Duncan Garner writes:

Yet right now she carries so much political capital she could probably pass two capital gains taxes but that’s not the point. This decision matters next year when Labour is heading into an election campaign.
The environment next year must not be confused with now. She won’t have political capital and trust like she does right now. She’ll also be selling climate change measures in a slowing economy and the jobless numbers could be rising. 
And let’s be honest the housing market has gone cold – especially in Auckland. This week at the lunchtime Bayleys Auction 8 out of 8 houses did not sell. 
And here’s the real reality check, there was not one bid on any house. Two apartments sold, one for barely the same price as 3 years ago. 
So the desired effect has happened, the housing market has cooled and first home buyers are back. It does not need a huge tax shift that could slow the economy even further. This economy needs certainty and confidence not a half baked tax shift that could backfire. 

House prices have naturally corrected. The market has been flat for a couple of years now.

A CGT will impose huge compliance costs on hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders and have little impact on house prices.

Yahoo reports:

At just 37, Pete Buttigieg has deployed to Afghanistan, graduated from Harvard, learned seven languages and serves as mayor of a Midwestern American city.
Now the Millennial Renaissance man is seeking to become the first openly gay president of the United States — and the youngest — a longshot 2020 prospect whose odds appear to improve by the week.

I was listening to a live recording of the popular US Politics Gabfest podcast and was amazed by how many people in the audience cheered when Buttigieg’s name was mentioned.

In theory someone who has never held higher office that Mayor of a small city (301st by population in the US) should have no chance. But hey Trump never held any elected office before President. The rules have changed.

Buttigieg happens to be gay but isn’t campaigning as an identity politics activist (which upsets some on the left). His military service, earnestness, and sheer intelligence has gathered him a cult following.

He draws sharp contrasts with Trump on multiple fronts including age, government experience, military service, campaign style, and “intellectual curiosity,” she added.
“Every single thing about him is in diametric opposition” to the president, she said.
Buttigieg is relishing his breakout moment, fuelled by a star turn headlining a recent town hall that saw his national profile skyrocket.
Bookish and smart, he refutes the charge that he’s too young and inexperienced to compete in the diverse Democratic field, or against Trump himself.
“I have more years of government experience under my belt than the president… and more military experience than anybody to walk into that office on day one since George H.W. Bush,” he said at the event, broadcast by CNN.
“So I get that I’m the young guy in the conversation, but I would say experience is what qualifies me to have a seat at this table.”

Not lacking confidence.

In Iowa, Buttigieg surged from one percent support to 11 percent and third place in Emerson Polling’s survey released Sunday, behind former vice president Joe Biden and Senator Bernie Sanders and ahead of more prominent candidates like senators Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren.

One huge advantage Buttigieg will have is no voting record on national issues to attack.

CNBC reports:

The United States became the world’s biggest oil producer in 2018, and over the next five years, the nation will take aim at becoming the top oil exporter, according to the International Energy Agency.
IEA forecasts U.S. exports of crude oil and petroleum products will nearly double, hitting about 9 million barrels per day by 2024. At that level, the U.S. will surpass Russia’s shipments and threaten to unseat Saudi Arabia, the current top exporter.

That’s incredible. For decades the US was totally dependent on oil from the Middle East. Now they will be producing more than Saudi Arabia thanks to fracking technology.

Pulling ahead of Russia and Saudi Arabia in exports would further erode their influence in the oil market.
Saudi Arabia and Russia have formed an alliance in recent years, coordinating oil production among OPEC and other oil-producing countries. The so-called OPEC+ alliance has capped output for much of the last two years, helping to boost oil prices after a punishing downturn.

OPEC is basically a cartel. The less market power they have, the better it is for consumers.

Stuff reported:

The trial of a new form of public transport in one of Auckland’s wealthiest suburbs is praying for rain after making a slow start.
AT LOCAL, which is a New Zealand-first, is a new form of public transport that’s currently being trialled for a year at an estimated cost of $1.3 million.
The Uber-style service provided by Auckland Transport allowed residents of Devonport to request a pick-up via an online app by one of five dedicated electric vehicles which then takes them home or to a nearby ferry wharf.
But after three months the number of people expected to use the service on a weekly basis have not even reached half of the modest target set by Auckland Transport.

So ratepayers have paid $1.3 million for a service run by the Council which is near identical to Uber.

Global News reports:

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appears to have suffered more damage from the SNC-Lavalin scandal than U.S. President Donald Trump has from the Russia investigation, hush money payments to a porn star, alleged campaign finance violations, threats of impeachment proceedings and the litany of new investigations launched by Democrats.
That’s according to a new Ipsos poll, conducted exclusively for Global News, which found that Trudeau’s approval rating (40 per cent) has now slipped below Trump’s (43 per cent), even as the Conservative Party established a double-digit lead over the Liberals.

Even worse is the voting preference which is 40% Conservatives, 30% Liberals, 21% NDP. And women have deserted them the most – only 28% of women now voting Liberal.

Current odds are:

1. Environment Secretary Michael Gove 7:2
2. Cabinet Office Minister David Liddington 6:1
3. Former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson 6:1
4. Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt 10:1
5. Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab 12:1
6. Home Secretary Sajid Javid 12:1
7. Work & Pensions Secretary Amber Rudd 49:1

Matthew Hooton writes:

There are theoretically four candidates to replace Peters but, if there is a change, NZ First MPs have no more choice than National MPs with Judith Collins, than to anoint Shane Jones.
While more internationalist than Peters, Jones would need to respect NZ First’s heritage by becoming the champion of globalisation’s victims and broadening the party’s appeal to small business owners — the so-called “white vans”. Jones’ Labour background might help attract its remaining conservative males.
If Peters accepts change is needed to assure his legacy, he may agree to forgo the leadership but try to remain Deputy Prime Minister. This would be a mistake.
If Jones is to get NZ First back above 5 per cent, it must be him voters see alongside Ardern over the next 18 months. He must become as much part of the political furniture as Peters for so many years. Bad behaviour won’t work post-March 15.

So Hooton argues Jones must become Deputy Prime Minister in order for NZ First to survive.

That would be very interesting indeed.

An insightful speech by Phil Twyford to the NZ Initiative. The key part is:

The second challenge I identified was a planning system based on urban containment.
That containment has acted to hobble vertical growth.
Height and density restrictions have stopped our cities growing up, preventing efficient land use, blocking the development of more affordable housing options like flats, terraces, town houses and apartments.
Environment Minister David Parker and I are working on national direction under the RMA that will set clear parameters for Council plan making to incentivise quality intensification.
The aim is to encourage density done well particularly around rapid transit interchanges and corridors.
It will also inject a significant increase in the quantum of development opportunities in the market.
That is vertical expansion. Now for the horizontal.
Our aim is to bring down urban land prices by flooding the market with development opportunities.
We want to break the current land market model which sees the planning system and infrastructure financing logjam create an artificial scarcity of land.
Incremental relaxation of the Urban Growth Boundary and zoning changes simply drip feed small amounts of new land, and new subsivisions, into a highly speculative market.
This is the land banking and speculation model that characterises the greater Auckland land market.

Twyford in opposition promised to abolish the Auckland Rural Urban boundary. If he can deliver on that, it will have a huge impact on house prices.

The Herald reports:

The Parole Board’s decision to release convicted killer Paul Wilson was a reasonable one, despite him going on to kill again, an independent review has concluded.
Paul Russell Wilson, aka Paul Pounamu Tainui, 55, was today jailed at the High Court in Christchurch for life with a minimum non-parole period of 28 years for murdering Nicole Marie Tuxford, 27, in Christchurch last year while on life parole – 24 years after he killed former girlfriend Kimberly Schroder in Hokitika.
The shocking case prompted the Parole Board to commission an independent review of its involvement with Wilson who was released on parole in 2011 — after being denied an early release four times previously.
Both the Tuxford and Schroder families have slammed the decision to allow Wilson back into the community.

The review was carried out by Devon Polaschek, a distinguished forensic clinical psychologist, professor of psychology, and joint director of the New Zealand Institute of Security and Crime Science, University of Waikato.
In findings released today, Polaschek concluded that the decision to grant Wilson parole was “a reasonable one”.

A reasonable one possibly, but also a disastrously wrong one.

Offenders whose convictions include a single, relationship-related homicide, but who have little criminal history otherwise, pose some challenges for decision-makers, she noted.
“It is well understood in the international research literature that those who murder a current or former intimate partner with few or no previous convictions for other types of offending are very unlikely to be reconvicted in a similar way, or at all,” said Polaschek, a former Fulbright scholar.
New Zealand data going back to 1972 found that the likelihood of a person convicted of a homicide being convicted of a second homicide following parole was in the region of 0.4 per cent. 

That is the wrong question. Of course double murderers are very rare. The data that is more pertinent is how many people convicted of homicide, go on to commit any sort of further violent offence once released?

The Herald reports:

ANZ’s Business Outlook Survey for March showed the New Zealand economy is “quietly losing steam”, the bank said.
The bank said “headline” business confidence fell 7 points in the month and a net 38 per cent of respondents reported that they expected general business conditions to deteriorate in the year ahead.
Firms’ expectations for their own activity eased 5 points to a net 6 per cent expecting a lift.
“Most activity indicators eased slightly in March, consistent with our expectation that the economy is quietly losing steam” ANZ chief economist, Sharon Zollner, said.

Zollner said the New Zealand economy was delicately poised.

So a really good time to introduce a new tax that will punish people for investing in businesses.

The Herald reports:

A double-killer who savagely raped and murdered a young Christchurch woman 24 years after he first killed an ex-girlfriend in a chillingly similar case has today been sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 28 years.
Paul Pounamu Tainui, aka Paul Russell Wilson, 55, will be at least 83-years-old before he can even be considered for a release from jail.

A pity the court turned down the prosecution request for LWOP. The families of the two victims will still be alive in 28 years and they shouldn’t have to go through the trauma of submitting to the Parole Board to keep him in jail.

Someone who has murdered twice, should never be given a third chance.

The Guardian reports:

A first attempt by MPs to find a consensus route forward for Brexit has ended in deadlock and confusion after the Commons rejected every option put forward, albeit with a near-even split on the idea of joining a customs union.
Oliver Letwin, the veteran Conservative MP who led the process which allowed backbenchers to seize control of the order paper to hold a series of indicative votes, said the results were “disappointing” but he hoped a new round of votes would be held on Monday.
The Speaker, John Bercow, said he would allow this to take place, prompting shouts of protests from many MPs.
The Brexit secretary, Stephen Barclay, said the results strengthened the government’s view that Theresa May’s Brexit deal was the best and only way forward.

It is clear it is May’s deal or no Brexit.

The closest result was a commitment for the government to negotiate a “permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union with the EU” in any Brexit deal. Put forward by the pro-EU Tory veteran Ken Clarke and others, it was voted down by 272 votes to 264.
The only other relatively close vote was on a plan drawn up by the Labour MPs Peter Kyle and Phil Wilson, and tabled by the former foreign secretary Margaret Beckett, to require a referendum to confirm any Brexit deal. This was lost by 268 votes to 295.
Other softer Brexit options sustained heavier defeats. A plan for “common market 2.0”, involving UK membership of the European Free Trade Association (Efta) and European Economic Area (EEA), had 188 votes in support and 283 against.
The Labour frontbench plan for a softer Brexit was defeated by 237 to 307, while a motion tabled by the Conservative MP George Eustice, which proposed staying in Efta and the EEA without a customs union, only gained 65 votes, with 377 against.
The final three votes were also decisive, and concerned other areas of Brexit. A Conservative Brexiter plan to propose leaving the EU without a deal on 12 April lost by 160 votes to 400; a Scottish National party plan to revoke article 50 lost by 184 to 293; and another Brexiter plan seeking preferential trade arrangements with the EU if there is no withdrawal agreement lost by 139 to 422.

This is why 650 can’t negotiate a deal. It’s madness.

Time to back May’s deal or betray the results of the referendum.

Newshub reports:

New Zealand’s Jewish community is outraged and revolted after a prominent mosque leader blamed Mossad for being behind the Christchurch terror attack.
On Saturday, a group called Love Aotearoa Hate Racism organised a rally for the victims in Auckland’s Aotea Square.
Ahmed Bhamji, chairman of the Mt Roskill Masjid E Umar, gave a speech questioning where the gunman got his funding from. He said he suspected it came from “Mossad” and “Zionist business”.

It is such a shame that Bhamji did this, at a time when communities are trying to support each other.

His speech is clearly anti-Semitic in trying to blame Jews for the acts of the white supremacist terrorist.

As reprehensible as his speech was, it is worth putting in context. He said stuff in a speech likely to incite hostility against Jews. But he didn’t actually condone violence or commit acts of violence. So let’s not use his stupidity to minimise what happened in Christchurch or suggest any equivalence.

What is worth focusing on, is have there been any consequences for the speech?

Newshub spoke to Love Aotearoa Hate Racism co-founder Joe Carolan, who said Bhamji was one speaker out of 30 and there were many different points of view at the event.
When asked whether he agreed with or believed the theory that Mossad were behind the attack, Carolan told Newshub “absolutely not”.

Carolan is a far left activist. He basically seems to say that it’s not a problem as he was just one speaker of 30 and others had different views. Considering the group is called Hate Racism, you’d think he’d take a stronger stand against one of his invited speakers saying a terribly racist thing at his rally.

But Moses says the event organisers should have publicly disagreed with Bhamji.
“It is unfortunate that they did not appear to put its anti-racism message into practice, by challenging or condemning the racism in their midst,” she told Newshub.
“We must call out hateful dehumanising language, whatever the source, target and circumstances, and even when it is not politically expedient to do so.”

If someone says something deeply racist at an anti-racism rally, then intervening would be appropriate.

Newshub contacted Bhamji, who accused Newshub of singling him out.
“I made a statement, a lot of other people made statements,” he said.

Bhamji defended his speech, saying an inquiry is needed into where the alleged gunman got his money from. He didn’t offer any proof to his speculation Mossad had funded the alleged gunman.

“Mossad is up to all these things,” he said. “When I talk about Mossad, why should the Jews be upset about it? Give me an answer?”

Bhamji seems totally unrepentent. As we see reports every day of people losing jobs because of racist statements they may have made, are there any consequences for Bhamji for his racist statements?

I suspect the vast majority of Muslims in New Zealand are appalled by this man’s speech. Don’t think he is representative. But it would be good if he was removed from his position of authority.

The Washington Post reports:

Prosecutors in Cook County, Ill., dropped charges against Jussie Smollett on Tuesday, an astonishing reversal that came a month after the actor was arrested, charged with lying to police about a bigoted attack and pilloried by Chicago’s top police official on live television.
Prosecutors announced their decision only 18 days after a grand jury had indicted him on 16 felony counts, citing Smollett’s history of volunteer work and two days of community service performed by the actor since his arrest, as well as his agreement to forfeit his $10,000 bond to the city.

So he got off because he donated $10,000 to the city and did two days community service.

Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson said Smollett and his attorneys “chose to hide behind secrecy and broker a deal to circumvent the judicial system.”
Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D) said: “This is, without a doubt, a whitewash of justice and sends a clear message that if you’re in a position of influence and power, you’ll get treated one way, other people will be treated another way. There is no accountability.”

Absolutely right. A shameful decision by the prosecutors.

As with other online platforms, Kiwiblog has been considering what changes in restrictions on commenting are appropriate in light of the terrorist attack in Christchurch. This blog post is to update people on what my thoughts and decisions are.

I thought it would be useful to examine and comment on the different aspects of the terrorist’s actions and purported beliefs.

Murder and Violence

The terrorist killed 50 people. He believed his beliefs justified violence and killing. There are lots of people with strong beliefs but very very very few who think it is okay to kill innocent people, let alone actually do it.

Any incitement to serious violence is of course not acceptable on Kiwiblog, and never has been. In fact I have on two occasions supplied information to the Police when a comment was seen as a serious threat.

White Supremacy

The terrorist was a white supremacist. He judges people based on their skin colour or where they are born. He doesn’t think non-white people should live in “European countries”

Again such views and beliefs are not and never have been acceptable on Kiwiblog. Judging people based on where they were born, their bloodline or the colour of their skin is repulsive. Human beings should be regarded as individuals not just members of a group.

It is acceptable to discuss differences between nationalities and races, if done in a considered way. For example why do Asian students do so well at American universities. Why do black athletes dominate certain running categories etc.

Anti-immigration

The terrorist says he was profoundly anti-immigration, linked to his white supremacy. He claimed Jews were okay so long as they live in Israel. Muslims are okay as long as they live in a Muslim country. Asians are okay so long as they live in Asia. He says that he saw legal immigration as a very bad thing.

His views are repugnant to me. I am a huge fan of controlled immigration. I think NZ has a generally excellent immigration system where anyone can qualify for residency regardless of race, nationality or religion. What counts is their education, age, income, wealth, English language proficiency job skills etc. I think immigration is both economically and culturally good for New Zealand, so long as immigrants successfully integrate into New Zealand communities. And the vast majority do, or at least their children do which is most important.

But there are a range of legitimate views on immigration. Labour campaigned at the last election to slash immigration numbers by tens of thousands. New Zealand First has campaigned against immigration for decades, and has a history of statements attacking Asian immigration.

I may disagree with those views, but if people wish to post in favour of Labour party policy or NZ First party policy on immigration, they should be allowed to do so here.

But there is a difference between debating immigration policy and the pros and cons of immigration and scapegoating immigrants who are already here. Statements suggesting people who have chosen New Zealand as their home should not be here will not be acceptable.

Islamophobia

I use the term Islamophobia here as it is commonly used. But for reasons which will become clear, I find it an unhelpful term.

When it comes to religion, it is a fact that there is huge antipathy in many quarters to Islam, compared to other religions. Why is this? Why does Islam have such antipathy which Hinduism doesn’t, Buddhism doesn’t, Taoism doesn’t, Shinto doesn’t, Sikhism doesn’t, and Baha’i doesn’t?

The obvious answer is because of the number of terror attacks that are done in the name of Islam or motivated by an interpretation of Islam.

All religions have some attacks done in their names. Northern Ireland had religious conflict for many decades, for example. But the number of attacks in the name of Islam are exponentially higher than any other religion.

A website that tracks such attacks has recorded (and there will be many they miss) 36,958 attacks since 9/11 (the most well known attack). That is over 2,000 attacks a year or 175 attacks a month, 40 attacks a week or 5 attacks a day.

The toll from these attacks is monumental. 225,000 innocent victims have been killed. That is equivalent to the population of Wellington. A further 306,000 have been injured – equivalent to the combined population of Hamilton and Tauranga.

The reason there is antipathy towards Islam in many quarters is because people are scared. They want these attacks to stop. It doesn’t matter they still have a higher chance of being killed in a road accident. You can’t just tell people to ignore almost 37,000 attacks. And these attacks are not just in a few “hot spots”. They have occurred in 101 different countries.

Do not for a second interpret this as minimising the slaughter in Christchurch. Every human life lost to violence is tragic. The point is that there is a rational basis for some people’s dislike of Islam. And again don’t confuse that with saying there is a rational basis to dislike Muslims. They key is to not conflate a religion with its adherents.

The Catholic Church deserves condemnation for its cover up of sexual abuse and for having the third highest ranking official in the Vatican as a paedophile. But a negative view of the Catholic Church should not mean one has a negative view of Catholics.

The attack in Christchurch was vile not just for the loss of innocent life, but the fact the victims were selected for their religion. Equally vile is that in the last 18 years there have been 1,585 attacks on Christians, motivated by the fact they were Christians, which killed 11,804 people and wounded a further 14,297.

There are also other aspects of the Islamic religion that some people find problematic. Sizable minorities support the death penalty for apostates, stoning for adultery, honour killings for pre-martial sex.

Islam also differs somewhat from most religions in that it has a political aspect to it, commonly called Islamism. Most Muslims are not Islamists. There are difficult questions about how compatible Islamism (NB not Islam) is with liberal democratic values.

So I absolutely reject that one should not be able to criticise the Islamic religion. However it should be done in a way that doesn’t stigmatise all Muslims and/or suggests a commonality of view.

The one thing which would do the most in the world to reduce so called Islamophobia is a huge reduction in the number of attacks by Islamic extremists. And there is some good news there. The number killed in such attacks has been dropping – down from 32,863 in 2014 to 11,769 in 2018. The defeat of ISIL probably has a part in this.

That guest post

One issue that has been discussed on Kiwiblog is whether there should be a ban on Muslim immigration. I vehemently disagree with such a proposal, and the proponents of it. But does that mean it should be deemed as beyond debate?

Well in case it has escaped people’s attention, it was one of the most debated policies of the 2016 US presidential election, and basically the policy of the winner of that election. It was debated vigorously in the US for not just the campaign, but also the two years since as Trump as he has tried to effectively implement it in various forms. It seems ridiculous to me that an issue which had been debated for the last three years in the US, could be deemed beyond debate in New Zealand.

The sad reality is that Trump filled a vacuum. Because there are no easy answers to the problems of attacks from Islamic extremists (if there were, they’d be happening) many politicians shy away from even discussing the problem. Then when Trump comes along, he gets support because he is the only person out there with a purported solution. His solution is wrong and stupid but a wrong stupid solution gets more support than a void.

Now some may say the US is a country filled with racists so the mere fact they’ve been debating a Muslim immigration ban for three years doesn’t mean we should allow a blog post on it in New Zealand.

So let’s look at Europe. Is this topic taboo in Europe? Well far from being taboo a Chatham House poll over 10 European countries found 55% of Europeans support a Muslim migration ban and only 20% disagreed with it. Now I’m one of the 20% who disagree but consider the insanity of the demand that such a topic can’t even be discussed on a blog in New Zealand when it is supported by majorities in Belgium, Germany, Greece, France, Italy, Austria, Hungary and Poland plus pluralities in Spain and the UK.

Closer to home a poll in Australia showed plurality support for a ban on Muslim immigration. Again I think they’re wrong but I really think it is dangerous grounds to treat a majority of Germans, French, Italians and Greeks as far right neo-nazi extremists whose views should not even be allowed to be spoken out loud.

In fact the sad reality is the growth in support of far right parties in Europe is because the mainstream parties have not come up with credible solutions to issues around immigration and integration. Populist parties will always rush to fill a void.

So for the last two weeks some people have tried to close down Kiwiblog because three years ago I allowed a guest post (which I disagreed with) by David Garrett which advocated for a policy that has been debated endlessly in the United States for three years, has majority support in Europe and plurality support in Australia. Media have demanded to know why this post has not been deleted. I’ve been labelled a party to the slaughter in Christchurch because of this post. The sheer bile on Twitter has been vile led by certain prominent people.

A number of people have contacted me offline to discuss Kiwiblog’s moderation policy and the desirability of changes. Those exchanges have been useful. Inciting virtual lynch mobs far less so.

The view of some on Twitter is that such a view in opposition to Muslim immigration is so extreme that one can’t ever allow someone to read something in favour of it.

They really need to get out of their bubbles.

Now one should recognise that debating stuff such as an immigration ban on Muslims is hurtful to Muslims. Absolutely it is. And most Muslims are themselves victims of the violent Islamic extremists. They are often both literal victims (ie are killed) but suffer the backlash where they have to worry about their safety in public. They can suffer acts of casual abuse, and feel that elements of their adopted country are hostile to them. And the Christchurch shooting has shown how real those fears can be.

So bearing in mind that allowing a debate on stuff such as an immigration ban can be hurtful to many Muslims, why allow it at all?

Well as I explained to the media, my preference is for people to be convinced their views are wrong. The thing I like on Kiwiblog is that we have people who comment from across the political spectrum. Views get challenged. My views get challenged every day by commenters.

And if you do not allow a debate on an issue, you tend to make people become more convinced of their beliefs. Then they tend to go off to a silo where they only find people who agree with them. And that is how people become extremists and radicalised. There is a huge amount of academic literature on how people on the Internet are self-selecting into silos and how harmful this is to public discourse.

In one of the malicious misrepresentations I have ever seen, Russell Brown took this explanation I made to the media, and summarised it was that I tolerate racists and don’t want them to go to even more racist websites and I am “a piece of shit”. Remember that this is about allowing a guest post on a topic that is one of the most debated issues in Europe and North America.

So as should be clear I am not deleting the guest post. But I have been reflecting on how I would handle such a request in future.

While people can respond in comments to the guest post, they don’t have the same reach, as many don’t read the comments. So in future with a topic such as this I would commission a rebuttal piece and run then together so people can see the arguments in favour, and the arguments against.

I would also be more likely to write the rebuttal piece myself.

Of course there are some topics I would not allow a guest post on, even with a rebuttal. The post on Muslim immigration was a borderline call. But in the end my judgement was that one could not pretend this was not a topic that could be ignored as if it didn’t exist and have support from majorities in many democratic countries.

Muslimophobia

As I indicated earlier I don’t find the term Islamophobia useful. In fact earlier today I quoted the leader of the world’s largest Muslim organisation saying the term is often used as a weapon to prevent criticisms of extremist aspects of Islam.

I have no problems with criticism of Islam (or Scientology or Mormonism or Catholicism). But I do have a problem with people smearing all Muslims as if they all have the same beliefs, same characteristics etc. Some people have an unhealthy antagonism to Muslims, and I would say they should be called Muslimophobes, not Islamophobes.

And Muslimophobia is not welcome on Kiwiblog.

Judging 1.5 billion people off their religious affiliation is bizarre. I’m lucky as I have traveled a lot. I’ve met, socialised, and worked with scores of Muslims ranging from the leader of the Arab Youth League to Internet experts from dozens of Muslim countries to friends back home. The best hospitality I had in my Middle East tour was in Iran.

Kiwiblog is now applying far far more scrutiny to comments that fail to differentiate between legitimate scrutiny of Islam and are just bile against Muslims. They are not welcome here, and if you can’t work out the difference, neither are you.

And some (a small minority) need to learn some empathy. When the Prime Minister wears a hijab at a mourning celebration, it is not an Islamic takeover of New Zealand. It is the Prime Minister being a decent human being and respecting the fact 50 people of the Muslim faith were slaughtered. If 50 people had been killed at a synagogue, I am sure a similar gesture would be made. Such a gesture means a hell of a lot to those who have been targeted for their faith. Have a bit of bloody empathy for what it must be like to be a Muslim in New Zealand at this time.

Moderation Policy

At the end of this post is the new proposed moderation policy for Kiwiblog. It is in fact very little changed from the existing policy. But it has been tweaked to give examples of unacceptable comment and some extra emphasis. You are welcome to give feedback on the policy. I’ll listen to feedback but of course the final decision is mine.

I note Stuff has announced a new moderation policy also. I was surprised to read that one in three comments submitted to Stuff never appear. That is a huge proportion. My rough estimate of comments being deemed unacceptable by the moderators on Kiwiblog is somewhere between 1 in 10 and 1 in 20.

But the more interesting thing with Stuff is they have a list of topics which they simply no longer allow debate on. This includes 1080, beneficiaries, fluoride, immigrants, Israel, Treaty of Waitangi, transgender issues and vaccinations. They are of course entitled to do that, but I find it very sad to have a media outlet rule certain topics as not allowing comments. Again my preference is to convince people they are wrong on 1080, fluoride etc.

But again use some empathy when commenting, especially if talking about groups of people. Don’t say “Muslims” if the more correct term is “Islamic extremists”. Don’t talk about any race or religion as if everyone is the same. And most of all bear in mind 50 people were killed in Christchurch and their families, friends and fellow Muslims are going through as terrible time as you can imagine. They are the victims of what happened in Christchurch. You having to comment differently on Kiwiblog doesn’t make you a victim.

Moderation Process

The more substantial change is around the moderation process. The old process was after the fact. All comments would appear automatically. Only if someone submitted a formal complaint about a comment would it be reviewed be me, and if unacceptable deleted or edited. Strikes and suspensions were also given out to repeat offenders.

There were three major problems with the old process. The first is that a lot of unacceptable comments were never complained about, so they remained on Kiwiblog despite breaching the comments policy.

The second is that it was very time intensive. I’d have to locate the comment, review it, if inappropriate edit it, issue a strike, update the strikes page, change the user status so they can’t post and set a reminder for when they can post again. This could take 10 to 15 minutes.

The third is that the inappropriate comment would remain there until reviewed and in the meantime people would respond to it and things would just get messier.

So I changed the process so that comments would be reviewed before they appear. This has a number of drawbacks also, namely:

• Having to read and approve over 500 comments a day
• Delays on comments appearing can make threads less useful
• There is increased legal risk to Kiwiblog if a comment has been approved in advance, rather than appear automatically
• Less transparency with the moderation

However the advantages are:

• The back end allows you to see all comments awaiting approval and deal with each in a few seconds.
• While the number of comments is too much for one person to moderate, around a dozen great people have stepped forward to help moderate so as we get up to speed, delays should reduce
• Far fewer inappropriate comments appear on Kiwiblog
• Less thread hijacking

Commenters who choose to post under their real names or linked to their real identity, will qualify for auto-approve status. This provides an incentive for people to do so, but still allows you to comment with an alias.

It is possible at some stage I might extend auto-approve status to others. The system will be reviewed regularly.

The moderator have a chat group where we discuss borderline cases. I may post some extracts from that group at some stage so people can see examples of what we are ruling in or out.

New proposed moderation policy

Commenting on Kiwiblog is a privilege not a right. The privilege will be removed for repeated unacceptable comments.

Unacceptable comments include but are not limited to:

Defamation

Do not make comments that could expose Kiwiblog or yourself to defamation.

Trolling

Trolling is an attempt to deliberately disrupt a conversation by being grossly offensive or massively off topic.

Comments on a post should be a response to the topic of the post. While some thread drift is inevitable, do not try to divert the thread into another topic. Use the daily General Debate for other topics.

Personal Abuse

Attack arguments, not people. It will generally be unacceptable to call someone a moron, but it will be acceptable to say their argument is moronic. That may seem a fine distinction, but an important one. However don’t try and push the distinction to breaking point. If you say that someone’s argument has the integrity of a syphilitic pygmy (for example), then that would find you with a warning or strike.

Abusive nicknames for MPs such as “Ardern the liar”, “Golly G”, “Simple Simon” will be unacceptable. You can critique something they have said or done, but not just repeat an abusive nickname.

Gratitious references to attributes people have no control over

People can’t choose their gender, race, skin colour or sexual orientation. There will be times when those attributes about a public figure can be a legitimate discuss in in relation to an political event.

But slagging off someone on the basis of something they can’t control is unacceptable.

Generalisations

Grossly offensive generalisations are not acceptable either. Treat people as individuals. This is not to say one can’t discuss group characteristics (such as why certain races are over-represented in crime statistics), but it should be done in a way which is not derogatory of the entire group.

Lumping 1.5 billion Muslims all in together is almost certainly going to be unacceptable. One can criticize a religion and/or specific acts or teachings. But don’t attribute things to every follower of a religion. Be as specific as you can. If there was an attack by Islamic extremists, say “Islamic extremists” instead of “Muslims”.

Language

There is some tolerance for swearing so long as it is not directed at someone. Calling someone a c**t is almost never acceptable, but the use of the word in other contexts may be. Telling someone to f**k off is not acceptable.

Personal Details

Give other commenters the courtesy of referring to them by the name or alias they use on this blog. Do not reveal personal details about them such as their name, address, phone number etc. unless it is somehow connected to a public issue. If in doubt, check.

Grant Davidson of Skills Active Aotearoa writes in the Herald:

Let me let you in on a secret. Last election I voted Grant Robertson and Labour. You see, I am one of the 30 per cent of voters who are not firmly aligned to any one party or ideology, but look at the merits of the policies on offer each election.
The promises that attracted me were open and transparent government and an investment focus that’s not just about financial returns, but also people, the environment and wellbeing. In light of those promises, the Government’s proposal to reform vocational education, and the way Education Minister Chris Hipkins is going about it, are shocking.

The open and transparent promise has become a sick joke.

First, after some initial information gathering by officials, we were told the minister was merging the vocational education review with a review of polytechs. That was in mid-December. Then no more news until the minister invited us to Parliament on February 13.
There he served up a single reform proposal to merge all 16 polytechs into a single mega-polytech, delete the well-performing industry training organisations and shift their 145,000 trainees and apprentices to this new mega-polytech. To cap it off, we got just six weeks to consult with our industries and provide feedback.
Sounds like a done deal to me.

As the proposal reflects the Minister’s wishes, it is hard to see it not occurring.

None of the papers given to us clearly define the problem this is trying to solve. There are no options considered. No detail of how it will work. No measures to judge the success of the solution. No costings either, and a careful review of Cabinet papers reveal Treasury is concerned because it hasn’t been able to carry out financial impact modelling.
We are told the current system is broken and that industry wants a better system. We asked for data on what is broken and which workplaces and industries were surveyed. Out of dozens of industries our sector serves, we find there were “conversations” with only 22 workplaces and these only represented three industries. The entire vocational education sector is being disrupted based on that sample, probably selected on the basis of known gripes.

Hardly a scientific sample.

We have a process that pushes a unilateral solution to an undefined problem and rushes this through so that it neglects fundamental rights such as Treaty obligations.
This is not democracy, and it is certainly not good business practice.
It is not open and transparent government.
It is not treating people well according to any definition of a living standards framework.
The minister said last week, “Those who are engaging constructively are really going to help shape the proposals that we’ve got.”
This reads like a veiled threat.
All of us are engaging with our stakeholders constructively in these proposed reforms.
It’s just that some of us have other ideas on how to create a better vocational educational future and those ideas are unpalatable to a blind ideology.

We want to hear from you as long as you agree with us.

A columnist at the Telegraph writes:

How can we … prevent another atrocity like the one in Christchurch? As I have watched New Zealanders of all faiths mourn, this has been the question on my mind. So far, few of the answers offered have come close to the truth.
What the massacre revealed was the need for a clear understanding of the weaponisation of ethnic, religious and political identities that is going on throughout the world. This was [the killer’s] evil aim: to contribute to a polarisation of the West – and to a parallel phenomenon in the Muslim world. His actions, which eerily resemble those of Isil and other Islamist terror groups, were calculated to intensify the hostility and suspicion that already exist towards Muslims in the West. They were also designed to elicit a response from Islamists and so encourage a cycle of retaliatory violence.

I agree that his attack is like those of ISIS – designed to cause further hostility and conflict.

The truth, we recognise, is that jihadist doctrine, goals and strategy can be traced to specific tenets of orthodox, authoritative Islam and its historic practice. This includes those portions of Shariah that promote Islamic supremacy, encourage enmity towards non-Muslims and require the establishment of a caliphate. It is these elements – still taught by most Sunni and Shiite institutions – that constitute a summons to perpetual conflict.

It is our firm view that, if Muslims do not address the key tenets of Islamic tradition that encourage this violence, anyone – at any time – can harness them to defy what they claim to be illegitimate laws and butcher their fellow citizens, whether they live in the Islamic world or the West. This is what links so many current events, from Syria to the streets of London.

There is a desperate need for honest discussion of these matters. This is why it worries me to see Western political and intellectual elites weaponise the term “Islamophobia,” to short-circuit analysis of a complex phenomenon that threatens all humanity. For example, it is factually incorrect and counter-productive to define Islamophobia as “rooted in racism,” as proposed by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims. In reality, it is the spread of Islamist extremism and terror that primarily contributes to the rise of Islamophobia throughout the non-Muslim world.

Now the usual suspects on Twitter who read this column would no doubt conclude that the author is himself an Islamophobe who is prejudiced against Muslims, and is racist etc etc. How dare he blame Islamophobia on Islamist extremism.

But before they tweet their angry 320 characters denouncing him, they might want to read the fine line of the column.

Yahya Cholil Staquf is General Secretary of Nahdlatul Ulama, the world’s largest Muslim organisation

Which is also a good reminder how obscene it is to regard all Muslims as being the same, defined only by their religion.

Mike Yardley writes:

Amid the public outpouring of profound sadness and goodwill for the Muslim community following the terror attack, the high-visibility presence of patched gang members at cordons and vigils has aroused much curiosity.
In the wake of such monstrous evil, is it not a little incongruous for the perpetrators of so much everyday evil to down tools for a touchy-feely time-out?
The television news media, in particular, has fawned over their gatherings outside mosques to perform haka, pay their respects and offer protection.
The Bandidos, the King Cobras, the Headhunters, Black Power and the Mongrel Mob have all turned up, en-masse.

People may be unaware but almost many gangs now have a media officer. They have reporters on speed dial and are very proficient at planting stories showing them doing nice things (such as protecting mosques).

I do not doubt their expressed empathy, sorrow and grief is genuine. I’d like to think they have been summoned by their better angels, rather than Hell’s angels.

But let’s not delude ourselves into thinking that gangland is suddenly seeing the error of their pernicious, destructive ways and is mass-converting into a pack of peaceniks.

The reality remains that they are responsible for a disproportionate share of violent crime in New Zealand.

I note that one of the Mongrel Mob’s chapters, The Kingdom, has decided to jettison its Nazi symbolism and its “sieg heil” rallying cry, in the aftermath of the Christchurch atrocity.
But the Mob will continue to “bark” like feral dogs.
The Kingdom’s president, Paito Fatu, reckons his chapter is transitioning away from violent crime, domestic abuse and drug crime. The Police Minister remains a doubting Thomas, understandably taking a “I’ll believe it when I see it” approach to such rhetoric.

I’ve been reading stories about them transitioning since the 1970s.

The police Gang Intelligence Centre recently put the national gang count at 5785 members and prospects, supposedly up 1500 on 2016. Gang members comprise 0.1 per cent of the population, but 15 per cent of all general firearms charges.
Forty four per cent of identified gang members had been convicted for firearms offences, as of 2016.

That seems remarkably high. If correct, it does suggest where the focus should go.

Apologies for missing yesterday

The Community Schools Alliance released:

Schools from around New Zealand are joining together to reject a proposal that would sever their accountability to local communities and hand direct control of schools to a new government bureaucracy.

The Community Schools Alliance, a growing group of 43 primary and secondary schools and Kura a iwi, launched a national campaign to raise awareness of the Tomorrow’s Schools Taskforce plan to replace direct parental involvement in schools with “Education Hubs”, and its implications for students. The campaign was kicked off with full -page advertisements in the New Zealand Herald and the Dominion Post, and will be supported by social media and a website for more information.

Under the plan, the “Hubs” appointed by Wellington would take over the responsibilities of individual schools’ boards of trustees elected by parents.

“The Hub plan would strip New Zealand’s world leading, community-led public education system of what makes it unique,” said Glen Denham, Principal of Massey High School in West Auckland.

“The Community Schools Alliance membership represents urban, regional and rural primary and secondary schools, from the whole range of decile areas. We are religious and secular schools, state and state-integrated schools, and kura,” Mr Denham said.

“The range of schools moved to speak up publicly about the Hub plan is so great because it threatens the diversity of the New Zealand education system itself,” said Pat Newman, Principal of Hora Hora Primary School in Whangārei

If I am not mistaken Pat Newman is a former Labour Party candidate. If a former Labour candidate is saying these proposals are really bad, that is significant.

On March the 14th I blogged on how I thought the Operation Burnham inquiry is looking to be a waste of time in response to a Stuff report that Deborah Manning and Nicky Hager were critical of the inquiry decisions to date and Manning was undertaking legal action against the inquiry.

In the article I referred to an earlier blog post where I queried if Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson would accept the findings of the inquiry if the findings do not agree with their allegations. I concluded this article showed they wouldn’t.

The way my article was worded using “they” implied that both Hager and Stephenson were attacking the inquiry.

Mr Stephenson has been in contact to point out that he has not in fact attacked the inquiry. I’ve gone back and re-read the Stuff article and he is absolutely correct. While it quotes Hager and Manning as being critical of the inquiry to date, it notes that Stephenson and the inquiry are still in discussion about sources.

It was wrong of me to lump Hager and Stephenson in together and to imply that Stephenson was attacking the inquiry, when has has not. And likewise wrong to conclude that he will not accept the inquiry’s findings.

I’m very happy to correct the record and apologise to Mr Stephenson for the inaccuracy in the original post.

I would also note that it only takes me two hours to do a correction and apology (e-mail was received at 4.45 pm), as opposed to eight months for certain other media outlets 🙂