sprayed. She was charged with failing to stop, failing to provide her name and address, and resisting arrest. This would have led to thousands in legal bills.

The IPCA found the officer was unjustified in stopping her vehicle, and in using subsequent force. The IPCA also found that the officer in question did not have a genuine belief that she might have been using drugs or alcohol. Instead, in the IPCA’s view he was reacting to her thumbs down gesture. Accordingly, the IPCA said he had no right to stop her, arrest her, use force when he grabbed her, attempt to enter her house, or pepper spray her.

The IPCA said that disciplinary proceedings against the officer were appropriate. The Police ignored this and said that giving someone the thumbs down can “reasonably indicate driver impediment” and accordingly the officer’s actions were justified, and the Police did not intend to discipline him. This is despite the fact that the IPCA identified multiple aspects of the officer’s evidence which indicated dishonesty.

The takeaway points are as follows: firstly, PPC simply will not discipline its own officers if there is any possible way to avoid it. I have now seen this again and again and again: not just in this case, and not just in my case, but also in Daniel Maxwell’s case and in other IPCA reports I have read. The woman was pepper sprayed in the face for heaven’s sake. Is there nothing that PPC will not explain away in its own officers?

But secondly, the other point to take from this case is that I hope people are noticing a pattern once again of the IPCA making findings against a police officer and the Police ignoring those findings. It shows, as I have been saying for nigh on a year now, that the IPCA truly are independent and do not have a cozy relationship with Police. This case is another testament to their integrity.

People tend to think being anxious about going to school (even “school aversion”) is a new phenomenon. It isn’t but is does appear to be heightened at present.

I am a life long social-phobe and found going to school very difficult on many occasions – particularly when 10, 12 and my first year of high-school. I had all manner of schemes to avoid school (including the old pot of yogurt and fingers down the throat trick just before the school bus arrived). At time it was extreme. I hated the end of weekends and, very much, the end of school holiday periods. As an adult I became a teacher/Principal and the pattern continued. It was common on a Sunday night to say to my wife; “I don’t want to go to school tomorrow.” Her reply was; “You have to – you are the Principal.”

My parents were not well educated, or wealthy at all, but they were solid folk who felt that I should go to school every day and made it their business to try and get me there.

What works:

– Parents and Grand-Parents being highly supportive of learning and getting themselves involved in the school.
– Parents getting to know teachers as soon as possible to build a mutual accountability re the child’s attendance and learning.
– Challenging genuine problems quickly (e.g. bullying, classroom issues, poor teaching) and without panic.
– Reading to your child every night and using that as a base for also saying … “How did your day go?” That is generally a better time than asking straight after school when the child is probably hot, tired, hungry/thirsty and ready to vent. When you do ask I always have a rule: Before hearing one complaint the child must come up with three things that were good within the day.
– Talk about the purpose of education/school and learning opportunities positively. I despair at the amount of times I thought I had a learning break-though with a child – only to have them return the next day and say something like; “My dad says triganometry sucks and you never use it in the real world.”
– Don’t blandly say; “You have to go – it is the law.” To a child that is simpy not a reason and often just freaks them out.
– Make sure that they have a GREAT morning tea and lunch. It sounds trivial but two moments to look forward to each day is a good starting point.
– Be sure they are involved, as soon as possible, in clubs, sports and activities at school. They are not the deep reason for going to school but anything that gets them there is a good start. I often went because if I didn’t attend school/practice I wasn’t allowed to play 1st XV rugby or 1st XI cricket.
– Don’t stop doing the activities that make the holidays fun for children. One of the reasons I hated “Back to School” times was because things like going fishing, outdoors, friends over, etc … also ceased. Keep giving the child things to look forward to in the afternoons, evenings and weekends.

Schools in NZ are far from perfect, but, on the whole (with some very good home-schooling exceptions) a child is better off going – and pretty much always.

[email protected]

Radio NZ reported:

A former Education Ministry employee says development of the new school curriculum was heavily politicised, causing extensive rewrites and sidelining subject experts.

Claire Coleman made the allegations during a submission to Parliament’s Education and Workforce Select Committee on the government’s Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill.

She told the committee the bill would politicise the education system by giving the government more direct control over the curriculum and over teachers’ professional standards.

I see this as a good thing. The curriculum changes under the pervious Government were often appalling, such as a science curriculum that failed to mention physics, chemistry or biology (off memory.

But it got me interested in the former staffer, so as I do I did a google. Assuming it is the same Claire Coleman, I saw this summary of a 2022 article by her, which says:

This article describes the critical process drama framework and highlights its potential to disrupt the status quo through an agenda of exploration and wonder. Generated through arts-based research exploring process drama as an enactment of critical pedagogy, the cumulative case study drew upon a document analysis of Cecily O’Neill’s Seal Wife workshop and exploration of the ‘mantle of the expert’ dramatic inquiry form. Developed to enact critical process drama, six key concepts – hope, aesthetic, agency, agitation, action and ambiguity – operate as an interwoven and reflexive framework to inform drama practice. Dynamic, relational and essential, these six concepts enact the theories of critical pedagogy and process drama as dialectical, improvisational approaches committed to transformation and social justice. As educators and artists, we cannot dance forever in the imagination or plod along hopelessly in reality. Through critical process drama participants, can operate critically in new worlds and significantly between worlds. We need to travel between and transform through transitions. In the crack between the light and dark we can dance and dance and dance.

I’ve now read this summary four times, and I still don’t understand it. I am sure this is a reflection on my own stupidity, so I am hoping a reader out there can translate the summary into something I can understand.

The Sensible Sentencing Trust has launched a campaign to make the new proposed coward punch law effective. Without minimum sentences, NZ judges will continue to give incredibly light sentences for coward punches that kill.

Look at that difference. The average non-parole prison term in NZ for a coward punch that kills has been around one year (if they get prison at all), while in NSW and Victoria it is around seven years.

The SST is calling for a minimum non-parole period of eight years for coward punchs that kill – recognising it is just one step down from murder.

You can make a submission at their campaign site.

Labour keep claiming that the Government gave the tobacco industry a $300 million tax cut. This was based on reducing the excise on heated tobacco by 50% to see if the price difference would move people form smoking tobacco to heating it. The difference is huge in health terms – it is the combusting of tar in cigarettes that kills you. Heated tobacco is like vaping – not healthy, but better than smoking.

So the $300 million lost revenue would only have occurred if there had been a huge drop in the number of people smoking – which would be a good thing.

Now I’ve seen an OIA which asks how much tax was paid on heated tobacco products, and the answer is $2.3 million in 2024/25. This means the 50% reduction in excise on those products was also $2.3 million.

That is 0.77% of $300 million. So if Labour keep repeating the $300 million lie, you should be aware the actual data is less than 1% of that.

Like many NZers I first heard of Sam Ruthe last year when he started to break NZ age records for the mile and other middle distances.

In March he became the first 15 year old to do a sub 4 minute mile. It wasn’t clear then if he was just going to be an exceptional athlete for his age group, or just exceptional full stop.

But this weekend he ran the 11th faster indoor mile ever in the world. That is an incredible achievement at any age, let alone 16. He also broke John Walker’s 1982 NZ mile record and set a new under 18 world record.

Ruthe is now faster than Sebastian Coe was in 1981 when he set a world record as a 25 year old.

I have a feeling we know who the Halberg Award winner for 2026 is going to be, even with 11 months to go!

Canadian PM Mark Carney got a lot of attention for his speech at Davos where he bluntly said the liberal rules based order we have had for decades is dead, and we need to realise it.

His full speech is here. Some extracts:

Today I will talk about a rupture in the world order, the end of a pleasant fiction and the beginning of a harsh reality, where geopolitics, where the large, main power, geopolitics, is submitted to no limits, no constraints.

No punches pulled.

Over the past two decades, a series of crises in finance, health, energy and geopolitics have laid bare the risks of extreme global integration. But more recently, great powers have begun using economic integration as weapons, tariffs as leverage, financial infrastructure as coercion, supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited.

You cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration, when integration becomes the source of your subordination.

This is correct. It is not just about Trump and the US. It is also about Europe being dependent on Russian gas and about countries like NZ being too dependent on China. Integration can become a took for subordination.

On plurilateral trade, we’re championing efforts to build a bridge between the Trans Pacific Partnership and the European Union, which would create a new trading bloc of 1.5 billion people. 

A great idea.

Argue, the middle powers must act together, because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu.

Sadly we are not a middle power, but Australia is. We need to work more closely with Australia.

We know the old order is not coming back. We shouldn’t mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy, but we believe that from the fracture, we can build something bigger, better, stronger, more just. This is the task of the middle powers, the countries that have the most to lose from a world of fortresses and most to gain from genuine cooperation.

The powerful have their power.

But we have something too – the capacity to stop pretending, to name reality, to build our strength at home and to act together.

Trump may go in 2028, but things won’t return to 2015. The great powers will not try to rebuild a rules based system that limits them.

NZ needs to be working with Australia, Canada, the EU and others to make sure we are not on the menu.

Erica Stanford released:

Students returning to school this week will benefit from a significant change designed to give parents clearer, more consistent information about how their children are progressing at school.

2026 marks the first year of nationally consistent assessment and reporting in primary and intermediate schools, giving parents a clearer picture of their child’s learning and progress, no matter which school they attend.

I am a huge proponent of parents needing to be well informed about how their children are doing. This is a must have, not a nice to have. Education is meant to be a partnership with parents and the school.

• One of five clear progress markers describing learning progress
• An explanation of why that progress marker was chosen and how parents can support next learning steps
• Information on progress over time and attendance
• Information on phonics achievement and twice-yearly progress check-ins

Looks to be really useful info.

Some schools are very very good at keeping parents meaningfully informed of how their kids are going (we’re lucky enough to be at a school that does it really really well), but I have heard so many horror stories from other parents about how hard it is to find out how well their kids are doing being two ten minute meetings a year.

Nationally consistent higher minimum standards will be very useful, and everyone should welcome.

This column by Andrea Vance was actually last March but I only just discovered it, and it is so good it needs repeating. She writes:

In the Chlöe Swarbrick era, the Greens have been reduced to a caucus of anarkiddies posting out a flood of social-justice clickbait.

They indulge in culturally progressive obsessions, moored in symbolism and identity, none of which is accompanied by economic or material analysis.

What a great phrase – anarkiddies. So spot on.

The Greens want a new society. One with no prisons, police, carbon or rent. They want therapy in place of cops and a jobs guarantee.

Their ambitious proposals prioritise systemic change over short-term political feasibility that push the boundaries of what is currently achievable within existing political and economic structures.

As a result, their policies are shallow and sloganeering rather than fully developed, designed more for ideological appeal and political differentiation than for actual implementation.

Just imagine the fun a Labour-Greens-Te Pati Maori Government will be.

Susan Edmonds writes at Radio NZ:

Eligible students can now apply for funds to help with the cost of their final year of study.

But one economist is asking whether it’s the best use of the money.

People who are studying for the first time can now access up to $12,000 for their final year of study or final two years of work-based learning.

The fees-free scheme changed from funding the first year to the final year from 1 January last year.

Better final year than first year.

Infometrics chief executive Brad Olsen pointed to government analysis of the scheme before the change was introduced, which highlighted that it had not achieved many of its objectives.

“It wasn’t lifting participation rates or anything like that. It wasn’t helping people who would not have otherwise gone to university,” he said.

“It wasn’t helping people in a more disadvantaged position. It was basically just making stuff free, which might have felt good, but it didn’t make a real difference in terms of access or engagement or in completions or anything else. And so I think the challenge there was that you were paying a fair amount to subsidise a group of people to start their university career, where they were probably already going to do that.

NZers who get a degree earn on average $1.5 million more than those who only do secondary school. Why are we giving so much money to the future very wealthy.

Matt Ridley writes:

I first wrote a doom–laden article for the Economist about carbon dioxide emissions trapping heat in the air in 1987, nearly 40 years ago. I soon realised the effect was real but the alarm was overdone, that feedback effects were exaggerated in the models. The greenhouse effect was likely to be a moderate inconvenience rather than an existential threat. For this blasphemy I was abused, cancelled, blacklisted, called a ‘denier’ and generally deemed evil.

The effect is very real, but the alarm is definitely overdone. I would call the greenhouse effect as more than a moderate inconvenience. I would call it a significant and complex challenge. But it isn’t and never has been an existential threat.

The activists who took over the climate debate, often with minimal understanding of climate science, competed for attention by painting ever more catastrophic pictures of future greenhouse warming. They altered the name to ‘climate change’ so they could blame it for blizzards as well as heatwaves. Then they inflated the language to ‘climate emergency’ and ‘climate crisis’, even as projections of future warming came down.

Yes it once was global warming, but now they use it to try and blame every natural disaster in the world on it.

‘I’m talking about the slaughter, death and starvation of six billion people this century. That’s what the science predicts,’ said Roger Hallam, founder of Extinction Rebellion, in 2019, though the science says no such thing. ‘A top climate scientist is warning climate change will wipe out humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years,’ tweeted Greta Thunberg in 2018. Five years later she deleted her tweet and shortly after decided that Palestine was a more promising way of staying in the limelight.

Here is what the consensus science of the IPCC says:

• Global surface temperature was 1.09 [0.95 to 1.20]°C higher in 2011–2020 than 1850–1900
• Global mean sea level increased by 0.20 [0.15 to 0.25] m between 1901 and 2018. The average rate of sea level rise was 1.3 [0.6 to 2.1] mm yr-1 between 1901 and 1971, increasing to 1.9 [0.8 to 2.9] mm yr-1 between 1971 and 2006, and further increasing to 3.7 [3.2 to 4.2] mm yr-1 between 2006 and 2018 (high confidence)

So a 20 cm rise in sea levels over the last 117 years.

And what of the future:

• Relative to 1995–2014, the likely global mean sea level rise under the SSP1-1.9 GHG emissions scenario is 0.15–0.23 m by 2050 and 0.28–0.55 m by 2100
• While for the SSP5-8.5 GHG emissions scenario it is 0.20–0.29 m by 2050 and 0.63–1.01 m by 2100 (medium confidence)

So by 2100 the sea level increase with medium confidence is as low as 28 cm in the best case scenario and as high as 1 metre in the most extreme scenario. The extreme scenario would be a significant and complex challenge.

Perhaps Gore might now regret his exaggerated preachings of hellfire and damnation. In his 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth, for which he shared a Nobel prize, he predicted a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet ‘in the near future’ – out by around 19 feet and nine inches. In 2009 he said there was a 75 per cent chance all the ice in the Arctic Ocean would disappear by 2014. In that year there were five million square kilometres of the stuff at its lowest point – about the same as in 2009. This year there were 4.7 million square kilometres. 

The doomsday cult have actually harmed the climate change cause. When doomsday doesn’t happen, people (wrongly) conclude it is all a hoax, rather than it was exagerrated.

Indoor air pollution caused by poor people cooking over wood fires because they lack access to gas and electricity kills three million a year. So yes, Gates, influenced by Lomborg and Wright, is correct to say that getting cheap, reliable, clean energy to the poor is by far the more urgent priority.

Agreed.

This is Eva Vlaardingerbroek, a 29 year old Dutch activist.

The UK Government banned her from visa-free travel on the basis her presence to “not be conducive to the public good”. It happened just days after she criticised Keir Starmer.

The threshold for banning someone from entering a country should be very high – direct incitement to violence. I think Candace Owens is deranged, but she should be allowed to travel to countries and claim that France and TPUSA insiders teamed up to assassinate Charlie Kirk.

In NZ you can marry your cousins, as you can in the UK. The Marriage Act 1955 prohibits you marrying your:

• parent (doh!) or grandparent, child or grandchild
• sibling
• parent’s sibling (aunt, uncle) or sibling’s child (nephew, niece)
• current or former spouses or partners of parents, grandparents, children or grandchildren

In the UK there has been a call to ban cousin marriage. Matt Goodwin writes:

When Keir Starmer was recently asked in Parliament whether he would allow legislation banning cousin marriage to proceed, he declined to give support.

Consistently, Labour has pushed against a private member’s bill introduced by the Conservative Party MP Richard Holden to ban the practice.

This is not an accident; it is a very deliberate choice.

For most of British history, cousin marriage was restricted or discouraged. It became taboo as family sizes shrank, knowledge of the genetic risks that accompany incest grew, and Britain evolved into a modern, open, civilised society.

There is a difference between discourage and ban.

For instance, one recent study, the Born in Bradford project, found that nearly half of all mothers from the Pakistani community in three inner-city wards —46%—were married to their first or second cousin, compared to 1% among White British couples.

Defenders of the practice will say the health risks are often exaggerated.

My grandmother’s parents were first cousins. She lived to 95.

But as Times columnist Matthew Syed has repeatedly noted, the real danger lies not only in isolated cousin marriages, but in repeating the practice across generations — cousins marrying cousins whose parents were also themselves cousins. 

In such cases, the risks compound dramatically. 

This explains why small communities, mainly of Pakistani origin, account for a vastly disproportionate share of recessive genetic disorders, and why parts of the NHS now employ specialist staff to manage the consequences.

As the courageous academic Patrick Nash summarised in a recent paper, children of cousin-marriage are about twice as likely to inherit a serious genetic disorder (which rises significantly in communities with multi-generational cousin-parents), and are far more likely to suffer from cerebral palsy, cystic fibrosis, various cancers, birth defects, cardiovascular conditions, mood disorders, schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s, higher infant mortality rates, and depressed I.Q. scores. 

“In short”, notes Nash, “the adverse biological consequences of cousin marriage are legion, severe, and long-lasting”.

This makes a stronger case, but I am still not convinced. First of all marriage and sex are not the same thing. People can have sex and children without being married. If this is an issue, then it is the incest law you should change, not just the marriage law.

But also you need to be careful about restricting individual choice on the basis of healthcare costs. Would you ban downs syndrome adults from having sex? Would you ban people with Huntingdon’s Disease from breeding? It is a slippery slope.

Education on the health risks of breeding with your cousin is preferable to a ban.

Nearly 80 per cent of the British public, according to recent polling by YouGov, say they support a ban on cousin marriage.

Many people support bans that won’t affect them.

Today I counterprotested yet another anti-Israel protest on Queen Street (specifically, the one protesting Brian Tāmaki) with a sign saying WESTERNERS WHO ATTEND PRO-PALESTINE PROTESTS WITH TRANSGENDER FLAGS ARE HYPOCRITES.

Almost immediately I was accosted by members of the LGBTQI+ community who were there with trans flags. I was asked if I was queer. I said yes. They then called me a “self-hating lesbian” (purely for holding the sign in question) and said I was not representative of the LGBTQI+ community, before swiftly attempting to block my sign from view with a kheffiyeh.

The protest continued up Queen Street and so I followed silently with my sign. Eventually when we came to a stop in a nearby park I sat down with my sign in the shade. Some of the protesters discussed who should stand in front of me to block people’s view of my sign and one of them said “I’ve got it. I have experience dealing with loser lesbians.”

I took a video of them blocking me from view with a sign which is briefly visible at the start of the following video saying (hilariously, because it made my point) “Queer as in: free Palestine! Death to the IOF! ACAB! TRANS RIGHTS! FUCK BRIAN TĀMAKI! TOITŪ TE TIRITI!” Video footage is here: https://youtube.com/shorts/nULe8VyBWlU To my deep amusement, when they saw I was recording they swiftly turned the sign around so that the above caption was not visible.

I then asked them to confirm that they had referred to me as a “loser lesbian”. The person I was addressing denied that she had been the one to say that. I asked her whether she would agree that calling someone a loser lesbian is homophobic. She refused to reply. I caught this exchange on video: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/glC-vdkVQ4s

These people are hypocrites of the highest order. Despite being queer themselves, they are no true allies of LGBTQI+ people. If their concern for LGBTQI+ people were sincere they would apply it in countries most in need of that advocacy. Not only that, but they are willing to engage in homophobic abuse of queer people like me who disagree with them, while at the same time accusing me of being the one who is self-hating. The intellectual dishonesty is limitless.

The Economist commissioned a poll of 600 Venezuelans. The results are:

So only 13% of Venezuelans oppose the capture of Maduro.

So a plurality want the US to run the country. Certainly would be a better choice than the Vice-President.

Elections are what should occur, rather than let the current regime carry on.

This would explain why the poll has been almost ignored by other media.