Constitutional Hooey

When the Clark government held a high-profile hui to review the New Zealand constitution, there was a muted undercurrent to have “group rights” [sic] accepted as superseding individual rights, and an overt attempt to incorporate the Treaty of Waitangi into a new constitution.

The attempt is now being made again under this government—under the guidance of Bill English and Pita Sharples, and with the assistance of an “expert” advisory panel. Seeking to be said “experts” are the likes of Moana Jackson and Margaret Mutu, who is on the record as seeing the constitution of Bolivia as “a future model for New Zealand.”

For the record, this is a constitution that gives special “group rights” to “indigenous” Bolivians, and gives nature “equal rights” to human beings.

Maybe not a future model for New Zealand then, we hope, but certainly a strong candidate for the world’s next famine.

Helen Clark’s constitutional conference was ultimately unsuccessful—not because attendees were opposed to the idea of group rights (an anti-concept wiping out the recognition that individuals hold rights “not from the Collective nor for the Collective, but against the Collective—”as a barrier which the Collective cannot cross”), but mainly because Maori themselves were opposed to tying the Treaty down as long as they weren’t tying the knots themselves.  Such incorporation, said Shane Jones at the time, might “tie down the Treaty's mana as a 'sacred covenant'”; or as Ngatata Love said "I say what my tikanga is, not the law." Meaning, of course, that if law is clear and objective then witchdoctors won't be paid a fortune to give this week's interpretation of 'taonga.'

Clark was at least astute enough to realise giving the witchdoctors power to write their own constitutional ticket would be congenitally stupid, and left the constitutional question alone for the rest of her term. Key and English however, politically naive and desperate for Maori Party votes, are foolish enough to give the farm away before they’ve even realised what Sharples (and Mutu) have set their eyes on.

That vigilance, then, is going to be up to you and I.

RELATED POSTS & LINKS:

• Govt begins cross-party constitutional review – B E E H I V E (Dec. 2010)
• The Hooey From Helengrad – Peter Cresswell, F R E E   R A D I C A L  (2000)
•  Indigenous Constitutions: Bolivia today, Aotearoa tomorrow? 
  – R A D I O   N Z  [audio]
• Cue Card Libertarianism: Constitution – N O T   P C
• Preamble – Lindsay Perigo, C O N S T I T U T I O N   F O R   N E W   F R E E L A N D
• Objective Laws - P R I N C I P L E S   F O R   A   F R E E  S O C I E T Y
• Individual Rights - A Y N   R A N D   L E X I C O N
• Constitution - A Y N   R A N D   L E X I C O N

Electoral Finance Act still law, but ... [updated]

It started with the Labour Party changing the law to stop Bernard Darnton suing them over their 2005 pledge card, continued with their Electoral Finance Act by which they attempted to squelch free speech and hog-tie their opponents, and now after many months of shouting in the end a bill to remove that incursion into Mugabeism from our law books was introduced to parliament last night, and it looks like by this time next week it will be dead – with the exception of one clause.

And in the end, after all the months of hysterically defending the indefensible, even Labour voted for its removal, and new Labour leader Phil Goff had the grace and common sense to concede it was a mistake.

Unfortunately, reports do not record what Helen Clark’s face looked like when she was required to file into the lobbies to begin voting against the mechanism by which she hoped to achieve a permanent Premiership.

UPDATE:  Since he did so much to sterling work to bring about its imminent dissolution, David Farrar deserves a word here:

    A rare joint award to Labour and National for starting the repeal of the Electoral Finance Act.The real evil of the Electoral Finance Act wasn't so much in its substance (even though that was bad enough) but more so in the way it was drafted without any attempt at consultation with the public or Opposition political parties…
    The anger in National (and elsewhere) over the Electoral Finance Act is palpable. The Act is detested, and represents to National the closest we have come to a constitutional coup - an attempt to so skew the playing field, to the benefit of one party only. Many in National would happily sign up to an "utu" response where the EFA is not only repealed, but is inflicted on Labour in reverse.
    But wiser heads have prevailed, and National is sincerely committed to multi-party (and public) consultation over the replacement to the Electoral Finance Act.

This indicates why National’s promised repeal only gets two cheers from this quarter.  In contradiction to David’s conventional view, the real evil of the Electoral Finance Act wasn't at all that it was drafted without any attempt at consultation with the public or Opposition political parties.  (As long as a law protects individual rights then it’s not “consultation” but urgent introduction that’s necessary.)   In fact, the real evil was that the Electoral Finance Act was a total affront to free speech, and to the standards of what purport to be democracy.

Sheesh already!  The evil of the act cannot be so so simply dispelled by waving over it the magic wand of “multi-party (and public) consultation”: what it needs is the introduction of objective law to govern NZ’s elections that is clear, impartial, and that actually protects NZers’ rights to free speech and free association --which includes the right to donate however much one wishes to to whomever one so chooses.

Keynesia is here!

We’ve been struggling to find a replacement for the word “Helengrad” now that regime change is here.  “Helengrad” captured the mood of a decade and the nature of Helen’s regime perfectly, and the search has been on all summer for a replacement. What do we call Wellington now that Key is there?

Key-ev doesn’t cut it.  Ta-John-Key-Stan? Too much of a mouthful. John-obyl? Too much explaining to do.

So, fortunately for our vocabulary, if not for our wallets, yesterday’s spend-up announcement jogged Liberty Scott’s creative faculty into action, and out popped the obvious replacement: Keynesia – named after the patron saint of bureaucrats and Bill English.

I can see it now on sign boards all around Wellington:

Welcome to Keynesia! 

And I'm sure, like you, I look forward to the economic “stimulus” created by the erection of all those new signs.

Will regime change mean blog change? [update 4]

So what happens to the blogosphere now "change" has come and Helengrad is no more? What especially will happen to those blogs whose chief reason-for-being is Helen hatred -- where to now for them?

Seems to me The Double Standard will move from the Ninth Floor of the Beehive down to EPMU headquarters; Tumeke will move from hating John Key and George Bush to really, really hating John Key; The Hive will change from delivering boring gossip from outside the tent to boring gossip from inside the tent; the men and women of Public Address will gradually realise John Boy is one of them (especially if Key-Wee-Broadband means they can download even more stolen films); Comrade Chris Trotter will hate even more hyberbolically (at least until he realises that John Key is further left than Phil Goff) and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy -- which is to say Whale Oil, Kiwiblog, No Minister and the odious Matthew Hooton -- well, they'll just quietly transform the Conspiratorium of Right Wing Opposition into a Softcock Centre-Right Blancmange sending out trial balloons for their masters between frequent encomia to blandness and big government.

Which is to say they'll find it hard to go from opposition to government when everything their government is doing is the opposite of what they once said they stood for. Which means both they and their readers will slowly lose interest.

Remember what happened to Jordan Carter's blog?  That's their fate right there.

And this blog you're reading now?

No change at all in substance.  John Boy was never our hero, so we don't see regime change as much change at all really.  We'll still be attacking every slippery form of government coercion and praising the very rare moments of new freedom -- but you will begin to notice a few changes as it transforms itself to become NOT PC 2.0.  Exciting, eh.

The biggest change is the addition of more regular contributors to the stable allowing me to use the Royal 'We' more accurately: which means that in addition to our regular Friday Beer O'Clock posts from maestros Stu and Neil, there'll be other weekly posts from regular contributors ... contributors to be announced very shortly.

The first post starts tomorrow, by NOT PJ:  'Mourning Helengrad'  ;^)

UPDATE 1:  Oops!  After sending out his last epistle declaring treason on us all, Comrade Trotter is hanging up his keyboard in his own hyperbolic fashion: "the New Zealand Left has woken up to its very own 9/11," he says, disappearing up his own hatred and demonstrating at the same time why he's no longer taken seriously.

UPDATE 2: It seems you can't underestimate the ability of the Hard Left to be a caricature of itself.  Read RESISTING THE NAT-ACT JUNTA- What is to be done? at Socialist Aotearoa to see what I mean. They appear completely unaware of John Key's plan to bore us so much with politics over the next three years that we'll forget there's even an election planned for 2011.

UPDATE 3:  And the predictable post-election collapse of the blogosphere continues:  Matthew Hooton has also hung up the keyboard and will, no doubt, be taking his slimy presence off to the Beehive.

UPDATE 4:  Ah, after a five-day Moet binge with a gaggle of fawning Tories (see evidence at right from Tumeke!) Cactus Kate has woken up (finally) with liver damage, a raging hangover and her own thoughts on the future of the blogosphere: "With the change of administration blogs will need to change as well," she says, "Here are my predictions." 

They're harsh, but (mostly) fair.

Where's Nanny? The PM says she's an 'urban myth'!

In the Leaders Debate on Monday night, in a rare moment when John Campbell wasn't speaking, John Key pointed out that the government has been "storming through the front door"; Clark challenged him to come up with examples, as if the very idea of this combination of gargoyle and dominatrix was some sort of urban myth (a line promoted by The Double Standard).  The best he could do was to begin a list starting with lightbulbs and ending with showers, and not very much in between.

The reason he was so pissweak? 

Simple.  Because his own party was co-signatory to the worst example of nannying this decade, the anti-smacking law.  Hard to bring that up as an example when you yourself shared responsibility for it.

Because his own party began the anti-tobacco hysteria back in the time of Headmistress Shipley, banning (yes, banning) the magazine 'Cigar Afficianado' because it fell foul of the National Party's line.

Because his own party is going to start DNA testing everyone arrested for an imprisonable offence.

Because his own party wants to confiscate the proceeds of crime from defendants, before their guilt is even proved in a court of law.

Because his own party, especially in the days of Headmistress Shipley, was as big a Nanny as Harridan Helen.

But to call the existence of the Nanny State an urban myth is just breath-taking. 

There she is inspecting school lunchboxes.
Banning smacking.
Telling us not to lie in the sun.
Not to drink more than seven servings.
Not to drive too fast.
Not to drive too often.
Not to smoke at home.
Not to smoke in the car.
Not to smoke in the pub.
Not to smoke at all, really (you getting the message)?

She tells us we may not discipline our children.
We may not let them eat tasty food.
We must pay for hysterical advertising that treats adults like children.
We must not watch advertising that treats us like adults.
We may not drive fast cars in industrial areas at night.
We may not climb tall ladders.
We may not act in ways that Nanny deems "anti-social."
We may not buy vitamins and minerals without a prescription from Nanny.
We may not drink alcohol in public places.
We may not smoke cigarettes at work or in the pub.
We may not smoke marijuana anywhere.
We may not ride a bicycle without a helmet.
We may not walk a poodle without a muzzle.
We may not buy fireworks that go ‘Bang!’
We may not put up bright billboards or sandwich boards around our cities.
We may not cut down trees on our own property.
We may not repair our own property if Nanny says we can't.
We may not plant trees on our own property without Nanny’s approval of the type of tree.
We may not paint our houses in colours of which Nanny disapproves.
We may not build houses at all where Nanny says we can’t.
We may not advertise for young female employees.
We may not open for business on days Nanny specifies.
If we do open for business, we must act as Nanny's unpaid tax collectors.
We may not fire staff who steal from us.
We may not fire staff, whatever their employment contract says.
We must surrender our children to Nanny’s factory schools.
We must pay for teachers that can’t teach and for centres of education that aren’t.
We must believe that Alan Bollard knows what he’s doing.
We must believe that our money is not our own.
We must not call bureaucrats “arseholes.”
We must not offend people paid to boss us around with our money.
We must answer stupid questions when Nanny asks us.
We may not spend our own money in ways of which Nanny disapproves.
We may not defend ourselves against people who try to kill us.
We must pretend that snails are more important than we are.
We must pretend that murderers are people too.
We must apologise to tribalists for things we didn’t do.
We must not offend criminals for things they did do.
We must apologise to conservationists for things we need to do.
We must apologise for success.
We must ignore failure.
We may not build new power stations that actually produce real power.
We must not offend Gaia by driving big cars and enjoying overseas holidays … unless we’re a cabinet minister.
We may not end our own lives when we choose.
We must pay for art we don’t like and TV shows we don’t watch.
We must pay middle class families to become welfare beneficiaries.
We must pay no-hopers to breed.

And Helen Clark says the Nanny State is an urban myth?

Are we all going mad … ?

Is she?

Nanny likes to remind us that we're not here to enjoy ourselves. She is the Puritan described by H. L. Mencken, perennially paranoid that somebody, somewhere, somehow might just be managing to have a good time.

She is everywhere, and she is right here front and centre at this election.

Don't let them tell you she's not.

NB: You know, you can download a poster with most of the above list.  Perhaps you should send a copy to John Key, so he starts trying to cross a few off.

Click on the pic to enlarge, or here for an A3 PDF file [1MB] -- and tell Nanny to go to hell.

One thousand reasons to despise the Electoral Finance Act

Here are one-thousand reasons not to have home addresses on political literature: one-thousand knives stuck into Family First's Bob McCroskie's lawn:

As a couple of bloggers have noticed, this is precisely why Libertarianz have placed the following statement on their billboards:

We figured that since Helen Elizabeth Clark, of 4 Cromwell St, Mt Eden, had introduced a law regulating political speech one-year-in-three, including a rule that all such speech must include the name and address of the person who "authorises" it -- in McCroskie's case his Value Your Vote website -- she needs to personally understand the chilling effect of such a law.

After all, if she's going to write laws placing at risk the homes of people who criticise her, people whose homes don't come complete with police protection...

NB: The photo comes from the Herald, who for their own reasons chose to digitally remove the number of Helen Clark's house, while leaving the address above. Go figure.  [Hat tip

Hurricane Glenn

After Hurricanes Gustav and Ike hit Louisiana and the Caribbean, the long-anticipated Hurricane Glenn is now bearing down on Helengrad from Monaco this afternoon, with extensive political damage almost certain in its wake.

The blog Keeping Stock is offering a Guess the Diversion contest:

    Obviously the PM isn't going to want the attention of the nation focused on Owen Glenn's step into the corridors of power tomorrow. She's already being quoted on Newstalk ZB as saying that New Zealanders are "over" the NZ First funding row, and it makes sense that someone from Labour will pull a rabbit out of a hat in the next 24 hours to divert the eyes and ears of the nation.
    So what's it going to be? A waterfront stadium for Auckland? No, they've already done that. Buying the railways? No, too late.

Home Paddock is keeping the theme fresh today, with a game to guess what Peters' excuse will be today.

So what's your pick?  What's it going to be?  You have to be in to win.

Fear, surprise and ruthless efficiency?

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition ... least of all Winston Peters, the man with all the integrity of a wounded jackal, and with an ego bigger than his party vote.

As Whale Oil points out, there are some difficulties with Peters's artless comparison of the wet bus-ticket investigation in operation in Helengrad with the medieval torture of the Spanish Inquisition, most of all the absence of such crucial inquisitorial tools as the rack, the Toca, and the Garrucha -- much and all as we'd love to see the double-breasted one subjected to such indignities.

If Parliament's Privileges Committee has any resemblance to any Inquisition, it's more Monty Python that Torquemada.  See what I mean?

Helengrad is here

Since a talkback caller first used the word 'Helengrad' in a call to Lindsay Perigo's radio show just weeks after Helen Clark's ascension to power in 1999, after which Perigo picked it up and ran with it far and wide,  the term has entered popular parlance as a means of describing Clark's Wellington "in an attempt to mirror cities in the former Soviet Union named after rulers - Leningrad and Stalingrad."  Its usage is so widespread it has now been added as an entry in the Macquarie Dictionary.  Dom Post story here [hat tip DPF]. 

Little wonder it's had such penetration, since in combining Leaderene's name with the Soviet-style suffix meaning 'town' the word so accurately describes the Clark regime set up in NZ's capital city.

I wrote about the word's origins back in 2005, and as far as I'm aware it was my own cover story in the May/June 2000 edition of the Free Radical describing Clark's and Margaret Wilson's parliamentary hui on constitutional reform that first used the term in print.  (That's the story in its original habitat above right -- click to enlarge.)

On the day that particular Free Radical arrived in parliament with the words 'Helengrad Hui' and a condom-clad Statue of Liberty on parliament's steps pictured on the cover (above), Headmistress Shipley rose in Parliament accusing Clark of being "an interfering Minister of Everything and running a 'Helengrad' regime." The chamber fell about, and the name stuck - as unfortunately has the regime.

I believe the Herald's Fran O'Sullivan and then the rest of the world took it up about then -- it hit Australian shores later the same year in an article in The Australian called 'The Siege of Helengrad' -- and now Google boasts some 12,500 hits for 'Helengrad.' As Mrs Marsh used to say, "It does get in."