Home Blog Page 1708

The two reasons NZ desperately need to be put on trial for war crimes

18

There are two reasons why NZ desperately needs to be put on trial for war crimes stemming from the failed 2010 SAS revenge attack on Afghan civilians that killed and maimed 21.

The first is that the evidence clearly shows that a war crime has been committed and that the official denials are simply bare faced lies to con New Zealanders.

NONE of these comments are even remotely true…

ISAF Joint Command: “No civilians were injured or killed during this operation”
– ‘Numerous insurgents killed and weapons recovered’, news release 2010-08-CA-266, 23 August 2010, Kabul, Afghanistan.

New Zealand Defence Force: “Following the operation allegations of civilian casualties were made. These were investigated by a joint Afghan Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Interior and International Security Assistance Force assessment team, in accordance with ISAF procedures. The investigation concluded that the allegations of civilian casualties were unfounded”
– ‘NZ Defence Force operations in Bamiyan on 22 August 2010’, media release, 20 April 2011.

Defence minister Wayne Mapp: “That’s been investigated and proven to be false…. I am satisfied around that”
– Wayne Mapp asked about civilian casualties, Q+A, Television New Zealand, 24 April 2011.

John Key: “My understanding is that after a thorough review of the CDF [Chief of Defence Force] at the weekend, he is very confident that the New Zealand Defence Force version of events is correct…. They say there were insurgents that were killed, but that was it”
– John Key on TV3 Firstline, 1 July 2014.

The New Zealand Defence Force: “The NZDF stands by its statement made on 20 April 2011 [above] and will not be making further comment.”
– New Zealand Defence Force, statement to Maori Television Service, 30 June 2014.

Defence minister Jonathan Coleman: “What I would emphasise is New Zealanders were not involved – and that’s categorical – in any civilian casualties or deaths”
– Jonathan Coleman in Stacey Kirk, ‘Categorical: ‘NZ troops did not kill civilians’, Stuff, 1 July 2014.

Defence minister Jonathan Coleman asked by reporters if coalition forces had killed civilians during the raid: “There is no evidence that they did.”
– Jonathan Coleman, New Zealand Herald, 1 July 2014.

John Key: “We don’t discuss the detail of SAS operations, but what we do say categorically is that no New Zealand soldier was involved in killing civilians”
– John Key in Ripeka Timutimu, ‘Key denies SAS involvement in civilian deaths in Afghanistan’, Maori Television Service, 1 July 2014.

…but the second reason why NZ desperately needs to be put on trial for this war crime is us, NZers, we desperately need to have our global reputation shamed and damaged.

The lack of outcry from the people of NZ to a war crime signed off by their precious John Key that killed and maimed 21 is one thing but the feral scream of Hager and Stephenson hate speaks to something far more damaged in the NZ psyche that can only be cauterised by global shaming.

To attack the investigative journalists for bringing our collective attention to a war crime is book burning level ignorance.

New Zealanders sense of identity is critically important to them. Property speculating Kiwis love to travel and enjoy the reputation being a New Zealander affords them. The only way to pop their smug little bubble of wilful ignorance on accusations of war crimes is to actually be forced to stand trial for those crimes and be found guilty of it.

Let’s see NZers attempt to deny that truth.

We need to be put on trial, our pettiness deserves it.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Those NZers attacking Nicky Hager & Jon Stephenson would have cheered the Nazis on in the 1930s

15

3 year old terrorist Fatima who was righteously killed in her Mothers arms.

 

The amount of people who have attacked Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson on social media for exposing possible war crimes committed by the NZ SAS and signed off by John Key is truly astounding.

Every single one of them I have confronted on Facebook have all admitted that they haven’t actually read the book.

FFS.

There is no way any reasonable person can read Hit and Run and not demand an inquiry into what the hell actually happened.

Exposing the truth about our war crimes is exactly the job of investigative journalists, these who would attack and denigrate those exposing such injustice are effectively fascists.

What people are really saying when they attack Nicky and Jon is ‘shut up about our murder and maiming of innocents, we not only prefer to be ignorant, we prefer to not even have to be confronted by our abuses of power’.

Those NZers attacking Nicky Hager & Jon Stephenson would have cheered the Nazis on in the 1930s.

We are a fragile and shallow culture with all the maturity of a day old can of beer.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Public Broadcasting takes another mutilation in election year

7

Public Broadcasting has taken another blow this year. Radio NZ have been forced to sell their Auckland Studio and TVNZ have announced huge news room cutbacks.

The National Party have been intent on killing off public broadcasting because the fewer media sources that are trying to hold the Government to account, the better for them.

At a time when we desperately need to be re-investing in our public broadcasting infrastructure, especially in an election year, and here we are killing it off.

National voters seems to think The Batchelor is public broadcasting because TV3 broadcast it to the public.

Meanwhile, this is what TVNZ put up as their answer to holding the Government to account…

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

OIA request reveals naked truth about NZs Unemployment rate

11

An official information request into the truth behind our employment statistics have revealed how hollow those surface numbers really are.

We already know that the statistics the Government have recently rejigged to remove people looking for work on the internet glosses over the true depth of our unemployment rates, but when you dig deeper, the numbers themselves are even more concerning.

The June 2016 unemployment rate claims 2,454,000 persons are employed.

However, of those 2,454,000 persons, only 1,550,000 were actually employed for 40 hours per week.

Only 1,217,000 of those 2, 454, 000 actually have permanent jobs.

And 903,000 work less than 40 hours a week.

We are a country with hollow jobs propped up by part time work.

Welcome to the Precariat.

 

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

The Project meltdown – when Executives come out to support your 7pm Show, that’s when you know you are in trouble

6

3 people who will soon be looking for new jobs

Oh. Dear.

When MediaWork’s top news boss has to rush out to the media to defend their 7pm show and deny any concerns, you know things are in meltdown…

MediaWorks boss: Project is here to stay and will win the ratings war

Mediaworks’ top news executive has backed Three’s new 7pm show The Project and claims it will eventually overhaul TVNZ One’s rival Seven Sharp, despite the huge ratings gap between the shows.

Chief news officer Hal Crawford has denied suggestions from sources in the Mediaworks newsroom that he was disappointed by the initial ratings showing of the The Project, saying he felt the “exact opposite” about the programme and it enjoyed his long-term support.

The reality is that the Project has been an abortion. It’s barely rating better than the previous abortion which was ‘Story’, and that’s only because TV3 have spent a small fortune on promoting The Project to go alongside the other small fortune they’ve blown on buying this format from the Aussies.

TV3 have attempted to make current affairs for people who listen to the Edge, the problem is that generation doesn’t watch TV. So TV3 have alienated Gen X and Boomers who want actual current affairs at 7pm to gain a generational audience who don’t bother with the platform TV3 are using.

Now this could drag oil haemorrhaging for at least 6 months, IF it wasn’t an election year.

What most TV producers don’t appreciate is that NZ still has one of the highest electoral participation rates in the Western World (sure it’s dropping, but it’s still globally high). NZers care about politics in an election year, and the shallowness of The Project simply can’t and won’t be able to meet that viewer demand.

So the Project will actually start going backwards because they won’t be able to compete with Seven Sharp for that style of political current affairs in an election year.

Once this reality starts becoming painfully clear to the Execs at TV3, panic will set in.

Here’s what they will need to do.

Cut their losses, dump the hosts of The Project, re-work the format and bring back Paul Henry to front it in the hope that he can inject some ratings to a time slot that is collapsing.

 

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

How National have snookered Greens & Labour into a neoliberal economic straightjacket

19

We promise not to challenge anything.

 

If you put 10 NZers into a room and ask them, ‘who is the best steward of the economy’, 9 out of 10 of those rugby distracted, property speculating, booze drenched, anti-intellectual, emotionally stunted sleepy hobbits will all shout back, “The National Party’.

30 years of neoliberalism has created a culture where NZers worship the cultural mythologies of neoliberalism with the same passion as Islamist extremists cling to a literal interpretation of the Koran.

In NZ, we have been ideologically blinkered into believing that there are no hegemonic structures of power in society, just individuals who succeed by their own talents and those who fail because they deserve to fail.

This means we worship rich people as evidence of the system working and because National are the Political Party for the rich, we transfer all these warped values of free market individualism to National.

National are the political representation of Bankers, Federated Farmers, Fonteera, Corporates and property speculators, they run the economy for those elites, they don’t give two shits about anyone else, but because 30 years of neoliberalism have installed warped societal values, we blindly worship wealth and all its associates.

Despite evidence that National look after their electorate of elites and themselves first, the sleepy hobbits of muddle Nu Zilind believe that National are the best at running the economy.

So how do Labour and the Greens counter that deeply held political contradiction by the voters? Why they out neoliberal the neoliberals.

The economic bullshit the Greens and Labour have brainfarted out last week promising to slavishly worship the free market just as much as National do, is a way to calm the sleepy hobbits into believing that Labour and the Greens have no scary new ideas whatsoever and will manage the current economic settings rather than challenge them.

There’s another really good reason why Labour and the Greens are capitulating to neoliberalism, and it’s the true legacy of National.

When Key came into power, Government debt was $10billion, after 9 years, it’s now $91billion – and yet the bloody stupid sleepy hobbits still believe National are the better stewards of the economy!

National have borrowed billions in tax cuts for the rich, stripped state assets and privatised its social obligations. The long term goal of the National Party is to mutilate the States capacity to raise revenue so that it simply can’t fund  the social infrastructure the Left call out for.

Rather than trying to challenge that, Labour and the Greens are promising to not do anything. With $91billion in debt, Labour and the Greens are being handed a poisoned chalice, if they spook the markets the consequences could be disastrous with credit downgrades, a leap in mortgage rates, a mass explosion in the property market.

All we can hope for in September is a change of Government, it won’t be a changed Government.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Political Caption Competition

0

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

TDB Top 5 International Stories: Sunday 26th March 2017

0

5:Trump’s Attempt to Repeal Obamacare Just Crashed and Burned

After weeks of drafting, hiding, debating, and tweaking a bill that would repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, House Republicans scrapped it just minutes before a scheduled vote on Tuesday. ACA repeal, which the Republican Party has been promising voters since Barack Obama signed the bill into law seven years ago, is suddenly in doubt.

The Republican-backed American Health Care Act (dubbed “Trumpcare” by some) faced resistance from legislators on both sides of the aisle—Democrats objected to a bill that would cause millions of people to lose health insurance, and some conservative Republicans were upset it didn’t strip enough provisions of the ACA. Despite President Donald Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan’s best efforts to ram the AHCA through Congress, it was clear by Friday afternoon that they couldn’t get enough Republicans onboard. Ryan reportedly went to the White House to tell Trump the votes weren’t there, and hours later, the speaker officially announced the bill would be pulled.

Vice News

4: Coalition says it hit Mosul site where civilians died

The US-led coalition bombing ISIL positions in Iraq has admitted that it carried out air raids last week at a location in west Mosul where officials and residents say scores of civilians were killed.

The acknowledgement on Saturday came hours after the United Nations said it was “stunned” by the reported deaths of civilians in suspected coalition air raids in Mosul’s ISIL-held al-Jadida district on March 17.

“An initial review of strike data … indicates that the coalition struck (ISIL) fighters and equipment, March 17, in west Mosul at the location corresponding to allegations of civilian casualties,” the US military’s Combined Joint Task Force said in a statement on Saturday.

The coalition said it had struck the area “at the request of the Iraqi security forces” and was investigating to determine the facts and the validity of reports of civilian casualties.

Al Jazeera’s Hoda Abdel-Hamid, reporting from Erbil in northern Iraq, said it took about a week for the coalition to acknowledge the air raids.

“The response came after intense pressure here in Iraq – probably popular pressure more than government pressure,” she said.

“About 200 people are thought to have died in that strike alone,” our correspondent added. “These reports of a high toll of civilian casualties were first given by the civilians who actually managed to get out of western Mosul.”

Aljazeera

3: In Major Defeat to Trump & Ryan, House GOP Pulls Bill To Repeal Obamacare

House Republicans have pulled a bill to repeal major parts of the Affordable Care Act after failing to secure enough votes despite heavy lobbying from President Trump. The bill was opposed by the entire Democratic party as well as some moderate Republicans and many members of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus.

House Republicans have pulled a bill to repeal major parts of the Affordable Care Act after failing to secure enough votes despite heavy lobbying from President Trump. The bill was opposed by the entire Democratic party as well as some moderate Republicans and many members of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus.

The bill was projected to leave 24 million fewer people insured by 2026 than under Obamacare. The bill also included over $275 billion in tax breaks for wealthy Americans.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) praised the news. “The defeat of the disastrous Trump-Ryan health care bill is a major victory for the working families of this country and for the hundreds of thousands who attended rallies and town hall meetings in opposition to this bill,” Sanders said. “What the defeat of this bill shows is that the American people will not accept legislation that provides huge tax breaks to billionaires while 24 million people are kicked off their health insurance, massive cuts are made to Medicaid and Planned Parenthood and premiums for senior citizens are dramatically increased. Our job is to improve the Affordable Care Act, not repeal it. Our job is to guarantee health care to all people as a right, not a privilege.”

Democracy Now

2: Iraq suspends Mosul offensive after coalition airstrike atrocity

Iraqi military leaders have ordered a pause in their push to recapture west Mosul from Islamic State as international outrage mounted over a series of airstrikes that killed at least 150 people in one district of the embattled city alone.

Rescuers continued to retrieve bodies from the rubble of the Mosul Jadida neighbourhood on Saturday, more than a week after the coalition attacks, which are believed to have led to one of the highest civilian tolls in the region since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The Guardian 

1: ‘Move fast and break things’: Trump’s Obamacare failure and the backlash ahead

The James S Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House was crammed as usual but there was an extra frisson of suspense. As the press secretary, Sean Spicer, walked to the lectern, a conversation was unfolding just 27 paces away in the Oval Office. It would invalidate almost everything he said.

Paul Ryan, the speaker of the House of Representatives, told Donald Trump the news he did not want to hear. Weeks of cajoling and arm-twisting to win over skeptics of their healthcare reform legislation had failed. Ryan asked the president to ditch the bill and avoid the humiliation of putting it to a vote in the House. Trump agreed.

The Guardian 

 

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

The Daily Blog Open Mic – Sunday 26th March 2017

5

openmike

 

Announce protest actions, general chit chat or give your opinion on issues we haven’t covered for the day.

Moderation rules are more lenient for this section, but try and play nicely.

 

 

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Common cause in civilian ‘collateral damage’ in Afghanistan or London

4

Nicky Hager and John Stephenson’s new book, Hit and Run, claims the NZ SAS carried out a revenge raid on an Afghani village which killed six and injured 15 civilians, including women and children. In response, the jaded and inhumane say ‘civilians die in war’, ‘human collateral damage is inevitable’.
Indeed, where disproportionate force is involved, and peasant villagers are blasted in their homes by Apache helicopter gunships, attacked by SAS soldiers, have their houses set on fire, and are bombed again, the chances of civilian deaths are unarguably high. In that sort of retributive, indiscriminate, misguided ‘war’, with poorly defined ‘enemies’, in a country used to foreign invading forces, the chances of both civilian and soldier’s deaths are high.

But to consider this ‘collateral damage’ acceptable, to cover it up, deny it, to refuse to accept responsibility, is what leads to the radicalisation of surviving civilians, the creation of insurgents, and the laying of improvised explosive devices on dusty roads that kill soldiers from those ‘invading forces’ in a vicious cycle. Indiscriminate displays of superior western weaponry, wealth and fire power, ill-directed at strategic level, (why were western troops in Afghanistan again?), and ill-directed at the level of specific targets; this violent domination; this is what also leads to greater insecurity on the streets of London, Paris, New York, and more. Civilians killed on dirt roads in Afghanistan, or Pakistan, are as undeserving victims as those on the streets in the West. But both are victims of Western imperialism in their own way.

More than 26,000 civilian deaths from war related violence were documented in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2014. Three-year-old Fatima and the others killed in the apparent SAS-led raid in 2010, were among at least 440 civilians killed by Western forces that year. Last year alone, there were at least 596 civilians killed by foreign troops in Afghanistan, and the year before, there were 828. And then there are the ongoing revelations of cover ups of even more. On February 12 this year, the US military carried out a raid on an Afghani village which killed two pregnant women and three other victims, and then, allegedly, tried to cover up the crime and blame family members for the atrocity.
General Stanley McChrystal, Head of Staff for all foreign troops in Afghanistan, has vowed to reduce the number of civilian deaths from international forces. He’s only been in the job since late last northern spring, but spends some time travelling around the country apologising for civilians dead, in efforts to diffuse feelings of anger and revenge.

Dr Wayne Mapp Minister of Defence at the time of the disastrous NZ-led raids, defends the New Zealand SAS and their role in alleged civilian deaths in the 2010 bombing ‘fiasco’. He seems to be of the school of thought that ‘shit happens in war, innocent people die’. He says the raids were ‘a counter insurgency operation, so there were always going to be civilians around’, and ‘bear in mind… insurgents… it’s not like a full-time job, wearing a uniform, you can be a farmer by day and an insurgent by night’. But evidence suggests there were no ‘insurgents’ in these villages, just humble villagers, by day and by night. Dr Mapp indicates a view, that it’s so hard to tell insurgents and civilians apart, it’s ok to summarily kill them – they’re not full time soldiers, different rules apply. Conversely, of course, a greater injustice was done to Lieutenant Tim O’Donnell, precisely because he was a soldier, in the line of duty, serving his country. Somehow. (Though, why was NZ in Afghanistan, again? What national interest was being served there? Why really, did Lt Tim O’Donnell die?)

Apparently, the US armed forces consider most military aged male Afghanis as ‘potential combatants’. And like that old story about ‘if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail’, if you think that every male aged from about 13 to 83 is a potential insurgent, most men will be considered fair target. It’s that attitude, with a strong dose of vengeance, that also seems to permeate NZ’s SAS, the Defence Minister, and maybe even the Prime Minister of the time.

But the allegations that the SAS left injured men, women and children to suffer and die after the sniper and gunship raid, when it would have been clear these were no insurgents, are chilling. And to return 10 days after this attack, and demolish their basic houses, in the process of rebuilding, and to turn over a suspect for torture by the Americans, indicates an ethic and attitude unsuited for civilised society.

Claims that these allegations are ‘nothing new’, are irrelevant. An unaddressed injustice has no use-by date, or time limit, especially with allegations of this import. It’s bad enough that NZ troops are even in Afghanistan, and Iraq, supposedly rebuilding the mess most recently created by western force. Transparent due process is required to establish to what degree the charges are true. Though, given ‘western / victor’s justice’, and an evident culture of secrecy, self-justifying defences are more likely than an open and objective inquiry.

Donald Trump Junior criticised London’s Mayor Sadiq Khan for previously saying that terror attacks are part and parcel of living in a big city. But war criminals are in charge of western nations and their budgets – they’re Prime Ministers, Governor Generals and military chiefs, with little or no regard for internationally accepted rules of law, or commonly agreed principles of justice such as proportionality, due process, fair treatment of non-combatants and redress for civilian casualties. Western forces are in these wrecked countries on spurious grounds. Civilian casualties, ‘collateral damage’ are therefore as inevitable in our Western cities, as in the poor impoverished Eastern proxy sites of international war. The treatise of war that takes an eye for an eye, leaves the whole world blind.

General McChrystal won forgiveness by surrendering two sheep to the family of those killed by US troops on February 12. The family said they felt driven to become suicide bombers because of the death of their daughters. But under Afghani tradition, the gifting of sheep as an admission of guilt and a plea for forgiveness, can’t be denied. The need for retribution is annulled. In New Zealand, despite the evidence, our Government is ignoring the need for investigation. We haven’t seen a glimpse of willingness to consider any prospect of guilt, or any need for forgiveness, let alone the offer of sheep.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Labour and Green’s promise to uphold neoliberal dogmas – why?

28

New Zealand has been subjected to decades of neo-liberal orthodoxy. The period of Rogernomics and Ruthanasia in the late 1980s and early 1990s institutionalised a number of so-called free-market economic orthodoxies around so-called free trade, privatisations, “independence” to the Reserve Bank, “floating” the currency for free speculation, the “Fiscal Responsibility Act” and so on.

It was a genuine neoliberal revolution. We were praised around the world for our radicalism and economic “orthodoxy”. It all remains in place.

The result has been a dismal economic performance on average compared to most other advanced capitalist countries.

The period of implementation of this revolution was particularly severe in its impact. The New Zealand GDP per capita relative to the OECD fell from 97 percent to 84 percent, a 14.3 percent fall in six years.

We are still poorer relatively than we were then. Our average productivity per person is lower relatively than it was then. Our share of world trade is lower.

By almost any measure neoliberal economic theory has been a failure on its own terms.

The only thing it has been truly successful at is breaking the “power” of the trade union movement and radically increasing economic and social inequality. There has been a huge transfer of wealth from working people to bosses as a share of GDP. That’s a fact and from official data.

Now Labour and the Green’s are proposing to adopt the dogma that “surpluses” are necessary and we need to reduce the debt to GDP ratio from 30% (already one of the lowest in the OECD) to 20%.

The problem is there is not actually any economically rational reason for either of these objectives.

I don’t particularly want to advise people who want to make capitalism work how to do their job. Capitalism will always produce crises of overproduction every ten years or so on average.

The job of a government in these circumstances (assuming they just want to manage the problem) is to use government spending to moderate the ups and downs of the capitalist business cycle by spending a bit more during downturns and running surpluses when the economy is strong.

Debt is not a problem if it is invested in transport, education, infrastructure that makes things more productive over time. A more productive economy can service the increased debt with ease.

The failure to fix Auckland’s public transport debacle with a massive investment of billions of dollars in public transport – trains, trams and buses, that are cheap and convenient has had and continues to have, an ongoing negative impact on labour productivity. Sitting in cars is not productive!

We have never addressed this problem because we have been locked into the economic orthodoxy that private ownership and provision of transport or anything else is good and public provision of these goods is bad.

Can’t we see that that is a type of voodoo economics, not a science?

It’s the same mad voodoo economics that allows private owners of land running a business to poison our waterways for their individual benefit. How hard is it to tell any private business that degrades the environment must adopt measures that restore their damage if they want to continue in business. But that thought violates the voodoo orthodoxy.

Our children may never be able to swim in a river but that is the “price of progress”.

Running “surpluses” to repay debt when there is no particular reason to do so actually removes spending from the economy and depresses economic growth. That’s just maths.

Strong economic growth means that the debt gets smaller as a percentage of GDP even if we don’t repay any debt from the current tax income. That is maths.

What is the sense of depressing economic growth again for a dogma?

The strange part of Labour and the Greens signing up to tired dogmas from the past is that people actually don’t care about them. Only the ruling elites do. There are not many votes there. That’s maths.

Trump proved that by completely denouncing the old “orthodoxy” of the Republican AND Democratic party leaders.

People voted for him because he pretended to be a man of the people who was against the elites.

The continued genuflecting before the ruling rich and promising to do nothing meaningful to upset them is not a winning electoral strategy either!

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Not Being Venezuela: The Political Logic of the Labour/Green “Budget Responsibility Rules”.

34

FOR THOSE WHO THINK Labour and the Greens are being too cautious, economically-speaking, I have only one word: “Venezuela”. Andrew Little may not resemble Hugo Chavez in the slightest. Nor are Labour and the Greens, by any stretch of the imagination, Bolivarian revolutionaries. But, to hear the Right tell the story, New Zealanders are being courted by dangerously left-wing political parties. Given half a chance, we are told, Little and his Green sidekicks, James Shaw and Metiria Turei, will happily transform New Zealand into the Venezuela of the South Seas.

The reasoning behind this outlandish charge is simple:

The Right argues that, because the Left has never seen a problem that could not be fixed by throwing more money at it, all left-wing governments end up spending themselves into a fiscal crisis. Afraid of taking the harsh economic measures required to balance the country’s books, these leftists then decide to maintain the living-standards of their followers by taxing the rich ferociously and borrowing like there’s no tomorrow. Very soon the country’s international lines of credit are exhausted. At this point, the clueless government decides to crank up the state’s printing presses – flooding the country with paper money. When the overseas suppliers of vitally important imported goods refuse to accept this increasingly worthless currency, the government responds with rationing and harsh import and price controls. In the face of widespread protests, the now desperate government resorts to increasingly authoritarian methods of political control. Pretexts are found for shutting down the oppositions’ media outlets. Government supporters confront government opponents in the streets. Violent clashes ensue. As the next scheduled general election draws near, the embattled left-wing government must choose between pushing forward into full-scale dictatorship (thereby risking a military coup d’état) or submitting itself to the judgement of an outraged and/or disillusioned electorate. Either way, their own – and the country’s – prospects are bleak.

Unfortunately, the historical record offers more than a little confirmation of this alarming right-wing narrative. Even here, in Australasia, the precedents are not all that encouraging. In the case of both the government of the Australian Labor Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, and that of our own Norman Kirk, there are disturbing echoes of the above scenario. It certainly describes the sequence of political events in the Chavistas’ Venezuela.

Indeed, it is possible to argue that the grim fortunes of the social-democratic governments of the 1970s – especially the fate of Salvador Allende’s Popular Unity government in Chile – lay heavily on the minds of New Zealand and Australian labour leaders in the 1980s. Also before them was the abject failure of the French President’s, Francois Mitterand’s, socialist-communist government. Elected in 1981 on an avowedly left-wing programme, it was forced, within months, to execute a humiliating U-turn. The scale of French capital flight was economically unsustainable.

That the Right was in large measure responsible for the economic and political difficulties which brought these social-democratic governments to their knees, in no way invalidates its critique. The Right knows that a left-wing government genuinely committed to the uplift of its marginalised and exploited supporters has little choice except to adopt the “tax and spend” policies outlined above. They also know how, in the chilling language of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, to “make the economy scream”.

So don’t be too quick to condemn Labour and the Greens for cautioning their supporters against building-up unrealistic expectations of an incoming centre-left government. Both parties know how important it is to inoculate themselves against the Right’s accusations of economic ignorance and irresponsibility.

To a confirmed leftist, the Labour Finance Spokesperson’s, Grant Robertson’s, and the Green Co-Leader’s, James Shaw’s, statement that: “New Zealanders rightly demand of their government that they carefully and effectively manage public finances”, will undoubtedly sound a rather dull ideological note. So, too, will the “Budget Responsibility Rules” to which Little, Robertson and Shaw have pledged themselves.

Delivering “a sustainable operating surplus across an economic cycle”; reducing “the level of Net Crown Core Debt to 20 percent of GDP within five years of taking office”; and promising to “maintain [Government] expenditure within the recent historical range of spending to GDP ratio”: these are hardly the sort of slogans to summon the proletarian masses to the barricades!

What they just might do, however, is spike the rhetorical guns of Labour’s and the Greens’ political opponents – making it much easier for the swing voter to believe that voting Labour/Green to change the government, is not at all the same as voting for 1,000 per cent inflation and blood in the streets.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Justice depends on freedom of speech

1

The New Zealand Jewish Council (NZJC) has declared its opposition to the idea of new hate-crime legislation. NZJC President, Stephen Goodman, explained the Council’s position, commenting that: “Freedom of speech is much too important to restrict, unless there is also a threat of violence involved”. This very welcome statement is in stark contrast to the huge Zionist campaign being waged in the UK and elsewhere to stifle free speech and prevent action in defence of the Palestinian people. The Zionist state’s strategy is to divert attention from Israel’s human rights abuses by conflating campaigns like Israeli Apartheid Week with anti-Semitism. Enormous psychological pressure is being brought to bear upon individuals and governing bodies by organisations, such as the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), and many people are made to feel afraid for their careers if they step out of line. Academic institutions are among those most targeted. Recently, the University of Central Lancashire banned a meeting named “Debunking misconceptions on Palestine”, issuing a statement saying that the meeting “contravened the definition of anti-Semitism recently adopted by the government, and would therefore not be lawful.” Concerned non-Zionist Jewish students complained that they were being told they do not have the right to define anti-Semitism for themselves.

However, the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, adopted by UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s Conservative Party, is being rejected by an ever-increasing body of opinion. Staff at dozens of universities condemn the definition. In an open letter, many professors aired their concern that Minister Jo Johnson was asking for the Government’s definition of anti-Semitism to be adopted throughout the higher education system. They say that support for the Palestinian people and respect for international humanitarian law must not be taken “as prima facie evidence of anti-Semitism”.

A letter published in the Guardian, signed by academics at the London School of Economics, University College London and Warwick, York and Exeter Universities, among others, condemned the conflating of “criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism”. They describe a statement by the Campaign Against anti-Semitism as outrageous interference with free expression and academic freedom:

“As academics with positions at UK universities, we wish to express our dismay at this attempt to silence campus discussion about Israel, including its violation of the rights of Palestinians for more than 50 years. It is with disbelief that we witness explicit political interference in university affairs in the interests of Israel under the thin disguise of concern about antisemitism.”

The BDS movement opposes all forms of anti-Semitism

A Shalom Kiwi article attacks the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement for “symbolically singling out Israel for disproportionate measures”. The two key terms to be considered here are ‘sanctions’ and ‘disproportionate’. With regard to Palestinian human rights, the 1922 League of Nations Mandate assigned to Britain, as a “sacred trust of civilisation”, the responsibility “to advance the welfare of the Palestinian people and guide them to independence”. They have been massively betrayed by the world community and, 95 years on, find themselves abandoned to the cruel will of Zionist military Occupation.

Disproportionate

Palestinians are being forced to live with the daily humiliation of checkpoints, the terrors of abduction and imprisonment of their children, house demolitions and land theft. UN refugee camps can offer no refuge from Israeli Army violence and other breaches of international law because no effort is made to bring Israel to account. Israel’s almost daily Gaza ceasefire violations following its total blitzes on Gaza, such as Operations ‘Cast Lead’ and ‘Protective Edge’, are examples of extreme asymmetry. Israel’s almost fifty-year military Occupation and colonisation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, along with the Syrian Golan Heights, are unprecedented in modern history.

Sanctions

The relevance of ‘sanctions’, has to do with the vital importance of international law, accountability and justice. Together, they offer a way to counter Israeli intransigence exemplified in an Arutz Sheva article that relies on the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism to ‘prove’ that BDS activities are anti-Semitic “as they are only applied against Israel”. The Zionist article also says that the same is true for various European Union labelling rules applying to what it calls the ‘disputed’ West Bank and Syrian Golan Heights. The Palestinian people regard the movement to boycott Israel as part of the global struggle against racism and all forms of bigotry, including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.

The BDS movement says it rejects Zionism because it “constitutes the racist and discriminatory ideological pillar of Israel’s regime of occupation, settler-colonialism and apartheid that has deprived the Palestinian people of its fundamental human rights since 1948”. BDS is an inclusive human rights movement, basing its principles upon the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In 2015, more than 1,000 Black artists, intellectuals and organisations recognised “the racism that characterises Israel’s treatment of Palestinians” and condemned Zionism as well as White supremacy movements.

Argument and debate

Stephen Goodman’s support for freedom of speech finds expression in another Shalom Kiwi article concerning one aspect of Judaism:

“. . . disagreement is a fundamental part of Judaism; the Talmud is essentially a collection of arguments – disagreements – between Rabbis. Such debate is a cornerstone of modern democratic society as much as it was (and still is) a cornerstone of rabbinical scholarship and Judaic law. Any debate requires freedom of expression.”

The article concludes with a warning:

“Once we start relying on state machinery to determine what is the truth and legitimate speech and what is not, we are in dangerous territory.”

Extreme and threatening references to anti-Semitism act as a deterrent for many people who might otherwise play an active part in the Palestine/Israel debate. All that is required is goodwill and respect for truth. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention are valuable yardsticks by which to measure different points of view.

Judaism is a religion – Zionism is an ideology

Some religious Jews are also Zionists, some are not. The same is true of non-religious Jews. Jews and non-Jews alike manifest a wide range of adherence to religions and ideologies, ranging from extreme fanaticism to faith that is rational and liberal. Driven by its founding ideology, Zionism, Israel claims to speak and act in the name of all Jews. Any Jew who opposes Zionism is branded as ‘self-hating’ by Zionist extremists and vilified. But the range of Jewish viewpoints regarding Zionism is vast and although many secular and religiously observant Jews long ago rejected Israel’s propaganda, others continue to support it in the most extreme ways.

Israeli Rabbi Dov Lior

Dov Lior heads the Council of Rabbis of Judea and Samaria. For extreme Zionists, they are part of Israel even though they are in the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza. He also serves as the Chief Rabbi of Hebron and the illegal Occupation settlement Kiryat Arba, both of which are also in the Palestinian West Bank. Lior’s racist assertions do not bear repeating here but they can be found at Wikipedia and ynetnews. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz also has an article on the rabbi’s racism. On 28 July 2016, Haaretz also published evidence of top Israeli officials discussing ways to violate international law in order to build the Kiryat Arba Occupation settlement.

Rabbi Dovid Weiss: The Torah demands justice for the Palestinians

At the opposite pole of religious understanding, Rabbi Dovid Weiss of Neturei Karta International, told a gathering in Times Square, New York:

“My friends, for 53 years the world has ignored the just claims and rights of the Palestinian people. And, yes, for that same amount of time, some people, blinded by the dogmas of militant Zionism, have first created and then perpetuated this horrible abuse of an entire people. We are here to proclaim that the crimes committed against the Palestinian people when they were exiled from their homes in 1948 and deprived of their basic human rights, first as refugees and later as persecuted subjects in the West Bank and Gaza, were not done in the name of Torah or of Torah believing Jews.”

It is worth remembering that the majority of rabbis were opposed to the holding of the first Zionist Congress in Munich and the Zionists were forced to hold it, not in Germany as intended, but in Basle, Switzerland. In his address, Dovid Weiss also reminded his audience that:

“As Torah Jews we are called upon to feel and express our sense of compassion when any person or group of human beings suffers: In the words of King David, the Psalmist, “And His Mercy is upon all His creatures.” All men are created in the image of G-d. As Torah Jews our prime imperatives in dealing with our non-Jewish brethren – and certainly our cousins the Arab peoples – are peace, respect, mutual understanding and empathy. Thus, it is obvious, that the Jewish people has no quarrel whatsoever!! with any Arab nation.”

There is hope in this embracing affirmation and while Zionists have the right to dismiss Weiss’s words as inappropriate or even anti-Semitic, the rabbi’s humanitarianism will remain a welcome alternative to divisiveness and prejudice.

Within Israel and around the world, Jewish and non-Jewish revulsion at Zionist human rights abuses expresses itself in many ways, including support for BDS. The website of B’Tselem, The Israeli Information Centre for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, explains that: “B’Tselem has championed human rights in the West Bank and Gaza Strip for over two decades, promoting a future where all Israelis and Palestinians will live in freedom and dignity”. Members of B’Tselem put themselves on the line, confronting the Israeli military and bearing witness to human rights abuses by the Israeli Occupation, they use video and other means to bring them to the attention of the wider world. By so doing they hope to shame the perpetrators and curb the Israeli Army’s excesses. B’Tselem is by no means alone in this work. Here are some other Jewish voices that Israel does not wish you to hear: Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Jews for Justice, Jewish Voice for Peace, Rabbis for Human Rights, Rabbis for Human Rights on Home DemolitionsThe Shalom Center, MIFTAH – 400 Rabbis publicly oppose home demolitions in Israel, The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD). ICAHD is a non-violent, direct-action group, originally established to oppose and resist Israeli demolition of Palestinian houses in the Occupied Territory. In New Zealand there is Dayenu: “New Zealand Jews against racism and the illegal Occupation of Palestinian land.”

UN Report: Israel has established an ‘apartheid regime’

A new United Nations report accuses Israel of having established “an apartheid regime that oppresses and dominates the Palestinian people as a whole”. The report reflects world-wide public concern over Israel’s Occupation settlements and suppression of Palestinian self-determination. The manner of the Occupation appears to have resulted in the creation of an apartheid-style, discriminatory, single-state. The UN ESCWA report: Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid: Palestine and the Israeli Occupation, Issue No. 1 states that:

“Israel has established an apartheid regime that dominates the Palestinian people as a whole. Aware of the seriousness of this allegation, the authors of the report conclude that available evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Israel is guilty of policies and practices that constitute the crime of apartheid as legally defined in instruments of international law. The analysis in this report rests on the same body of international human rights law and principles that reject anti-Semitism and other racially discriminatory ideologies, including: the Charter of the United Nations (1945), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965).”

The report relies for its definition of apartheid primarily on article II of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973, hereinafter the Apartheid Convention):

“The term ‘the crime of apartheid’, which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practiced in southern Africa, shall apply to… inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.”

Zionism’s implacable hostility towards the UN

US President Trump’s ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki R. Haley, has taken up the strident Zionist narrative against this UN report by accusing the organisation of what she and Israeli officials describe as “a strong anti-Israel bias”. Dismissing the careful language and indisputable evidence presented in the report, she simply asserted: “When someone issues a false and defamatory report in the name of the UN, it is appropriate that the person resign.” The US/Israeli alliance with UN Secretary General António Guterres, led to intolerable pressure being brought to bear on the executive secretary of the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, Rima Khalaf. She resigned as a matter of principle rather than cave in and withdraw the report, which she fully supports. Rima Khalaf said: “We expected of course that Israel and its allies would put huge pressure on the Secretary General of the UN so that he would disavow the report, and that they would ask him to withdraw it.”

The report was authored and researched by Virginia Tilley, professor of political science at Southern Illinois University, and Richard Falk, former UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories. Richard Falk is a Jewish American professor emeritus of international law who Zionist propagandists dismiss as an anti-Semite and conspiracy theorist. Supporters of the report expressed hope that it could lead to liberation for the Palestinian people and due recognition of their long-delayed human rights. Unable to refute the well-documented evidence presented in the report, the Zionists and their allies seek instead to bury it. Should readers find the report has been removed, here is an additional link.

UK universities cave in to Zionist demands

Two British universities cancelled book-launchings on 21 and 22 March under pressure from the self-styled Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA). CAA actually issued a statement announcing that it had intervened to force the cancellations. The group was established in 2014 to counter the outrage prompted by Israel’s colossal blitz on Gaza. Richard Falk, once more, finds himself the target of Zionist wrath. The Professor of International Law had been scheduled to speak on his new book, Palestine’s Horizon. Zionist attempts to silence Jewish voices for peace are best summed up in a letter from Larry Saltzman, who writes that Richard Falk . . . “is a victim of a systematic plot by Zionists to shutdown the voice of the many of us who are both Jewish and pro-Palestinian. Palestinians have suffered greatly because of the nationalistic, undemocratic ideology known as Zionism. The sad reality is that if even Jewish voices are censored for speaking out against Zionism what chance do others have. The organisation, Campaign Against Antisemitism, that intimidated two Universities into censoring Falk should be ashamed of themselves and should re-examine the core Jewish values that respect free speech and spirited debate. Campaign Against Antisemitism is not fighting antisemitism they are promoting the censoring of Jewish and other voices that disagree with them, that is disgraceful.”

In a world torn by war and terrorism, world leaders and the mainstream newsmedia should pay more heed to the voices of reason. All the world-wide peace movements, secular, Christian, Muslim and many other faiths that oppose ideology-driven racism, support the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention and the inspirational Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Those who would smear this commitment to justice and human rights as ‘anti-Semitic’ are simply desperate to hide the truth.

“I was the terrorist” – video

Further witness to Zionist racism can be seen and heard in this moving video of an interview with a former Israeli Army soldier, Eran Efrati, who served as an Occupation enforcer in Hebron. During his years of service he became agonisingly conscious of the malevolence that characterises Israeli military rule over the Palestinian people. The Israeli regime’s war crimes, such as ‘shoot to kill’, are still being covered through the use of nod and wink ‘understandings’ of military orders that dare not be revealed for what they really are.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

GUEST BLOG: Willie Jackson – Courageous Move from Labour Māori MPs

6

Congratulations to Labour’s Māori seat Members of Parliament who have asked to not be included on the parties list for this year’s election.

It is a brave decision from the MPs who have surprised and outmanoeuvred their opponents. One of the key strategies for the Māori and Mana parties has been the 2-for-1 which was based on Māori voters giving them the electorate vote and Labour their list vote.

However, that idea is now dead and has driven Marama Fox and Hone Harawira nuts! So much so, that they are now making up stories that Labour leader Andrew Little pushed the Māori MPs into walking away from the list.

Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the Māori MPs were adamant that this was the strategy for them. They want the best chance and opportunity to take the Māori and Mana parties out and are sick and tired of the continual nonsense that has been put out by the likes of Marama and Hone.

The line that Andrew Little pushed his MPs off the list is an insult to our Labour MPs’ intelligence, and Marama and Hone should do themselves a favour and engage their brains before they open their mouths. And in terms of this constant waffle about Andrew not being allowed to talk about Kaupapa Māori, what’s that about?

How is it that Marama Fox, Te Ururoa Flavell, and even Hone Harawira talk about Kaupapa Pākeha every day and then Marama and Te Ururoa chase their Pākeha rangatira Prime Minister Bill English around the house, challenging him ‘supposedly’ over kaupapa Pākeha issues, but the minute the Pākeha leader in Labour talks about Kaupapa Māori, they label him a racist! What a load of rubbish.

And then Hone sends out a whole press release pouring dirt over Andrew Little for daring to talk about Kaupapa Māori, this the very same person who wanted to put a German in his Te Tai Tokerau seat! Yeah, that’s really kaupapa Māori Hone! I really am getting tired of the hypocrisy and drivel coming from this Māori/Mana group.

The reality is that they are shocked and hurt by how brave the Labour MPs are, and are now looking to defame and smear the decision to not go on the list because they realise that political oblivion beckons.

The Labour MPs not only want to confront Māori/Mana directly, but also want to bring new Māori MPs in through the list – that is one of the points that underpins this unprecedented strategy and has been somewhat missed by the media despite the Māori MPs being very clear about this in their interviews.

They deserve nothing but praise, not the negative responses from the likes of Marama, Hone, Te Ururoa Flavell and some ignorant sections of the media.

The Māori/Mana’s political strategy is in real trouble – we know that because they are now telling outright lies about the Labour Māori strategy. Sadly, they are desperate, worried, stressed and on edge because they know the end is near and they have been totally trumped by this move from our MPs to not stand on the list.

So I say let’s celebrate Kelvin Davis, Peeni Henare, Nanaia Mahuta, Meka Whaitiri, Adrian Rurawhe and Rino Tirikatene – our Māori seat Labour MPs for the courage they have shown.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

GUEST BLOG: The Opportunities Party – Crossing to the Dark Side

8

Young progressives, I’m sorry to tell you that you have lost a father figure this week. A father of your movement Chris Skytrotter was killed by an evil turncoat known as Darth Boomer.

Okay, okay, spoiler alert, skip to the end, Skytrotter is Darth Boomer. The real question is how did the progressive movement lose one of its best to the dark side? Thankfully we don’t need 3 prequels and a really gloopy love story to find out.

He started off such a promising young progressive commentator, fighting for a progressive, Scandinavian style democracy in New Zealand. But as time has gone on, Trotter like many baby boomers appears to have become corrupted by the dark side. He is now strangely conservative, desperate to protect the status quo. Why?

It is hard to tell exactly what Trotter is arguing, as it is mostly a ranting ad hominem attack rather than a discussion of ideas. He tries to portray Gareth as being a neoliberal to the right of ACT, but if he has actually looked at the policies then he clearly doesn’t know what he is talking about or understand the realities of the modern economy.

But occasionally he cobbles a coherent sentence together. He argues that because Key has done nothing, we are currently living in the New Zealand Clark and Cullen would have wanted. Nothing to see here, nothing to change. We should be happy and grateful.

Never mind the growing gap between rich and poor. The introduction of Working for Families by Clark and Cullen only slowed that, but Key’s refusal to control the property rort has opened it even wider. Never mind the growing numbers of struggling families, and children falling behind due to poor health, education or housing. Why give money to struggling families with young kiddies; Trotter is too worried about keeping his fat NZ Super check to do that.

And housing? Sure it is unaffordable, trapping young people out of the market. But heaven forbid someone wants to take away the gravy train of unearned capital gains. Trotter is starting to sound like he is blue through and through.

So what happened? We need to remember that Trotter is a baby boomer. He started out with ideals but his generation has benefitted from rising house prices, environmental destruction and cushy Super. It is hard to be progressive when you are on the side of the winners. He doesn’t care that the status quo is unaffordable and unsustainable.

The thing is that Trotter was not alone in the list of old progressives turning his back on progress. There are plenty of others, like Auckland Council’s Mike Lee who opposed the Unitary Plan to chase the votes of the NIMBY baby boomers. In fact, the core supporters of the Old Left look like Trotter and Lee, so they won’t be shaking up the status quo any time soon.

Both the major political parties know which side their bread is buttered on, and won’t think to question the Baby Boomer Empire for fear of losing their votes. National and Labour should get over this pretence of differences and come together in a Grand Baby Boomer Cartel, I mean Coalition.

Which in reality, is what we have had for 30 years. Trotter once railed against this cartel, but now he takes comfort in it, knowing it buffers him from scary changes and protects his interests. No wonder the young feel abandoned by the Left and are disengaging from politics.

So what do we learn from this, kids? The first is that if you are lucky to find yourself on the side of the winners, check to make sure you haven’t crossed to the dark side. The second is that the issues are no longer a matter of Left and Right, the dividing line is old and young. If young people want a fair go then they have to cast aside all the political choices the Establishment Empire is throwing up. Across the spectrum from Trotter and Co to Brash and Co – they are out to screw you and screw you properly.

Geoff Simmons 

TOP Chief of Staff

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

STAY CONNECTED

11,996FansLike
4,057FollowersFollow

Foreign policy + Intel + Security

Subscribe | Follow | Bookmark
and join Buchanan & Manning LIVE Thursdays @ midday

MIL Public Webcast Service