In NZ there was a bit of excitement over the fact Green co-leader James Shaw can’t drive a car. But in Canada there has been a much bigger scandal – their Green leader can’t ride a bike!

Yahoo News reports:

The revelation that Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, a green transportation supporter, cannot ride a bicycle is the talk of Quebec media today.

“I don’t ride a bike,” May told Dandyhorse, a Canadian magazine for cyclists, in August. “I grew up on rural roads, where my mother decided it would be unsafe to ride bicycles.” 

The admission is seen as an embarrassing one by some in the media. Le Journal de Montreal and La Presse both ran articles quoting May saying it was a “catastrophe” for a leader of the country’s environmentally focused federal party to be a non-cyclist.

Maybe Green parties should include it as a requirement in their membership applications 🙂

The Herald reports:

There is a huge difference between the timing and level of disclosure of the four Government-controlled NZX-listed companies – Air New Zealand, Genesis Energy, Meridian Energy and Mighty River Power – and other Crown entities.

The four listed companies have released detailed results for the June 2015 financial year but a number of the other Crown entities have yet to report and there has been a relatively low level of disclosure by those that have reported.

Air New Zealand and Meridian Energy have published their full annual reports but it will be late October – or even November – before some of the non-listed Crown entities release their full financial statements.

This is one of the benefits of not being 100% Government owned. When you are on the NZX you are forced to publish far more information, and in a much more timely manner.

If Solid Energy had private owners, then their woes would have been obvious far earlier on.

Been sent a list of around 1,200 books that have been banned in New Zealand. They were banned between 1963 and 1994 by the Indecent Publications Tribunal, and the vast majority are still banned today as they have not been reclassified. Titles include:

• Love Mouth
• The Song of the Loon
• Ancient and Modern Methods of Growing Extraordinary Marijuana
• Explosives and Propellants From Commonly Available Materials
• Full Auto Volume Five M1 Carbine To M2 Modification Manual
• In the Hands of the Inquisition
• 1001 Ways to Make Love
• A Librarian’s Training
• A Sea of Thighs
• AC/DC House Guest
• All in Knots
• And Nanny at Night
• Beatrice
• Flossie in Bondage
• How to Satisfy All Women
• Why Was He Born so Beautiful and Other Rugby Songs
• The Yes Book of Sex: You Can Last Longer
• The Wild White Witch

I suspect 99% would be approved today.

The full list is embedded below.

IPT Banned Books 1963-1994

Audrey Young writes:

With Labour MPs doing their jobs properly, and Annette King doing what good deputies do and helping to manage the caucus, Little has been left to get on with setting some strategic direction for the party.

King’s appointment was for a year only, allowing the party to settle after a bruising four-way leadership contest that Little won with union support. The sudden appearance of Jacinda Ardern as fourth in the preferred Prime Minister polls has led to speculation that she would be the logical choice to replace King in November and complement Little – young, female and from Auckland.

Being deputy, however, is not just a titular role and with King’s standing so high in the caucus and the party, she will undoubtedly be lobbied to stay on.

I understand that it is becoming more likely King will stay on as Deputy Leader, simply because there is no one else up to the job – or at least able to do it as well as her.

One Labour MP told me that the gap between Annette and all other female MPs in Labour is so huge you can hardly measure it.

The problem is that Annette entered Parliament in the 1980s. At the next election she will be a 33 year veteran of Parliament and be 70 years old. That is why she was meant to be the temporary deputy only. It will be a vote of no confidence in the rest of caucus if she carries on.

The other issue with Annette carrying on is that the top three Labour MPs are all from Wellington City, in a classic beltway capture. It’s hard to appeal to the country, if your senior leadership is all from the capital city.

Stuff reports:

A full independent report of Solid Energy’s assets has been unveiled to creditors, supporting plans to sell down the company’s assets over the next few years. 

The beleaguered state-owned enterprise went into voluntary administration in August, and administrators delivered a full report to the company’s 1500 creditors on Thursday. 

The report, which contains an analysis of Solid Energy’s position, supported Solid Energy entering a Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) with its creditors.  

Solid Energy went into a five-week voluntary administration with two “real outcomes” possible – the Deed of Company Arrangement, or liquidation, administrator Brendon Gibson said. 

So will Labour oppose these assets being sold, arguing liquidation instead? A silly notion, but considering they are against any asset sales at all, you have to ask.

The Government owns a number of companies that may be worthless in a decade or less, or face serious competition. They are TVNZ, NZ Post, Kordia, Landcorp etc. We should be selling them while we can – otherwise they might all go the way of Solid Energy.

The Herald reports:

Police have apologised for pepper-spraying a schoolgirl in the face while trying to arrest her father. …

Bay of Plenty district commander superintendent Andy McGregor said the girl was “accidently contaminated with pepper spray” just after 5.30pm – and blamed her father Jack “Blu” Kira, who he said violently resisted arrest.

“We’re sorry for the obvious distress and pain this would have caused the girl during the incident and are pleased she is okay,” he said.

“However, had it not been for the actions of the man involved, officers would not have had to use pepper spray.”

The spraying happened during a routine traffic stop. Police said Kira refused to give his details and tried to drive off.

The officer attempted to remove the keys but his arm was trapped when the man allegedly wound up the window.

“As the officer pulled his arm free, the window broke, causing minor cuts. Unfortunately during the arrest, a girl who was in the car with the man was accidentally contaminated by some of the spray.

“It is also sad that she is an innocent victim who has had to witness this incident, which could have been completely avoided.”

A police spokesman said the man was now facing two charges of aggravated assault, and one charge each of failing to stop, and giving false details.

I’d say the responsibility is 99% the father’s.

I’d give 1% responsibility to the Police as with hindsight it would have been better if they tasered the father, instead of pepper sprayed him, as that doesn’t affect others in the car.

This photo from a newspaper, which I saw on Facebook, is a great example of why we should change the flag.

The Guardian reports:

Jeremy Corbyn has been elected leader of the British Labour party, in a stunning first-round victory that dwarfed even the mandate for Tony Blair in 1994.

He won with nearly 59.5% of first-preference votes, beating rivals Andy Burnham, who trailed on 19%, and Yvette Cooper who received 17%. The “Blairite” candidate Liz Kendall came last on 4.5%.

A huge victory. Also a huge turnout with 76% of members and supporters voting.

Corbyn will have an initial honeymoon. He may do well initially in the polls on the back of his win. Also the public may like a politician who says exactly what he thinks, rather than one who considers what is politically safe to say.

However it will not last. Not only are his economic policies akin to Syriza, his foreign policy is further to the left of even say Keith Locke.

He will either have to moderate his beliefs in order to be electable, or go into an election promising to scrap NATO, embrace Hamas, print unlimited money to fund everything and tax the rich until they leave.

But if he starts to divert from his true beliefs, then his appeal as a straight talking politician will suffer.

You can not say for sure he will never be Prime Minister, as events can interfere. Cameron’s Government might implode. But it is fair to say he is the most unlikely candidate for Prime Minister in recent British history.

What might assist him somewhat is that there is no credible third party for people who are against the Conservatives to go to, if in England. If the Lib Dems had not almost been wiped out in the election, they could have done massively well from Corbyn’s leadership. But they are just a sliver of what they were.

Corbyn is to the left of even the Greens, so maybe they could gain a bit of support from moderate Labour supporters, but unlikely. More likely is Corbyn is given a couple of years to look credible, and if he isn’t then he gets rolled. But by then the damage may be done.

Again the polls in the next three months won’t matter much. The polls in around six to nine months will.

On July 14^th the Obama Administration announced that an agreement (known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA) had been reached with the Iranians regarding their nuclear programme. It was sold heavily by Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama as a good deal that will constrain Iran’s nuclear ambition and bring ‘peace in our time’. The deal was quickly ratified by the UN Security Council but faced a rockier road in the US Congress.

The US Constitution (Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2) states that all foreign treaties must be ratified by a 2/3rds majority of the Senate. With Republican control of the Senate, that would have been a hard ask. Obama decided to deal with the Iranian agreement the same way as he dealt with his immigration reform, do an end run around Congress where both Houses are controlled by his opponents. Obama announced that the Iranian agreement would be promulgated by Executive Order only. His Administration can also unilaterally refuse to enforce the sanctions without Congressional approval; all else to do with the deal does not have the force of a formal treaty which means that an incoming new President in January 2017 can merely rescind the order and the US side of the deal would collapse.

To overcome the legitimate objection that this hugely important agreement was going to be rammed through bypassing the usual constitutional treaty ratification process and at least give the impression of SOME consultation with the Senate, Obama agreed to submit the JCPOA to a process negotiated with both parties in the Senate. The agreed upon process was passed into law called the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, often called in the US the Corker – Menendez – Cardin law (after the Republican and Democrat senators who sponsored the bill). The Senate would get the chance to review the agreement but the Constitutional approval process was turned on its head stating that the agreement would be deemed to be approved by Congress unless effectively 2/3rds of the Senate vote against it.

For the opponents of the agreement, the Corker law erected a very high barrier because of the other Senate procedures and Constitutional checks and balances. In order for the Senate to even pass a Motion of Disapproval, opponents must first muster 60 Senate votes to overcome the Minority Democrats likely filibuster. Republicans would need to be unified and get 6 Democrat Senators to defect to get the 60 Senate votes needed to defeat a filibuster which would send the Motion to President Obama for his signature. Obama has already announced he would veto it and to override a Presidential veto, you need a 2/3rds majority in both Houses of Congress. Whilst a number of high profile Democrat senators announced their opposition to the deal (including likely new Democrat Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer of New York), last week Obama secured the support of the 34^th Senator in favour of the deal thus ensuring his veto would be sustained in the Senate. Today (Friday 11 September) the House voted 269 to 162 to reject the deal, a margin of 107 which included 25 Democrat defections. However Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat House Minority Leader, says she has at least 150 Democrats who will vote against a veto override meaning the House would fall short of a veto.

On Tuesday 8 September, Administration officials announced that 41 Democrat Senators had announced support for the deal making it possible for Senate Democrats to block via filibuster the Motion of Disapproval obviating even the need for President Obama’s veto. As of right now, Republicans are toying with a series of amendments to the agreement that encapsulate the most egregious and unpopular aspects to force Senate and House Democrats into a series of embarrassing votes in favour of the worst aspects of the deal. This tactic worked a few months ago with a child trafficking bill that Democrats tried to add abortion funding amendments to and then tried to filibuster the whole law. In the end, the threat of filibuster was withdrawn. But even if the GOP succeed in having the Senate Democrats withdraw their filibuster of the Motion of Disapproval enabling it to pass, Obama will still veto it.

It is important to note that the JCPOA is very unpopular amongst the US voting public. All reputable independent polls conducted by the large polling companies (as opposed to pro deal lobby group polls) point to an almost 2:1 opposition to the deal with a recent Pew poll putting support for the deal at barely 21%. This post examines the reasons for this opposition and why, in my opinion, it is a bad deal.

Iran is not a trustworthy player

Since the overthrow of the Shah in 1979 and the ascension to power of the Islamic mullahs, Iran has conducted numerous of acts of aggression against enemies of its Islamic fundamentalist ideals beginning of course with the 444 day captivity of all but six of the staff of the US Embassy in Tehran.

Iran has been an aggressive funder of, and provider of weapons for, Islamic terror groups across the Middle East including Hezbollah in Lebanon (who provoked a war with Israel in 2006, who massacred 241 US Marines in 1982 and assassinated numerous Druze and Christian politicians in Lebanon), Hamas in Gaza (whose indiscriminate shooting of rockets into Israel has led to three Gaza wars with Israel), Houthi rebels in Yemen (recently overthrowing the Yemeni government) and a number of attacks on Israeli or Jewish targets around the globe with the most devastating attacks being in Argentina.

Iran engaged in an 8 year long war with Iraq (then seen more as a US proxy) with overall casualties topping 1 million. After the US led invasion of Iraq in 2003, Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Quds forces acted to foment Shia on Sunni sectarian violence in Iraq that was not quelled until the Petraeus led surge of US troops in 2007.

Iran cannot be considered as anything other than an extremist repressive theocracy. There are no free elections, no trade unions, no free press, an extensive and brutal secret police to stamp out opposition, woman are subservient as Islamic laws that treat them as second class citizens are enforced and homosexuals are routinely beaten, hung or thrown from high buildings [correction: Iran has hung over 4,000 gays since 1979 according to gar rights groups – throwing gays from buildings is a hallmark of ISIS].

The whole purpose of the JCPOA arose from the long efforts of the Iranians to build a nuclear weapons capability. The entire sanctions regime that was under review was imposed on Iran because it continued to develop this capability in spite of UN Security Council resolutions and the original opposition of the US and its allies.

Disappearing red lines

The US entered these talks with a number of so-called red or bottom lines. As the negotiations wore on in Geneva, the US progressively caved on each red line:

* The closing down and dismantling of the underground facility at Fordow. Now Fordow can continue to operate with nothing more than ineffectual Russian oversight.

* Inspections were initially going to be “anywhere – anytime”. These have been negotiated away to a farcical regime that gives the Iranians the ability to effectively police themselves.

Toothless inspections regime

The Bush Administration’s sanctions, its action to depose Saddam Hussein in Iraq then the IAEA’s (International Atomic Energy Agency – the UN’s nuclear inspection agency) inspections regime in Libya effectively brought an end to Muammar Gaddafi’s nuclear ambitions. Here was a peaceful precedent as to how to snuff out of a nascent nuclear weapons programme. But for it to work, any inspections regime must have teeth. With regards to inspections, there are three types of nuclear sites in Iran:

1^st – Known nuclear sites. Policing of these sites will be more rigorous under the JCPOA. For this reason, the Iranians will migrate the weaponisation programme from these heavily policed sites (that are the most talked about) to secondary sites. These known sites are where the Iranians will very publicly reduce the numbers of centrifuges to give the impression of freezing their nuclear programme.

2^nd – Secondary suspicious sites. It is activity at these sites where the scope for Iranian flouting of the JCPOA will first occur. The regime for inspecting these sites is frankly pathetic. The IAEA, the US and allies have long suspected the facility at Parchin to be a nuclear weapons development site. But in a secret side deal between the Iranians and the IAEA (that the Obama Administration refuses to show to Congress), the Iranians are allowed to monitor themselves at Parchin. This side agreement specifically makes Parchin off limits to US inspectors. No wonder Kerry and Obama wanted to keep Congress from seeing it.

3^rd – Unknown sites. The Iranians will cheat the most at small unknown sites. The inspections regime makes finding suspicious activity at these sites all but impossible. If suspicion arises, the IAEA must first provide evidence to a P5 + EU committee which must approve of inspections (this will take months and the Russians and Chinese will delay and object) and only if the committee agrees, THEN the Iranians will be given 24 days warning of a formal inspection; enough time to clean up any nuclear material despite claims of technology to find even cleaned up sites. According to former IAEA inspector Ari Knownen, the chance of catching Iranian breaches of the JCPOA at these sites is zero.

JCPOA merely attempts to freeze capability not dismantle it

The Agreement makes no genuine attempt at dismantling Iran’s nuclear bomb development. It temporarily forces Iran to give up only SOME of its infrastructure for 10 years only to give it back after 10 years. The best example of this is the Arak Heavy Water facility. Heavy water only has ONE use – inside a nuclear bomb. Furthermore, there is no evidence of any extensive civilian nuclear power infrastructure (the claimed purpose of the nuclear programme).

Has the Iranian regime been required to halt research and development of the faster centrifuges that will enable it to break out to a bomb more rapidly than is the case right now? Answer: No. The deal specifically legitimizes ongoing R&D under certain eroding limitations. Iran can commence testing on the fast IR-8 single centrifuge machines as soon as the deal goes into effect and can commence testing on an additional thirty IR 6 and IR 8 centrifuges in 8½ years’ time enabling it to race to the bomb even faster.

Snap back provisions weak and ineffectual

Assuming that the IAEA IS able to detect Iranian breaches of the JCPOA what then? The entire sanctions infrastructure will have been shredded with almost no ability to effectively re-implement them for any Iranian bad behaviour. The so-called snap back provisions are far from that. It took many years to set in motion the sanctions. Whilst the US Congress could quickly re-impose restrictions on the flow of funds through US banks, without buy-in from the EU countries and Russia and China (two countries who opposed sanctions in the first place and sought ways to circumvent them), there would not be nearly the same deleterious effect on the Iranian economy from what the JCPOA proposes would happen in the unlikely event that Iranian subterfuge is caught by the severely weakened inspections regime that Obama’s people caved on.

‘Signing bonus’ of $100 billion in sanctions relief + bonuses Iran never asked for

The agreement gradually lifts the sanctions that had progressively become quite draconian and had severely constrained Iranian economic activity. Indeed the sanctions can be credited for bringing Iran to the negotiating table in the first place. The JCPOA provides for a massive $100 billion shot in the arm to the regime in the form of front end sanctions relief – a so-called signing bonus. The Iranians would like to have the west believe that this money will be spent on domestic improvements and infrastructure. A short examination of Iranian foreign policy tells us that plenty of this money will be spent by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards (the elite fanatical well trained and armed special force that is Iran’s primary method of exporting terror) to further arm Iran’s Shi’ite proxies in Lebanon, the West Bank, Yemen and Gaza. Where else does Hezbollah get its huge arsenal of rockets to fire into Israel and Hamas to build its terror tunnels and its own arsenal of Israel bound rockets? The IRG will also continue to prop up the Assad regime in Syria and its own vicious civil war with ISIS.

The JCPOA will effectively fund a new round of Iranian sponsored terror in the Middle East further corrupting any hope of a proper democracy in Lebanon, any peace in Syria and significantly increasing the likelihood of Hamas and/or Hezbollah provoking another war with Israel.

Obama was so desperate to do the deal that Iran got other bonuses it didn’t even initially ask for.  First, it got the P5 to lift the ban on conventional weapons. This means that the signing bonus money can be spent on perfecting medium to long range conventional missiles that can threaten not just Israel but Europe (and beyond) as well. And you can plan on any accelerated development of Iranian missile delivery of conventional warheads to have cross over applicability to its parallel pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Second, Iran got a guarantee from sabotage of its nuclear programme. It’s not sufficient that the US gave away its “anywhere anytime” inspections goal, the agreement requires the P5 to protect the arrangement from external manipulation. Quite what that will mean in reality is hard to specify because the agreement is silent on how this obligation would be fulfilled. Will for instance the US be now required to prevent Israel from sabotaging Iranian nuclear facilities (like the joint US-Israeli Suxtnet virus that set back Iran’s programme several years)? How far would the US go in this matter? All the way to militarily preventing an Israeli strike?

But don’t the P5 and a lot of US and Israeli former military and intelligence staff support the JCPOA?

Britain will do whatever Obama asks. Germany wants to appear to be all in for peace meanwhile France and China are chomping at the bit to do business with Iran (indeed both countries have been at the forefront of sanctions circumvention) and as for Russia, they want to increase their trade and influence in the region and care nothing for the fate of Israel.

A war of words has erupted in the US between different groups of retired military and intelligence officers. In terms of the sheer number and quality, the signatories of those opposed to the deal far outweigh the numbers and previous rank/experience of those who support the deal.

The same is even truer in Israel. The left leaning western media are anxious to appease Iran (as they were to appease Hitler in hailing Chamberlain’s Munich Agreement as a breakthrough) and have found a small handful of retired Israeli intelligence officers who support the deal. Israeli politics is fiercely partisan with vocal proponents of the left and right and their supporting newspapers and other media. Unique in this country of constant, loud even brutal partisan political confrontation is the unanimity among the major Israeli political parties especially now from the left leaning Zionist Union coalition led by Isaac Hertzog (who initially supported the negotiations and campaigned against Netanyahu’s bold attempt to sway the US Congress by his personal appearance). Hertzog’s view of the deal is now the same as the right leaning Likud Party, its high profile PM Netanyahu and its coalition partners. Similarly, all recent opinion polls in Israel put public opposition to the deal at around 80%.

 The future

I see four important likely outcomes (assuming the Motion either fails to pass or, if passed, is vetoed and the veto is sustained):

1 – Almost all Republican candidates vying for their party’s nomination for the 2016 US Presidential elections have committed to rescind the Agreement by Executive Order. Because the agreement was not enacted by the normal treaty process but by Executive Order, it lacks the formal status of a treaty, and if rescinded by the same process, it would thus no longer be binding on the US. Only Donald Trump seems to be advocating for some modification to the JCPOA as opposed to the outright rescission proposed by the next highest polling candidates.

2 – Conventional war with Israel is more likely given that the sanctions thaw and signing bonus will have the effect of significantly ramping up Iranian arming of its anti-Israel proxies; an outcome ironically admitted to by key Obama Administration officials such as Kerry and National Security Adviser Susan Rice.

3 – A nuclear arms race will commence in earnest in the world’s most dangerous region. The Saudis may have been temporarily placated by the promise of more US arms and military aid but as the prominent Sunni Arab nation, it will not stand by idly and allow Shi’ite Iran to ramp up its regional hegemony with a nuclear bomb. Egypt, as the next largest Arab nation, will likely follow suit as may the Kuwaitis.

4 – Israel will not allow Iran to go nuclear. Because this deal makes that possibility MORE not less likely, so the likelihood of an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities is now more likely especially if a Republican President is elected in 2016. Remember that Israel has its high profile prior form on this matter. In June 1986, the Israeli Air force destroyed Iraq’s fledgling nuclear bomb development programme at Osirak. They did the same to Syria’s similar attempt (assisted by North Korea) at Al Kibar in September 2007. Unlike many in the west who brush off the steady stream of annihilation rhetoric from Iran’s leaders as domestic political puffery, the Israelis remember similar dismissal of long published Nazi Jewish extermination goals and have vowed “never again”. Netanyahu has reiterated the threat of an Israeli military strike in the event that Iran ‘breaks out’ on more than one occasion. On matters like this, it would pay to take the Israelis at their word!

Few recall Obama’s campaign promise in 2007 to negotiate with Iran without conditions; a policy that, at the time, placed him to the left of even his Democrat rivals. With his showcase domestic reform (Obamacare) faltering and proving to be both costly and unpopular, with his presiding over the most devastating electoral losses for his party at the national and state level in over 70 years, after a raft of shambolic foreign policy catastrophes (Syria – need I say any more), Obama was hungry for a legacy building showpiece achievement. John Kerry’s appeasing instincts were on display soon after he returned from active duty in Vietnam so he made the perfect negotiator for Obama. After Obama ignored his Syrian red line over chemical weapons, stood by idly as the Russians took the Crimea and allowed militia incursions into Ukraine and ramped up the rhetoric against Israel, the Mullahs in Tehran knew they were dealing with a weak, pacifist dilettante anxious to sign any big agreement with them. The US gave away pretty much all its previous bottom lines and prostrated itself before the savvy Iranian negotiators in Geneva and have effectively given Iran a green light to obtain nuclear weapons AND arm their global terrorism activities for a generation. And for this I’m sure Obama and Kerry will be awarded a Nobel Peace prize such is the inverted world we now live in!

The Dom Post editorial:

Now we’re fighting about whether the Red Peak flag should join the final four for the referendum later this year. And it obviously should. The Flag Consideration Panel botched its job and ended up with three fern designs and a koru. What sort of choice is that?

The Red Peak movement has gathered 35,000 signatures on an online petition. That can’t be dismissed as just a digital bubble or a storm on a Facebook page.

Yes it can. It is exactly that. 1% of NZers have spent 15 seconds to sign an online petition.

A UMR poll of the 40 long listed designs found Red Peak 35th of 40. It was close to being the most disliked design of the 40, being in the top 4 for dislike or least preferred in every demographic.

John Key says the Government would have to change the law to allow a fifth finalist. So what? His administration will change the law at the drop of a hat if it really wants to.

So this pathetic, once great, newspaper is reduced to arguing that Parliament should pass a special law and over-ride the independent panel because a few thousand people spent 15 seconds signing an online petition. What a joke.

Stuff reports:

A group of growers and farmers, who have been campaigning under the Pure Hawke’s Bay banner for a GM ban in the region, say the council’s move should result in a “major economic opportunity” because of the premium global markets place on unmodified food.

The council – Hawke’s Bay’s largest territorial authority, responsible for an area that includes a significant proportion of the region’s horticultural and agricultural activity – has amended its District Plan to prohibit the release and field trials of GM crops and animals.

Never mind the Royal Commission that spent years looking at the evidence and found it was safe. Never mind the fact GM food is having some huge impacts in boosting food production in third world countries, boosting incomes and preventing starvation.

Hastings Mayor Lawrence Yule said he shared the producers’ view that being able to claim GM-free status provided the region with a significant economic opportunity.

“We produce some of the best food in the world. There is a premium for GM-free food and we think that for the 10-year life of the District Plan we should use that to our advantage in terms of a market opportunity.”

He said it was a brave move for his council to take but “the community has been quite strong in supporting this so we’ve gone out and done something about it”. 

It’s a cowardly move, not a brave move.

Philip Matthews writes in Stuff:

It was a Monday morning much like any other. There were jokes to make, news stories to mock, zingers to zing. Twitter was ticking over as it should, running as an infernal engine of bad humour and good information. And then it all went horribly wrong.

I blame the Wiggles. A story appeared on Stuff informing us that two of the Wiggles were now dating. It helps to know that following a lineup reshuffle, there is a woman in the previously all-male band. And that woman was seeing one of the band’s three remaining men. Having just read something about former Sonic Youth member Kim Gordon’s book Girl in a Band, in which a painful relationship breakup led to a sad band breakup, such issues were on my mind.

So I quipped to my Twitter followers, “Why you should never have chicks in the band. Couples break up, then the band breaks up”. And I linked to the Wiggles story. It all seemed fairly innocuous.

Then, out of nowhere: social media outrage.

“When do we call women ‘chicks’? Never!” thundered a male Twitter follower (I have added punctuation to his urgent tweet). A woman I don’t know demanded that I apologise immediately, but I would not.

“You’ve been asked not to use the term, apologise and move on,” she insisted. “Stop trying to defend this.”

Another person informed me, in all seriousness, that women are not poultry. A man compared me to the lowest form of life on the Internet, the “Gamergaters” who had only recently kicked up a sexist stink about women and video games. In all but one case, these attacks came from people I had never met.

It was exciting and utterly absurd. For about half an hour on an ordinary Monday in March, Twitter hell broke loose.

I’ve had a couple of those also. Twitter seems to be a home for permanent outrage. One US magazine actually did a calendar showing for every day of the year, what was causing outrage on Twitter that day.

Sadly the media partly fuel this. They now seem to add to half their stories, some random comments from Twitter.

When I’ve been the centre of abuse on Twitter, I simply turn notifications off and don’t check in for a day or two.

A woman named Adria Richards was in the audience at a technology conference in California when she overheard a couple of dudes making barely audible jokes to each other about “dongles”. It was probably a long day in an airless room. Richards took a picture of the two guys, put it on Twitter and shamed them as inappropriate sexists. One of them was fired as well.

An invasion of privacy. They were not the guest speakers, just in the audience joking to each other. And you had the recent example of the person who published photos of a couple breaking up on a plane, shaming them to a global audience.

I asked Twitter who the Twitterati are and the first answer was “you”. I guess I was asking for that one. But more serious answers followed. They are Left-leaning and self-important, they hunt in packs and devour their own. They are Wellington-based and professional, often posting anonymously because they have government jobs. They are outside the MSM (internet shorthand for “mainstream media”) and critical of it, and they see the worst political crime as being old, white, straight and male. Even if you can’t help being old, white, straight and male.

Not a bad summary. Those of us who fit at least two of those three have privilege and as far as I can tell, this means we must be in a continual state of atonement.

One name kept on coming up: Patrick Gower. Why him? Somehow he had come to embody everything the Twitterati hated. His reports on 3 News are provocative at times and often personalised but he seemed politically neutral. No-one could guess how Gower votes from how he reports. Paul Henry and Mike Hosking seemed much more pro-government.

Was there was something jagged and disruptive about Gower that was breaking up the smoothness of commercial television and was it getting under the skin of the Twitterati?

It didn’t take long to see that he had been winding them up. When other mainstream journalists are called government shills or stooges by the angry Twitter Left, they might ignore it or block it out. But Gower was giving it back to them. Media companies want journalists to be engaged on Twitter and other social platforms but Gower was taking engagement to a whole new level.

I admired it. It was lively stuff but there was an unreality about it all too, as though Gower was just amusing himself while getting on with his real work. Maybe this is what annoyed his Twitter critics so much. Perhaps they sensed that he wasn’t taking it as seriously as they were.

They would criticise his reports. He would reply “Yawn”.

Gower has had huge abuse on Twitter. It used to really impact him. He tried ignoring it but then worked out that you fight fire with fire, and he often will troll the trolls.

Twitter became a hive of “intolerant argument and abuse”, said former political journalist Bill Ralston in a Radio New Zealand discussion after the election. Like Gower, Ralston started some of those arguments as well as being on the receiving end of some of the abuse. But Ralston also thought that the mainstream media looked at Twitter, saw a lot of Left-wing activity and misread the wider electoral mood. In reality, the centrist New Zealand that isn’t on Twitter and doesn’t follow a handful of political bloggers did what it always did.

There is a kind of angry impotence about the Left on Twitter. You saw it when social media noise misled Labour supporters in the UK just as it misled them here. After Labour’s Ed Miliband lost, Helen Lewis in the New Statesmantalked about the Left-wing echo chamber that is social media, which lures the Left into “cosy delusion and dangerous insularity”. You surround yourself with people who think the same.

Many only follow people with views they agree with. Or sometimes they will follow others just so they can abuse them and tell them they’re wrong.

It is much worse on Twitter than Facebook. I’ve blocked probably two people on Facebook but off hand probably 200 to 300 on Twitter for abuse.

Stuff reports:

A woman who was on the boat carrying drowned Syrian toddler Aylan Kurdi has accused his father of being a people smuggler.

Channel Ten reported Zainab Abbas, who lost two children in the tragedy, claims Abdullah Kurdi was at the helm of the boat when it sunk off the Turkish coast.

“He was a smuggler, yes. He was the one that was driving the boat,” the woman told Ten over Skype from Iraq through a translator. 

So he was doing it not to reach safety, but to make money. How awful.

It was known, but not widely reported, that they were not in fact fleeing from Syria, but had lived in Turkey for three years.

Abbas claimed she met Kurdi and another man in a cafe and handed over $US10,000 to get them to Europe.  

So for the entire boat, how much?

Abbas said there were too many people in the boat and not enough life jackets when it capsized.

Her husband had asked Kurdi to slow down, but he didn’t listen, she said.

Crying, Abbas said she and her husband and daughter held on to a life jacket but her other two children, a boy and girl, were lost.

This is one of the challenges for Governments. You don’t actually want refugees to be travelling by sea to other countries, as it is highly dangerous for them and they get exploited by people smugglers. That is why many Governments say they will only take refugees who come through the UNHCR. But of course if you do manage to reach another country by sea, you may get asylum.

Earlier this week Kurdi blamed Canadian authorities for the deaths of his wife and sons, telling German news site Die Welt that he did not understand why Canada rejected his application for asylum.

But Canada’s immigration department said it had not received a refugee application from Kurdi.

So it seems he may be lying about a lot.

Radio NZ report:

Una Jagose was about to deliver an address to a Privacy Commission technology forum in Wellington, when two anti-GCSB protesters unfurled a banner in front of the podium and refused to move.

One man from the audience appealed to the two women to allow Ms Jagose to speak, as that was what they were there to hear, but the protesters said they intended to remain for the duration of the speech.

Privacy Commissioner John Edwards then decided to cancel the event.

Afterwards, Ms Jagose said the agency had heeded public calls for greater transparency.

“Protests are a legitimate part of the democracy that we live in and I like the democracy that we live in – so is the work that the bureau does, a legitimate part of the democracy we live in,” she said.

“So it was a shame that one stopped the other from going ahead today.”

It looks like one of the protesters is Valerie Morse, whose commitment to peace is so sincere she runs around the Ureweras with illegal guns.

Ms Jagose said she was very happy to field questions from the audience, but not to deliver her speech over the top of the protest banner.

“I was going to talk about the work that we do both in foreign intelligence and cyber defence, and talk about the systems of oversight and the controls that are in place.

“I was going to talk a lot more about more than we’ve ever talked about before in public about our cyber security programme, called the Cortex programme – how we look at the privacy interests related to that programme, how it works, how it’s controlled, what it is.

“Stuff that we’ve never said before.”

Ms Jagose said she would still get more detail out to the public, and would reschedule her speech for a later date.

Mr Edwards said, in his view, the protesters were there to disrupt and prevent the messages from coming out, and he wasn’t prepared to subject his guest and the audience to the “spectacle of people being dragged out” by security.

“That would have suited the protesters, I’m sure, to have been able to garner more media attention and to shout their message but there’s no need for that.

“This is about freedom of speech; if they use their speech to shut down this really important development in the opening up of the organisation, then I think they’ve acted counter to their interests frankly.”

Well said John Edwards.

Good to see the Privacy Commissioner working with the GCSB, encouraging them to be more open with their activities. That is a good thing, and it is a pity the protesters prevented this happening.

The Herald reports:

Former Green Party co-leader Russel Norman will resign as an MP and from the Green Party to head Greenpeace New Zealand.

Dr Norman, who stepped down from the co-leader position in May and was replaced by James Shaw, will leave Parliament next month.

In November he will become Greenpeace New Zealand’s executive director, taking over from Bunny McDiarmid, who has been in the role for 10 years.

It is no surprise Dr Norman is leaving Parliament, following on his resignation as co-leader.

The Greenpeace jobs looks ideal for him. The hours will be more family friendly than Parliament, but will allow him to continue his advocacy in an area he feels strongly on. I wish him well.

Dr Norman said he would also resign from the Green Party.

“Greenpeace’s staunch position on political independence is one I have always had huge respect for and it is for this reason that I will [resign].

I think that is being silly. Just because he resigns as a member doesn’t mean people won’t see him as the former co-leader. What will count for Greenpeace’s reputation is their actions. Have they ever disagreed with the Green Party on an issue for example? As a contrast I’m on the board of the Taxpayers Union that has criticised the National Government on scores and scores of issues. Independence is about substance, not just form.

Dr Norman’s resignation will see Marama Davidson become the party’s 14th MP.

Ms Davidson, from Manurewa, Auckland, is a political commentator who has worked at the Human Rights Commission for ten years.

Marama is a very popular candidate within the Greens, and from what I have seen she should be an effective MP.

The ODT reports:

The Department of Conservation is working on plans for a Great Walk near Queenstown, the country’s 10th.

The proposed three day route is through the spectacular scenery of nearby Mt Creighton Station.

The ”Moonlight Trail” is part of a mooted trade off between the Government and the company which owns the perpetual lease for the 15,000ha station.

It is detailed in documents obtained under the Official Information Act from the Overseas Investment Office, which has rubber stamped the deal. Documents state: ”It is likely to become one of the best walks in New Zealand.”

Sounds superb.

So far I’ve done five of the nine Great Walks and two more scheduled for early next year leaving just Lake Waikaremoana and Routeburn. So be great to have a 10th one after those!

The World Bank reports:

Women, Business and the Law measures legal restrictions on women’s employment and entrepreneurship by identifying gender-based legal differences. The dataset has captured 21 differences in policies for unmarried women and 26 for married women that affect women’s economic opportunities, for a total of 47 differences across five indicators (box 1.1). Of the 173 economies covered by Women, Business and the Law, 155 maintain at least one barrier for women seeking opportunities that does not exist for men; on this simple measure (figure 1.1), the majority of economies have at least one legal gender difference.

The 30 economies with ten or more legal differences are in the Middle East and North Africa (18), Sub-Saharan Africa (8), East Asia and the Pacific (2) and South Asia (2).

The 18 economies with no legal differences between women and men in the areas measured are Armenia; Canada; the Dominican Republic; Estonia; Hungary; Kosovo; Malta; Mexico; Namibia; the Netherlands; New Zealand; Peru; Puerto Rico, territory of the United States; Serbia; the Slovak Republic; South Africa; Spain and Taiwan, China

So we’re one of only 18 countries with no legal barriers for women in employment.

Some of the restrictions are:

• Need permission to get a passport – 32 countries
• Can not be head of a household – 30 countries
• Can not choose where to live – 30 countries
• Need permission to get a job – 18 countries

Others include the French law that women may not carry loads of greater than 25 kgs!

Stuff reports:

The call for a toll on Wellington’s CBD is growing louder, with studies revealing the central city could be flooded with almost 12,000 more cars once its proposed new motorways are up and running.

Wellington recently joined forces with Auckland to lobby the Government for the law changes necessary to introduce user-pays charges as a means of reducing car use.

Some of the ideas being floated include a congestion charge, such as the one used in central London,  and fees that ramp up the cost of long-stay commuter parking.

I favour congestion charges as the most efficient form of user pays.

However revenue from motorists should be used on improving the roading network, not just as a revenue grab. If you bring in congestion charges, then you should reduce petrol tax to compensate.

The American Mirror reports:

A Gannett reporter who writes for both the Appleton Post-Crescent and USA Today covering local and Wisconsin politics, including Gov. Scott Walker’s presidential bid, signed a petition in 2011 to recall Walker from office.

Madeleine Behr is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin Madison, and she wrote for a number of publications before joining Gannett earlier this year.

Her first story for the Post-Crescentappeared online on July 2, and since thenshe’s published 35 stories, including four that focus on Walker’s presidential bid, and others that cover the political aspirations and maneuvers of high profile Democratic candidates.

Another example of why trust in media is so low.  But she is hardly alone:

In 2012, then-Post-Crescent publisher Genia Lovett disclosed that 25 Gannett journalists, including nine at the Post-Crescent, signed Walker recall petitions

This was not a meaningless petition. It was a petition to sack the Governor that forced a recall election.

An interesting focus group of Donald trump supporters:

 “Nothing disqualifies Trump.”

That was the takeaway of Frank Luntz, the public opinion guru, after leading a focus group Monday night of supporters of Donald Trump’s Republican presidential campaign.

For two and a half hours, Luntz quizzed a group of current and past ardent Trump fans about their views on the businessman. He discussed the candidate’s past liberal stances and played past video of Trump saying provocative things about women. Yet when the focus group was over, not a single person who was planning to vote for him said they had changed their mind.

At one point, Luntz bolted from the room with the focus group to make sure the handful of reporters observing on the other side of the glass understood how big of a deal this was. “My legs are shaking,” he admitted.

“This is absolutely for real,” Luntz said of the intense and loyal support for Trump. “And he is not going away. And he is as strong as every survey shows. All those people who think he’s going to implode have not sat and talked to these voters the way that they should have.”

This is very interesting. It suggests that Trump’s support is locked in and nothing short of a monumental disaster will shake his supporters.

Yet the one thing nearly everybody took issue with was Trump’s past comments questioning former prisoner of war John McCain’s heroism.

“His statement about John McCain, that rubbed me the wrong way,” said one man.

But most signaled they are willing to look past it.

“He’s done some good things,” said a man. “The only real negative I had was his P.O.W comments. Everybody makes comments. You can’t judge his entire candidacy on a comment he made probably on the top his head.”

All this means the rules of politics don’t seem to apply to Trump. Things that would probably damage — or end — other campaigns don’t dent Trump at all.

I thought the McCain comments would kill him. I was wrong. They didn’t like it but they are not letting his comments change their support.