Don Brash has kindly sent me his notes for his response at Orewa to Gareth Morgan:

Thanks for inviting me here today, and for the opportunity to comment on what Gareth has said.  I didn’t see the speech in advance of course, so these comments are just immediate reactions based partly on what Gareth said a few days ago in a speech to a Ngapuhi audience.

Let me say first that there are some of Gareth’s views with which I agree.  He said in his Ngapuhi speech that he is opposed to separate Maori electorates, Maori wards (and by implication the Maori Statutory Board in Auckland) and quotas for Maori in educational institutions.  Granting any group special rights is contrary to Article 3 of the Treaty he said, and I totally agree with that.

It’s also patronising, and implies that Maori aren’t quite competent enough to have their voices heard in the political arena without a special leg up.  Of course that is nonsense: when I was in Parliament, there were 21 Maori in Parliament – roughly the same percentage of Members of Parliament as Maori are in the wider population – only seven of them elected in the Maori electorates.  The other 14 were elected in general constituencies or were placed in a winnable position on a party’s list.

Similarly in Auckland: the first election of councillors after the super-city was established in 2010 saw three people of Maori descent elected – not in Maori wards but on their own merits – and again three Maori out of a total of 20 councillors meant that Maori on the Council were in roughly the same proportion as Maori in the general population.

But as explained in his Ngapuhi speech his basic position seems to be that –

“.. the Treaty is whatever a reasonable person’s view of the following four taken together leads them to – not any one taken in isolation, but all taken together:

• Treaty of Waitangi
• Te Tiriti O Waitangi
• Principles of the Treaty
• Post-1975 Consensus on the Treaty.”

And I think that that is a nonsense.  The so-called principles of the Treaty have often been referred to, frequently in legislation, but have never to my knowledge been fully explained, let alone agreed.  And to refer to a “post-1975 consensus on the Treaty” is again a meaningless concept – I know of no such consensus, and the whole reason for the ongoing debate is that there is no consensus about what the Treaty means, or should mean.

In one of his Herald articles recently he talked about Maori having a partnership with the Crown, making us, in his words, “one nation, two peoples”.  I also think this is nonsense, Lord Cooke notwithstanding.  The idea that Governor Hobson envisaged the British Crown – the representation of the most advanced country in the world at the time – forming a partnership with a disparate group of Maori chiefs who were, at that time, scarcely out of the Stone Age, is ludicrous.

So I disagree with Gareth’s starting point, and as a result I disagree with many of his conclusions. 

I think making the teaching of te reo compulsory in primary school, as he advocates, would be a complete waste of valuable teaching time for most New Zealand children, many of whom can’t even read and write well in English – which is not just the dominant language of New Zealand but is also the dominant language of the whole world.  Being able to read and write in English is of fundamental importance to all New Zealanders, whatever their ancestry.  And yes, there may be merits in terms of brain development in learning a second language at an early age, but if a second language is to be learnt it should be one which would be of benefit in the wider world, such as Mandarin or Spanish.  (Interestingly, I took part in a Maori TV programme a few years ago, on a panel of six people discussing whether te reo should be a compulsory subject in primary school.  Even though I was the only non-Maori on the panel, the panel voted by clear majority against making the teaching of te reo compulsory.)

And the idea of having an Upper House with 50% of its members being Maori strikes me as utterly absurd, and totally at odds with any concept of democracy.

Many of our problems today stem from the way in which Te Tiriti O Waitangi – the real Treaty, which Maori chiefs signed – has been reinterpreted to suit the desires of modern-day revisionists.  But its meaning is totally unambiguous.

The first clause involved Maori chiefs ceding sovereignty to the British Crown, completely and forever.  And there can be not the slightest doubt about that.  That Maori chiefs understood that at the time is abundantly clear from the speeches made by the chiefs themselves, both those in favour of signing and those opposed to it.  This was further confirmed by a large number of chiefs at the Kohimarama Conference in 1860, and confirmed again by Sir Apirana Ngata in 1920.

The third article of the Treaty provided that all Maori – “tangata Maori, katoa o Nu Tirani” – should receive full citizenship rights – and this included the many slaves of other Maori, most being held in abject conditions and often the victims of cannibal feasts.  Today, we tend to see this clause as no big deal but in 1840 it was an extraordinary thing for the Queen’s representatives to offer – nothing similar happened for the Australian aborigines, or the American Indians.   All Maori, no matter their status, were offered the “rights and privileges of British subjects”, putting them on a par with every other British subject – not, it may be noted, ahead of other British subjects but on a par with them.

The second clause is what has caused so much angst.  Actually, the clause is redundant since all it does is guarantee the right of citizens to own private property, and British subjects have this right anyway.   But note that the guarantee was made to all the people of New Zealand – “tangata katoa o Nu Tirani” – in clear distinction to the third article which specifically applied only to Maori – and “all” means “all”.  In other words, rights of ownership were guaranteed to all New Zealanders, not just to those with one or more Maori ancestors.

There is ongoing debate about what “tino rangatiratanga” meant at the time but it is impossible to believe it meant what modern-day revisionists try to take it to mean.  Why on earth would Hobson have asked Maori chiefs to sign a Treaty involving the complete cession of sovereignty in the first clause if the second clause contradicted that first clause?

Let me say that I have always supported the payment of compensation by the Crown to any New Zealander, Maori or non-Maori, who can establish with a reasonable degree of certainty that their property has been illegally confiscated by the Crown.  There are clearly suspicions that some of the claims which have been settled in recent times have in fact been settled on several previous occasions, and that brings the settlement process into disrepute.  But in principle nobody can object to the Crown paying compensation to any New Zealander whose property has been illegally confiscated.

So in summary, I like the Treaty: it is a very simple document recording the cession of sovereignty by the Maori chiefs who signed it; extending to them in return the full rights of British subjects; and guaranteeing to all New Zealanders the right to own property.

But it does not require us all to learn te reo; it does not provide for separate Maori electorates or Maori wards; it does not give Maori a power to veto RMA resource consents; it does not give Maori any preferential rights over natural resources; and it certainly provides no basis for an Upper House with half its members being Maori.

Where are ISIS expanding?

James Schneider over at Fox News (along with contributions from the Associated Press) reports on the worrying current expansion by ISIS (ISIL) into nearly a dozen countries.

Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, delivered a grim assessment earlier this week in testimony to the House Armed Services Committee, as he described how the group was surfacing in North Africa.

“With affiliates in Algeria, Egypt, Libya, the group is beginning to assemble a growing international footprint that includes ungoverned and under governed areas,” Stewart said.

ISIS continues to hold a wide swath of territory, bigger than the state of Pennsylvania, in its home base spanning parts of Iraq and Syria, propped up by more than 20,000 foreign fighters from at least three dozen countries. But the terror network’s tentacles, as Stewart indicated, are creeping into other nations; largely those with fragile governments.

“ISIS, like Al Qaeda, has thrived in the failed states where there is a vacuum of power,” said James Phillips, Middle East senior research fellow with the Heritage Foundation.

The strategy of terrorist groups moving into failed states is all too common. The current nominee for the role of US Secretary of Defence Ashton Carter is concerned where ISIS may go next.

Defense secretary nominee Ashton Carter, who had his confirmation hearing Wednesday, told Congress he is aware of reports that ISIS may try to expand into Afghanistan, and vowed to work with coalition partners to stop the group. He said he would consider changing plans for withdrawing the remaining 10,600 U.S. troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2016 if security conditions further deteriorate.

Terrorist groups in other countries are supporting ISIS.

The Islamic State’s ambitions do not stop at Afghanistan, the so-called Graveyard of Empires. Militant groups in Pakistan, the Philippines, Israel and the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Indonesia and Jordan, among other areas, reportedly have pledged formal support for ISIS.

There has been a little bit of good news in Kobani Syria where the Kurdish fighters drove ISIS forces out last week.

Current US strategy

So what is the current US strategy? This question was raised by Senator John McCain (R) during Carter’s confirmation hearing in the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“I believe I understand our strategy at this time,” Carter explained. “I also have the intention, again if confirmed, to make it my first priority to go there, to talk to our military leaders there, to confer with you … I think a strategy connects ends and means, and our ends with respect to ISIL needs to be its lasting defeat.”

McCain retorted: “Well, it doesn’t sound like a strategy to me, but maybe we can flesh out your goals.”

Hardly a decisive and acceptable answer to a key question regarding US strategy on ISIS. Perhaps the words came out a bit wrong (we’ve all done that) but its still a poor answer.

Duncan Garner writes:

The event reminds me of something that happened to me in my first year at Parliament in 1996. I had the unfortunate (or fortunate) experience of being involved in something similar – without the social media fallout.

I wasn’t the bar patron that night. I was one of two people in the fishbowl.

It was after a National Party “caucus event” (code for a boozy night). In those days these shindigs went into the wee small hours and most people got well and truly liquored.

As I recall I left the party with a (girl) friend and ended up rolling around on the floor of a junior Cabinet minister’s office in Bowen House, next to Parliament.

It was late, the lights were on but it was dark outside. I couldn’t see out – so I had a false sense of security.

As we left the office we went past the patient cleaners in the corridor who were waiting and I jumped into the lift and went home. When I arrived at work the next day my boss Linda Clark pulled me aside and laughed in my face.

“Garner,” she cried, “I know everything.”

How could she possibly know what I had got up to last night? There was no social media then, our cellphones didn’t send photos and the internet barely worked.

But she’d got a phone call from Parliament’s chief pigeon – Kiwiblog’s David Farrar.

He knew everyone and news had travelled fast. He couldn’t wait to tell my boss.

Heh, Duncan’s story is correct, except for one detail.

I didn’t call Linda. I called Duncan to give him a friendly hassle and Linda answered his phone. I said I’d call back when he was in. Linda asked if she could help. Her assumption was that I might have some political news for them for a possible story.

I replied to Linda that I was just calling to hassle Duncan, and Linda put 2+2 together in a millisecond and exclaimed “Farrar, what is her name?”. I laughed and declined to confirm or deny but then Linda did several minutes of her famous interrogation style and eventually I folded, she got the details out of me, and yes poor Duncan arrived at work to have Linda loudly proclaiming knowledge of what had happened.

So guilty to telling Linda, but only because she answered Duncan’s phone as he wasn’t in yet!’

The Press reports:

Changes to the Earthquake Commission (EQC) are needed despite suggestions minor tweaks will be made after a review, insurers and industry experts say.

EQC has received harsh criticism from many in Canterbury since the earthquakes four years ago, but Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee said this week a report to Cabinet in the next few months would suggest minor changes only.

Insurers said changes to the model were necessary and they were still receiving over-cap claims from EQC almost four years on.

While defending EQC’s performance, Brownlee took the opportunity to criticise insurers’ handling of the rebuild.

“If insurers were so good at it, they would be further ahead with their claims. They are in no position to lecture the Government given their records,” he said.

The review, ordered by the Government in 2012, looked at what EQC insured, including contents insurance, how it priced its cover, how the Crown handled its exposure to natural disasters and how EQC was financed.

An IAG spokeswoman said changes to the EQC model were necessary to avoid confusion and delays.

“People are so confused about the whole EQC-insurer process,” she said.

Insurers could take the lead on claims that were easily over-cap to avoid duplication, the spokeswoman said.

I don’t think the current EQC model works well. I recall a global reinssurer executive giving figures showing how for most disasters they have paid out 90% within a year of the disaster but in NZ only around 30% was paid out three years in. The difference was our EQC model which means you need to get both EQC and the insurer agreeing to stuff.

There is merit in having EQC, as without it local insurers might collapse if they had to handle the full costs of an earthquake (as one did anyway). But should it be a “retail” insurer dealing with the public, or should it be more a reinsurer standing behind local companies. You could have it so its only clients are the front line insurance companies, and all claims go through them.

The front line insurers, while far from perfect, have existing large claims centres and staff. EQC, when a rare earthquake strikes, has to go from a minimal staff to a huge number.

So I don’t agree with the Government that the model only needs tweaking. I think more fundamental change should be considered.

The Herald reports:

Labour party leader Andrew Little says water should not be traded as a commodity in New Zealand.

Why ever not? That is the best way to allocate and conserve it. Farmers should pay for the water they use for irrigation just as the rich family with a swimming pool should pay for their water use.

Is Little against water meters? Against any form of charging?

He did not believe water was a resource which should be traded commercially.

“We don’t make it, it comes naturally, people need it, it’s life giving. It’s essential and I’m just not sure it’s something we should now go down on creating this big commercial market for.”

Yes it is essential, as is food. But how does Andrew propose water should be allocated – a Government committee dishing out an equal portion to everyone?

News.com.au reports:

The country may never get back into budget surplus if the government’s spending cuts continue to be blocked by Labor and the Senate, the governor of the Reserve Bank and the head of Treasury have warned.

The ominous predictions on the future of the nation’s finances were made by new Treasury Secretary John Fraser and RBA boss Glenn Stevens in an extraordinary briefing to Cabinet on Tuesday, The Daily Telegraph reports.

In a 20-page slide presentation, the finance chiefs showed the budget position continuing to worsen without significant structural reform.

They showed that even with an economic growth path of 3 per cent per annum, the budget would continue to be in deficit beyond the 10-year prediction made in last year’s budget forecasts.

While Labor has labelled the government’s spending cuts as “unfair”, Mr Fraser’s presentation showed the government was now borrowing $110 million a day to pay its interest bills on debt and the growing budget deficit.

It is a timely reminder that Labor left the Libs with an unsustainable spending track, just as NZ Labour did in NZ.  People may not like some of the Libs spending cuts, but the status qup is not sustainable.

Photo (c) Nick Reed, NZ Herald

The Herald reports:

A $200,000 public sculpture being installed in Auckland is causing a stir with locals, who say it resembles a penis.

More than resembles I’d say!

The Auckland Council-commissioned Transit Cloud has been created as part of a project to breathe new life into traditionally working class New Lynn.

Will Mayor Len Brown launch the sculpture? That would be a photo op!

“What the hell is that? It’s certainly not a cloud. It looks like a penis,” said Joy Dale, of Mt Roskill.

She said the sculpture was a waste of ratepayers’ money and the council would be better spending the money on more security and patrols in the area.

Indeed.

The Herald reports:

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters says he is considering running for the vacant Northland MP seat.

Speaking from Te Tii Marae at Waitangi today, Mr Peters claimed he had been inundated with calls asking if he would put his name forward for the position.

National’s Mike Sabin resigned from the position on Friday citing personal issues. Mr Sabin’s resignation followed reports he was being investigated by police.

The by-election is set for March 28.

“New Zealand First is seriously going to consider the issue,” Mr Peters said.

“It’s a possibility. I’m a local here, I come from here and I know more about this area than a whole lot of other pretenders.

“I got a whole lot of phone calls. That’s why I’ve been interested.”

A decision about whether New Zealand First would put forward a candidate for the by-election, or whether Mr Peters would stand himself, would be made “very soon”, he said.

Northland is a safe but not a mega-safe seat for National. It had the 37th highest party vote for National at 49% – slightly below the median. The electorate vote of 53% was the 32nd highest – the median. The electorate vote dropped 5% from 2011.

The majority of 9,300 is large, but only the 31st largest majority. It is safe but not indestructible. National needs a strong candidate.

Could Peters win the seat? He was born there and would get a lot of publicity. However many of his supporters are on the Te Tai Tokerau roll. In 2014 NZ First got 12.8% of the vote – their 8th best response.

Labour only got 16.6% in Northland. It is quite possible Peters could beat the Labour candidate and come 2nd. However hard to see that he could get 35% to 40% of the vote and win the seat.

Peters may have a bach in Northland, but would he live there? Rural electorates don’t want their MPs living in Auckland Central.

Brian Williams the high profile news anchor and managing editor of NBC’s flagship Nightly News program has been left red faced after making false claims about being on a helicopter that was shot at by an RPG. Erik Wemple from the Washington Post explains.

After NBC Nightly News last week posted to Facebook a clip of the anchor reminiscing about having embedded with the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, some Facebookers took issue with the particulars. Whereas Williams claimed that he was riding in a helicopter that was forced down after being hit by an RPG, others had a different recollection. “Sorry dude, I don’t remember you being on my aircraft. I do remember you walking up about an hour after we had landed to ask me what had happened,” wrote Lance Reynolds in a Facebook comment responding to the Williams segment.

After digging a hole for himself Williams retracted his story.

In issuing an on-air apology for his “mistake” in misremembering the circumstances of the March 2003 episode, Williams credited “some brave men and women in the air crews who were also in that desert” for debunking his set of facts. “I want to apologize. I said I was traveling in an aircraft that was hit by RPG fire. I was instead in a following aircraft,” he said on Wednesday night’s “NBC Nightly News.”

Wemple then goes on to ask some pertinent questions.

Again: Where were Williams’s crew members, who surely knew that Williams had either “conflated” his Chinook with another Chinook — his explanation — or was using the passage of time to embellish his own exploits — another explanation. And what of other NBC News employees who worked on the story? Why did they remain silent on these matters? Are they still with NBC News?

We put these questions to NBC News and haven’t heard back.

By all logic, NBC News would like to rest on Williams’s apology, ride out the media storm and, eventually, move ahead with things. Yet the fact that personnel aside from Williams knew that his statements on these events were erroneous should prompt an internal probe as to how these falsehoods circulated so freely.

I won’t be holding my breath waiting for that proper internal probe by NBC. I can already hear some critics lamenting journalistic and editorial standards in the US mainstream media.

Family First have blogged:

BOYCOTT ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’

One of the most talked-about movies for 2015 is about to be released – and you and I need to be prepared.

“Fifty Shades of Grey” is an adaptation of E.L.James’ best-selling erotic novel, the fastest selling paperback of all time. It is credited with mainstreaming soft porn literature. The movie is billed as ‘the raunchiest movie picture in over a decade’.

The US National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCSE) has launched a campaign against the movie. NCSE’s website fiftyshadesisabuse.com highlights 50-plus ways that Fifty Shades harms and provides various actions that the public can take, including signing a boycott petition and joining the #50DollarsNot50Shades campaign, which calls on families to forgo the film and donate instead to programmes which target family and sexual violence –

In my experience when a Christian or family group call for a boycott of a movie, it helps propel ticket sales to record highs. So the call for a boycott should ensure it does very well at the box office.

Stuff reports:

In an unscripted speech on a marae today Prime Minister John Key told Maori leaders that New Zealand are not going to turn the other cheek to the horrors being seen in the Middle East.

Key’s unprepared statement in the meeting house at Te Tii Waitangi Marae came with an attack on the left wing.

After a peaceful welcome on the marae, various Maori leaders addressed him including prominent leader Kingi Taurua who said Maori were suffering because of their service in fighting for “other people’s sovereignty” over the decades.

Key said he agreed in part.

“I am with you, we should not go and fight other people’s wars.”

Diplomacy was what was needed but New Zealand also needed to support other people around the world.

“The day before yesterday a Jordanian pilot was burned to death with petrol and yesterday some gay people were thrown off a building because ISIS don’t like their sexuality,” he said.

“A few weeks ago 10-year-old kids were rolled out to behead soldiers who were part of the Iraqi forces. “

Key said he heard from the left wing every time he went to countries with different human right’s records to New Zealand.

“I am regularly reminded by the left that they have an intimate knowledge of apartheid and the Springbok tour,” he said in reference to the 1981 Springbok rugby tour of New Zealand that divided the country.

Key has since admitted he does not remember where he stood on the tour.

“These are the very people (the left) who tell me their whole DNA is laced with human rights and standing up for people who cannot protect themselves, then they tell me to look the other way when people are being beheaded by kids, burnt alive and thrown off buildings.

“Well sorry, give me a break, basically New Zealand is not going to turn the other way,” he said.

Key absolutely nails it. Amazing that some on the left go on non stop about human rights, but then say we should do nothing about a state that burns people alive, throws gays off buildings and turns 10 year olds into killers. Making strong speeches at the UN won’t cut it.

New Zealand would not do anything silly.

“But we may join 60 or so other countries around  the world trying to protect people who cannot protect themselves because the do nothing other than live in a country they want to call home.

“I reckon that is doing something for human rights.”

Key said he had no intention of fighting other people’s wars “but I am not going to  turn the other way when people are being persecuted and say, as a leader, that it is other peoples’ problem.

“I don’t think that is the New Zealand way.”

Absolutely.

At a later press conference Key said the speech was not something he had planned but came up when iwi leaders objected to fighting other people’s wars.

“We are a country that stands for human rights and I don’t know about you but when people are being burned with petrol I find it difficult to look the other way.”

Asked if he had attacked the left too strongly he denied that.

“I don’t know that it is laying into them. I simply made the point that when I go to those countries and people raise issues from the left, they raise issues of human rights.

“I think as a country we have a really proud record of human rights and when people can’t defend themselves, would we really turn the other cheek?”

The best lines often come when they are not pre-planned. I think Key hit the nail on the head. Not contributing to the global effort is pretty indefensible if you are a supporter of human rights.

Joe Kent writes:

Sandy Springs, Georgia may look like any other town in America. It has parks, roads, and beautiful places to live. But there’s one thing that separates this town from every other town: Sandy Springs privatized almost everything.

In 2005, Sandy Springs outsourced almost all functions of the city government (with the exception of police and fire) to a single company, which runs the town. That company is in charge of running all the vital functions of government, from the running the parks, to paving the roads, and even 911 calls!

The town is run very efficiently, with zero backlogs in permit requests. Call the city, and you’ll be surprised to find that you actually get a friendly person on the other line! The city has a 24/7 non-automated customer service hotline which fields about 6,000 calls per month. It also has a state of the art traffic system with cameras and a high tech command center. …

When the project first started, the University of Georgia estimated that the city would need 828 employees. But because the town is managed by a private company, they’ve cut their workforce down to just 471 people.  Besides fire and police, the city only has eight full-time public employees.

Because of this efficiency, Sandy Springs generates huge surpluses. They have no unfunded liabilities. The city specifically decided not to use the traditional pension model – a model which has put almost every government across America in an unsustainable pension crisis. Instead, employees can choose their own 401K package to prepare for retirement, if they wish.

This has given the town of Sandy Springs lots of extra cash to work with – a surplus that they put into building for the future. According to Sharon Kraun, “The city, as a matter of policy, sets aside 25% of revenues into a reserve during each budget planning cycle. Capital improvements have been a major focus during our first eight years, with more than $185 million invested in capital infrastructure.”

This has lead to lots of improvements around the town. The city has repaved 147 miles of streets, 874 storm water projects, and built 32 miles of new sidewalks.

Sounds great. A city of 90,000 with only eight full time staff outside the Police and Fire services.

The DIA report:

Gamblers in New Zealand spent $2091 million dollars on the four main forms of gambling in the 2013/14 financial year, $19 million (0.9 per cent) more than the previous year, according to figures compiled by the Department of Internal Affairs. They spent more on racing, sport and lotteries; but less in casinos and on pub and club pokies.

· TAB racing and sports betting increased by 5.6 per cent, from $294 million to $311 million

· Spending on NZ Lotteries products rose 7.2 per cent, from $432 million to $463 million

· Spending on gaming machines (pokies) in pubs and clubs dropped by -2.2 per cent, from $826 million to $808 million; and

· Casino gambling expenditure declined by -2.1 per cent, from $520 million to $509 million.

So the two forms of gambling that are state monopolies have increased, while the two forms which get all the publicity in the media are actually decreasing.

When adjusted for inflation total gambling expenditure in 2014 declined by almost 20 per cent from a peak recorded in 2004 ($2610 million real dollars).

The better measure would be real spending per capita which would show an even larger decline.

Communities benefited from an estimated $613 million, or 29 per cent of gambling expenditure, for various purposes. · The New Zealand Racing Board allocated $137 million to racing club activities and infrastructure

Never understood why funds from gambling on all sports tend to go to the racing industry. The TAB should not have a monopoloy on sports betting.

· The NZ Lotteries Commission transferred $231 million to the Lottery Grants Board for distribution to community services and projects

· Non-casino gaming machine trusts raised an estimated $242 million for authorised community purposes; and,

· Casinos paid just over $3 million to their community trusts.

Almost half a billion there.

In addition, gambling operators pay a levy from their profits to meet the costs of an integrated problem gambling strategy – estimated to be $54 million (GST exclusive) for the current 2013-16 levy period.

That’s a huge amount. How effectively is that money being spent?

The Daily Mail reports:

A man has reportedly been blindfolded and thrown off a tower block in Syria for ‘being gay’ before being stoned to death after surviving the fall.

New images have emerged appearing to show ISIS militants hurling the man off the seven-storey building in the town of Tal Abyad in Raqqa.

The man, who was supposedly being punished for having a ‘homosexual affair’, apparently survived the fall, but was stoned to death by a waiting crowd at the foot of the tower block.

Again this shows ISIL is a state that is arguably more barbaric than the Nazis were.

Their followers seem to be in a grotesque competition for the most vile ways they can kill people. Last month another gay man was crucified.

The annual Consumer survey of ISPs is out. Five ISPs had a rating of 90% or higher. They are:

1. Inspire Net and Actrix 97%
2. Snap 93%
3. WxC and Now NZ 90%

Always happy to see Kiwiblog’s host ISP rated at the top.

Politico has details of the 10 new taxes proposed by Obama. They would increase revenue by a staggering $1.8 trillion over ten years. But despite that, his budget still forecasts a US$474 billion deficit.

There is no prospect at all of that budget passing either the House or the Senate.

I’d say that there will be no budget deal, and that the automatic sequestration cuts will occur instead.

The Press reports:

Churches and charitable groups could be asked to start paying rates as councils look at new ways to raise money.

Pressure is also mounting on the Government to pay rates on hospitals, schools and conservation land.

A discussion paper released this week by Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) considers alternative funding options for councils as many are finding it increasingly difficult to pay for infrastructure and services amid population decline and growing costs.

Churches and charitable groups say paying full rates would prevent them providing much-needed services in the community. …

Christchurch city councillor Raf Manji, who was a member of the working group that helped develop the paper, said it was “an interesting idea”.

He said he did not see why religious groups should be exempt from paying rates.

Land used for religious worship, religious education or for charitable purposes are all classed as non-rateable under existing legislation. Councils can levy targeted rates for water, sewerage and refuse collection but not any other type of rate.

Land for religious worship or education is exempt from rates. I’m not aware that land used for charitable purposes is exempt. There is an exemption though for land used “for the free maintenance or relief of persons in need” which is a much narrower definition than just being charitable. Also there is a limit of 1.5 hectares.

I’m of the view that churches should be treated on the same basis as other charities. If the Red Cross pays rates on its buildings, then churches should also. I do not regard preaching belief in a God is a basis for not paying rates. If a church provides charitable services such as soup kitchens, emergency shelters and the like – then they should be treated on the same basis as any other charity.

It is often said by many (including me) that Islam is not the problem, just the extreme version of it practiced by a minority. The majority of Muslims do not support suicide bombings, killing of apostates etc just as the majority of Christians do not support old testament punishments.

However many commentators (again including me) have pointed out that the size of the extremist faction of Islam is not small. It is a minority but it is a large minority. This is where Islam is different to other religions – the size of the faction with extremist views.

I’ve not seen much reporting trying to quantify the size on a global basis. Pew Research in 2013 published a report which collated opinion among Muslims in 39 countries with a large Muslim population. They report on views in each country. What I have done is take the percentages for each country and multiplied it by their estimated Muslim population to get a global figure. For some issues they report the data as a percentage of those who favour sharia law, so I have cross multiplied to get it as a consistent percentage of all Muslims in those countries.

Globally there are 1.6 billion Muslims. Here’s how many share what I (and most) would consider extreme views.

Favour Making Sharia the Law of the Land

In the 38 countries surveyed 69% of Muslims said they supported Sharia law being the official law of the land. This represents 739 million Muslims out of 1,064 million in those countries

Favour Stoning as Punishment for Adultery

In the 20 countries surveyed 42% of Muslims supported the stoning of adulterers .  This represents 352 million Muslims out of 835 million in those countries.

Favour Death Penalty for Apostates who leave Islam

In the 20 countries surveyed 32% of Muslims said the death penalty should apply to apostates who leave Islam.  This represents 267 million Muslims out of 835 million in those countries.

Say suicide bombings against civilian targets can be justified

In the 21 countries surveyed 22% of Muslims said suicide bombings against civilian targets can be justified . This represents 209 million Muslims out of 944 million in those countries.

Favourable opinion of al Qaeda

In the 11 countries surveyed 16% of Muslims said they had a favourable opinion of al Qaeda. This represents 107 million Muslims out of 666 million in those countries

Say honour killings can be justified as punishment for sex

In the 23 countries surveyed 47% of Muslims said honour killings can be justified as punishment for pre-marital or extra-marital sex.  This represents 420 million Muslims out of 903 million in those countries.

This data gives some idea of the size of the problem. It isn’t 20 lunatics members of the Westboro Baptist Church. A large minority of Muslims globally hold views that are extreme and go against basic human rights and/or principles such as separation of church and state. There is good news in that there is declining support for suicide bombings and al Qaeda. And a strategy of demonising all Muslims and an entire religion will not reduce extremism, but increase it. However neither is it a good idea to pretend that the problem is just a few thousand jihadists. It is more widespread than that.

The Herald reports:

The views that propelled the National Party close to government a decade ago were “harsh and intolerant,” philanthropist Dr Gareth Morgan told a small audience in Orewa today.

The man who gave those views – Dr Don Brash – sat in the audience to hear his famous 2004 speech described as being a “harsh and intolerant view that is intolerant of anyone who is different”.

“We still have a faction in our midst who see admitting culpability… is giving Maori the upper hand. This section of the community is clearly filled with fear.”

As Treaty of Waitangi celebrations began in the North, the two Pakeha men attempted to solve the problems of the past 175 years in front of small audience of people largely in the same age range. A total of 19 people gathered to hear the pair speak -and almost the same number of media representatives.

I’m not surprised only 19 people turned up. Responding to an 11 year old speech by someone no longer in politics seems rather pointless.

What is not surprising, but sad, is that 19 media turned up to hear a speech by someone who has no special status or knowledge talk on an 11 year old issue to a rotary club. Why do the media think that every utterance of Gareth Morgan is newsworthy?

I’ve spoken to over a dozen rotary clubs, and often have many more people than 19 there. Would two dozen media turn up for my rotary club address? Of course not, but why for Morgan?

Don’t get me wrong. I think it is commendable for someone to take an interest in public policy. And there are a few areas where I agree with what Gareth Morgan says, as well as some such as North Korea where I vigorously disagree. But his propensity to declare himself an expert on almost everything, and have media lap up his every utterance is inexplicable to me. Usually people get reported only in an area they have some specialist knowledge of.

Stats NZ has released census data showing 77% of households have Internet access at home, up from 61% at the previous census. This varies greatly by household income.

• Under $25,000 is 46%
• $25 k to $50 k is 68%
• $50 k to $100 k is 87%
• Over $100k is 96%

Not entirely clear though if having an Internet capable mobile counts as home Internet access,

The Telegraph reports:

Don’t let it be said that Ed Miliband’s political leadership is useless. It has, in fact, just provided an instructive demonstration in how not to play your strongest electoral card. Over the next three months, his team may well proceed to offer a degree-level course in How to Throw Away an Election – but last week’s introductory module was an education in itself. Having “weaponised” the NHS, Mr Miliband then – choose your metaphor – had it blow up in his face, or shot himself in the foot, or fired a succession of blanks. By the end of the week, Labour’s ace vote-winning issue had become one more grotesquely embarrassing morass of internecine warfare, contradictory statements, ill-thought-out policy and, finally, unconvincing denials that the whole initiative had gone horribly wrong. …

Andy Burnham came spectacularly unstuck in a series of major broadcast interviews because he could not answer the most obvious challenges: why is the NHS in Wales, which is run by Labour on precisely the lines you advocate, performing significantly worse than the NHS in England? Where will you find the extra health funding that you are promising? Revenue from the mansion tax will not provide enough money, and besides you’ll be spending that elsewhere.

Oppositions do need to be able to highlight areas of Government failure. But they also need to have a competent and viable alternative.