“Once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of the government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments."

“Once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of the government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments. ...

"And why limit the government's benevolent providence to the protection of the individual's body only? Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music?”

~ Ludwig Von Mises from his 1949 magnum opus, Human Action: A Treatise on Economics (chapter 27, section 6, 'Direct Government Interference with Consumption')

The shirt that outlasted the Standards Authority

The lettuce outlasted Liz Truss. And the T-shirt has outlasted the Standards Authority at which it poked the finger.

In a move that sees this blog praise this Government twice in one week -- an unheard of anomaly -- Media and Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith has decided that adults can be adults without needing a nanny to oversee their media and comms. (This week the Broadcasting Standards Authority, next week the Classifications Office?)

The T-shirt was 95bFM's two fingers to the Authority, accompanying a not-so-quiet Public Notice to listeners about the standards to expect on the station.

“At this radio station [said the on-air notice)] we do our utmost to abide by the Broadcasting Standards Authority and their rules and guidelines.

“If you seriously think we’ve crossed the line on air, give us a call on 309 4831 and tell us about it. We’ll be able to help you out and tell you the procedure if you wish to make a formal complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

“Fuck-knuckles, cock and piss, balls. Thank you.”

It did take 25 years. But it did finally get one complaint. 

(PS: get your own piece of history here.)

"You are not safer for knowing less about what people really think"

"I can’t tell you exactly how I would respond to someone who defended Hitler, but I know what I would not do: stalk him on social media, contact his employer to try to get him fired, or ask my government representative to help criminalise such talk.
Does this make me a free speech absolutist? Not quite. ... [More of a] free speech maximalist....

"[T]he maximalist position grants special status to free speech and puts the burden of proof on those who wish to curtail it. While accepting some restrictions in time, place, and manner, free speech maximalism defaults to freedom of content. It aligns with the litmus test developed by U.S. Supreme Court Justices Hugo Black and William O. Douglas, which holds that government should limit its regulation of speech to speech that dovetails with lawless action:

'Let’s go kill a few Germans?' Not kosher.
'The only good German is a dead one?' Fair game. ...

"But but … critics sputter … what about hate speech? Free speech maximalism posits that you can’t regulate an inherently subjective concept. ...

"To those concerned about the dangers of loosening our tongues, I offer Greg Lukianoff’s bracing maxim: 'You are not safer for knowing less about what people really think'.”

Roderick Mulgan: The Medical Council Has Gone Too Far -" We're Saying No!"

This email from the Free Speech Union seeks your support:

Hi Peter, The Medical Council of New Zealand (MCNZ) has proposed that treating patients well is no longer enough.   Your doctor must also hold the correct views. This is a substantial change – and as a GP with nearly 40 years’ experience in medicine – let me tell you, Peter, it sends shivers down my spine. Doctors are being told they must now accept that colonisation - present tense, ongoing - is why Māori can't access healthcare, and that it is their professional duty to challenge the "systemic bias within the system”. If they don't? Their practising certificate could be on the line. I'm Dr Roderick Mulgan - GP, barrister, and International Director of the Free Speech Union. I've read these draft standards with both hats on. As a doctor, I know what good patient care looks like. As a barrister, I know what the law requires. These standards go beyond both. The consultation closes 24 March. The Medical Council needs to hear from you. Make a submission to MCNZ today It takes minutes. We've made it easy. More on that below. What doctors must now believe The draft standards on "cultural competence, cultural safety, and hauora Māori" read less like a regulatory document and more like a postgraduate ideology course. Doctors must accept that: the health system is built on oppressive "settler traditions"; colonisation is the reason Māori can't access health resources; patients are entitled to equitable outcomes across identity groups (somehow); doctors must use their professional influence to actively "dismantle unfair systems;" that doctors should challenge colleagues who do not embrace this approach. Which are all funny things to put in a medical standards document. You might agree with some of this. You might agree with all of it. That's beside the point. The question is whether a medical regulator can turn highly contested political opinions into compulsory professional doctrine - backed by the threat of deregistration. What the law actually says - and what happens in a consultation room As a barrister: the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act requires doctors to demonstrate cultural competence, including respectful interaction with Māori. That's it. No ideological extremism. No activist roles. No dismantling.  This is yet another clear-cut case of a regulator trying to impose powers beyond what the legislation allows them. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act protects not only the right to speak freely, but the right not to be compelled to say things you don't believe. What the Council is proposing is compelled belief, dressed up as professional development. As a doctor what matters when a patient walks through my door is whether: I'm listening carefully, examining competently, diagnosing accurately, treating effectively. Whether I hold the Council's approved position on colonisation has precisely nothing to do with any of that. On Friday, I was on The Platform talking about the MCNZ.   The chilling effect nobody's talking about Free Speech Union Council Member Ani O'Brien made a sharp observation earlier in the week: once disagreement with a framework is treated as evidence of the very problem it describes, recertification stops being about clinical skill. It becomes a test of whether you've learned to say the right things. The real danger isn't dramatic purges. It's quieter. Doctors will learn the language. They'll stop saying what they actually think - not because they've been persuaded, but because they have mortgages and families. A culture of inquiry becomes a culture of compliance. Good medicine depends on doctors who think critically, question assumptions, and follow the evidence. These standards would replace that with ideological conformity. What you can do The Free Speech Union is conducting a full legal analysis and will submit before the deadline. But this consultation is open to everyone - and the Council needs to hear from more than just the institutions already nodding along. If you think doctors should be judged on the quality of their care - not the orthodoxy of their politics - make a submission. Make a submission to MCNZ today Consultation documents are available here.  The deadline is 24 March. That's soon. The Medical Council's job is to ensure clinical competence and patient safety. Not to run a political education programme for the medical profession. Let's remind them of that. Best wishes,

Americans? Libertarians did try to warn you

"[I]n light of how the past year has unfolded, consider cutting your friendly neighbourhood libertarian some slack. After all, we did try to warn you.

"On immigration, speech and trade, Americans are living in a libertarian’s nightmare. ... a terrifying pattern and an undeniable vindication of the long-held libertarian view that the steady growth in the size of the federal government and executive power would lead to precisely this kind of runaway authoritarianism.

"Libertarians have argued that the only way to prevent such abuses is to reduce the power of the federal government itself — abolishing unaccountable federal agencies, scaling back the administrative state, cutting spending — and to restore the balance of powers by reining in the executive. This path has generally been treated as hopelessly naïve at best, and morally suspect at worst. ... Yet it has never been more obvious that the grab-and-grow approach to power is a destructive and self-defeating way to conduct politics.

"To see why, consider how we got here.

"The Department of Homeland Security arose with very little opposition in the wake of Sept. 11 ... As the years went on, Homeland Security — and especially Immigration and Customs Enforcement, within it — got comfortable operating under a series of exceptions to the Constitution ... So it can be no surprise that ICE officers are roaming the streets of American cities today with an unclear mandate, overpowered military-style gear and a dire misunderstanding of the constitutional limits on their behaviour.  ...

"Trump 2.0 has made the libertarian case more obvious ... But it would be a mistake to treat President Trump as the origin of the ultra-powerful presidency. He is merely picking up the weapons that previous administrations left lying around and waltzing through the loopholes they opened.

"Mr. Trump has a record of threatening media and platforms under various statutory and emergency authorities. He recently mused that when '97 percent' of media coverage is negative, it ceases to be 'free speech.'  ...

"But the project of growing executive power has been bipartisan. On speech, officials in the Biden administration leaned on social-media platforms to take down what they deemed Covid and election misinformation without explicit action from the F.C.C. The Supreme Court disposed of a case, Murthy v. Missouri, challenging this “jawboning” ...

"And Mr. Trump’s tariffs — levelled and removed at will and without the participation of Congress, where the Constitution places the primary power — have disrupted and destabilised the global economy and undermined America’s role in it. ...

"Mr. Trump’s tariffs depend on a legally dubious claim that trade deficits and ordinary commerce constitute a national emergency, allowing him to bypass Congress under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. (Jimmy Carter once invoked it to freeze Iranian assets.) Mr. Trump’s tariffs are not an aberration so much as the latest example of how emergency powers, once normalized, become a standing invitation to rule by fiat.

"One thing immigration, speech and trade have in common is that in recent American history, the power to control each of them has settled into the hands of the executive. ... The Supreme Court is reviewing the limits of the president’s control over tariffs and executive agencies. ... The libertarian prescription, now and always, is to scale back the size and scope of the federal government. Devolve power to states and individuals. Cut spending. And rebalance power away from the executive branch. ...

"The good news is that Americans are increasingly waking up to the dark reality of [an] overbearing federal government. ... Similarly, Americans of all stripes have turned dramatically against Mr. Trump’s ICE enforcement actions. There could be — a libertarian can still dream — a grass-roots movement to shrink government that doesn’t end up co-opted by one of the major parties, as the Tea Party was. ...

"But this glimmer of hope is faint. ...

"Instead of a winner takes all approach to power, it’s time to consider working toward a system where there is much less power for the winner to take. No one wished events would prove libertarians wrong more than libertarians themselves. There’s nothing more annoying than an 'I told you so.' But if more Americans are now ready to limit power before it is abused again, they are welcome to join us."

~ Katherine Mangu-Ward from her New York Times free-access op-ed 'Libertarians: We Told You So'

"Ironically, the postmodern turn has led universities away from scientific doubt, towards a culture of (paradoxical) certainty – the certainty that knowledge is relative."

"For over three decades, much academic work in the humanities and social sciences, none more than [Anne Salmond]’s discipline of anthropology, has been influenced by the postmodernist view that reality is relative to culture. 

"This is inimical to science. Scientific knowledge-seeking is based on the idea that objective reality exists. Through reason and evidence, science brings human understanding into closer alignment with reality.

"Ironically, the postmodern turn has led universities away from scientific doubt, towards a culture of (paradoxical) certainty – the certainty that knowledge is relative. Under this view, the commitment of science to gradually revealing reality is at best, a fool’s errand. At worst, it is an exercise in ‘colonising’ other knowledge systems, especially indigenous ones.

"To relativists, a belief that reason transcends culture is a sign of blinkered arrogance, closing off the possibility of ‘other ways of knowing.’ The prevalence of this doctrine has led to a campus climate in which any criticism of ‘non-western’ knowledge systems is an anathema. It has led to some academics being actively shut down, and many feeling too intimidated to speak their minds."

~ Prof. Kendall Clements, & Dr Michael Johnston:from their post 'The Irony Of Relativism'

So let’s review what Australia’s media ban has actually accomplished here...

 

"Australia’s social media ban for kids is now in effect. ... And, of course, it’s not working. Kids are always going to figure out ways to get around the ban:

It took 13-year-old Isobel less than five minutes to outsmart Australia’s “world-leading” social media ban for children.

A notification from Snapchat, one of the ten platforms affected, had lit up her screen, warning she’d be booted off when the law kicked in this week – if she couldn’t prove she was over 16.

“I got a photo of my mum, and I stuck it in front of the camera and it just let me through. It said thanks for verifying your age,” Isobel claims. “I’ve heard someone used Beyoncé’s face,” she adds.

“I texted her,” she gestures to her mum Mel, “and I was like, ‘Hey Mummy, I got past the social media ban’ and she was just like, ‘Oh, you monkey’.”

"Or how about this “hack”:

Either way, Adams and her friends don’t plan to go quietly. When one app asked them to submit a selfie for an age verification system, they used a photo of a golden retriever they found on Google.

It worked, she said.

"So let’s review what Australia’s politicians have actually accomplished here: They’ve alienated parents who don’t appreciate the government deciding how to raise their kids. They’ve taught an entire generation of young people that adults don’t trust them and that circumventing authority is both necessary and easy. They’ve cut off legitimate support networks for vulnerable kids while doing nothing about the actual harms that those same kids face. Indeed, they’ve actually pushed kids towards more dangerous places online while making it more difficult for them to learn to use the internet appropriately. And they’ve created a system so trivially easy to bypass that a golden retriever can pass age verification."

~ Mike Masnick from his post 'Australia’s Social Media Ban Goes Into Effect As Pretty Much Everyone Realises It’s A Total Mess'

Yes, let's keep piling on Anne Salmond.

"Salmond claims to have been guided by a list that reads like a Who's Who in 

Postmodernity... What she does not discuss is whether these thinkers are sound guides."

Anne Salmond, who recently called for thinkers to engage with open rather than closed minds—arguing that "other cultures may have insights that elude us" —was recently called out by Dane Giraud for the very same reason: specifically, for ignoring the insights of Enlightenment culture. The only position that actively suppresses inquiry, pointed out Giraud, is her own. "What is more antithetical to free thought'" he asked rhetorically, "than declaring whole categories of knowledge off-limits to criticism because they belong to the wrong culture."

Salmond, of course, has form. Her own favourite cultural whipping person is Western. Her writing, said Michael King of her 2003 book Two Worlds, gives "a strong impression that, rather than attempting to represent both cultures dispassionately, Salmond [is] straining to case every feature of Māori behaviour in a favourable light and many features of European in an unfavourable one.” 

But in doing so, she fails to learn there either. Reviewing Salmond's work, historian and former Waitangi Tribunal director Buddy Mikaere reckons Salmond's work "turns  our tipuna into cardboard caricatures." Rather than learning deeply from other cultures, he says, she offers only a "one-dimensional characterisation." For her and several other Pākeha historians, he says, "Māori [are] invariably depicted as deeply spiritual beings who only ever acted on the basis of high-minded principles. Pākehā, on the other hand, [are] mostly unprincipled rogues or fools whose behaviour was always motivated by racial arrogance, greed and self-interest."

Such is the accusation, it will be remembered, Salmond throws at the Pākehas of the Free Speech Union. It apparently never gets old.

It begins to look as if Salmond is unable to learn much from either of the Two Worlds of which she writes.

What also never gets old is re-reading the demolition of Salmond's work by the grand old man of New Zealand history Peter Munz, who destroyed her whole platform of post-modern posturing and epistemic duplicity in his 1994 review of her first major book. In her work she is guilty, he says, of not just "disinformation, but of actual misrepresentation."

Salmond claims to have been "guided by 'Heidegger, Foucault, Ricoeur, Gadamer, Habermas, [Mary] Hesse, Derrida, Eco and others.' ... [a] list [that] reads like a Who's Who in Postmodernity ...  all of whom would have helped to confirm her in her prejudices and methods."

What she does not discuss ... [is] whether [these thinkers] are sound guides. It appears that she is under the impression that these postmodern thinkers have solved the problem as to how different systems of knowledge or belief are related or, rather, not related to one another. Could it be that she is simply ignorant of the fact that there is much modern thought which rejects these facile, politically motivated doctrines of Foucault and Derrida, of Eco and Ricoeur? If she takes her stand with these people, she ought, to say the least, have produced some evidence that she has also examined the counter-arguments and, perhaps, found them wanting. But as things stand, she appears simply as an  uncritical camp-follower — which is a poor show for a professional anthropologist.

Furthermore, 

the explanations of the differences in systems of knowledge that these thinkers provide should not, I trust, be considered final. In the pre-postmodern world of good sense, belief or knowledge systems are distinguished according to whether they are true or false. ... What is really at issue and what she is trying hard to disguise by her way of constructing the past, is the brute reality of cultural evolution. ... 

[I]nstead of jumping on the postmodern bandwagon which is nothing more than a belated overreaction to the Victorian age, it is time scholars like Salmond caught up with modern thought and revised their view of evolution.

The limitations of the early mind are the result of isolation and of absence of the kind of contact which would expose beliefs and taboos to criticism. Societies and cultures, which for demographic and political reasons are exposed to contact with others, are more likely to question their own traditions, change their taboos and develop eventually a more universal system of knowledge — that is, beliefs which are more than validations or legitimizations of their own parochial cultures. In a nutshell, this is the heart of cultural evolution.

An evolution — a progress — only made possible by being open to new ideas. Says Munz:

Darwin or no Darwin, we are all descended from black Eve, and every single culture which has ever existed is a departure from the culture of black Eve, whoever she was. [I am using the notion 'black Eve' metaphorically to indicate that all existing cultures are descended or transmuted from a common stock.] ...

I would suggest ...  that one can rank the distance of societies from black Eve according to their exclusiveness. The earliest societies were totally exclusive and would not admit people other than those who belonged to their descent group. Next came societies which would admit people through marriage; and at the other end of the scale, farthest removed from black Eve, there are societies which potentially include anybody who wants to be included. Ranking in these terms is completely neutral and value-free. All it says is that while one cannot 'become' a Maori, one can 'become' a New Zealander, and that, for that reason, there is a structural difference between these two kinds of societies, and that that difference defines the distance of these societies from black Eve and that the actually exclusive structures are earlier than the potentially inclusive structures. Since this criterion is neutral, there can be no question of 'progress', only of progression. ...

[W]hatever criteria one likes to choose, the distances from black Eve can be ascertained because evolution, including cultural evolution, is a reality of life. 

If one wants to understand the coming together of two different cultures, as Salmond does, one must take into account, as Salmond does not, the different distances they have moved away from the earlier forms. Salmond has explicitly rejected evolution. 'Contemporary literature on traditional thought is still bedevilled", she writes, 'with implicit sometimes explicit evolutionism.' If she had her way, it would soon cease to be so bedevilled! I suppose she rejects cultural evolution in the face of overwhelming evidence because by making all cultures more or less equal she thinks she can heal wounds and pour oil on troubled waters and be 'politically correct'. But in the long run, there is no point in burying one's head in the sand: a distortion of reality brings about its own nemesis even if one does not quite yet know what shape that nemesis will take.

Can one say 'Ouch!'? 

The open society is the successful society

"The most secure and prosperous societies did not hide from the world. They were confident enough to remain open to trade and ideas, allowing the new to challenge the known. Progress emerges when people experiment, borrow, and combine ideas in ways no planner could ever foresee; decline happens when fear overcomes curiosity."

~ Johan Norberg from his article 'From Athens to the Abbasids to today’s Anglosphere, creativity and commerce drive greatness.' in which he explores the central lessons of history’s real golden ages in his new book, Peak Human: What We Can Learn from the Rise and Fall of Golden Ages.

"Every so often, a critic of 'universal reason' appears who, in the course of denouncing it, inadvertently demonstrates why we need it."

Anne Salmond, the patron saint of the straw man 

"Every so often, a critic of 'universal reason' appears who, in the course of denouncing it, inadvertently demonstrates why we need it. ... 

"Anne Salmond ... goes after a recent article in the Herald by former Free Speech Union Chief Executive Jonathan Ayling, in which he called for 'an Enlightenment approach [to the school curriculum] grounded in universal reason' This is taken as proof that he wants all children to think in the same way, as though 'universal reason' means a kind of intellectual North Korea, complete with a Ministry of Correct Thoughts. The author writes that universal reason 'suggests there is only one right way to think.' The incessant quarrelling of Kant, Hume, and Voltaire surely makes a lie of that. 

"Universal reason, properly understood, means something so elementary it ought to be uncontroversial: that humans, regardless of tribe, tongue, or whakapapa, share the basic capacity to make and understand arguments. It is what allows a Māori scholar to critique a German philosopher, or vice versa. It is what allows any of us to read a book from another century, or to engage with the sciences, or to disagree at all. Without a universal reason, debate becomes a kind of cultural tourism in which we admire each other’s 'ways of knowing' from a polite distance, like exhibits in an epistemic zoo. 

"[Salmond's] column insists that because language and culture shape thought, there can be no universal reason. This is like saying that because people wear different clothes, there can be no human body underneath. Yes, thought varies, but its very variability depends on a shared structure that allows us to recognise a difference as a difference. If there were no universals of cognition, no common tools of inference or logic, the entire academic industry of “cross-cultural workshops” - which the author curiously cites as evidence - would be impossible. One does not attend a conference on how minds differ unless one assumes the participants have minds capable of discussing it. 

"Then comes the moralising: that the Free Speech Union lacks 'humility before truth,' that Māori voices are being 'silenced,' that universal reason somehow implies a political programme in favour of ignorance. But the only position in the piece that actively suppresses inquiry is the author’s own. What is more antithetical to free thought than declaring whole categories of knowledge off-limits to criticism because they belong to the wrong culture (or, as Salmond frequently argues, are immeasurable by a universal standard)? What is more hostile to academic freedom than demanding that educational policy be bound not by rational argument but by obligations to particular groups, with 'truth' distributed like government grants? 

"A liberal society cannot function on those terms."

~ Dane Giraud from his post 'Why Dame Anne Salmond Misunderstands the Enlightenment'

"The Broadcasting Standards Authority is a creature from the past which should not exist in a free and democratic society."

 

"In 1966 there was a watershed event. A National government, under Prime Minister Keith Holyoake, tried to stifle nascent private radio [by barring broadcasting by then pirate-radio Radio Hauraki]. It failed: the government monopoly was broken.

"The present National government can atone for its 1966 sin against freedom by joining its coalition partners to overcome the attempt by the Broadcasting Standards Authority to impose censorship on [Sean Plunket's] The Platform, an online media outlet. ...

"Today, a new type of freedom, the freedom to exchange information online without government censorship, is under challenge from a government agency. ... [T]his could be another watershed moment. National should join with ACT and New Zealand First, to abolish the Broadcasting Standards Authority. It is a creature from the past which should not exist in a free and democratic society.

"The Broadcasting Standards Authority’s actions have called public attention to the insidious role of the administrative state, the significant power of government agencies to write, interpret, and enforce their own regulations. Creative interpretation is little different to writing the regulations.

"Perhaps the Broadcasting Standards Authority has performed a service by demonstrating not only that it should be abolished, but also why other government agencies with similar powers should either be abolished or have their powers severely curtailed to restore democratic accountability."

~ Gary Judd from his post 'Are we experiencing another watershed event?'

Don't make fun of the despot

 

“The devil’s aversion to holy water is a light matter compared with a despot’s dread of a newspaper that laughs.”

~ Mark Twain from his essay “The American Press”

On Charlie Kirk (1993-2025): "A taste for disagreement is a virtue in a democracy."

I agree with very few of Charlie Kirk's points of view, except one. His apparent commitment to open debate. Ezra Klein is on the money:

The foundation of a free society is the ability to participate in politics without fear of violence. To lose that is to risk losing everything. Charlie Kirk — and his family — just lost everything. As a country, we came a step closer to losing everything, too. ... 

You can dislike much of what Kirk believed and the following statement is still true: Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him. He was one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion. When the left thought its hold on the hearts and minds of college students was nearly absolute, Kirk showed up again and again to break it.... 

That was not all Kirk’s doing, but he was central in laying the groundwork for it. I did not know Kirk and I am not the right person to eulogize him. But I envied what he built. A taste for disagreement is a virtue in a democracy. Liberalism could use more of his moxie and fearlessness. In the inaugural episode of his podcast, Gov. Gavin Newsom of California hosted Kirk, admitting that his son was a huge fan. What a testament to Kirk’s project.

And what a hell of a time to be American. 

"How would you compare the personal and economic freedoms Americans have today with those envisioned by the Founding Fathers in 1776?"

"Q: As the US approaches its 250th anniversary, how would you compare the personal and economic freedoms Americans have today with those envisioned by the Founding Fathers in 1776?

"Doug Casey: The US has had a good, long run as a beacon of freedom for the entire world, but nothing lasts forever. ... The trend in the US is critically important. However, Western civilisation is in decline throughout the world. And it’s more than just a civilisational issue. There’s a rot in ethics [and] philosophy ... [a] trend ... underscored by the presumptive election of Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York. He’s young, affable, charismatic. His appeal is understandable relative to the corrupt and constipated alternatives. But he’s also a Muslim communist who openly wants to overthrow what’s left of American traditions in the largest and most important city in the country. ...

"Q: What do you see as the most dangerous erosions of civil liberties in the US today—and how did we get here?

"Doug Casey: All things become corrupt and wind down over time. The Second Law of Thermodynamics affects political systems just as it does the physical world. Everything degrades and dissolves. Unfortunately, that includes the US Constitution. It’s been interpreted, amended, and disregarded into a dead letter.

"That’s particularly true of the Bill of Rights, which is the most important part of the Constitution. And the most important part of the Bill of Rights is freedom of speech. All the other freedoms rest upon it. Because if you have a thought and you can’t express it, you’re as good as a slave. You can work and pay taxes, but if you say the wrong thing, you’ll be punished. Best to restrict what you think and say to the weather, sports, and the condition of the roads. And be careful what you say about the weather…"

~ Doug Casey from his interview 'Doug Casey on the Erosion of Freedom in America Ahead of Its 250th Anniversary'

The separation of church and state is being ignored by laws that officially reference Māori spirituality, customs, and worldviews

The separation of church and state is a principle established back in the Enlightenment era, one recognised in the US Bill of Rights. Establishing "a wall of separation between Church and State," Thomas Jefferson explained the principle in a famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

The principle rests on this compelling point: "that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions," so that neither the Danbury Baptist Association nor any other religious-based group need fear government interference in their right to expressions of religious conscience. 

This was a historic change from centuries of religious persecution. This is a point now unfortunately lost on New Zealand's legislators, who for decades have routinely inserted into law concepts emanating from Māori spirituality, customs, and worldviews, i.e., Māori religion. 

Law, we should be reminded, is a description of the way in which a government proposes to exercise its monopoly on force. As such, we should demand precision, objectivity, and concepts based on protecting individual rights. Instead, as a result of this departure from proper principle we have been delivered law that is imprecise, and riddled with bogus concepts based on a particular religious worldview.

Author and researcher John Robinson lists 35 New Zealand laws that officially reference Māori spirituality, customs, and worldviews — using terms like tikanga, mana whenua, mauri, wairua, and more. Among them are many that might surprise you:

Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA)
Terms: Te Mana o te Wai, kaitiakitanga, mauri, wairua, tikanga Māori, mana whenua
Context: Gives legal status to Māori spiritual values when assessing environmental impacts and resource consent.

Water Services Act 2021
Terms: Te Mana o te Wai, kaitiakitanga
Context: Water regulation must consider Māori spiritual views on water’s life force and guardianship.

Local Government Act 2002
Terms: tikanga Māori, mana whenua
Context: Requires councils to involve Māori in decision-making and give weight to their cultural practices.

Conservation Act 1987
Terms: kaitiakitanga, tikanga Māori, mana whenua
Context: Māori beliefs must be considered in conservation efforts and land access.

Waitangi Tribunal Act 1975
Terms: tikanga Māori, Treaty principles
Context: Empowers Māori customs and grievances to be judged by Māori cultural norms.

Environment Canterbury Act 2016
Terms: mana whenua representation
Context: Mandates tribal representation in regional governance based on ancestral authority.

Oranga Tamariki Act 1989
Terms: whakapapa, mana tamaiti, tikanga Māori
Context: Māori child welfare decisions must respect spiritual ancestry and cultural norms.

Education and Training Act 2020
Terms: tikanga Māori, Treaty principles, mana whenua
Context: Embeds Māori values and customs into the public education system.

Climate Change Response Act 2002
Terms: tikanga Māori, kaitiakitanga, Te Tiriti o Waitangi
Context: Climate planning must consider Māori spiritual guardianship of nature.

Crown Minerals Act 1991
Terms: tikanga Māori, mana whenua, Treaty principles
Context: Requires consultation with Māori based on cultural and spiritual claims to land and minerals.

Biosecurity Act 1993
Terms: tikanga Māori, mana whenua, Treaty of Waitangi
Context: Disease and pest control policy must consider Māori views on spiritual and land connections.

Public Health and Disability Act 2000
Terms: tikanga Māori, mana motuhake, Treaty of Waitangi
Context: Health services are required to reflect Māori beliefs and autonomy.

Wildlife Act 1953
Terms: customary rights, tikanga Māori, mana whenua
Context: Spiritual and cultural practices are recognized in hunting and wildlife protections.

Forests Act 1949
Terms: tikanga Māori, Treaty of Waitangi
Context: Forest use and protection must consider Māori customs and Treaty rights.

Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014
Terms: wāhi tapu, wāhi tūpuna, tikanga Māori, mana whenua
Context: Sacred and ancestral Māori sites are protected by law.

Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act 2022
Terms: tikanga Māori, Māori Health Authority, Treaty of Waitangi
Context: Establishes a parallel Māori health system based on cultural values.

Kainga Ora–Homes and Communities Act 2019
Terms: tikanga Māori, mana whenua, Treaty obligations
Context: Housing projects must align with Māori cultural values and Treaty-based consultation.

Land Transport Management Act 2003
Terms: mana whenua, Treaty principles
Context: Māori cultural considerations must be included in transport planning.

Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000
Terms: kaitiakitanga, tikanga Māori, mana whenua
Context: Spiritual guardianship and cultural relationships must be respected in marine planning.

Walking Access Act 2008
Terms: tikanga Māori, mana whenua
Context: Access to land and tracks must consider Māori spiritual and cultural significance.

EEZ and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012
Terms: tikanga Māori, Treaty principles, mana whenua
Context: Deep-sea resource use must consult Māori cultural and spiritual perspectives.

National Parks Act 1980
Terms: kaitiakitanga, wāhi tapu, tikanga Māori
Context: Māori spiritual values influence park management and access.

Marine Reserves Act 1971
Terms: kaitiakitanga, tikanga Māori
Context: Customary guardianship and Māori beliefs influence reserve designation and rules.

Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act 1994
Terms: tikanga Māori
Context: Even activities in Antarctica must respect Māori spiritual customs.

Building Act 2004
Terms: tikanga Māori, mana whenua
Context: Local iwi spiritual and cultural views must be considered in development approvals.

Te Urewera Act 2014
Terms: legal personhood, tikanga Māori, mana whenua
Context: Grants a forest legal status as a living ancestor with spiritual significance under Māori belief.

Whanganui River Settlement Act 2017 (Te Awa Tupua)
Terms: legal personhood, tikanga Māori, mana whenua
Context: Declares the river a living entity with rights, based on Māori cosmology.

 Taranaki Maunga Settlement Act 2023
Terms: legal personhood, tikanga Māori, mana whenua
Context: Gives Mount Taranaki the same spiritual and legal status as a living being.

Criminal Cases Review Commission Act 2019
Terms: te ao Māori, tikanga Māori
Context: Māori spiritual and cultural views may influence justice processes and reviews.

Trade Marks Act 2002
Terms: mātauranga Māori, tikanga Māori
Context: Māori traditional knowledge and customs can affect trademark approvals.

Patents Act 2013
Terms: mātauranga Māori, tikanga Māori
Context: Patents can be denied or restricted based on spiritual and cultural beliefs.

Each of these inclusions undermines law, makes its exercise illegitimate and imprecise, and requires by law that all New Zealanders bow to a religion — one based on race — that is not necessarily their own.

As a commenter observes, 

There are also numerous reports/frameworks affirming the Te Ao Maori vision- a powerful and authoritative reference to guide action and establish norms, e.g. Te Rautaki Ao Maori—guidelines for NZ parliamentary process, Matauranga Maori in the Media, and many more.
     NZers are now enmeshed in a web of embedded "cultural references" which decree how to live their lives.

There is neither a moral nor a legitimate legal case for that.

So who's *truly* committed to free speech?

"[I]n perception and rhetoric the Left has certainly lost or even surrendered the high ground. Conservatives have successfully seized the mantle of free speech advocacy in many public debates. But whether that shift reflects a deeper, principled commitment to the ideal remains to be seen ... "

~ David Harvey from his post 'Speak the Speech, I pray you'

"It's shades of Stalinist struggle sessions."

'Lanyard Man' (left) heckles politician (right)

"Whatever lanyard man said, whatever you think of Winston, positive or negatively, if you want to go back to the world where people didn't face pile-ons for their political views, then don't do it when someone has views you don't like. It's shades of Stalinist struggle sessions.
    "And yes, I know the hard-left absolutely thrives on doing this and you might have joy doing it back - but just don't. 

    "When I was a public servant [sic] it was perfectly okay to oppose the government you were serving, as long as it was not being critical of any of the work of your department or the Ministers you served. You could be critical of education policy, but be advising on local government and say nothing about the latter. The idea you could work for a private contractor and not be able to heckle (without being threatening) is absurd. 

    "Of course that contractor can have its own employment rules, and that's its choice, but let's not have a culture of digging into trenches and having the ends justify the means. That's not a thriving liberal democracy that makes it easy for people to change their minds, it's political tribalism." 

~ Liberty Scott on the social-media led pile-on to hunt down and have sacked a man heckling Winston Peters at Wellington Railway Station

"What is troubling isn’t just the idiocy of the legislation, but that Luxon didn’t instinctively understand that it wasn’t the role of the state to monitor children’s screen time."

"The perverse outcomes resulting from adults seeking to protect children range from the mildly idiotic ... to the morally questionable ... Last week our current Prime Minister and the MP for Tukituki (Hastings), Catherine Wedd, added to this list with a proposal to prevent those under 16 from accessing social media.

"This will prove popular. Foolish ideas often are. Leadership is knowing when to say no ...

"Professor Jonathan Haidt has compiled compelling research on the malign impact of social media on young minds. [In actual fact, not at all compelling - Ed] ...

"Thanks to the work of Haidt and others, responsible — and even irresponsible — parents know of this issue and act accordingly. If we were governed by a party that believed in Individual freedom and choice, personal responsibility and limited government, that is where this story would end. ... [Instead] girls being mean to each other on Snapchat requires central government legislation ...

"What is troubling isn’t [just] the idiocy of the legislation, but that Luxon didn’t instinctively understand that it wasn’t the role of the state to monitor children’s screen time. ..."

~ Damien Grant from his column 'Banning under 16s from social media will prove popular. Foolish ideas often are'

Let's not ban social media for sub-16-year olds

WHEN AUSTRALIA PASSES LEGISLATION, we're often not far behind.

Australia's Orwellianly titled Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act was passed last year. 

The Act's aim is to ban under 16-year olds from social media.

The social media ban was rushed through Parliament with no real inquiry into the nature of the problem it was supposed to solve or the likely effects of a ban. Evidence from mental health experts on the question of whether and how social media use is harmful is at best inconclusive, as far as I can determine.
    But the advocates of a ban haven’t worried too much about that. They’ve relied on casual correlation and on the testimony of instant experts, with no particular expertise in the mental health of young people. ... most notably Jean Twenge and Jonathan Haidt.

Twenge peddles bullshit based on so-called "generational analysis"— on the assumption that being a "millennial"/"Gen Z"/"Gen Y"/"Gen Jones" is any more effective than astrology. (Indeed, as one review of her latest book concludes, "for serious scholarly work, five-year birth cohorts, categorised by race, gender and class background, are much more useful. For entertainment purposes, astrology is just as good and less divisive.”)

Jonathan Haidt is other alleged expert relied upon. Haidt was good on teenagers' need for more independence — here he is not only bad at the data, but is arguing against his own earlier conclusion. In Mike Masnick's summary of the situation:

Six years ago, NYU social psychologist and author Jonathan Haidt co-authored 'The Coddling of the American Mind. 'In the book, he and Greg Lukianoff argued that parents are doing a real disservice to their kids by overprotecting (coddling) them, rather than giving them more freedom and allowing them to make mistakes and learn.
    This year, he’s back with a new book, 'The Anxious Generation,' arguing the exact opposite in the digital world: that social media and smartphones have made kids under-protected, rewiring brains and increasing teenage depression rates.
    Haidt tries to address this obvious contradiction in his book with the standard cop-out of the purveyor of every modern moral panic: “This time it’s different!” He provides little evidence to support that.

"Unfortunately for those seeking an easy solution," says Masnick "the data doesn’t support Haidt’s conclusions."

[A]s a quick summary: he’s wrong on the data, which undermines his entire argument. Almost every single expert in the field who does actual research on these issues says so. Candice Odgers ripped apart his misleading use of data in Nature. Andrew Przybylski, who has done multiple, detailed studies using massive amounts of data going back years, and keeps finding little to no evidence of the things Haidt claims, has talked about the problems in Haidt’s data. Ditto Jeff Hancock, at Stanford, who recently helped put together the National Academies of Sciences report on social media and adolescent health (which also did not find what Haidt found).
    Indeed, one thing that came up in looking over the “strongest” research in the book was that (contrary to some of Haidt’s claims), data outside of the US on suicide rates seem to show they’re often (not always) going down, not up. Even worse, the data on depression in the US showing an increase in depression rates among kids is almost certainly due to changes in screening practices for depression and how suicide ideation is recorded.
    As my review notes, though, the problems with the data are only the very beginning of the problems with the book. Because, in the first part of the book, Haidt misleadingly throws around all the data, but in the latter part, he focuses on his policy recommendations.

It's those very policy recommendations that Australia has just followed! 

It's not just pseudo-psychology based on bad data: "even his former co-author, Greg Lukianoff, pointed out that Haidt’s proposals clearly violate [the US's] First Amendment."

So fast and loose on both data and free speech!

CANDICE ODGERS IS ONE researcher whose data, she says, from "studies on the impact of phones and social media on children, including a 'study of studies,' conclude that social media is good for some kids, helping them find like-minded individuals. It’s mostly neutral for many kids, and problematic for only a very small group (studies suggest less than 10 percent)." In other words, as she notes in her review of Haidt’s book 

the evidence suggests the causality is likely in the other direction.

Ouch.

A recent debate pitted Odgers against Haidt, where — as he watched his argument crumble — he had to admit that she knows the data better than he.

This matters, because this bullshit will be coming here soon. You can count on it.

A judge in a Florida court this week summarises how absurd the bullshit is.  Masnick commentates the brawl:

The transcript reads like a master class in dismantling moral panic arguments. When Florida’s lawyers stood up in court to defend the law, they reached for what they clearly thought was their strongest argument: “Well, Your Honor, it is well known in this country that kids are addicted to these platforms.”

But Judge Mark Walker, chief judge of the Northern District of Florida, wasn’t buying what Florida was selling. His response cut straight to the heart of why these kinds of claims deserve skepticism, and some of it was based on his own childhood experience on the other side of a moral panic:

MR. GOLEMBIEWSKI: Well, Your Honor, it is well known in this country that kids are addicted to these platforms. This is a mental health —

THE COURT: It was well known when I was growing up that I was going to become a Satanist because I played Dungeons & Dragons. Is that — I don’t know what really that means. You can say that there’s studies, Judge, and you can’t ignore expert reports that say X.

The D&D reference isn’t just an amusing comeback — it’s a federal judge explaining through personal experience why courts shouldn’t accept “everybody knows” arguments about harm to children. After all, lots of things have been “well known” to harm children over the years. It was “well known” that chess made kids violent. Or that the waltz would be fatal to young women, or that the phone would prevent young men from ever speaking to young women again. I could go on with more examples, because there are so many.

When Florida’s lawyer tried to argue that social media was somehow different — that this time the moral panic was justified — Judge Walker was ready with historical receipts:

MR. GOLEMBIEWSKI: Kids weren’t reading comics — millions and millions of kids weren’t reading comics eight hours a day. Millions and millions of kids weren’t listening to rap music eight hours a day. There’s something different going on here, and there’s a consensus —

THE COURT: The problem, Counsel, that’s a really bad example, the comics, because there is an entire exhibit in Glasgow where they barred comics in the entire country because somebody decided that comics were turning their youth against their parents and were causing them to engage and worship the supernatural and stuff.

So, I mean, I guess that was the point the plaintiffs were making is from the beginning of time, we’ve targeted things under some belief that it’s harming our youth, but doesn’t necessarily make it so.

But, go ahead.

That trailing “but, go ahead” is savage. I think I’d rather curl up in a ball and try to disappear in the middle of a courtroom than “go ahead” after that.