Creative NZ funds some pretty odd art projects. But in response to COVID-19 they’ve taken taxpayer-funded weirdness to new heights, with a new $16 million ‘Arts Continuity’ fund.

The Taxpayers’ Union has put together a list of highlights from the grants announced so far:

To research and write the first draft of a novel about male affection in hypermasculine spaces.
AWARDED: $13,000

Towards the composition, recording and production of music inspired by the psychogeography of the West Coast.
AWARDED: $34,900

To support the personnel costs and post-production editing for an art documentary based on Papua New Guinea tattoo practice and revival.
AWARDED: $27,500

Towards writing a children’s picture book (text only) about sustainable community activist Helen Dew.
AWARDED: $3,200

To create and develop an online publication, arts learning resources and musical content based on children’s drag theatre show, The Glitter Garden.
AWARDED: $18,000

Towards intensive artistic research and development.
AWARDED: $49,368

Towards the composition and instrumental arrangement of 10 songs for children, from ideas given by children.
AWARDED: $24,600

Towards writing poetry that explores indigeneity and love in the time of climate change.
AWARDED: $17,798

Towards writing a novel about the collapse of democracy in an association of alpaca breeders.
AWARDED: $26,000

Towards a dance concept video showcasing the impact Coronavirus has had on the New Zealand Chinese community.
AWARDED: $24,500

Towards the development of a first draft of a play that explores the menstrual cycle.
AWARDED: $16,766

Towards an Indigenised Hypno-soundscape to take you to the imagined worlds of our Kōrero Pūrākau.
AWARDED: $49,999

Towards development of a movement technique that guides and empowers the participants in becoming specialists in their own body.
AWARDED: $4,530

Towards 3 x hour-long live-streamed electronic music performances with live visual animations, from a kitchen in Paekakariki.
AWARDED: $47,703

Towards a wananga for Maori healing theatre practitioners.
AWARDED: $50,000

Towards composing and recording ten original compositions inspired by emotions felt during the Covid-19 lockdown.
AWARDED: $8,885

Towards development of a new body of work exploring modernism, feminism & queerness, with specific reference to the Otago region.
AWARDED: $30,089

Towards revision and editing of a sailing memoir.
AWARDED: $7,200

Towards a Māori, queer, young adult novel adaptation of Hamlet based on my innovative unproduced screenplay ‘Hamarete’.
AWARDED: $21,000

Towards designing new Māori typefaces for print and digital.
AWARDED: $22,110

Towards the writing, arranging and preproduction of music that forms a song-cycle from the suburban labyrinth.
AWARDED: $21,800

Someone ought to ask the Minister of Arts, Culture, and Heritage what she thinks.

A guest post by Lynne Mitchell:

The current halt of the projected Auckland airport rail link project is cause for tax payer celebration. Rail links to airports have proven a risky for ballooning project costs, years of building disruption and lack of early profitability.

For Auckland, the billions to have been spent on an airport rail link would be better utilised  improving journeys for Auckland area commuters.  By volume of total commuter traveling around cities, airports are not huge destinations.  Aside from tourists, airport workers and business passengers, most Aucklanders would only travel to the airport 3 or 4 times a year.   

Airport rail travel must be convenient and cost competitive or travellers will use alternative transport options.  Buses have advantages of a wider passenger coverage area and ride-sharing services such as Uber are growing. Sydney Airport now has dedicated ride share zones at domestic terminals costing $4 entry. Oakland and San Francisco International airports attribute declines in public transport rider numbers to the growth of ride-sharing companies.

Existing airport rail link projects provide useful insights. In Toronto, the Pearson Airport UP Express light rail link opened in 2015 with the Canadian $456 million cost  possible using some existing rail track and diesel engines. Despite Toronto’s population of 2.8 million, (compared to Auckland’s 1.5 million), the rail link struggled to attract passengers and initially the Provincial Government subsidy was Can.$52.26 each passenger ride! By slashing fares passenger numbers tripled and currently the Government subsidy is Can.$11 per ride. Between April 2016 and March 2017, the UP Express airport rail service cost the Province $68 million to operate. Critics of the Toronto airport rail link say that it is used mainly by tourists and business passengers and has diverted funds away from needed city transport projects.

Sydney airport’s rail link initially failed to meet passenger targets, despite efforts such as cancelling the Airport Express bus service, creating taxi surcharges and more expensive airport parking. In 2000 it went into receivership and after purchase in a receiver’s sale, Government assistance was used to boost passenger numbers by subsidising fares.

The Brisbane Airtrain also failed in early days to meet passenger targets but now returns a small profit. The privately owned Airtrain has monopoly access to provide public transport to Brisbane’s domestic and international terminals until 2036. In 2017, Sydney’s Airport Link and Brisbane Airtrain  carried approximately 17 per cent of the 50 million passengers that passed through both  airports.

The Melbourne airport rail link is set for completion in 2031 with a cost range of 8 to 13 billion. This despite a 2013 study by Public Transport Victoria finding that the prohibitive costs of a Melbourne airport rail link outweighed the benefits. Critics of the service have questioned the cost of moving mainly tourists from the existing 24-hour express Skybus on to rail.

The proposed Edinburgh Airport Rail Link (EARL) project was cancelled on cost grounds following a change of Government.  However in 2007, it was agreed to retain the project as a light rail line between the airport and Edinburgh city centre and the Edinburgh Trams service was launched in May 2014 as a single light rail route from central Edinburgh to the airport.  The trams were originally designed to run for 15 miles from Edinburgh Airport to Leith by 2011 at a cost of £375m but a truncated 9 mile service, stopping in the city centre, opened in 2014 at a cost of £776m with the final bill expected to be bill to about £1bn.  The service has the capacity to carry 21 million people a year but in 2015 the Edinburgh Tram (light rail) carried 5.3 million passengers, running at an average of 25 per cent capacity. It currently costs more and takes longer than the existing airport bus services

A public inquiry has been set up to investigate the huge problems dogging the Edinburgh airport light rail project, which as well as massively over budget, was completed five years later than planned, and caused major disruption for residents and visitors through years of works.

According to The Scotsman, 2017, “Passengers are complaining the airport tram continues to be slower than the bus, and some Edinburgh residents are so furious with the inconvenience it caused they refuse to get on it”. A new scheme in Scotland to build a multi-million-pound link to Glasgow Airport has hit the buffers after experts warned it would do more economic harm than good.

Globally, a well-connected airport rail link is expected to achieve up to 20% of passenger share where the population are already well used to using public transport.  In the United States just 6 of the 50 busiest airports are served by transit options that can save time in typical traffic and many airport rail links do not exceed 7%  of  traffic share

Successful airport rail links share some clear attributes.

• The airport rail link is part of an integrated city transport system with good connectivity to other transport services
• The airport rail link does not terminate at the airport and serves passengers and commuters going on to destinations via the airport stop.  
• The airport rail link connects passengers easily from dispersed suburban locations as well as from the central city.
• Total travel passenger time is efficient in terms of number of stops and the train timetable
• The rail link serves both air travellers and airport employees with operating times suitable for their needs.
• Ease of access for pedestrians at the airport and rail stations i.e. no steps, stairs or long walk distances
• Comfortable seats and room for luggage.
• Easier beginnings. The Heathrow Express was created after a less expensive airport rail service had first been established via the London Underground
• Attractive ride cost. With the average cab fare from Brisbane city to the airport at $47 and the Airtrain fare at $15 a seat, 58 per cent of travellers in groups choose to go by other means than Airtrain.
• The success of an airport rail link is related to the city having a sufficiently large population base.
• High public transport usage is indicative for a successful  airport rail link service with high car ownership a detrimental factor.

Expensive city transport projects need to be well future proofed. A new book, “The Driverless Car Revolution” makes the bold statement, “ Driverless cars are coming and they will change our lives. Pre-screened ridesharing options with driverless cars, door to door will be a new reality Most people will not choose to own these electric vehicles and traffic congestion will plummet”.

Airport rail links around the world have been described as being built mainly for nakedly political reasons, was this any different ?

The Coalition Agreement promised:

A $1b per annum Regional Development (Provincial Growth) Fund, including … planting 100 million trees per year in a Billion Trees Planting Programme

So they clearly promised to fund the planting of a billion trees through the PGF. How have they done?

After three years they are at 3.7% of their ten year target. Almost as big a fail as Kiwibuild.

They try to argue that trees planted by the private sector with no Government funding should be counted also, but that is not what the Coalition Agreement promised – it explicitly refers to funding of them via the PGF.

NewstalkZB reports:

Greens MP Julie Anne Genter today told a Newstalk ZB small business panel discussion the tax policy was a “bottom line” condition that must be met for her party to join into a second Coalition government with Labour.

This means if Labour needs Greens to govern, then there will be a tax on your KiwiSaver funds, your houses etc.

An interesting interview in The Spinoff with Judith Collins. One extract:

Judith Collins says there is a gulf between the way she is received and the response to prime minister Jacinda Ardern.

“I think that the way in which the centre right women are treated is entirely different from centre left women,” she says. Collins puts it down to “the view in which people see that women should be on the softer, caring side – not understanding where money comes from. 

“Well, yeah I do understand where money comes from. It comes from hard work, and other people’s often. I will not manage myself to conform to a view of women that we all need to be soft and cuddly.”

Her career backs up that self-assessment. Before she became an MP she was a lawyer, working across the commercial and tax fields, each still male-dominated, even more so when she entered them in the early 80s. Later, in government, Collins sought out portfolios – corrections, police, energy, revenue – which have seen her commanding areas of the state where the workforce is largely male. 

Her whole working life has existed in spaces designed for men, and some colleagues believe her ability to command those spaces is part of what makes her such a polarising figure. 

I think there is a lot of truth to this.

Stuff reports:

The National Party has promised to expand the ultrafast broadband network to cover 90 per cent of homes within 10 years if elected, bringing fibre broadband to about another 50,000 households.

The current UFB target is to cover 87 per cent of homes by 2022, after two previously expansions from the original goal – which was achieved – of providing 75 per cent coverage by this year.

This sums up the difference between National and Labour. Labour sets targets and fails miserably at them.

National in 2008 set a hugely challenging target of having fibre available to 75% of NZ homes. It got them ahead of schedule, so added in even more targets and we are now able to credibly say 90% of NZ homes will have fibre available.

Its new goal would be to ensure almost all of the remaining 10 per cent of homes could get uncapped 100 megabit per second broadband using copper or wireless technologies by 2030.

I live in a non fibre area. The wireless speeds are not too bad. Have got 85 Mb/s at times.

Labour communications spokesman Kris Faafoi said National’s policy was “very expensive” and it was not clear how the party could afford to pay for it.

Same way they paid for the original 75% – managed it for under $1 billion, which is less than 5% of the cost of Australia’s NBN.

Craig Young, chief executive of the Technology Users Association, previously known as the Telecommunications Users Association, gave National’s technology plan “7 out of 10”.

Its new 90 per cent UFB coverage goal would take fibre to more small settlements and offering 100Mbps uncapped plans to all RBI customers would be a “significant improvement” for them, he said.

“Rolling out fibre a bit further isn’t a bad commitment to make.

“The other side of that is it frees up capacity on other networks.”

An uncapped 100Mbps RBI target would be achievable “if you invested enough”, he said.

Another positive was its plan to offer 1000 tertiary scholarships annually to students from low decile schools to undertake science, technology, engineering and maths degrees, he said.

National has a great track record on UFB and RBI.

Assuming Trump gets to nominate and confirm RBG’s replacement, his judicial appointments will be:

• 3 Supreme Court Justices (out of 9)
• 53 Appellate Court Judges (out of 179)
• 159 District Court Judges (out of 678)
• 22 other judges

He is likely to end up with over 200 district court appointments, but the real impact is the number of Judges to the Appeal Courts as only 2% of their decisions get appealed.

Here’s the list of Presidents who have appointed the most Appellate Judges:

1. Reagan 83/8 years
2. Clinton 66/8 years
3. GW Bush 62/8 years
4. Carter 59/4 years
5. Obama 55/8 years
6. Trump 53/3.5 years
7. FDR 51/13 years
8. Nixon 51/8 years

So Trump has appointed the most proportional to his time in office.

The leading contenders for the Supreme Court are:

• Amy Comey Barrett, aged 48, 7th circuit
• Barbara Lagoa, aged 52, 11th circuit
• Allison Jones Rushing, aged 38, 4th circuit

I am going to profile each major area where Labour has failed to deliver on their promises. The first is their most major – Kiwibuild.

They promised 100,000 Kiwibuild homes in ten years. The black line shows the 100,000 target pro-rata over ten years. The brown line shows their actual detailed promise of how many by when and the red line their actual delivery.

But that is only the three years to date. Let’s look at the ten year picture.

Labour promised that by now they would be producing over 800 affordable homes a month. In reality they have not even managed that many in over two years.

The Kiwibuild policy was the biggest con job of our lifetimes. The promise of 100,000 affordable homes made young NZers think that there would be an affordable house just waiting for them to win in the ballot.

Here’s who won the debate according to various journalists and pundits:

• Luke Malpass – Collins
• Audrey Young – Collins
• Simon Wilson – Ardern
• Claire Trevett – Collins
• Fran O’Sullivan – Collins

Spot the odd one out!

Use this thread for comments on who you think is winning the debate, and comments after the debate on how it went.

The One News Colmar Brunton poll is:

• Labour 48% (-5%)
• National 31% (-1%)
• ACT 7% (+2%)
• Greens 6% (+1%)
• NZ First 2% (nc)
• New Conservatives 2%
• TOP 1%
• Advance NZ 1%

Obviously still a great result for Labour, despite dropping 5%. But if they drop another 5% then it gets interesting.

It looks like NZ First are out of it. The Greens are far from safe also. Last election ONCB had the Greens poll 8.0% and they got 6.3% – a 1.7% difference. If that occured again they’d get 4.3%. Not guaranteed you get the same error but over all eight MMP elections the Greens on average do 1.1% worse than the polls. So very tight for them.

If no Greens then it is Labour 48% and National/ACT on 38%. Still a large 10% margin but one that is closeable.

Again this is a good poll for Labour and the left – no doubt. But if the Greens under-perform as usual, then Labour needs to stay in the high 40s to be safe.

The Taxpayers’ Union has released a list of questions that should be asked at tonight’s TVNZ leaders’ debate – and at tonight’s separate finance debate in Queenstown.

What would you ask if you were moderating the debates?

Questions for Jacinda Ardern and Judith Collins:

Is tax theft – or love?

Would you rule out a return to level 4 lockdown under any circumstances? Is elimination still your COVID-19 strategy?

When will taxpayers find out what’s happening with Ihumātao? How much of our money will you fork out for the land?

What actions should central government take when local councils become dysfunctional? Will you support recall election proposals supported by Local Government NZ and the Taxpayers’ Union?

Is this the most open and transparent Government ever? How would you increase transparency?

Will you rule out a wealth tax under your leadership, regardless of your coalition partners? What about a death tax? Or new sin taxes, like on sugar?

Will you continue policies that give handouts for individual businesses, or will you pursue broad economic relief?

Will you rule out a bailout for Tiwai Point?

Are New Zealanders overtaxed, or undertaxed?

The median house price is $675,000 – and almost a million in Auckland. Would you work to change this? How?

Questions for the finance debate:

How much should the government spend as a proportion of GDP?

Are you comfortable with the projected $149,600 in per-household government debt for 2033/34? How will you pay it back?

Will your Government freeze – or roll back – fuel taxes?

Spot test: name five spending items that your government would abolish.

What will you do with the remaining $14 billion in the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund?

Will you adjust income tax brackets for inflation? If not, why not?

Will you increase New Zealanders’ access to their own money held in KiwiSaver?

Spot test: name three regulatory taxes you would roll back or abolish.

Would your party support a temporary cut to GST like the United Kingdom did for VAT after the Global Financial Crisis?

Who should make individual funding decisions – politicians or officials?

How will your Government make superannuation more affordable for taxpayers? Will you lift the age, means test, or something else?

Would your Government make corporates owned by religious organisations pay tax?

Do you accept that company tax in New Zealand is too high?

Dileepa Fonseka writes at Newsroom:

Now the Labour-led government is pushing ahead with a plan to charge families like hers 25 percent of their income for staying in these emergency motels.

The change was announced in February, set to come into place in March, but was delayed due to Covid-19. 

Now it will come into effect on October 19 – two days after the election.

The Government argues it is a question of fairness along with a much-needed incentive to get people out of emergency housing and into private, transitional or social housing.

If a state house costs you 25% of your income (which is also hugely subsidised) and emergency housing costs you nothing, then you’re not going to be in a hurry to move out.

In fact it creates really perverse incentives. If you damage your state house and get evicted, then you get to stay for free in a motel.

So on this issue, Labour is doing the right thing.

News.com.au reports:

Scott Morrison has all but confirmed income tax cuts will be brought forward in the budget after slamming a new advertising campaign arguing against the move as “taking money out of people’s pockets”.

The Prime Minister’s blunt response was triggered by a new national campaign to be launched by the left-wing think tank the Australia Institute today urging the Morrison Government not to fast-track income tax cuts in the October 6 budget.

The campaign, which will be rolled out on television screens from tonight, is arguing against the early introduction of legislated tax cuts worth up to $2565-a-year.

The tax cuts, worth $20 billion, were scheduled to come into force in 2022.

Australia moving fast in the direction of allowing workers to keep more of what they earn.

A guest post by Simon Lusk:

Alliance Group’s failure to completely repay the wage subsidy is disgraceful. They have reinforced their disgrace by repaying half of the wage subsidy.

The wage subsidy was for companies that had an actual or projected fall in revenue of more than 30%. This was necessary to support those businesses that were forced to shut down or alter their business practices substantially during the Covid lockdown in the autumn.

Alliance Group appears not to fit this criteria. They were an essential service that continued to operate during the lockdown. They were outliers in an industry that did not take the wage subsidy. Others in the industry did not claim the wage subsidy because they were able to continue operating in a market where demand & prices did not drop by more than 30%.

Alliance paying back some of their subsidy is incomprehensible. They either have a fall in revenue of more than 30% in which case they are entitled to keep the entire amount, or they have not had a fall in revenue of more than 30% and they should pay back the entire amount.

Alliance is a strong, profitable company that should be doing its part in helping rebuild the economy. The retained wage subsidy is less than the profits they made last year. Instead they chose to take corporate welfare. They may be able to justify doing so, but they may not,and and it is important that an impartial referee adjudicates.

That is why I have sought leave of the court to bring a private prosecution against the Non Executive Directors of Alliance Group. I want an impartial adjudication of Alliances actions, on the public record and for all to see. Non Executive Directors are well remunerated for their governance role, but this role comes with consequences. This case aims to make the consequences personal, not something the directors can avoid by hiding behind the corporate structure.  

Alliance’s financial results will be made public in November if they following their normal practice. Then it will be absolutely clear whether they have had a 30% fall in revenue due to Covid, or if they have claimed a subsidy they do not deserve.

Even without the financial results, Alliance’s actions, market dynamics & their competitors not taking the wage subsidy provide plenty of evidence that they should have paid back the entire wage subsidy. While this is my opinion, there is an impartial process to prove whether my opinion is right, or Alliance is right. Let the courts adjudicate, and let the Non Executive Directors of Alliance front up in court and put on the public record their justification for retaining any part of the wage subsidy.

Newshub reports:

A document obtained by Newshub under the Official Information Act shows the school had a crack at getting far less funding last year but failed.

It wanted just under $1m – that was declined. But when it applied for 12 times that – the funding was approved.

“James got his nose out of joint and fought for it to be restored through the shovel-ready money,” Jones says.

The application was refused partly because it wouldn’t create sustainable new jobs. The school’s now promising to create 200 jobs.

In the 2019 application – for a fraction of the funding – the school was promising in excess of 100 new jobs.

Documents say: “the applicant estimates that the project will bring in around [redacted] in economic benefit on annual basis and will create at least 100 jobs linked to the project.”

It was an attempt by the school to market it as a tourism attraction like its counterpart in Bali. The documents outline the school’s proposal “to support the building of tourist amenity infrastructure (visitor centre and café)”.

But officials in the Provincial Development Unit which determines PGF funding were sceptical.

“The success of the Bali operation may not be an appropriate indication of the likelihood of success for a venture based in Taranaki. There is insufficient market research to justify that it will be successful.”

The claims are so nonsensical that it was of course right for PGF officials to turn down the funding. The notion that tourists will flock from all over the world to visit Taranaki because of the Green School is farcical.

But alas for the taxpayers James Shaw gave them 12 times as much.

Isn’t this telling in terms of the Government’s incompetence. We are not talking about narrowly missing a few targets. On almost every major area they have either missed it by a mile, or actually gone backwards.

This is a graphical version suitable for sharing.

And for data nerds, the references:

References

• Kiwibuild – https://www.hud.govt.nz/news-and-resources/statistics-and-research/government-build-programme-housing-dashboard/
• Trees – https://www.mpi.govt.nz/funding-and-programmes/forestry/one-billion-trees-programme/about-the-one-billion-trees-programme/
• Migration – Stats NZ Infoshare Table ITM399AA
• Electric vehicles – https://www.procurement.govt.nz/broader-outcomes/reducing-emissions-and-waste/reducing-government-fleet-emissions/
• Housing – https://msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/statistics/housing/index.html  and https://twitter.com/henrycooke/status/1307827326407770112
• Climate Change – https://www.mfe.govt.nz/climate-change/emissions-reduction-targets/projected-emissions
• Child Poverty – https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/child-poverty-statistics-year-ended-june-2019
• Govt workforce – https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/our-work/workforce-data/public-service-workforce-by-region/
• Electricity – https://www.mbie.govt.nz/building-and-energy/energy-and-natural-resources/energy-statistics-and-modelling/energy-statistics/electricity-statistics/
• Tertiary Education – https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/tertiary-education/participation

This story by the ABC former bureau chief in China is a compelling read.

Because he reported the truth, the Government threatened not just him, but his 14 year old daughter.

It’s just another sign that China has decided to head down the more repressive path after a decade or more of becoming less repressive. Very sad.

A nice tribute from the Federalist Society:

Justice Ginsburg will be best remembered as a legal pioneer and advocate for women’s rights.  But she should also be remembered as a lawyer’s lawyer. Her success as an advocate took root in large measure in her discipline in selecting cases and in carefully reading precedent—both for what it included and what it omitted.

It’s been said that what was at the root of the famous Ginsburg/Scalia friendship was their shared extra-curricular tastes, most notably opera. That’s true, but it’s only part of the story.  Their shared respect for good legal craftsmanship was also a central, if largely overlooked, foundation for their friendship. Both cared a lot about the force of reason in their opinions. 

Each firmly believed that mature people could in good faith take different views on even the most important legal questions without being histrionic or posing a threat to their adversary’s feelings. Instead, they saw their differences as providing each other with an opportunity to sharpen their own thinking. Justice Ginsburg put it best: “When we disagreed,” she said, “my final opinion was always clearer and more convincing than my initial circulation. Justice Scalia honed in on all the soft spots, energizing me to strengthen my presentation.” Of Justice Scalia’s dissent from her majority opinion in the VMI case, which Scalia made a point of sharing with her as soon as possible, she said, “He absolutely ruined my weekend, but my opinion is ever so much better because of his stinging dissent.”

Although no-nonsense and somewhat intimidating at oral argument, off the bench Justice Ginsburg brimmed with graciousness, class, and strength. Despite being an important person and even a “rock star”—or as much of a rock star as a Supreme Court Justice gets to be—she did not act the part. When she came to her friend Judge Robert Bork’s funeral, she walked in with no entourage or fanfare, sat in a back pew, listened to the service, and quietly left.

Not many people could one-up Antonin Scalia, but Justice Ginsburg did on at least one occasion.  The two had been on a trip to India, where they rode together on an elephant. At a joint appearance following the trip, Justice Scalia asked her if her feminist friends were disturbed that he was sitting in front. Not at all, she replied. She had explained to them that the elephant driver had said their placement was “a matter of distribution of weight.” The audience roared, as did Justice Scalia.

About two years ago, Justice Ginsburg wrote the foreword to Scalia Speaks, an edited collection of Scalia’s speeches. She concluded the foreword: “If our friendship encourages others to appreciate that some very good people have ideas with which we disagree, and that, despite differences, people of goodwill can pull together for the well-being of the institutions we serve and our country, I will be overjoyed, as I am confident Justice Scalia would be.”  

Now, even as we mourn Justice Ginsburg’s passing, we can be grateful for the legacy of robust argument and warm good faith she leaves us.

The Ginsburg-Scalia friendship was an awesome example of how people can disagree strongly but treat each other as good patriotic people.

Newsweek reports:

A new TikTok trend has emerged this week as former “Harry Potter” fans protest author J.K. Rowling’s widely criticized views on trans people by burning copies of her books.

One video, posted by TikTok user @elmcdo shows a number of “Harry Potter” books being placed on a burning pyre.

The bookburners are living up to their historical legacy.

The voice-over continues: “The positive impact that J.K. Rowling’s work had on millions of readers does not negate how her hateful lobbying has affected the trans community.

“This doesn’t even touch on the harmful fatphobia, racism and valorization of supramacists and child abusers in her most famous work.

OMG, Harry Potter has fatphobia!