Mike Yardley writes:

Just as we saluted and decorated the vast army of community heroes who shone throughout our earthquake sequence, it goes without saying that the firefighters, helicopter crews and fellow first-responders who have slogged their guts out since Monday last week must be royally recognised for their gallantry, tenacity and extraordinary duty, when this nightmare is finally over.

Amazing job from those on the ground.

Hundreds of residents vented their increasing dismay and disbelief at the apparent failure of the Selwyn and Christchurch mayors to get to grips with the enormity of the ever-billowing threat.

Individuals were pleading with Mayor Dalziel and senior city councillors, via their Facebook pages, to urgently declare a state of emergency. It took a further two hours after Westmorland was suddenly evacuated at 4pm, before the declaration was issued.

I guess the Government could have in theory declared a state of emergency if the local authorities had continued to delay doing so – but that is something that has never happened in recent history.

Some hillside residents had packed and were ready to self-evacuate at 1pm. They could see the situation gravely deteriorating, first-hand. The fact that officials struggled to grasp the gravity of the gathering crisis, even after Minister Brownlee phoned the two mayors to establish their positions, is lamentable.

Not only would a declaration issued much earlier in the afternoon have mobilised the likes of Defence Force resources and the power to enforce road cordons far sooner, but, most importantly, it would have sent a clarion message to the community about the scale of the crisis.

Instead, many residents in the firing line of the blaze were left in a state of relative complacency, only to be propelled into a blind panic by police officers barking orders that they only had five minutes to evacuate their houses.

An extra two hours notice would have made a huge difference.

Then, of course, there is the alarming claim from the Firefighters Union that 10 properties were needlessly destroyed because urban fire brigades were stood down prematurely on Monday, only to be called back later.

Very alarming, if true.

Definitely should be an inquiry into the response to the fires.

The Herald reports:

The number of teen mothers on welfare has more than halved since 2009, the Government says.

There were 1836 teenage mums on “main” benefits at the end of last year, down from 4263 in 2009 – a fall of 57 per cent.

Social Development Minister Anne Tolley said teen parents had some of the highest lifetime costs of any group on welfare. On average, they spent more than 17 years on welfare.

“If we can give young mums opportunities to be independent and successful then that will mean better lives for their children,” she said.

“We know that kids who grow up in benefit-dependent homes are more likely to go on to a benefit, are more likely to be notified to CYF and are less likely to achieve NCEA Level 2.”

This is a great outcome, and a really important one. Preventing people from decades of welfare dependency is essential.

Of course Labour has opposed almost all the reforms that achieved this. Cynically you’d say that is because the more people dependent on the state, the more people likely to vote for parties promising them more money.

Stuff reports:

Labour has put forward Helen White as its new candidate standing in the Auckland central electorate after Labour MP Jacinda Ardern left the area to campaign in the Mt Albert by-election. 

The seat has been held by Kaye since 2008.

White is an employment lawyer in private practice. Before that she worked for the EPMU, when it was led by Andrew Little. If she gets a high enough list ranking to get into caucus, that will be another vote for him.

White moved to Freemans Bay when she was three years old and continues to work in the area.

She lives in Morningside with her three children, two attend the University of Auckland and one attends Mt Albert Grammar.

“My family live in the Auckland central area, which gives an accountability to me. 

This is a subtle way of admitting she doesn’t live in Auckland Central herself.

The Herald reports:

If Hone Harawira could do it all over again, he would not get into bed with Kim Dotcom.

As he launches a bid to return to Parliament, the veteran community activist and politician has offered an apology to supporters about the deal he struck with the German entrepreneur last election.

“It was a failed strategic relationship,” says Harawira. “The aim was to engage with another entity to help with the party vote, to get someone else into Parliament.”

Would he do it again? “In hindsight, no.”

Harawira says he would not do it again because it failed and he lost his seat. But nowhere does he show any understanding of why it was a bad move for him. He spent decades fighting for workers rights and the poor and then he takes millions from a guy who is accused of paying slave wages to his staff.

Stuff reports:

Maori and Pasifika students at one of the nation’s first partnership schools have been congratulated on provisional NCEA results.

Maori students at Vanguard Military School achieved roll-based pass rates of 92.3 per cent at level 1, 90.5 per cent at level 2, and 100 per cent at level 3.

Pasifika students achieve 85.7 per cent, 100 per cent and 100 per cent respectively.

These are terrible results that undermine other schools. Damn the students – such a successful school must be closed down.

Student numbers have risen from 104 to 180 students, since the school was established, in 2014, to the start of 2017.

Even worse, more and more students are attending. Heresy.

The IEA announced:

Jamie has been appointed Director of Research at the IEA. Jamie holds a Ph.D. from Cambridge University and is former leader of the ACT Party of New Zealand. He will take up his role in mid-April 2017. He takes over the position from Professor Philip Booth, who has taken up a role as Professor of Finance, Public Policy and Ethics at St. Mary’s University, Twickenham.

The IEA is a very influential and prestigious free market think tank. It was founded in 1955 and has often been cited as the most influential think tank in modern British history. Great position for Jamie as Director of Research.

A guest post by Sandra Grey, National President of the Tertiary Education Union:

#LoveHumanities is a day of action here in New Zealand which responds to a worldwide and long running attack on the value of the arts, humanities, and social sciences in tertiary education.

These attacks have been ramped up over the past two decades because of narrow government policy requiring tertiary education to meet the needs of the economy and labour market. Policies and funding mechanisms have been used repeatedly to tame public education institutions and make them behave like businesses. Similar approaches that threaten liberal arts teaching and research are seen in Great Britain , Australia , and many other places.

But with the world’s attention fixed on the erratic US President, it seems timely to ask if attacks on the humanities are alive and well in the US?

In January, The Independent reported that an unnamed member of Trump’s transition team had said the Presidency would “eliminate both the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, and privatise the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.” Susan Nossel described it as “an attack on reason itself.”

With the world facing a range of existential crises – environmental degradation, rising inequality, violence in our homes and between nations – now is the very time we need people undertaking studies that train them in critical thinking. In the ‘post-truth world’ where lies are presented as “alternative facts” these skills help us filter out the ‘bullshit’ from the reasonable, plausible, and logical.

You don’t need a BA to spot the latest falsehoods peddled by Trump to advance his anti-immigrant, racist and ethnic nationalist agenda. Realising there was no terror attack in Sweden is just common sense. However, not all issues are as easy to spot.

Mounting a sound argument about why poor people vote for politicians who take away their access to healthcare, for example, needs evidence that isn’t always easy to find. Similarly, understanding any parallels between the direction of geopolitical events today and other times in human history. Answering these sorts of questions requires training in selecting legitimate sources; examining narrative devices; and argumentation.

The humanities and social sciences equip us with these skills and enable robust public debates about the kind of world we want to live in and how we make it happen. As Philosopher Martha Nussbaum said, we have to “understand ourselves better, to see why we have arrived at this state of division, hostility and non-communication.”

Even engaging in debate about the purpose of universities, institutes of technology and polytechnics, and wananga, requires an ‘argument’. One that is not only thought out, reasonable, and backed with facts; but one that has stories that help to make sense of the world.

It’s not just the humanities and social sciences we must promote. The fine arts and music enable us to reflect more immediately global events than is possible in academic journal articles. I could spend hours researching and developing arguments opposing Trump’s tyrannical administration, whereas a couple of clever artists can do it in three minutes and reach a much wider audience.

So why #LoveHumanities? Well, alongside the engineers, mathematicians and scientists that help us understand how the world works; alongside advertisers and spin doctors that sell things, realities, and political ideologies; we need sceptical and curious minds that explore the human condition (their own and ours). It is these minds that will ensure we have a future worth living for.

While I don’t agree with everything Sandra wrote, I am a big fan of the humanities. My personal love is Classical Studies – I have scores of books on the old Roman Republic.

The Herald reports:

A senior Muslim leader has said using violence against women is a “last resort” for men.

President of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils Keysar Trad described beating women as “step three” in a process of dealing with issues in relationships, after counselling and buying chocolates or “taking her out on a dinner”.

So the order is counselling, chocolates, dinner then if that fails violence!

Andrew Bolt elaborates:

Some apologists and relativists have told me that this is just a trick – that they could go through the Bible and find similar sexist passages to quote against Christianity.

First, that is false. Christ preached no such things. In fact, he preached the opposite. Seeing a women being stoned for adultery he saved her by saying: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” He told her that he could not condemn her. He also famously said: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

In his example and in his preaching he supplanted Old Testament teaching – the “eye for an eye” justice, for instance.

That is the first point. But there is a second equally important one. What the sacred texts of Christianity and Islam say is one thing, but how they are interpreted today by its leading clerics is another.

In the case of wife-beating, Islam’s leading scholars today do not deny the right of men to beat their wives. At best they argue that the Koranic passage above means it must be a last resort. Trad argues it is a last resort that good men will never reach.

But which Pope, cardinal, bishop or moderator or a mainstream Christian church would argue that men have a right – even as a last resort – to beat women? To force her to submit to her husband’s authority?

Basically none in the last few decades.

This is the problem with reforming Islam. The Koran has so many passages that are extremely difficult to explain away, including those purporting to be the words of the founder of the faith himself. This is why Islamic terrorists can do what Christian ones do not: quote the Koran and sacred Hadith to justify what they do – from beheading unbelievers, killing Jews and taking captured women as sex slaves.

Christianity has managed to reform and revise its beliefs. The New Testament itself revises the Old Testament. But neither Testament is seen as the direct word of God, like the Koran is.

That is not to say that this is supported by most Muslims. Not at all. But it does explain why such outrages are met by near silence by leading Muslim scholars. They seem powerless to argue back.

That is slowly changing, though. But the fact remains: the Koran is harder to adapt for a modern, democratic, multicultural and secular society than is the Christian Bible.

Much harder.

The Herald reports:

Hastings mayor Lawrence Yule is the National Party candidate for Tukituki in the upcoming general elections.

He will be up against Labour’s candidate Anna Lorck in the race for the seat this September.

They are both high profile candidates. Will be an interesting race. I hope Lawrence wins – he has been a good Mayor, and will be a good MP for the area.

The final selection meeting was held last night with three candidates putting their hands up for the party nomination – Mr Yule, Hastings district councillor and unsuccessful mayoral candidate Adrienne Pierce and Hastings resident and former air force pilot David Elliott.

Hawke’s Bay Today understands that Mr Yule won by four votes in the first round of voting.

If this is correct (and it is a secret ballot, but details sometimes leak) then Yule got 34 votes and the other two candidates got 26 between them.

The Herald reports:

Two men convicted of corruption in New Zealand’s largest bribery case have been sent to prison.

Former Auckland Transport manager Murray Noone, and roading contractor Projenz managing director Stephen Borlase were investigated by the Serious Fraud Office and in December found guilty on six and eight charges, respectively, of taking and giving bribes involving more than $1 million.

Justice Sally Fitzgerald this morning at the High Court at Auckland jailed Borlase for five years and six months, and Noone for five years.

Those sentences sounds reasonable. It was a significant level of fraud, over many years and the criminals involved have shown no remorse for their stealing of ratepayer and taxpayer money.

Justice Fitzgerald noted the sums involved exceeded any other domestic conviction for bribery or corruption and damaged New Zealand’s civic institutions and international reputation.

“Offending of this nature has a wider effect, harming New Zealand’s public reputation as a place where corruption is low or nonexistent,” she said.

Yep, which is why you need a deterrent.

Auckland Transport chief infrastructure officer Greg Edmonds, who had overseen Noone, said: “At the heart of this issue is a serious breach of trust by two individuals whose actions are in no way an indication of any sort of systemic failure.”

Oh bullshit. Good systems would catch this early on.

Chris Sweeney writes in Boston Magazine:

Last spring, Samuel Abrams, a professor of politics at Sarah Lawrence College, in New York, decided to run the numbers. From the start, he certainly expected liberal professors to outnumber conservatives, but his data—25 years’ worth of statistics from the Higher Education Research Institute—told a far more startling tale: In the South and throughout the Great Plains, the ratio of liberal to conservative professors hovered around 3 to 1. On the liberal left coast, the ratio was 6 to 1. And then there was New England—which looked like William F. Buckley’s worst nightmare—standing at 28 to 1. “It astonished me,” says Abrams, whose research revealed that conservative professors weren’t just rare; they were being pushed to the edge of extinction.

It would be interesting to do the same exercise in NZ universities.

Miller is not shy when it comes to critiquing his liberal colleagues, whom he views as being so afraid of offending one another or their students that they are simply teaching affirmation rather than information.

Affirmation instead of information. Sums it up well.

Andrew Dickens drove from Auckland to Wellington. Among his observations was this:

Wellington was more clogged, even on the weekend, than Auckland. It’s like no-one thought people lived and worked south of the Beehive, which is where everyone works. We witnessed the full horror of the Island Bay cycleway. What used to be a broad safe boulevard is now a skinny death trap.

Will Justin Lester fix the skinny death trap or leave it as it is?

The Herald reports:

Life may have evolved on at least three planets in a newly discovered solar system just 39 light years from Earth, NASA has announced.​

Astronomers have detected no less than seven Earth-sized worlds orbiting a cool dwarf star known as TRAPPIST-1.

The six inner planets lie in a temperate zone where surface temperatures range from zero to 100C.

Of these, at least three are thought to be capable of having oceans, increasing the likelihood of life.

No other star system known contains such a large number of Earth-sized and probably rocky planets.

As a former astronomy geek, this is very exciting.

British astronomer Dr Chris Copperwheat, from Liverpool John Moores University, who co-led the international team, said: “The discovery of multiple rocky planets with surface temperatures which allow for liquid water make this amazing system an exciting future target in the search for life.”

Thomas Zurbuchen, associate administrator of the Science Mission Directorate at NASA, says: “This gives us a hint that finding a second earth is not just a matter of if, but when.

“You can just imagine how many worlds are out there that could have a habitable ecosystem that we can explore.”

Now we just need to invent faster than light travel, so we can get to them!

The Dom Post editorial:

Prime Minister Bill English would be right to sack members of the board of the Super Fund. Their decision to give the fund’s CEO a massive pay increase was a direct challenge to the Government. No state-owned company can defy its owner and expect to get away with it.

Professional directors say their colleagues on the Super Fund board faced a dilemma. The board believed Adrian Orr deserved a massive 36 per cent increase in his potential pay package.The then board chairman Gavin Walker said it didn’t believe the public sector pay scale was the right one for setting Orr’s salary. So it went ahead and paid him the higher sum.

This won’t do. The board is a creature of the state. Board members serve at the pleasure of the Government. If they won’t obey the Government’s wishes they should resign. If they don’t resign, they should be sacked.

I disagree that directors of crown entities are simply there to do what the Government wishes. This is the entire reason we have directors and separate entities, rather than just Government Departments.

Commercial companies (including funds) are there to do what is best for the health of the company. The views of the shareholder, especially a sole shareholder, should be given great deference but should never be binding. Otherwise why have directors.

I’m not saying that some directors might not be reappointed, with this being a factor. But the Dominion Post goes too far by saying that the entire board should be sacked over this one issue.

Whale Oil blogs:

In 2012, before he had the unions shoe-horn him into the leadership, Andrew Little had quite a bit to say about employers. Back then he said; “The only parasites are employers…”. …

Labour leader Andrew Little took aim at an American food giant, saying a decision to close a profitable Dunedin factory was nothing more than “greed”.

“Cadbury are doing this not because the plant isn’t profitable, they just want more profit out of it. They are doing it for greed.”  

So employers are greedy parasites.

The simple facts are that they are moving the production to the country where they sell most of the goods – Australia. It isn’t that wages are cheaper in Australia (they are not) or less unionised (highly unionised) but that transport costs to their retailers is hugely less.

Taxpayers had paid about $2 million to keep the factory here, and “it would be a pity if this Government, knowing it was going to happen, didn’t do anything about it”.

First I knew of corporate welfare to Cadburys.

Which government paid that? Oh, that’s right, it was Helen Clark’s government. Corporate welfare is evil, and yet again has been shown to be useless.

Agreed.

NewstalkZB reports:

The Prime Minister is not comfortable with allowing Green MPs to be part of the Intelligence and Security Committee.

The committee oversees the SIS and GCSB.

They are allowed to be part of it, and have been in the past. Andrew Little is the person who dumped them from the Committee, not Bill English.

With legislation reforming intelligence laws due back before Parliament next month, Labour is pushing for the size of its oversight committee to be broadened to include other political parties.

The Opposition have two seats on it. It is up to the Leader of the Opposition whether to give one of them to the Greens.

Bill English said he has not yet seen Labour’s proposal, but expressed strong reservations about the Green Party getting a position on the committee.

“They’ve got a deep-seated hostility to any intelligence apparatus at all, which is not a responsible attitude, and we wouldn’t want to foster it.”

But the Labour Party’s pushing for there to be broader political representation on the Intelligence and Security Committee.

Andrew Little is “very comfortable” with the Green Party being represented on the committee, saying it’d add to oversight of the spy agencies and public confidence.

The trouble is the Greens do not wish to oversee the agencies or hold them accountable. Their policy is to abolish them entirely. Their only interest is to undermine them.

Radio NZ reports:

Labour leader Andrew Little claims the Māori Party is not kaupapa Māori after hitching its wagon to National, as a new deal between the Māori parties is signed.

Speaking to Morning Report today, Mr Little said the Māori Party hitched its wagon to National, but nothing had changed in terms of Māori over-representation in prisons and unemployment – so it had no influence over National.

Little sounds very desperate here.

First of all the Maori Party has never chosen National. If they hold the balance of power they would consult their members on who to support. All they have chosen is to serve in Government when offered places by National, even though they were not needed to govern.

Secondly is Andrew Little really saying that the sole test of effectiveness is Maori unemployment and Maori over-representation in prison? Not Maori incomes, Maori education achievement etc etc. And is Little saying that the last Labour Government did nothing for Maori as in 2008 Maori were over-represented in prisons and unemployment?

He said they had conceded on every important issue.

Actually in the 49th Parliament the Maori Party voted more often with Labour than National. They voted with National 50% of the time and Labour 57% of the time.

Mr Little said Labour’s Māori MPs were an integral element of the party.

Really. Tariana Turia left because she found the opposite.

Mr Harawira said the Labour leader’s comments about his deal with the Māori Party were inappropriate and quite nasty.

He told Morning Report he found it quite astounding how arrogant Labour leaders could be when talking about what Māori needed.

“I think what Māori really need is to not have white guys like Andrew Little telling us what to do, and what our aspirations should be

Could you imagine the outrage from Labour if Bill English said that certain Maori MPs were not principled Maori.

Mr Davis said voting for Mana was a vote for National.

A Donald Trump like lie.

UPDATE: A great response from Nikki Kaye:

Judges who prioritize political views and career over impartiality and the law shouldn’t be Judges at all.
Why not become a politician?

— Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) February 20, 2017

It’s a political case.
It’s a political judgement.
I told you I can’t be extradited for Copyright and I was right.
What is this? Sharia law?

— Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) February 20, 2017

Very unwise to accuse a Judge of having made his decision due to political pressure and saying he should effectively be sacked.

A guest post by Dave Crampton:

I have lived in the Ohariu electorate since Helen Clark became Prime Minister on 27 November 1999.

I remember that date well.  It was my wedding day.

 I cast a special vote and voted for Peter Dunne.  The National Party did not put up a candidate. Labour had a union boss as a candidate.  Dunne went on to support the Labour government.    

He doesn’t now – but this year I am voting Dunne again despite now  being a Green Party voter for many elections and Dunne’s apparent support for National. This post explains why.

First, a bit of background.

1n 1999 Peter Dunne had been the area’s MP for 15 years, first as a Labour MP, and since 2002, a United Future MP. I spent the weeks before the wedding covering the 1999 election for the media.

In 2002 Dunne continued to support the Labour Government, with his party getting 6.69% of the vote. Most Ohariu residents voting for Dunne, however, split their vote – and continue to do so. I was a first-time Green party voter.

Since 2008 Dunne has supported the National-led government, but an increasing number of people want him out of parliament altogether, despite his very good record as a local MP advocating for local electorate concerns  – and the 2017 election seemed the right time to do it, provided Labour put up a decent candidate.

Then Labour and the Greens waded in and spoilt the party. First Labour chose  a candidate – former Police Association president Greg O’Connor –  that many party activists in the electorate simply do not like. Both Nationals Brett Hudson and  Peter Dunne are superior on social  issues. Green candidate Tane Woodley certainly is.

Some Labojur supporters   were all set to vote for Woodley – assuming he was lined up to be the Greens candidate – or, alternatively,  not voting for any candidate  –  while party voting Labour.

Then the Green Party pulled its candidate. Woodley, got more votes in 2014 than sitting MP Gareth Hughes did when he stood.  Maybe its because he lives in Johnsonville. The Greens got the highest party vote in the electorate ever in 2014 – 3000 more than its candidate. Labour only got 3150 more Ohariu party votes.

So who were Labour voters to vote for now?

Many Green voters vote for Peter Dunne – and Dunne is getting my electorate vote this year as I consider he is the best on offer to be my local MP. I don’t care what political party he is from in that regard.  

He is getting my vote for three reasons. He is the most progressive candidate on offer, he has been a pretty good liberal local MP, and has stuck up for his community on issues such as Transmission Gully and the Petone to Grenada link road.

I can’t vote for O`Connor and the Greens should have done their bit to try and keep him out. He’s simply the wrong candidate for  the electorate.  I can’t party vote Labour as it does not appear ready for government and, unlike the Greens, you don’t know what you are getting with Labour. I certainly do not want to vote National – I think the last time I did that was 1993.

I might add if it was a First Past the Post election and all we had was National’s Brett Hudson and Labour’s Greg O’Connor as realistic offerings, I`d vote for Hudson for reasons stated.

While I`m voting for Peter Dunne in 2017, I`d go further and suggest that if National is to do a “deal” where Hudson suggests voters cast electoral votes for Dunne,  perhaps Dunne would like to suggest left-leaning Ohariu voters party vote Green to keep Labour’s vote down.

He won’t, though. Then again, such a strategy will probably be more effective than  the Greens strategy of supporting a Labour candidate  they don’t like in a party they don’t  want their supporters to cast party votes for  – on the basis that it is more likely to change the government.

It is nothing of the sort.

Bomber Bradbury has blogged his top 20 list for the Greens. They are (with change from 2014 ranking in brackets):

1. Metiria Turei (nc)
2. James Shaw (+11)
3. Marama Davidson (+12)
4. Jan Logie (+6)
5. Gareth Hughes (nc)
6. Julie-Anne Genter (+2)
7. Barry Coates (+9)
8. Mojo Mathers (+1)
9. Chloe Swarbrick (new)
10. Damon Rusden (new)
11. David Clendon (nc)
12. Eugenie Sage (-8)
13. Golriz Ghahraman (new)
14. James Goodie (new)
15. Robert Stewart (new)
16. Sam Taylor (new)
17. Julie Zhu (new)
18. Elizabeth Kerekere (new)
19. Stefan Grand-Meyer (new)
20. Jo Wrigley (new)

Bomber would sack current MPs Kennedy Graham and Denise Roche. Also no ranking for Hayley Holt.

The Dom Post editorial:

Police Commissioner Mike Bush wants to see if there is a case for hate-crimes legislation in New Zealand, and is prompted by a horrible incident in Huntly, fortunately filmed by the Muslim woman who was the primary  victim. The sight of a woman threatening and abusing a Muslim woman sitting quietly in her car is shocking and dreadful.

However, it is clear that the incident is already covered by the law. A 27-year-old woman has pleaded guilty to assault, assault using a can of alcohol as a weapon, and behaving in an insulting manner likely to cause violence. It seems obvious that the incident that sparked the concern is not a poster for hate-crime legislation.

Bush wants more research to establish whether there is a need for hate-crimes legislation. He is concerned about a rise in reports of hate crimes around the country, but also concedes that the data is limited. “A lot of it is anecdotal.”

Given this, the Government is right to resist the idea of special hate-crimes legislation. Justice Minister Amy Adams says there is a very low level of such behaviour and when it does come up the law is able to deal with it.

That certainly seems to be the case. So far, the xenophobia that is sweeping the United States,  Britain and many parts of Europe does not seem to have erupted here. Despite a very large wave of immigration and a high percentage of foreign-born people in our population, no serious trouble has occurred.

In some ways there is less apparent tension than 20 years ago, when there was an outbreak of semi-hysteria about the (absurdly misnamed) “Asian invasion”. That led to a spike in support for New Zealand First. But the populist Winston Peters is failing to make much hay with the subject nowadays.

So it is broadly true, as Police Minister Paula Bennett says, that New Zealanders are in many ways more tolerant of differences than they used to be.

Since that is the case, there seems no obvious reason for hate-crimes legislation. Freedom of speech, after all, is a cornerstone of democracy. This freedom includes the right to be offensive and insulting.

Absolutely.

The best way to handle a xenophobe is simply to let them rant and then to dismember their case in moderate and informed speech. Bigotry should always be challenged and rebutted. Freedom of speech allows the bigot to speak but allows sensible people to respond.

The answer to bad speech is good speech, not less speech.