DOWN TO THE DOCTOR’S: UKIP, Worth It?

Guest post by Dr Richard McGrath

The recent European Parliament elections and the Newark by-election over the weekend has further focused British media attention on Nigel Farage's United Kingdom Independence Party, or UKIP (or even Ukip) for short.

In the European elections, UKIP were the top-polling party, outperforming the Tories, Labour and moribund Liberal Democrats. In Newark, they came second to the Tories but thrashed Labour, with the Lib Dems losing their deposit (just as Libertarianz Party candidates used to, but then again Libz were never the other half of a ruling government coalition). It's probably safe to say UKIP have established themselves as a serious contender in British politics - even though, in a similar fashion to NZ First, they are largely seen as a one man band with their popularity due in large part to the homespun charm and Muldoon-like common touch of party leader Nigel Farage.

Now I have to say I like listening to Nigel Farage when he cuts loose on the EU hierarchy, for instance telling arch-Eurocrat Herman van Rompuy that he has the charisma of a damp rag.

UKIP has now become entrenched in the national consciousness to the point that they are the butt of several jokes currently doing the rounds, such as:

Down To The Doctor's: On Returning to Christmas Island

As a whistleblower on Australian refugee detention facility Manus Island argues, "It's not designed as a processing facility [for asylum seekers], it's designed as an experiment in the active creation of horror to deter people from trying in the first place," * Dr Richard McGrath heads back to help handle medical care at the sister facility at Christmas Island. But not before penning this guest post…

DOWN TO THE DOCTOR’S: So, somebody had an election

This week, Doc McGrath is looking westward again ... and notes with pleasure a surprise entrant to the Australian Senate.

It was no surprise to anyone that Tony Abbott cleaned up at Saturday's Australian general election. It appears his coalition of conservative parties will gain around 89 seats, with the shambolic Labor Party formerly lead by narcissist Kevin Rudd back on about 57.

The Aussies have a rather complex voting system with preferences, which does not result in a parliament based on proportional representation. Not many people will realise that the Labor Party actually gained more primary votes then any other party this time, but still lost overall (could this happen to National here next year?).

Both Labor and the Greens suffered significant drops in support whereas Abbott managed to maintain his voter base. And it was great to see candidates running under a Stop The Greens banner - perhaps we might see that over here in 2014? Andrew Bolt headlines the result as: Unelectable Abbott triumphs. The green movement defied.

But the highlight of the whole election was the Senate race where some colourful candidates managed to get themselves elected to the Upper House—most colourful probably rugby league legend Glenn Lazarus, a.k.a. The Brick With Eyes, once a regular fixture in New South Wales State of Origin and Australian league teams, who was elected as one of two Senators for the batshit crazy Palmer United Party led by 'Professor' Clive Palmer. However, Australia are now one up on New Zealand as they now have a libertarian Senator - the man with an impossible-to-spell surname - David Leyonhjelm.

David is a former office holder for the Outdoor Recreation Party (which fielded the abovementioned Stop The Greens candidates), but won a seat this time standing for the Liberal Democrats, who I mentioned in my last column. He wants low flat taxation (including an end to the carbon tax), voluntary euthanasia, drug legalisation and the right for peace-loving Australians to carry firearms. What a refreshing voice he will be in the Senate. The LDP website offers this bio:

David has had an interest in politics since the early 1970s when, as a member of Young Labor, he worked on the It's Time campaign to help end military conscription.
    The following decade he joined the Liberal Party in an effort to promote economic freedom, resigning in 1996 in disgust at John Howard's extremist gun laws.
    He joined the Shooters Party in 1992 (while in the Liberal Party), became the party's Chairman in 1999 and managed the successful 2003 campaign that retained the party's NSW Legislative Council seat.
    When the Shooters Party was deregistered federally just prior to the federal election in 2004, he used the Outdoor Recreation Party to run a team of shooters for the Senate and marginal NSW seats. The party's Senate preferences helped prevent the Greens from taking the final seat.
    He also managed the LDP's federal election campaigns in 2007 and 2010.
    He has a classical liberal outlook, favouring individual choice and freedom over government intrusion.
    David is married and owns an agribusiness consulting company in Sydney. A former veterinarian, he also has degrees in business and law. His sporting interest is target shooting.
    David is currently the LDP's National Treasurer and Registered Officer.

We can be fairly sure that Tony Abbott will not get it right every time, or even many times, but I'm sure Senator David Leyonhjelm will offer constructive criticism and at least be the one dissenting voice when law changes are proposed that enlarge the power of government at the expense of individual freedom.

To David, and the band of workers who got him elected - well done.

And to Craig Thomson, the former Labor MP who misused a Heath Services Union credit card to pay for the services of prostitutes, a man whose breathtaking arrogance rivals and even surpasses that of Kevin Rudd, don't let the door hit your backside on the way out.

See you again soon!
Doc McGrath
Libertarianz leader-at-large

Down To The Doctor's: The ‘Lucky Country’ has a real electoral choice [corrected]

With his gaze recently augmented by LASIK corneal surgery,* this week Libertarianz leader Dr Richard McGrath casts it westward, at the curious bunch of people walking about on that enormous, hot and dry continent just over the horizon, who seem to lack a decent rugby team—but not a decent choice in the forthcoming election.

Noting the pending advance auction of stolen goods (otherwise known as the Australian general election), he reckons there is a sane alternative to the Mad Monk and the Narcissist from Nambour.

Let me says this as bluntly as I can: I urge all New Zealanders eligible to vote in the coming Australian Federal election to back candidates from the Liberal Democratic Party.  It’s hard to be clearer than that.

Why? Because the two major parties in Australia are pretty much like ours. And the Liberal Democratic Party is just the opposite.

The ALP and the Coalition are Tweedledum and Tweedledummer. In the blue corner is a party originally conservative in outlook, now sadly dragged into socialist compromise and contradiction, and into expensive and unsustainable election bribes (sounding familiar?); in the red corner is a tired leftist mob led by an incurable narcissist, dominated by trade union thugs, and mired in corruption and rotten to the core. (If that doesn’t sound familiar yet, just wait until David Cunliffe takes over.)

Fortunately for Australian voters, there is a political party whose candidates don't want to steal your money and use it to run your life in a way far different than you would choose yourself.

That party is the Liberal Democratic Party, and with one exception, their policies replicate those of the Libertarianz Party.

They call for lower taxes and government spending, greater privatisation and deregulation, open markets and free trade, the legalisation of all substance use, and for extending migration agreements with other countries. They  seek to end corporate welfare, abolish the institutionalised racism of affirmative action and the outlaw the atrocity of coercive psychiatry.

The single issue on which our two parties disagree is their approach to climate change. The Libertarianz Party supports a free market response to changes in regional climatic conditions, whereas the LDP advocate a government-led response. I will be contacting the LDP leadership to see whether they will consider changing this policy to make it consistent with their otherwise flawless adherence to free market principles.  All in all, a flawless adherence to free minds and free markets.

We wish Peter Whelan and his candidates the best of luck for the election, and hope they are able to pull Tony Abbott's so-called Liberal Party in the direction of freedom for all Australians. 

I should also say that as Libertarianz leader I have also been approached by the Australian Sex Party for endorsement, but found that too many of their policies—especially those on taxation, censorship and private choice—were at variance with the principle of freedom on which their party is supposedly based.

So vote Liberal Democrat—and vote early and often.

In closing, let me say that there are changes afoot locally.

I will shortly be taking up a position myself in Australia, where I hope I can make a real difference to people in desperate need of freedom: as a doctor on Christmas Island helping with the triage, processing and medical treatment of asylum seekers. I was recently delighted to learn of the island's libertarian (duty-free) attitude to the sale of alcoholic beverages, and hope to support that sector of their economy while I hope for a more humane treatment for the prisoners residents.

I will remain Libertarianz leader-at-large while candidates are interviewed for my replacement, and will assume the role of foreign correspondent to this blog's readers.

Thanks for reading.
Doc McGrath
Libertarianz leader-at-large

*Corneal surgery performed by eye surgeon Andrew Logan and his wonderful team at the Wellington Eye Centre.

DOWN TO THE DOCTOR’S: The Chan Ban & the Bill Banners

1. This week, Libertarianz leader Dr Richard McGrath wonders aloud about Labour’s worshipping of the ugly goddess Xenophobia.

David Shearer's call to restrict ownership of existing homes to New Zealand residents is another direct assault on the free market, and the death knell for Labour's hopes of attracting Asian voters.

Unlike Labour’s kneejerk xenophobia, my party has actually thought things through.  We have a better and much simpler solution to housing unaffordability which focuses on supply, and makes Shearer’s foreigner-hatred unnecessary. It looks like this:

• deregulate the building process;
• remove the layers of red tape that add months of time to the construction and tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of a new home;
• remove the “compulsory contributions” levied by councils on developments that get passed straight on to buyers in higher house prices;
• get rid of zoning laws and use common law instead;
• respect property rights by abolishing all restrictions on home improvements; and
• allow the further expansion of housing development into rural areas.

While Labour's proposal might bring a smile to the faces of those who fear competition from hard-working Asian immigrants, it does nothing for their occasional claim to be a party of tolerance and liberalism.

My own party has no truck with the protectionist anti-foreigner  laws of the sort Mr Shearer is peddling, which are effectively racist and therefore attractive to those of a certain mentality. His thinly veiled attempts to woo voters from the National Front over to Labour do not look pretty under the harsh light of day.

The Libertarianz Party believes in an open and deregulated market in housing, where local councils and central government have no political influence over home prices, and do not advocate or enforce discriminatory laws against the citizens of other countries with whom we are not engaged in conflict.

To this end, we therefore endorse candidates from the Affordable Cities franchise which will be offering candidates at the coming local body elections.

* * * *

2. In which Doc McGrath wonders why the rabble have suddenly discovered the evil of state intrusion into our lives.

Wasn’t it interesting over the past few days watching the various socialist-leaning politicians and protestors who turned out to register their opposition to the GCSB Bill.  I would say “good for them” if not for their seriouly selective opposition to state intrusion.

On the one hand, the Left are quite rightly concerned about the escalation of state power this bill represents, and the huge potential it holds for the invasion of New Zealanders' privacy.

On the other hand, these same people remain unconcerned about the almost unlimited power enjoyed by Inland Revenue and swarms of other government officials, whose mandate is to harass the people of this country and eat out their substance. 

Not just unconcerned about this ongoing state intrusion—they’re positively cheerleaders for it.

If one can be judged by the company one keeps, it is instructive to see creatures from the Labour and Green Parties, along with trade unionists and other rent-a-mob fringe activists from the loony Left, falling in lockstep behind the jolly German copyright-infringing fraudster and embezzler Kim Schmitz/Dotcom.

His fellow travellers may be interested to learn that this corpulent crusader against government spying has a criminal conviction for data espionage. Of course, this inconvenient truth will be shrugged off and rationalised by the tribal Left, who regard the enemy of their enemy as a friend - even if he is a wanted criminal on the run.

It has been amusing to note the same factions who always favour bigger, more intrusive government doing a screeching U-turn to suddenly demand less government - twisting themselves into pretzels as they somehow manage to justify their opposition to domestic surveillance by one office of the state, while supporting equally egregious infringements of individual liberty by other officials.

For the record, the Libertarianz Party supports any move - including encryption technology such as that used by Schmitz's company Megaupload - to keep the prying eyes of bureaucrats and spooks away from the private business of peaceful citizens. We oppose the further affront to personal freedom this bill represents. But we remain suspicious of those whose opposition to state intrusion is as selective as this bunch.

Thanks for reading
See you soon!
Doc McGrath

Down to the Doctor’s: Making home ownership more difficult

This week, Libertarianz leader Dr Richard McGrath has been watching home ownership made more difficult.

John Key, former scourge of communists, leads a government whose central bank now wants to nationalise this country's private banks. State-owned Radio NZ News, of course, gets it arse-about-face, claiming that "[U]nder the proposed changes, the Reserve Bank would require trading banks to increase their loan-to-value ratios". In actual fact, the Central Bank wants to make it harder for people with little cash on hand to purchase their first (or any) house by decreasing loan-to-value ratios, apparently to a level below 80%.

Labour's housing spokesman, Philip Stoner Twyford—who, incidentally, supported the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Bill when it was before Parliament in 2009—quite rightly labelled this heavy-handed intervention as a form of governmental dentistry: "a kick in the teeth... for first home buyers," and said it would "lock out thousands of low-to-middle income first-home buyers."

I'm glad the Blue Socialists hadn't nationalised banks when I purchased my first four homes, as in each case I had less than 20% of the value of the properties available as a deposit. And I never defaulted on my loan obligations. Yet PM John Phillip Key, Housing Minister Nicolas Rex Smith and Reserve Bank boss Graeme Paul Wheeler want to stop me, and other New Zealanders, from being able to easily purchase real estate.

Should the government be allowed to manipulate the property market by fixing interest rates or making arbitrary rules about the required deposit for home purchasers? If your answer to that question is yes, then what's to stop the required deposit from being raised to 50%? Or 80%? Or to completely outlaw home loans altogether?    

Governments have certainly done things just as stupid in the past.

Fortunately, there is a political party in New Zealand which opposes moves by the Blue Socialists to nationalise the private banking system, while also opposing corporate welfare for banks. That party is Libertarianz. At a local level, Affordable City candidates will be attempting to make house ownership more affordable by reducing property taxation via reductions in the cost of running district councils.

So if you want more government, John Key's the man for you; if you want less government across the board, you might want to back the party described by Tumeke as "far, far, far right"—this being the same party that supported legalisation of prostitution and supports the legalisation of all drugs and separation of church and state. Does that sound "far, far, far right" to you? 

See you soon!
Doc McGrath
LEADER, LIBERTARIANZ PARTY

DOWN TO THE DOCTOR’S: Parekura Horomia's seat should be left unfilled

Libertarianz leader Dr  Richard McGrath wasn’t the only one who didn’t vote in the weekend’s poorly attended Maori-only by-election.

The by-election result in Ikaroa-Rawhiti was an embarrassment for everyone involved, which the final count confirms was very few indeed. Voter turnout in this race-based seat was abysmal, suggesting very firmly that Parekura Horomia's seat in Parliament should be left empty rather then filling it with another bum.

Overall, 67% of eligible voters boycotted this by-election, despite massive taxpayer-funded publicity. The Labour candidate who achieved the largest out of a very small total won the by-election with a mandate from just 13.2% of eligible voters. 

Why is the mainstream media choosing to ignore this overwhelming vote of no-confidence in the electoral system?

Even the Maori electoral option itself is fading fast. After a massive advertising campaign, paid for by you and I, voters choosing to vote on the Maori roll are dwindling. Surely, the confluence of these two things is a sign that the time has finally come to consign race-based seats at all levels of government to the dustbin of history, where they belong.

Why is the mainstream media choosing to ignore this overwhelming vote of no-confidence in these race-based seats?

The on-going presence of Maori seats is a disgrace to our nation. It demonstrates, firstly, a lack of integrity and courage from the National Party, who made noises about abolishing these anachronistic remnants of a bygone era when the occupants of the Maori seats voted against them in the house, but who support them when some are coalition partners.

Secondly, it perpetuates a stinging insult to people of Maori descent. More than any other gesture, it confirms the status of Maori people as second-class citizens in their native land, at least in the eyes of our politicians and the Electoral Commission. It implies that Maori people cannot foot it in the MMP system, and could not be elected to Parliament were it not for the demeaning and insulting system of reserved seats. 

The election of Paula Bennett, Simon Bridges, Jami-Lee Ross and Louisa Wall in electorate seats provides ample evidence that Maori candidates can win open elections on their own merits—and the election victories of Kris Faafoi, Sua Sio and Sam Lotu-Iiga shows that non-Maori brown-skinned candidates are also perfectly electable without any patronising need for racial preference.

The continuation of the patronising attitude to Maori ignores the reality of the MMP era, which if it stands for anything must surely be More Maoris in Parliament.

Thirdly, despite their dwindling interest by the voter, the Maori seats themselves enjoy a gerrymander giving them more electoral power than any other. If the Maori seats were calculated using the same basis as the general seats, there would be just five seats, not seven. So the seats are not only race-based, they also represent racial preference.

I am astonished that the mainstream media continues to ignore both this racial gerrymander and the race-based system it perpetuates. But the flat response to Maori roll enrolment coupled with the weekend’s mass by-election boycott should not be ignored, and all should acknowledge the resounding message it sends to the Prime Minister and his minions: that not even Maori people want these seats to exist.

For goodness sake, Mr Key, find some principles—discover some as-yet unapparent testicular fortitude—and abolish the Maori seats now!"

Read Doc McGrath’s regular irregular column here at NOT PC  every Wednesday whenever he puts pen to electronic paper.

Content is copyright PC.BlogSpot.Com © Please contact author for permission to republish: (organon at ihug.co.nz)

DOWN TO THE DOCTOR’S: “Oh teachers are my lessons done? I cannot do another one.”

This week, Libz leader Dr Richard McGrath wonders what about registering a teacher makes them safe?

Boyish Labour MP and teachers' pet Chris Hipkins seems convinced that if teachers in charter schools aren't registered, children will be at risk and the sky will fall. 

I thank him for his concern. We can all be reassured that where a teacher is registered and under scrutiny of the Teachers Council, our children will be secure...

Registered teacher James Parker admitted at least 74 charges of sexual offending young boys. He is still on the register of teachers.

On January 16 this year, registered teacher Douglas Haora Martin pleaded guilty to making upskirt videos of 17 unsuspecting young women and girls. Despite resigning from Lincoln High School on January 24, the Teachers Council kept him on their register until April 13..

Registered teacher Andrew Loader paid to watch two teenagers having sex, breaking the law because one of them was only aged 16. Could this be the same Andrew Loader who is still listed on the Register of Teachers with expiry in September 2015?

Registered teacher Nova Camp stole $40,000 from Takapuna Grammar Rowing Club, and remains on the Register of Teachers until February 2015.

A registered teacher who tried to arrange to have per school principal “capped”- and whose identity the Teachers Council won't reveal - is considered safe to continue to teach children.

Being a registered teacher did not prevent former deputy principal Norman Foote from sexually abusing a girl from the time she was a child.

A registered teacher - again with name kept secret by the teachers disciplinary committee - admitted having sex with one of her male staff members, signing off the bill for a phone from which he used to ring the TAB, and endorsing his registration despite knowing he was being investigated by CYFS for alleged assault..

Registered teacher Kevin Fraser Keys admitted sexually assaulting and photographing a boy under the age of 16. Oh look, he's still on the Register of Teachers until January 2015. 

Registered teacher Damian Christopher Gillard was charged last year with sexual offences against seven young women.

Registered teacher Rene Alan Chalmers, alleged to have stolen more than $800,000, remains on the register 'subject to confirmation' until June 2015.

And these are just the teachers who didn’t make it into parliament on the Labour list…

So I'm confused. Could Chris Hipkins please explain again just why it is so vital that teachers in charter schools be registered?  How does he think merely being placed on a state register guarantees their safety.

Because it seems the Register of Teachers is beginning to resemble Deborah Coddington's Paedophile and Sex Offender Index more than anything on which any decent person would wish to rely. It's beyond me why Hipkins or anyone else should want to protect these predators and deviants from competition.

Could it be because of some tie-in between teacher unions and the Labour Party? If so, in accepting contributions from teacher unions, the Labour Party is being financed indirectly by kiddy-fiddlers, rapists, would-be murderers and peeping toms. That's real class.

See you next week!
Doc McGrath

UKIPalypse Now!

This week, Libertarianz leader Dr Richard McGrath has been considering immigration…

I'm just back from a week in stunningly beautiful Queenstown. One of the highlights of my trip was the great service I struck at Queenstown Bike Tours in Arrowtown. I was so impressed by the friendly owner that I purchased a second-hand bike on the spot and rode back to Queenstown on one of the nearby cycle tracks.

I listened to the news occasionally, and even on a remote cycle trail it was impossible to miss the growing storm around National MP Aaron Gilmore, who as we all know made a prick of himself by threatening to have the PM's Office intervene to terminate a waiter's employment. Gilmore's arrogant bullying reminded me of some Tories on the other side of the planet who have just been delivered a rude shock by British voters—smacking Conservative local government candidates in “the docile towns and muted suburbs of middle England” with a taste of UK Independence Party (UKIP) steel.

How very pleasing to see David Cameron enjoying the fruits of three wasted years where he and most of his MPs abandoned the classical liberal principles championed by his illustrious predecessor Margaret Thatcher. As others have noted, Cameron's only political goal appears to be the continued occupancy of 10 Downing St by himself and his family. That is fast becoming obvious to traditional Conservative Party voters who have found a lightning rod in the UK Independence Party, led by the charismatic and extremely likeable Nigel Farage, and which has just finished carving huge chunks out of the Tory vote in yesterday's local body elections and the by-election in South Shields.

In case you missed the latter result, UKIP came second to Labour in this safe red seat, getting twice as many votes as the Tories and annihilating the Liberal Democrat candidate, who lost his deposit after getting a pitiful 352 votes. In the last five parliamentary by-elections in English constituencies since 29 November last year, UKIP has been runner-up on four occasions, with vote percentages of 24, 28, 6, 12 and 22. Clearly UKIP is no flash in the pan, and their effect has been almost as catastrophic on the Liberal Democratic Party as it has been on the Tories.

For a so-called libertarian party, one of UKIP's major policy planks has however been an end to what they call “the age of mass, uncontrolled immigration.” Indeed, the party that promotes itself as a "libertarian, non-racist party seeking Britain's withdrawal from the European Union” proposes some radical controls on immigration, including a five year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement, and identification and ejection of all immigrants in Britain illegally.

This is in contrast to, for instance, the NZ Libertarianz Party, whose position is to allow peaceful people to pass borders freely:

Libertarianz will have no truck with the racist xenophobia against refugees and immigrants touted by other political parties. We will accept any refugee whom anybody wishes to sponsor. We will run a completely open immigration policy subject only to a requirement that immigrants waive any claim to remaining elements of the welfare state and confirm their peaceful intentions on entry.

The Libertarianz Party promotes more or less open immigration, subject to peaceful intentions, the existence of a sponsor for each immigrant and permanent absence from the welfare rolls. UKIP on the other hand proposes a total freeze on new immigrants, with Nigel Farage claiming there have been more immigrants to the UK in the past 10 years than there were during the nine-hundred years between 1066 and 1950.   UKIP are apparently reviewing their immigration policy. I wonder whether it is time for Libertarianz to do the same, in the light of a potential problem with a particular group of settlers - Muslims?

Muslims form a significant proportion of some European cities, including Birmingham in England, where about 14% of the population claim to follow the Islamic faith. In Brussels that number is said by one observer to be 17-20%, in Marseilles 25%, in Amsterdam 24%, Malmo 25%, London possibly 17%, Bradford 16%, Moscow 16-20%. [In NZ however, with only 40,000 Muslims at most in the country, Muslims are only the eleventh-most popular religion, and make up just a percentage of a percentage of the population. – Ed]

Given that the adherents of Islam, if they follow the Quran faithfully, must advocate the imposition of sharia law in Muslim countries, then if and when Muslims form the majority of the population in a particular jurisdiction it is fairly clear (to me anyway) that there will be pressure for sharia law to be introduced. In this postmodern age, what do you think are the chances that a trial of sharia law will eventually be allowed in New Zealand, in a small and limited way at first, growing in scope and size as the population of Muslims grows? Surely, tolerating ethnic diversity must include allowing Muslims to practice their religion here, mustn't it?

Or should our immigration laws be strengthened to exclude Muslims from entering New Zealand? Should Muslims already settled here be considered for deportation? After all, local Muslim MP Ashraf Choudhary suggested that in some (presumably Muslim) countries the stoning to death of homosexuals and even unfaithful spouses should be permitted. If New Zealand became a Muslim country, what's to stop stonings for offences such as those mentioned above becoming commonplace?

Let's remember that the Quran is a book that impels its followers to kill and mutilate "infidels", and says that Muslims who do not enter the jihad (holy war) are hypocrites who will be sent to hell by Allah if they do not join in the slaughter.

According to one source:

Muhammad was a military leader, laying siege to towns, massacring the men, raping their women, enslaving their children, and taking the property of others as his own.  On several occasions he rejected offers of surrender from the besieged inhabitants and even butchered captives.  He actually inspired his followers to battle when they did not feel it was right to fight, promising them slaves and booty if they did and threatening them with Hell if they did not.  Muhammad allowed his men to rape traumatized women captured in battle, usually on the very day their husbands and family members were slaughtered.

So much for peaceful intentions, then. Muslims are bound by their religion to spread their cult of death to the unenlightened, and to expand Islam into countries where it is not the dominant philosophy. Islam is a movement whose followers have scant, if any, respect for individual rights, and whose ultimate aim is the domination, oppression and murder of those who oppose it. A very un-libertarian movement indeed.

Should they, therefore, be excluded from New Zealand? Is there such a thing as a "moderate" Muslim?

Readers' thoughts would be welcomed - with complete understanding if contributors wish to remain anonymous.

Richard McGrath
Leader, Libertarianz Party

DOWN TO THE DOCTOR’S:

This week Libertarianz  leader Dr Richard McGrath tears strips from Peter Dunne and Russel Norman. Surgically.

1. Watermelon Coalition’s Plans For Electricity Monopoly are 'Economic Dyslexia'

Leaders of the Red and Green parties Russel Norman and David Shearer have a not-so-cunning plan to further nationalise the electricity sector.

The suggestion by the Watermelon Coalition to set up an electricity wholesaler run by politicians smacks of economic dyslexia.

The current electricity “market” is already almost entirely government-run, with three of the big four retailers and the national grid operator still state-owned enterprises.  This is a market which lacks virtually everything that would make it an actual market.  But that’s still not enough for the Watermelon Coalition.

Many don’t realise it, by the pseudo-reforms put in place by the National Party when in government did not deliver a free market in electricity supply. Rather, it maintained the government's dominance in this crucial market. The not-for-profit model of Power Boards was replaced by the SOE model with little or no discernible benefit for consumers. [Read ‘Power for the People’ on page 38 of the July 2006 Free Radical magazine]

The way to get retail electricity prices down is to reduce barriers to entry and allow new players into the market to expose the state-owned dinosaurs - Genesis, Meridian and Mighty River - to increased levels of competition. Rather than putting politicians in control of the electricity market, power companies should be allowed to put pressure on each other to better serve their customers. The consumer - not the politician - should be king.

The suggestion that an entity called “NZ Power”’ award themselves a monopoly on the purchase of generated electricity at a 'fair' price and magically deliver cheap electricity to the people is just  pure Marxist fantasy.

You know, whenever a politician drops the word 'fair' into a sentence, it invariably refers to a centrally planned command-and-control economy of which Rob Muldoon and Chairman Mao would be proud. People should run a mile from such charlatans.

If Opposition co-leader Russel Norman wanted a sustained drop in electricity retail prices, he would be advocating the government end its interference in the energy sector. His 'NZ Power' plan is aptly named - it's all about more power for statist politicians, and less power for common New Zealanders.

Any reduction in electricity prices based on the flawed and out-dated theories of Lenin and Marx will be short lived, require massive subsidisation and be open to political manipulation.

In the same breath as they talk about cheaper prices, the Greens also talk about price hikes when a household's use of electricity rises above a certain level, in the interests of something Russel Norman calls 'efficiency'. That sort of we-know-best ideology is poison to New Zealanders who value their freedom and the ability to make choices for themselves.

However, I don't hold out any hope that this National-led administration are interested in reforming the electricity market—with few exceptions, they abandoned any pretence of limiting the scope and power of government over individual Kiwis long ago.

2. Peter Dunne-Nothing

Peter Dunne wants to kill off charter schools, along with any hope of a decent education for many Kiwi kids. His dramatic about-face on charter schools shows he is little more than the Teachers Council's tame poodle.

Charter schools promote competition in education, and challenge the stranglehold by teachers' unions over what choices are available to parents and their children.

Our party remains firmly in favour of giving parents and children the right to decide how they are educated. Peter Dunne's backsliding, gutless treachery and total surrender to the teachers' unions is typical of his party's unprincipled populist stance on virtually every important issue.

He is clearly more interested in keeping in with the NZEI and other voting blocs than in letting New Zealanders choose a style of teaching for their children that is remotely at variance with the one-size-fits-all teacher-centric state education system.

Peter Dunne, you are now owned by the teachers union - I hope you are proud of your abandonment of those children doomed to failure in the current politically correct, inflexible and increasingly useless network of detention centres for the young.

There are some wonderful teachers out there who could do achieve so much good working in schools specialised to the needs of their pupils. Unfortunately, such teachers are constrained by the rules of their protectionist trade unions and training bodies who are terrified of losing their tightly-held monopoly on teacher qualifications and jobs--along with losing all those billions of dollars of taxpayer funding thrown at the government’s factory schools.

Teacher qualifications are a smokescreen being utilised by universities, NZEI and PPTA to disguise an undignified grab for money and power that Dunne is now aiding and abetting.

If charter schools are so bad, why not give them a limited trial for a year or two in order to to demonstrate just how terrible they are? Yet the education establishment is fearful of any competition and clearly view the prospect of charter schools with considerable alarm, as their own deficiencies are likely to be exposed to public scrutiny.

Peter Dunne appears to forget that in a free education market, bad and incompetent teachers and school are more likely to be ruthlessly and rapidly weeded out, as pupils and parents can more easily vote with their feet and take their education funding elsewhere if they are unhappy with a particular school.

The bottom line is not what letters a teacher has after his or her name, but whether he or she can engage with pupils and keep them keen to learn and hungry for knowledge. Such skills aren't learnt at teacher training colleges and universities. And having a politically driven national curriculum which propagates, for instance, the fiction of the “principles” of the Treaty, or the nonsense of anthropogenic global warming, both so wrong as to be bordering on criminal.

It is imperative that the education market be opened up in every way; that children cease to be political pawns; and that power and funding be wrested away from teacher unions and training colleges and placed back where it belongs, in the hands of education consumers.

See you next week!
Richard McGrath

DOWN TO THE DOCTOR: Monckton magnificent in Manawatu

This week, Libertarianz leader Dr Richard McGrath has been listening to a tourist.

For those who have not yet heard Christopher Monckton in person, currently barnstorming the country on his Climate of Freedom Tour, you still have a chance to make one of his remaining meetings.

I can assure readers they will not be disappointed. Yesterday I traversed the Pahiatua Track to Palmerston North, where sixty of us—including local Libz member and list candidate Chris Robertson, and former Libz candidate Lyn Charlton-- listened to a very polished and convincing address. Shortly before, we had been redirected to a hastily arranged alternative venue at the Anglican church hall, the original site at the Masonic Hall having been double booked. As Alexander Jablokov said, the road to truth is long, and lined the entire way with annoying bastards. But we got there eventually, and it was well worth the extra effort. 

Lord Monckton took us through the IPCC reports that have long forecast doom and gloom, but which observation and science have since proven to be mistaken, exaggerated and at times based on fraudulent manipulation of statistics. Unlike much that emanates from the doomsayers of the global warming cult, Lord Monckton's authoritative arguments are founded in science and reason, and the audience were spellbound by his 90-minute address which was in turn humorous, shocking, educational and entertaining.

As this former adviser to the late Margaret Thatcher told us, in February railway engineer and IPCC head honcho Pachauri finally had to admit that there has been no global warming for the past 17 years. Now there's one in the eye for anyone who claims it isn't so—the Emperor himself has admitted it. And as our speaker pointed out, how very few (if any) of us learned of this through the mainstream media.

But he saved the best until last. With very little prompting during a short time at the end for questions, Monckton launched into the environmentalist/Green movements with an all-out attack worthy of the Libertarianz Party, noting their perversion into agents of international Marxism. His traffic light metaphor was a beauty—characterising those determined to lower everyone's standard of living because of non-existent man-made climate catastrophe as greens who are too yellow to admit they're reds! He advocates freedom, economic growth and prosperity rather than "grim, puritanical regulation and control" as a recipe for addressing environmental issues in the long run.

I urge anyone who has an interest in the science of climate change, and who wants to listen to an expert debunking the bullshit of Al Gore and the adherents of his ghastly religion, to attend one or more of Monckton's unforgettable shows. 

And it will be interesting indeed to follow the political progress of Christopher Monckton in his role as as leader of the UK Independence Party in Scotland.

See ya next week!
Doc McGrath
Libertarianz Party Leader

DOWN TO THE DOCTOR’S: ‘Daily Telegraph’ openly promoting Libz Party policy

This week, Libertarianz leader Dr Richard McGrath is coming back a week early just to boast.

See, I promised I'd be back within a week!

Why so soon? Because, as per the headline, a leading British newspaper has taken on board a Libertarianz policy--that the poor shouldn't be paying any tax—and we're proud of the Telegraph for doing so.

Oddly, it seems the only Britons against the idea of tax cuts for the poor are ... yes, you guessed it: The Guardian and their left-wing readers.

For pity's sake. Who would have thought it? The champagne socialist left-wing media mouthpiece oppose giving tax cuts to the less well-off! But as Ed West so rightly points out in the Telegraph, it's because the left think the poor should only be able to increase their income if it comes via soul-destroying hand-outs. And that's because (according to the Guardian) the State should exert total control over all income; because it should dictate the income of everyone—particularly the poor, who parties bribe for votes by keeping them on a raft of benefits in order to keep them oh so grateful for a turn on Nanny State's tit.  (For reference, see Helen Clark’s ‘Welfare or Working Families’ and Michael Cullen’s ‘Zero Interest Rates for Student Loans’ election bribes.)

Anyway, I and my beloved are still here in Bangkok, and tonight we visited Tim, a mate from Masterton, who is manager at the best pub in the Silom district: Molly Malones, a name dear to the heart of anyone with Irish ancestry, a love of Guinness, or both. Anyway, we talked and talked and eventually talked about tax (as you do) whereupon he reminded me that the Thais themselves enjoy fairly liberal income tax rates:

   NZD 0 - 6,055                                               tax free band
   NZD 6,055 - 20,185                                     10%
   NZD 20,185 - 40,370                                  20%
   NZD 40,370 - 161,480                               30%
   NZD 161,480+                                               37%
   VAT (i.e. GST)                                                  7.7%

Whereas, in New Zealand, thanks to Michael Cullen and his virtually identical protégé Bill English:

   NZD 0 - 14.000                                                10.5%
   NZD 14,000 - 48,000                                    17.5%
   NZD 48.000 - 70,000                                   30%
   NZD 70,000+                                                  33%
   Penalty for being employed ("ACC levy")  1.7%    
   GST                                                                      15%  

Which made me want to compare both with the proposed fully-costed Libertarianz transitional tax rate:

   NZD 0 - 50,000                                             tax-free
   NZD 50,000+                                                15%
   GST                                                                   abolished

So, for Joe Hardworker earning $40k, which is about the median wage in New Zealand (and well above what Nok Taxpayer might be earning in Thailand) , let’s compare how much is taken out of their pay packet:

   Net theft in Thailand is                                                                   NZD 5,376
   Net theft in NZ under National-led government is                NZD 6,700
   Net theft in NZ under a Libz-led government would be        NZD 0 *

So where would you rather work?

See ya next week! 

Richard McGrath
Leader, Libertarianz Party

* with no GST, and individuals left free to decide on level of disability insurance in a competitive market.

DOWN TO THE DOCTOR’S: My Asian Expedition, (the Other) Hitchens on Guns, and Cowperthwaite on Statistics

This week, Libertarianz leader Dr Richard McGrath has been allowed out.

I write this from the "land of the free" - from a country never colonised by Western powers: Thailand. More specifically, my better half and I are spending a few days at the Sheraton Hotel in Hua Hin, three hours drive from Bangkok. And I've got to say, it's pretty damn good here - we're staying at a luxury resort on the western coast of the Gulf of Thailand, with cooling offshore winds that offer relief from the otherwise unrelenting heat (lately 35 degrees during the day, dipping to a frosty 28 at night), tasty food, a good book to read (The Prize, by Daniel Yergin, about the history of the oil industry) and a pleasant companion with whom to share some time out from the serious business of earning a living.

For the first time in a week and a half I can see the stars! There were four days in Hong Kong (where I watched a truly great Fiji team win the rugby sevens, and met several NZ rugby legends, courtesy of guest status in the HKRFU box - thank you again, Grant!) and where the so-called "light pollution" (in reality a glorious celebration of prosperity in a land of almost unlimited opportunity) meant the night sky was outshone in that corner of the planet by mere humans. The night lights in Kowloon alone (on the mainland part of Hong Kong) emit more light than a full moon, and probably shine brighter than the whole of North Korea ever could.

After HK, we spent 48 hours in Beijing. The pollution in Beijing allows you to gaze directly into the sun with little discomfort. So, of course, no chance of stargazing there.

Superficially quite modern, and judging by the quality of the cars on the road there are some very wealthy people there. But one gets the feeling this is accompanied by enormous corruption and abuses of power by officials at all levels, and that the average Joe doesn't really stand a chance of improving his lot in life. We did the obligatory visits to the Forbidden City, Tiananmen Square (still overlooked by a gigantic image of mass murderer Mao Zedong), and the Great Wall, this last built - like the Egyptian pyramids - using slave labour. My legs are still sore after spending two hours walking up and down it - with 45 degree slopes in some sections, certainly it's a harder walk than it appears at first glance!

From chilly (1 degree overnight) China we flew down to Bangkok for our regular checkup at Silom Dental, then to Hua Hin.

But enough of my travels - I just have to share with readers a short piece on gun control by the late Christopher Hitchens's lesser-known and still extant younger brother Peter, who blogs at the UK’s Daily Mail. I think it's one of the best commentaries ever, on the right to act in self-defence - I mean, how could you fault an article entitled 'Why I Demand The Right To Carry A Gun'? First sentence: 

"We in Britain believe guns are so dangerous that only criminals should be allowed to have them."

It gets even better.

To end, a few snippets of information on probably the greatest bureaucrat of the twentieth century (if not the greatest in the history of mankind) - Sir John Cowperthwaite. I love to read up on this amazing man and his achievements whenever I visit Hong Kong. From his obituary in the Guardian(!):

• When Cowperthwaite became financial secretary of Hong Kong in 1961, the average wage there was 25% of the average Briton. By 1990, the average Hong Kong resident earned more than his British counterpart.
• Hong Kong, by the way, has no natural resources (apart from its harbour) and is a net food importer. Taxation on salaries earned in Hong Kong has been a flat 15% since 1966 - and profits from other sources such as dividends and foreign earnings are not taxed at all!
• When asked what poor countries should do to improve their fortunes, he advised them to "abolish the national office of statistics" (Census enforcers take note!).
• When a delegation was sent over from Whitehall to find out why Cowperthwaite was not collecting employment statistics, he gave them the arse card, sending them back on the next plane.
• He refused to accept state funding to upgrade his residence, pointing that no-one else in Hong Kong was receiving a housing benefit.
• When a group of businessmen asked him to fund a tunnel across Hong Kong harbour, Cowperthwaite told them that if it was viable, the private sector would do it - and it did.
• A quote from his first speech as financial secretary: "In the long run, the aggregate of decisions of individual businessmen, exercising individual judgment in a free economy, even if often mistaken, is less likely to do harm than the centralised decisions of a government, and certainly the harm is likely to be counteracted faster."

I trust you all enjoyed a happy Easter break - and if you wanted to work Good Friday and Easter Monday, you just went ahead and did it!

Back next week.  Promise.

Doc McGrath
Leader, Libertarianz Party

DOWN TO THE DOCTOR’S: An important constitutional

This week, Dr Richard McGrath has been sending out submissions…

This afternoon I sent the Libertarianz Party's submission to the Constitutional Advisory Panel, in the hope that its members will be swayed by its themes of limited government, equality and justice for all New Zealanders.

Without further ado, I reproduce it here:

To the Constitutional Advisory Panel

Introduction
This submission is forwarded on behalf of the Libertarianz Party, a registered New Zealand political party formed in 1995.

The Libertarianz Party says our country should have a written constitution protecting the equal rights of all citizens. Several years ago, a small working group of party members formulated a Constitution loosely based on that of the United States, with the errors fixed. An abridged version of the main parts of that document, its Bill of Rights and a Bill of Due Process, appears below.

But first, we make some general comments about the parliamentary and electoral systems, the Treaty of Waitangi, and our party's proposal for a constitutional republic.

General comments
Libertarianz supports the following changes to the current parliamentary and electoral systems:

• Parliament should be limited to 100 seats in a House of Representatives, including the Speaker; but there should also be an upper house composed of 30 members.
• The parliamentary term should be kept at 3 years, with dates fixed in advance and only changed in the event of a no-confidence vote or state of emergency, natural disaster, war or other calamity.
• There should be a 10-15% tolerance for the size of electorates, with adjustments in electorate boundaries made only every 5 years in the interests of economy, with safeguards put in place to prevent political manipulation of electorate boundaries.
• There should be no guaranteed minimum number of seats for the South Island; the number of seats should reflect population distribution.
• There should be no guaranteed minimum number of seats for any race.  All race-based representation at all levels should be abolished, each individual having the same voting power regardless of skin colour or other accidents of birth. Thus, seats reserved for Maori should be dissolved at all levels.
• Political parties should make their own decisions via their own rules and constitutions regarding members who 'party-hop.'  That is not a matter for the state.
• All regulation of political-party funding should be abolished, thus respecting the rights to free speech and association.
• The Treaty of Waitangi should be recognised as the basis for equal citizenship. All Treaty claims should be full and final, settled within a set finite period of time, with all tribunals and committees then disbanded permanently. No Treaty claim should take private property, nor impose any on-going financial burden on taxpayers and ratepayers.
• The Treaty of Waitangi is neither sufficient nor appropriate nor ever intended to be the supreme law of the country, and the so-called “Principles” of the Treaty of Waitangi should be expunged from the law books as so much made-up manufactured nonsense.
• The views of individual New Zealanders of Maori or other descent should be aired during any decision-making process through normal democratic means in the same way as New Zealanders of other racial and ethnic ancestry.
• A written Constitution including a Bill of Rights, similar or identical to that proposed by the Libertarianz Party, should be the supreme law of the land—a constitution clearly delineating the rights to be protected, with all law past, present and future inconsistent with this Constitution struck down.
• New Zealand should become a constitutional republic with an elected President.  

*    *    *

Proposed Constitution for a Republic of New Zealand

A. Preamble

We, the citizens of New Zealand, hold these truths to be demonstrable in reality: that because the mind is our species' means of survival and full flourishing, human beings are individually possessed of certain inalienable rights, which are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of private property and happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers - and only such powers - from the consent of the governed; that all laws legislated by governments must be for the purpose of securing these rights; that no laws legislated by government may violate these rights; that all citizens are equal before such laws; and that whenever any government becomes destructive of these rights, it is in rebellion against its citizens, who may then remove it and institute new government.

Therefore, the citizens of New Zealand, in the name of that which is the glory of man - his sovereign, rational mind - do solemnly declare that our country is henceforth free; that we are absolved from all further allegiance to the Dominion of New Zealand and its government, both of which are hereby dissolved; that we do by this and the associated documents presented here establish instead the Republic of New Zealand; that these documents supersede all previous constitutional and quasi-constitutional documents, including the Treaty of Waitangi; that the laws of this country shall be based on a single moral premise, which is the expression of the afore-mentioned rights: no person or group of persons may initiate the use of physical force, or its derivative, fraud, against any other person or group of persons, and the only justification for the use of force is self-defence against those who initiate it; that the government of this country shall have no other function than to formulate, enact and uphold such laws and to secure and glorify the supreme values of reason and freedom in human affairs.

B. The Bill of Rights

Article I - Free Speech and Privacy

The government shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, of the press, of electronic or optical communication or of any other form of communication or expression; or restricting the right of an individual to petition the government for a redress of grievances; or respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free or non-exercise thereof; or requiring an individual to possess the means of identifying himself, unless he may be employed on the public payroll, or may be casting his vote, whereupon identification shall be required in the polling booth only.

Article II - Right to Self-Defence Against the Initiation of Force or Fraud

The right of an individual to preserve, protect and defend his life, liberty and property, or that of any other party subject to the initiation of public or private force or fraud, and to organise himself into private militia for these purposes, shall not be infringed.

Article III - Right to Repudiate a Government in Rebellion

The right of an individual to organise the overthrow of a government initiating force against its citizens shall not be infringed; and a member of the Armed Forces, private militia, intelligence, or police may disobey any order which conflicts with the rights and liberties eternally enshrined in the Bill of Rights and Bill of Due Process.

Article IV - Property Rights

The right of an individual to be secure in his person, home, papers, effects, reputation, intellectual property and other properties, against unreasonable searches and seizures or arbitrary arrest and detention, shall not be infringed, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized; and no member of the Armed Forces, militia, intelligence or police shall be quartered in any house or property without the consent of the owner; and no individual shall be deprived of rights, liberties or properties without due process of law; nor shall private property ever be taken compulsorily for public use.

Article V - Right of Self-Ownership

The government shall make no law restricting the right of an individual to take his own life or to have his own life taken, if sufficient evidence of his informed consent has been provided in advance or at that time; and it shall make no law requiring an individual to be medically treated or undergo medical experiments, unless he presents an objective threat to the rights and liberties of other individuals, whereupon he may be confined at home, or if he still presents a threat, confined elsewhere or treated, but not experimented on, in an hospitable place; and government shall make no law restricting the right of an individual to ingest substances or to participate in practices which may or may not cause ill health or injury, provided such actions contravene none of the rights and liberties of other individuals eternally enshrined in the Bill of Rights and Bill of Due Process.

Article VI - Free Association

All interaction between adult individuals shall be voluntary and any voluntary association of individuals shall be deemed to have the rights of the individuals comprising it.

Therefore the government shall make no law restricting the right of an individual peaceably to assemble or to join together in marriage or friendly association; or requiring an individual to join, contribute to, be registered or be enrolled with any association; or establishing a monopoly and otherwise restricting the number or nature of businesses; or requiring an individual to join any branch of the Armed Forces, private militia, intelligence or police.

And while the government itself shall discriminate only on the basis of merit, it shall make no law restricting the right of an individual to discriminate on any basis whatsoever.

Article VII - No Compulsory Taxation

The government shall extract no compulsory tax or involuntary contribution of any kind from any citizen for any purpose whatsoever.

Article VIII - Free Trade, Investment and Migration

The government shall make no law regulating commerce, investment or migration; but the government may regulate the immigration of any individual who has aided or given comfort to the enemy in any war or revolution respecting the establishment of the Constitution.

Article IX - Sound Money

The government shall make no law in respect of the establishment of a central bank, monetary authority or currency of exchange, or to otherwise require the coining, printing or use of money; and any action by the government to purchase debt or equity of companies or trusts, or to purchase or speculate in land, buildings and other properties located in the Republic is expressly prohibited.

Article X - Rights Held in Trust

Nothing in this Bill shall be construed as permitting activities which can be shown beyond reasonable doubt to destroy the potential of a child to become an adult with full rights and liberties eternally enshrined in the Bill of Rights and Bill of Due Process. Subject only to this constraint, parents and legal guardians shall have full freedom to raise their children as they see fit; equally, they shall be deemed responsible for the actions of their children.

The age of independence shall be deemed by law, but the courts may deem an earlier age on application of the child, if the child can demonstrate its independence.

C. The Bill of Due Process

Article A - Treason

Treason against the citizens and permanent residents of the Republic shall consist only in levying war against them, or in giving aid and comfort to an enemy which shall pose an objective threat.

Article B - Arrest and Detention

Every individual shall enjoy, and shall be informed of, the right to know the reason for his arrest or detention; to remain silent; to consult and instruct a lawyer of his choice before questioning without delay; to have a lawyer of his choice present with him during questioning; if he cannot afford this lawyer, to have one appointed for him; to the writ of habeas corpus so that a court shall determine the validity of his arrest or detention without delay; to have the assistance of counsel and interpreters for this determination; to be released immediately if his arrest or detention is not valid; and if he is arrested or detained, to be charged promptly or to be released immediately.

Article C - Charge and Depositions

Any individual who is charged with an offence shall enjoy and shall be informed of the right to know in detail the nature and cause of the charge without delay; to consult and instruct a lawyer; to have the assistance of counsel and interpreters for his defence; to have sufficient time and facilities to prepare a defence; and to be brought before a court without delay.

And no individual shall be held to answer for an imprisonable offence unless a High Court judge decides there is a case to answer.

Article D - Criminal and Civil Procedure

In all criminal prosecutions and civil suits, the accused or defendant shall enjoy the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty or found against; to a fair, speedy and public trial or case, at his election, excepting a trial of impeachment, before either a judge or an impartial jury preferably of the locality wherein the breach, liability or offence shall have been alleged; to be informed in detail of the nature and cause of the allegation; to be presented with the evidence against him; to have the assistance of counsel and interpreters for his defence; to have sufficient time and facilities to prepare and present a defence; and to be present at his own trial or case.

Article E - General Procedure

No individual shall twice face a hearing, inquiry, civil suit or criminal prosecution for the same breach, liability or offence; nor shall face a hearing, inquiry, civil suit or criminal prosecution for a breach, liability or offence which at the time of its alleged commission was not a breach, liability or offence; nor shall be compelled in any hearing, inquiry, suit or trial to be a witness; nor shall be prevented from requesting a witness or examining any witness whose evidence has been brought before the court; nor shall be prevented from appealing a determination, judgement, award, conviction or sentence in a higher court or requesting a judicial review.

And a jury shall be directed that it shall find, in favour of or against and innocent or guilty, the defendant and the accused in accordance with the rights and liberties eternally enshrined in the Bill of Rights and Bill of Due Process; and a judge, jury, commissioner or authority shall be provided with a copy of the Constitution and any supporting documents whatsoever.

Article F - Private Prosecutions and Civil Suits Involving Government

All civil suits involving the government shall be heard in the same manner as civil suits between individuals, and all criminal prosecutions brought by an individual, including a prosecution against the government, shall be heard in the same manner as criminal prosecutions brought by the government; and the right of an individual to bring or defend these proceedings shall not be infringed.

Article G - No Excessive Bail, Excessive Fines or Cruel and Unusual Punishments

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments, including the pain of death, inflicted.

Article H - Asset Forfeiture and Victim Restitution

Private and public property shall not be deemed the proceeds of crime unless the criminal burden of proof is met, nor shall be deemed the award of costs or damages unless the civil burden of proof is met; and the proceeds of crime shall be returned to the victims from whence they came or alternative but equivalent restitution enforced.

Article I - Finding of Fact and Mistake

Judges may repair to the traditional precedents of common law, equity and admiralty law where appropriate and create new precedents, provided all these precedents shall be consistent and shall not conflict with the rights and liberties eternally enshrined in the Bill of Rights and Bill of Due Process; and no fact tried by a judge or jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the Republic than according to these rules; and if an individual shall mistakenly be convicted by an error of fact, he shall speedily and appropriately be either pardoned by a Commission of Inquiry, without restriction on his right to a retrial, be retried or have his conviction overturned, and a Commission of Inquiry shall be established to investigate the miscarriage; and he shall receive public compensation without delay.

Article J - Rights Suspended

Every individual who shall be lawfully incarcerated or declared legally and medically insane shall enjoy only those rights and liberties eternally enshrined in Articles III, IV, V, VII, IX and X of the Bill of Rights and in the Articles of the Bill of Due Process; and in respect of this individual, the government shall make no law requiring the recording or disclosure of the contents of any communication and restricting the right of the individual to encrypt this communication, excepting communication to, from and within his place of incarceration; and no law restricting the right of the individual to petition the government for a redress of grievances; and no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free or non- exercise thereof or requiring the observance of any religious custom, including that of any indigenous or local culture; and no law requiring the individual to join any branch of the Armed Forces, private militia, intelligence or police.

And any individual declared legally and medically insane may make a final appeal against this declaration before a panel of experts, which shall be composed of five individuals drawn from reputable institutions.

*    *    *

Notes on the Libertarianz Party's proposed Constitution

• It is intended that this document would stand alone as the Constitution for New Zealand. All laws past, present and future incompatible with it could be challenged and struck down, and replaced only by laws compatible with the Constitution (or not replaced at all).
• The purpose of the Constitution is to protect New Zealanders against encroachment on their rights and liberties by the Government. It limits the functions and roles of the Government and defines its relationship with the citizens it represents and serves.
• Further to this last point, this Constitution actually empowers New Zealanders to resist Government when it does violate their individual rights and liberties.
• It permits such actions as assisted suicide, voluntary euthanasia and substance use by adults by upholding the concept of self-ownership.
• Free speech and action by New Zealanders would be implicitly restricted by the need to respect other people and their property. Fraud, assault, defamation and other crimes would remain illegal.
• Taxation would be outlawed under this Constitution as a violation of property rights. Voluntary funding of legitimate government activities such as upholding the Rule of Law would, however, be not only possible but - in our view - likely to occur, without any need for the coercive extraction of wealth.
• Similarly, eminent domain or the confiscation or nationalisation of private property would be expressly forbidden.
• The Reserve Bank would be dissolved under this Constitution, with no further government manipulation of the currency and no further printing of money tokens (i.e. legal tender not backed by assets such as precious metals). All remaining government-sourced currency would have to be redeemable in gold, silver or some other suitable commodity.
• The Government would not be allowed to burden current or future generations of New Zealanders with debt; it would have to operate strictly within its budget.
• Under the freedom of association clause, private discrimination, even on irrational grounds such as skin colour, would be permitted. Government departments would, however, be permitted to discriminate only on the grounds of merit.
• Many of the clauses in the Bill of Due Process are long standing common law protections that already exist; this document explicitly lists and codifies them.
• A restorative approach by the justice system is required. The death penalty is explicitly forbidden.
• Protection for persons imprisoned or declared medically insane, via a robust review process, is strengthened.

*    *    *

I hasten to add that the Preamble in that submission was a toned-down version of the kick-ass original, which was less restrained in calling out New Zealand governments for their repeated human rights violations.

*    *    *

PS: There has been much media interest in resistance to tomorrow’s census, and last Thursday night I was interviewed by Vinny Eastwood who runs a radio show and posts his Skype conversations online. Apologies for the ums and ahs, but here it is.

See ya next week!
Richard McGrath
Leader, Libertarianz Party

Content is copyright PC.BlogSpot.Com © Please contact author for permission to republish: (organon at ihug.co.nz)

" Keep The Home Fires Burning - With Your Census Form"

DOWN TO THE DOCTOR'S: This week, Dr Richard McGrath is getting his matches ready...

Yes, it's that time again: when freedom lovers across the land express their antipathy to that recurrent symbol of bureaucracy and the Nanny State -- the five yearly census form --by turning it into a carbon footprint.

Libertarians object to being told to fill in a census form for two reasons: first, being ordered to fill in a questionnaire (they never just ask nicely, do they) is a violation of a peaceful person's right to be left alone; second, the information obtained via the census is utilised for all manner of central planning by the State.

This central planning prolongs the existence of many government agencies that libertarians believe lie outside the scope of limited government --departments and ministries such as education, welfare, tourism, ethnic affairs, health, finance, agriculture, trade, transport, employment, fundraising, the voluntary sector and environmental protection, to mention just a few.

By refusing to hand over details of your private life to bureaucrats, even if it doesn't make someone in government sit up and reflect on the violation of civil liberty that the census represents, at least you will annoy a few of them by creating more work.

Should you choose not to warm your dwelling by oxidising your census forms, at least drag your feet on completing them by the due date. Let the lapdogs of the State come running to you and, when they do, refer them to the Privacy Commissioner, whose office "seeks to develop and promote a culture in which personal information is protected and respected". Ultimately, ask them to meet you in a public place where they can kneel down with hands clasped and beg you to fill their forms in. Surely they will if the information is that important.

And when or if you do hand it over, be aware that the only information their own law compels you to supply is your name and address.  Which they already have.

Click here to read the Libertarianz Party's response to news of the coming head-count-at-the-point-of-a-gun.

See ya next week!

Richard McGrath
Libertarianz Party leader