liberation

Cartoons about abortion law reform in New Zealand

 

Murdoch - Stuff 9 August 2019

 

 

Hubbard - Stuff 8 August 2019

 

Murdoch - Stuff 22 May 2019

 

Hubbard - 25 May 2019

 

Tremain - ODT 29 May 2018

 

Hubbard - 31 May 2018

 

Emmerson - NZ Herald 29 May 2018

 

Moreu - Timaru Herald 20 March 2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

John Moore: Ihumātao – a rallying cry for disaffected Māori

The occupation of disputed Māori land at the site Ihumātao in Auckland is heating up. Last week police made several arrests and used pepper spray at the occupation. Several hundred protesters are currently active at the Ihumātao site. John Moore looks into the issues in this guest blog post.

 

The nature of the current dispute has now taken on the dimensions of not just a dispute between protesting Māori versus Fletcher Building (the legal owners of the disputed land) but also a dispute between the local Māori Establishment versus disaffected Māori. The very question of how Māori should orientate towards the colonial state and tauiwi corporations is at play here.

 

A brief summary of the background to this dispute

 

Ihumātao, is a peninsula on the shore of Auckland’s Manukau Harbour. It is a historical Māori settlement, and is the city’s oldest settlement. In 1863, the land was confiscated from Māori by the state. The states occupation of the land was followed by sites sacred to local Māori being quarried, and burial sites being destroyed

 

Ihumātao has ended up in the hands of one of New Zealand’s largest corporations, Fletcher Building. The land has been declared a Special Housing Area, and Fletchers is building 500 houses on Ihumātao. The corporation has negotiated with local Māori leaders representative of officially recognized iwi organisations. And these Māori iwi leaders have given the go ahead for Fletcher Building to develop the area.

 

A brief political analysis of this dispute

 

This is a developing political conflict that has many dimensions. As so it is not surprising that the mainstream media has been finding it particularly difficult to navigate around the various contrasting narratives that are coming from the protesters themselves, and contrasting narratives from their opponents.

 

On one level, this is primarily a protest by local Māori against Fletcher Building, who are intent on building hundreds of houses on the contested land. Another dimension, is that this is a conflict within the mana whenua of the area. The officially recognised Māori leadership of the area are in fact backing Fletcher Building. And at one stage local Māori leaders went onto the occupation with the police to demand that the protectors leave.

 

Some would argue that the inter- Māori nature of the conflict comes down to either an intergenerational dispute, a dispute of contrasting world views, and even a dispute of disaffected Māori versus the local Māori elite.

 

With the occupation of Ihumātao heating up, the conflict has now taken on the dimension of a clash between the protectors and their supporters versus the state. Hundreds of police and now present at the site. And arrests have been made, and physical force has been used. The state, to all intents and purpose, is recognising Fletchers as the legal owners of the land. And the police have used violence to thwart the efforts of the protesters, and to enforce Fletcher Building’s property rights over the disputed land.

 

This occupation of Ihumātao can be analysed through an "indigeneity and post-colonial" lens. Such a framework would position this dispute as a blowback by an indigenous people against an oppressive colonial state and a colonial corporation.

 

However, some key activists involved in the occupation at Ihumātao have argued that a form of class war is present with this dispute. Emilie Rākete, the Māori caucus coordinator for the group Organise Aotearoa, has stressed the class dimensions of the protest. She has argued that the planned development of Ihumātao by Fletcher Building, and the use of the police against the protesters, is an example of ongoing colonisation by the state and capital of Aotearoa.

 

Pasifika intellectual Alex Birchall has echoed this viewpoint. He has argued that the land development at Ihumātao is supported by a self-interested iwi elite, including some kaumātua of the “legally recognised mana whenua”. He sees this elite as complicit in the abuse of power now being undertaken by the police. 

 

The Government versus the protectors

 

The Jacinda Ardern-led Government has ostensibly taken a neutral stance on the dispute. Māori Development Minister Nanaia Mahuta has said that "the heavy hand of Government should not override the real opportunity the hapū have to resolve this issue within their whānau."

 

Initially, the prime minister said that the Ihumātao dispute was a concern not of the government but of local mana whenua. And she stressed that the government did not what to act to override the decisions made by local Ihumātao leaders. Of course, by local Māori leaders Ardern was referring to those Māori elite who are backing Fletcher Building, and the actions of the police to disperse the occupation.

 

As the situation has heated up, the Government has taken a slightly new tack by presenting itself as a neutral arbitrator that will bring all the different players to the negotiating table. However, protesters have indicated they see the government’s move as disingenuous, and that they feel they will be deliberately left out of future negotiations.

 

What Ihumātao points to, in a deeper political sense, is the deep levels dissatisfaction within Te Ao Māori with how the whole treaty settlement process has played out. With billions of dollars of land, resources and money transferred to certain Māori iwi, we have seen the enrichment and empowerment of a layer of Māori leaders, alongside the ever-present reality of general poverty within Te Ao Māori. Most Māori don’t seem to of benefited particularly from the Treaty settlement process. So, in a very real sense, this occupation is a rallying cry and rallying point for those Māori who feel they haven’t gained from Treaty settlements that have enriched and empowered certain official iwi leaders.

 

One thing that points to this deep-seated sense of unease within the Māori world is the growing levels of inequality within Te Ao Maori. That is, we have a new materially well-off Māori professional layer and an actual Māori capitalist class, while the majority of tangata whenua have, in many cases, become poorer.

 

Disaffected Māori are clearly dissatisfied with their local leaders. Questions are being asked of why local mana whenua leaders are siding with Fletcher Building, and are backing the use of force by the police. Concerns are being raised around what these leaders have to gain materially, and in terms of their power positions, by currying favours from a capitalist corporation and with both local and central government.

 

When so many local Māori feeling disenfranchised from their own leadership, the conflict at Ihumātao is likely to continue to build in momentum.

 

 

Recent cartoons about the environment in New Zealand

 

Slane - Listener 22 July 2019

 

 

Hubbard - Stuff 17 July 2019

 

 

Emmerson - NZ Herald 4 July 2019

 

Bromhead - NZ Herald 12 May 2019

 

Hubbard - Stuff 11 May 2019

 

Murdoch - Stuff 15 March 2019

 

Tremain - ODT 15 March 2019

 

Hubbard - 11 March 2019

Murdoch - Sunday Star Times 24 February 2019

 

Slane - Listener 16 February 2019

 

 

 

 

 

New Zealand’s revival of trust in government (2018)

 

Recent research suggests the public is becoming more trusting of government and politicians again. Dr Bryce Edwards of Victoria University highlights new studies on trust, and says that “Jacindamania” still appears to be having a positive impact on society’s view of politics. [Note this column was originally published in 2018 on the Newsroom Pro website]

 

Growing distrust of politicians and authorities has been one of the most important political trends of recent decades, especially as it has accelerated around the globe in the last decade. Most notably, it has been connected to the revival of populist and radical electoral forces – Donald Trump is the most infamous example.

 

Here in New Zealand, such distrust has been recorded in a number of opinion polls, suggesting this country is not necessarily immune to political trends elsewhere. But new evidence suggests there’s been an abrupt turn around in this growing distrust. New surveys give an indication that New Zealand has departed from the trend, and we’re witnessing an improving perception of the health of our democracy.

 

Victoria University’s public trust survey

 

On Monday, the Institute for Governance and Policy Studies of Victoria University of Wellington released the results of a survey they had commissioned from Colmar Brunton about public attitudes to authorities. It shows there have been some meaningful improvements in trust since the same survey was run two years ago.

 

Most notably, “Asked whether they trust the government to do what is right for New Zealand, 65 percent now answer yes, compared with 48 percent in 2016.” Similarly, “49 percent think New Zealand citizens’ interests are equally and fairly considered by the government, up from 39 percent.” You can see an in-depth report on the results here: Public trust survey.

 

There’s still a fairly high level of distrust in politicians but, once again, the trend shows an improvement. For instance, “distrust” in government ministers was much higher than “trust” in them, leading to a “net trust deficit” of -24% (i.e. 39% distrusting minus 15% trusting). However, two years ago this deficit was the much higher figure of -43%. Similarly, the trust deficit for MPs has reduced from -47% to -26%.

 

The Victoria University survey doesn’t suggest that New Zealanders are just becoming more trusting generally. For most non-political areas, trust has remained at about the same levels as in 2016 or, in the case of churches and charities, declined significantly.

 

Another recent survey – the annual Edelman Trust Barometer – which came out in March can be read here: The Battle for Truth. And the results are largely in line with Victoria University’s, showing that the proportion of New Zealanders who trust government is on the rise. Last year the trust figure was 46%, and it has since risen to 51%.

 

This improving trend in New Zealand is at variance with the rest of the developed world, which is experiencing a worsening public trust deficit crisis. The change in this country can probably be explained with reference to last year’s election campaign. In itself, this was a highly-engaging and dynamic campaign, which would have given many voters reason to think more highly of politics and government. And, in fact, voter turnout rose – which also went against both historic and international trends.

 

But it was the rise of Jacinda Ardern as leader of the Labour Party, eventually leading to a change of government, which is possibly the single most important factor in the change of public attitudes to politicians. There is no doubting that “Jacindamania” lifted the spirits of those on the political left, and many less-politicised citizens could detect that there was something new and different happening in politics.

 

Therefore, a change of government may have given some citizens a greater sense that “politics is working”. After all, for many on the political left who have previously felt that the system wasn’t working, there was now a feeling that change was possible.

 

Colmar Brunton Public Sector Reputation Index for 2018

 

Also released this week, Colmar Brunton has undertaken another survey about how much New Zealanders trust the public sector – see: Does our public sector measure up?. This survey also suggests that levels of trust and distrust in politicians are evening out: when asked if people trust or distrust Parliament, 27% said they had trust, and 29% were distrusting.

 

In addition, 41% said they trusted the civil service, with only 8% distrusting it. The survey also ranked the government agencies, with the following coming out tops for their reputations with the public:

 

1. Fire and Emergency New Zealand
2. MetService
3. Department of Conservation
4. New Zealand Customs Service
5. Tourism New Zealand
6. New Zealand Defence Force
7. Statistics New Zealand
8. New Zealand Police
9. Maritime New Zealand
10. Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand

 

Deloitte New Zealand Millennial survey

 

One of the interesting elements of the Victoria University trust survey is that younger citizens exhibit much less trust in government and authorities than older people. And this trend is backed up by a survey carried out by Deloitte New Zealand, released a few weeks ago, which said “their trust in political leaders is even lower. Millennials lack faith in the ability of government to make the changes they wish to see. Only 28 percent of New Zealand respondents believe politicians are having a positive impact on the world (compared to 52 percent negative)”.

 

You can read the Deloitte report here: Millennials’ confidence in business takes sharp downturn. It also suggests that less than half of New Zealand millennials (45%) believe businesses behave ethically, and that this level of trust appears to be heading downwards.

 

All of these measures of trust are important for a range of reasons – but particularly because they give a barometer reading of how healthy our democracy is perceived to be. Improving trust in politicians and authorities suggests that public revolts are less likely to occur in the near future, with stability more likely.

 

High public trust also allows governments to undertake greater reforms, because voters are more open-minded to change. And it means that whenever the politicians and government departments make mistakes – and we’ve seen all sorts of them recently, from the Human Rights Commission, to MPI, to Housing New Zealand – then citizens are more accepting of these problems as being mere aberrations.

 

The resilience of the current government, and its various government agencies, will therefore be enhanced by the news that public trust is heading in the right direction at the moment. But it’s probably too early for authorities to celebrate too loudly. After all, there’s still substantial dissatisfaction out there, and optimism based on Jacindamania could evaporate as quickly as it first appeared.

 

 

The mild abortion “culture wars”

 

Abortion law reform is back on the political agenda. According to Dr Bryce Edwards of Victoria University of Wellington, this area of debate is the ultimate polarising issue in what are often called the “culture wars” – but that doesn’t necessarily mean New Zealand is about to be embroiled in a heated and divisive battle of values. [Note: the column was originally published on the Newsroom Pro website in November 2018]

 

 

Both in New Zealand and around the world, politics are increasingly revolving around non-economic policy issues that divide societies along lines that are more “liberal vs conservative” than “left vs right”.

 

Earlier this year, I gave the following examples of the type of “culture war” issues that have become more important in New Zealand politics: “Debates about issues relating to ethnicity, gender, sexuality, human rights, discrimination, disabilities, and so forth have become much more prominent over recent years. And divisive topics such as abortion, euthanasia and drug law reform, will continue to be extremely difficult for politicians to navigate” – see my Newsroom column, Our new culture wars.

 

It’s the issue of abortion that is currently on the public agenda, as the Law Commission published its three options for reform this week. New Zealand is set to go down the route of what could be a major debate about abortion.

 

When the term “culture wars” became established in US politics in the 1990s, the issue of abortion was often seen as the most polarising example (followed by other contentious debates over gun control, immigration, and separation of church and state).

 

So, can we expect New Zealand will be rocked by extremely polarising debate and differences on abortion? Certainly, many New Zealanders have very strongly-held views on this, and the potential for some bitter battles being played out across the country is real.

 

The abortion issue is definitely getting a lot of attention. In the chart below, the number of media articles that include the word “abortion” are displayed over the last 17 years. This is derived from an online database of numerous print publications such as the New Zealand Herald, the various Stuff newspapers such as the Dominion Post and The Press, as well as magazines such as the Listener.

 

 

This chart suggests that the number of published articles about abortion remained relatively stable since 1991, with normally about 700 published each year. But since 2017, the number of published articles mentioning “abortion” has started to skyrocket, with the issue coming onto the public agenda in the early part of last year. And this year, the number of articles already published amounts to 1587 (which suggests a straight extrapolation estimation for the whole year of 1928).

 

As I’ve argued before, the increasing propensity for discussion about issues such as abortion relates to the more radical political period we are now in. Since the global financial crisis of 2008, there has been a global explosion of all types of anti-Establishment or anti-status quo ideas, ideologies and movements.

 

Whether it’s in the form of nationalism, populism, socialism, or feminism, we have seen more radical movements and ideologies underpin the debate and elections in countries everywhere. The #MeToo movement, and the agenda to progress women’s rights on issues such as abortion is a part of this bigger radical trend.

 

The focus on abortion law reform in New Zealand has, of course, also been given a boost by the successful referendum in Ireland this year, which liberalised abortion laws there. That particular case showed that in 2018 liberal reformers are in the ascendancy – which is really what we can expect to occur here.

 

Opinion surveys have shown that a majority of the public are in favour of women being able to access abortions. The most recent survey shows that two-thirds of the public agree that a woman should have the right to choose whether or not she has an abortion, with only 14% disagreeing.

 

Therefore, the war on this issue is largely won. There simply isn’t any great indication that conservatives are willing and able to put up much of a fight to prevent reform. The institutions that might have been expected to mobilise protests and campaigns don’t seem to be up to the fight. Certainly, some churches will put forward their statements of opposition, but not much mobilisation will result from this. And the official pro-life groups are hardly the influential organisations that existed back in the 1970s.

 

In fact, it’s the National Party that everyone will look to for opposition to reform. But as the legislation change will ultimately come down to a conscience vote in Parliament, the party itself will be unable to put out a united message on the issue. Most parties will be divided – with the Greens likely to be the exception.

 

In the end, this debate is unlikely to cause huge societal upset and division. But for National it could prove extremely uncomfortable to navigate. Party leader Simon Bridges has already signaled his opposition to liberalisation, saying that the current rules don’t need fixing. This was the line pushed by the previous National leader, Bill English, who was also a socially-conservative Christian.

 

Bridges has adopted the US Republican Party’s phrase in which he says he’s in favour of abortion being “rare, safe and legal”. But his opponents will use his position to paint him as being a conservative who is out of touch with modern New Zealand. And so, Bridges and National can probably only lose votes on this issue.

 

National’s strategic vulnerabilities on abortion will only spur on Labour’s reform campaign. And certainly, the Government and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern will receive plaudits for the changes and for being on “the right side of history”.

 

And that raises the question of why previous Labour-led governments have been unwilling to reform abortion laws. The pro-choice Helen Clark failed to do so in the 1980s when she was Minister of Health, and when she was Prime Minister for nine years she and her government ensured that the issue of reform never got onto the agenda. Caution triumphed, with fears that reform might be unpopular.

 

That’s all changed now. Social views have been slowly but steadily liberalising since the original Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act was passed in 1977. Abortion has gradually become more acceptable to the wider public. Yet over that forty years politicians of all sides have effectively kicked for touch on the issue, happy with a compromise situation in which abortion laws have been draconian in theory, but liberal in practice.

 

Therefore, the politicians – from Labour and National, alike – have simply not kept up with social progress. But what’s happening now is that all politicians are having to catch up with the public’s more progressive views. And that’s why any “culture war” over abortion is likely to be relatively mild.

 

 

John Moore: May Day and working class politics

“What on earth is May Day?” you might ask. May Day is International Workers’ Day - a celebration of the organised trade union movement and working class-centred politics. But in New Zealand it’s pretty much a non-event. However, in many countries May Day is a public holiday, and rallies of unions and the left are held throughout the world. This is especially true with those nations of the Global South (Third World) which have a particular tradition of militant unionism and socialist politics. For example, in Manila in the Philippines, and Jakarta in Indonesia, tens of thousands of workers and representatives of the left will march today.

 

Is May Day an archaic event? And isn’t class politics dead, being replaced by the politics of identity with a focus on gender, sexuality, and race? Certainly, May Day - also known as Labour Day or Workers’ Day - was only a big deal in the West when class-centred politics was at the fore. During a large part of the early to mid-twentieth century, a mass working class movement existed, in the form of trade unions, class-centred labour parties, and a wider socialist and communist movement. However, in the later part of the twentieth century, working class politics was declared effectively moribund. And even today in countries with a strong tradition of working class politics, May Day rallies now only attract tens of thousands of workers and leftists, rather than the hundreds of thousands that would have attended such labour celebrations in the past. But despite years of academics in the humanities arguing that there is no longer a working class in post-industrial society, and that categories of subjugated groups are varied, particular, and never concrete, a universal form of class politics is making a bit of a comeback.

 

While labour-centred politics has been moribund for several decades, there is now a rebooted form of class politics on the rise. Even in places such as New Zealand, strikes and unions have become cool gain. And even socialism and communism are becoming increasingly trendy amongst politicised youth. As Marxists use to say, the dialectic of history inevitably pushes class politics and class conflict to the fore. Or to put it other terms, there’s only so long the Establishment can fuck over working people, in terms of declining living standards and lack of political representation, before an attempt is made to make working class politics great again.

 

In New Zealand, a wave of strikes and workers’ protests have reintroduced the politics of class in this country. And it’s not the “traditional” blue-collared and cloth-cap proletariat that are in engaging in militancy, but rather “middle class” groups of workers including teachers, public servants, nurses and even doctors. This will confuse many an old socialist, whose politics often amounted to a form of working class identity politics, where blue-collar proletarian culture and politics was celebrated and essentialized. However, anyone who has read the Communist Manifesto or other key Marxist texts, will know that even way back in 1840, Karl Marx predicted that capitalism’s drive for profits would lead to a general proletarianization of the population. That is,  “middle class” groups such as teachers, doctors and even lawyers would be transformed into exploited workers.

 

So, perhaps May Day as a celebration of working class politics and identity is no longer as irrelevant and archaic as it seems. And maybe working class politics is becoming great again.

 

 

John Moore: Anzac Day cultural wars

 

Bite-sized alternative political analysis

 

Facts:

 

RSA veterans are upset with plans to have a Muslim prayer at Anzac Day service. The RSA is NZ’s ex-military service organization.

 

A Muslim Imam had been invited to say a prayer at an RSA Anzac service at Titahi Bay, near Wellington. The RSA’s move was an attempt to both show inclusiveness, as well as out of respect to the victims of the Christchurch terrorist attack. However, RSA veterans were less than happy with this move.

A backlash against the proposed Muslim prayer has led to the RSA branch dropping the Muslim prayer from its 6am dawn service. Some RSA veterans felt that the dawn service should only honour NZ and Australian soldiers who have died in wars. The Muslim prayer will be allowed at a 10am civic ceremony.

 

Analysis:

 

This spat over the inclusion of a Muslim prayer points to an ongoing cultural war over the meaning of Anzac Day. Anzac ceremonies were traditionally defined by explicit nationalism and an endorsement of NZ’s participation in various wars. However, over the last few decades the focus of Anzac day has changed.

 

Anzac day has become ostensibly more diverse and inclusive. The day is commemorated now both by conservatives who which to honour NZ soldiers’ participation in wars, and by liberals who want to reflect on the legacy of wars. However, the attempt to include a Muslim prayer at an Anzac dawn service has been met with a sharp conservative reaction.

 

The contradictions with modern Anzac services has been highlighted with this conservative backlash.

 

John Moore: Stoning to death for gays in Brunei – a critical analysis

The Southeast Asian nation of Brunei has implemented the death penalty for homosexuality. Brunei is a small Muslim-majority nation on the island of Borneo. The country is a dictatorship, ruled by its Sultan. The Sultan is Head of State, as well as Prime Minister, Minister of Finance, Supreme Commander of the Royal Brunei Armed Forces, Inspector General of the Royal Brunei Police Force, and Head of Islam. So, what he says goes.

 

The Sultan of Brunei, has been well-known for his playboy lifestyle. However, over the last decade Brunei’s royal family has, on the face of it, embraced a very strict form of Islamic rule. This has now culminated in the implementation of the punishment of death for homosexual sex, and general adultery.

 

The Sultan of Brunei has said the law is necessary for Brunei to be a nation that follows Islamic law. A series of new regulations based on sharia law are now in force. These include the punishment of being whipped or stoned to death for homosexual sex, adultery, sodomy, rape, and blasphemy.

 

Sharia law is based on interpretations of prescribed rules in the Koran – the most important book for Muslims, and the hadith, reports of statements or actions of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. The implementation of anti-LGBTI+ laws in Brunei is part of an ongoing process of Islamisation of the small Sultanate.

 

There is much speculation on why the Sultan is Islamising his country. Arguments have been put forward that the implantation of strict sharia law in Brunei is being done to distract the population from the nation’s economic decline. Also, the new laws are seen as a way for the country’s royal family to tighten control over its population. There is also speculation that the Sultan has been pressured by the country’s religious leaders, who have apparently been unhappy with the hedonistic lifestyles of most members of the Brunei royal family.

 

Very few people in the West would know where Brunei is. However, the country has very close relations with the West, especially with Britain. And former New Zealand Prime Minister John Key has stated that he is good mates with Brunei’s dictatorial ruler.

 

Brunei was a colony – formerly a protectorate - of the UK up till 1984. And Britain continues to have a strong military presence in the country. Brunei’s close relations with Britain does explain the, up to now, muted protests from Western countries over Brunei’s implementation of draconian Syria law.

 

The New Zealand Government has only made very cautious statements of protest at Brunei’s implementation of death by stoning for gays and adulterers. This country’s Foreign Minister Winston Peters has called Brunei’s homophobic laws “seriously regrettable”. A rather lame statement of disapproval, straight from the diplomatic foreign affairs handbook. And Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said that she stands opposed to new a law implemented by the Sultan of Brunei to punish gay sex by stoning offenders to death. A very cautious statement, far short from a complete condemnation of the homophobic regulation now in force in Brunei.

 

In a nod to the Sultan that relations between New Zealand and Brunei will go on as normal, both Ardern and Peters put their official statements against the stoning to death of gays in the context of the country’s general opposition to the death penalty. Both Adern and Peters were indicating here that, although they are obliged to make a formal protest to Brunei because of New Zealand’s formal opposition to the death penalty, good relations will continue with the Islamic Sultanate. What is clearly lacking here from the Jacinda Ardern-led Government is any strong condemnation and sense of moral disgust at the Brunei Sultan’s implementation of strict religious laws.

 

The Sultan of Brunei’s decision to make homosexuality a crime punishable by death is both tragic and farcical. The Brunei royal family is well known for their hedonism. Sex workers have been employed in the palaces of Brunei for decades to serve the needs of the male royals. Alcohol flows freely whenever the royals decide to party. And the Brunei Royal Family have stolen billions from the people of their nation.

 

Now that the economy is hurting, due to low oil prices, the Sultan is acting to bring in draconian religious laws as a way to frighten and threaten his population. Unemployment and poverty are becoming the norm. And a restless population presents a threat to the Sultan’s rule. As with most dictatorial rulers, the Sultan wants to hold on jealously to his immense wealth and power.

 

A critical analysis from a Malaysian Muslim on Brunei:

 

Why is the Sultan of Brunei acting to make homosexuality a crime punishable by stoning to death? Here is a powerful analysis of the situation in Brunei by Sharifah, a Malaysian Muslim and leftwing activist and intellectual:

 

“I think the Sultan is enforcing the new regulation because he is afraid that the development of democracy, of liberal and progressive elements from nearby countries like Malaysia, Indonesia and Philippines, will spread to Brunei. It will threaten his monarchy. Brunei might be an oil-rich country. But now it is facing high unemployment and poverty. I guess the Sultan is afraid the people will revolt against him, so he has to strengthen the conservatism of his country. Moreover, there are no elections in Brunei.”

 

 

John Moore: Ardern’s hugs for the Chinese Government, and silence on the mass abuses of Chinese Turkic Muslims

 

Bite-sized alternative political analysis

 

The facts:

 

Jacinda Ardern’s trip to China has brought into question the Government’s lack of protest over China’s treatment of its Turkic-Muslim population. The Chinese Government has received international criticism for its treatment of the Uighur ethnic minority in the northwest of China. Uighur are a Turkic ethnic group who are predominately Muslim. A Uighur independence movement has been calling for an independent Uighur state. The Chinese State firmly suppresses any calls for independence.

 

Currently, up to a million Uighur are interned in what are essentially concentration camps. The Chinese Government is currently imposing forced ideological re-education of Uighur in these camps. What is going on in the detention camps is hard to tell, due to heightened levels of secrecy by the Chinese Government over this issue. However, there have been ongoing reports of Muslims being physically abused and tortured, of being forced to eat pork and drink alcohol, and of being heavily pressured to break from their religious beliefs.

 

The NZ Government has made some very cautious statements of concern regarding the Chinese State’s treatment of Uighur. And NZ prime minister Jacinda Ardern has generally shown annoyance at being pressed on the issue by NZ media.

 

Analysis:

 

The NZ Government has taken a highly pragmatic approach in regard to the Uighur situation in China. Concerns have been raised, but there is no strong protest coming from the Ardern-led Government over China’s appalling treatment of its Uighur Muslim population. The internment of a million Muslim Uighurs in China is one of the most alarming cases of human rights abuses this century.

 

The Chinese State certainly seems happy with how the Ardern Government is dealing with this question. The Global Times, a mouthpiece for the Chinese Government, has praised the New Zealand Government for not following other Western countries in launching "groundless accusations" over China's Uighur policies.

 

We can expect the Ardern-led Government to continue to remain essentially quiet on the grotesque abuses against the Uighur population by the Chinese Government. Jacinda Ardern has shown that, despite her self-declared values of love and compassion, she can be very selective in who she hands out her love and compassion to.

 

___________

 

This political roundup by John Moore is an extension on the five-minute breakfast political roundup that John gives on Radio One Dunedin, Monday to Thursday at 9am.

Check out the Radio One Breakfast political roundup streamed live each morning at 9amhere. 

Also check out the Radio One Week in politics on Friday from 8.30-9.00am

Both the Daily political roundup and the Week in politics can be accessed as podcasts:
On Radio One Podcasts
On iTunes

 

 

Cartoons about gun control after Christchurch

 

Emmerson - NZ Herald 3 April 2019

 

 

Hubbard - 4 April 2019

 

 

Craig - ODT 3 April 2019

 

Murdoch - Stuff 20 March 2019

 

Hubbard - 21 March 2019

 

Emmerson - NZ Herald 3 April 2019

 

Tremain - ODT 19 March 2019

 

Emmerson - NZ Herald 23 March 2019

 

 

John Moore: Should Jordon Peterson be banned & no-platformed?

Conservative public intellectual Jordon Peterson has been caught up in the reaction against the Islamophobic terrorist attack in New Zealand. The Canadian psychologist and self-help guru initially had his book– 12 Rules for Life –  removed from the Whitcoulls book chain store. And the academic’s visiting fellowship at Cambridge University has been rescinded.

 

The Peterson ban, both by Whitcoulls in NZ and by Cambridge in the UK, can be seen as a reaction against the spreading of alt-right and new conservative ideology. Jordon Peterson promotes conservative values in relation to gender and social hierarchy.

 

The book chain Whitcoulls pulled Peterson's self-help book – 12 Rules for Life – in response to the mosque shootings. Whitcoulls argued that they were showing sensitivity to the wider community. Whitcoulls has now returned Peterson’s book to their shelves.

 

Jordon Peterson is a controversial academic and public intellectual. These bans on Peterson are a reaction against the Professors conservative statements and beliefs on culture, gender, transgenderism, and race. He has been accused by his critics of being sexist, transphobic and a racist. His supporters hail him as an inspirational guru, and as an advocate for young alienated males. Peterson’s critics often label him as an alt-right intellectual who promotes a semi-fascist ideology. Peterson however strongly denies he is alt-right, and argues that he strongly opposes extreme right beliefs.

 

Critics of the author argue that Peterson’s attack on political correctness and his views on race, gender, and transgenderism are beyond the pale. Therefore, his work should be seen as toxic.

 

People certainly have a right to be offended by Peterson. And his ideas do need to be challenged and critiqued. However, a widespread ban on the author would not stop his ideas from being circulated and absorbed. And once we start supporting the banning of certain books and certain ideas, we may quickly find ourselves in an illiberal and censorious society, where any text deemed offensive is withdrawn or banned.

 

Free speech advocates argue that the likes of Peterson should not be banned. Rather, Peterson and other rightwing intellectuals should have their views challenged and debated.

 

In relation to the mosque shooting, the argument has been put forward that new conservative and alt-right figures have acted to normalize hatred against Muslims and other marginalised groups. Therefore, the views of the likes of Peterson, and alt-right figures such as Milo Yianoupolos, Alex Jones, Stefan Molyneux and Laura Southern, must be suppressed.

 

However, political freedom advocates would argue that when the state or public institutions ban certain intellectuals and certain ideas, then we can rapidly descend into a situation of widespread censorship, of draconian government, and of general illiberalism. Also, supporters of free speech would point out that once a precedent is set of banning certain ideas, then the state and public institutions will begin to ban a range of dissident ideas of both the left and right.

 

Expect this debate on free speech and censorship to be one of the major political issues over the next year.

 

 

John Moore: Government action or inaction on climate change

Bite-sized alternative political analysis

The facts:

Jacinda Ardern has stated that she sees climate change as the major issue of the 21^st Century. And she has indicated that her Government will act to be a world leader on tackling global warming.

Tomorrow, striking students will aim to put pressure on the Government to take decisive action on the ongoing threat of global warming. But how active is this Government with dealing with environmental concerns? The long-awaited Zero carbon Bill is on the way. But how radical will this bill actually be, and will it address the necessary steps needed to tackle climate change?  

Analysis:

How far will Green co-leader James Shaw compromise with his Zero Carbon Bill? Many political commentators suspect that NZ First and Labour will act to water-down the bill. There is the real possibility this the bill will be watered down to a set of unspecific targets, and targets that don’t unduly upset farmers and corporations.

James Shaw wants his bill to have cross-party support. On the face it, bipartisan support for tackling global warning seems a great idea. However, for Shaw to gain bipartisan support, that is for all the parliamentary parties to buy into his zero carbon targets, a watered-down bill is almost inevitable.

Shaw has chosen the path of depoliticising zero carbon targets by aiming at across the board parliamentary support for his bill. But such an attempt at a bipartisan compromise on global warming could well lead to political inaction on this pressing issue.

A watered-down bill that pleases all political parties, and has the buy-in of farmers and corporates, would be a useless piece of legislation. Therefore, the pressing question is, is this Government brave enough to take the lead on tackling climate change, to push forward bold policies, and to force other political players to follow?

___________

 

This political roundup by John Moore is an extension on the five-minute breakfast political roundup that John gives on Radio One Dunedin, Monday to Thursday at 9am.

Check out the Radio One Breakfast political roundup streamed live each morning at 9am here. 

Also check out the Radio One Week in politics on Friday from 8.30-9.00am

Both the Daily political roundup and the Week in politics can be accessed as podcasts:
On Radio One Podcasts
On iTunes

 

 

 

John Moore: Students on strike for climate change action

Bite-sized alternative political analysis

 

The facts:

A global student strike is happening this Friday. In New Zealand, thousands of students are expected to bunk school and attend climate change protests across the country. Politicians have generally expressed hostility or indifference to the protest. New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has been non-committal over whether she supports the protests actions or not. However, the Green Party is publicly supporting the protesting students, as are a handful of Labour MPs.

 

Analysis:

This strike action by students against climate change inaction is hugely significant. The politics of climate change tends to be an elite affair, with discussions on global warming usually taking place amongst establishment politicians, corporate representatives, and NGO leaders. But now the issue of climate change is being taken to the streets, with students forming a mass participatory movement to push against Government inaction.

 

But what impact will this student strike have? Certainly, the New Zealand Government will feel the need to defend its programme on tacking climate change in response to the protest. But the big question is what will happen the day after? Will striking students and their supporters keep the momentum up and build an ongoing movement? Or will tomorrow’s protests be a one off symbolic action? Symbolic actions can make an impact, but rarely lead to substantive change.

 

An ongoing movement - in the form of Occupy Wall Street (OWS), #BlackLivesMatter, or #MeToo – could act to place substantial pressure of Governments, who are dragging their feet on climate change. But what will be crucial to the success of a climate change movement is the type of demands that such a movement acts to popularize. Wishy-washy demands and general platitudes will allow Governments to ostensibly embrace the concerns of students, while in reality doing little to tackle the spectre of global warming. And a fatal blow to this new movement of climate change activism would occur if elite politicians, “progressive” corporate leaders, and established NGOs, are able to co-option the movement.

 

 

___________

This political roundup by John Moore is an extension on the five-minute breakfast political roundup that John gives on Radio One Dunedin, Monday to Thursday at 9am.

Check out the Radio One Breakfast political roundup streamed live each morning at 9am here. 

Also check out the Radio One Week in politics on Friday from 8.30-9.00am

Both the Daily political roundup and the Week in politics can be accessed as podcasts:
On Radio One Podcasts
On iTunes

 

 

John Moore: The politics of gun reform in New Zealand

 

The facts:

 

The NZ Government has implemented comprehensive gun reform in response to the Christchurch Islamophobic terrorist attack. The Government has banned assault rifles and military-style semi-automatic (MSSA) guns. All political parties, apart from Act, support the reforms. Further reforms of gun laws are expected.

 

Analysis:

 

There is an argument that the Government’s gun reforms do not go far enough, and a counter-argument that they go too far. Those pressing for a comprehensive ban on semi-automatic weapons have raised concerns that, with these new reforms, there is not in fact a comprehensive ban on such weapons. For example, the ban does not include semi-automatic .22 calibre weapons. Such weapons are commonly used by hunters and farmers.

 

If the Government had attempted to ban all semi-automatic weapons, it is less than- likely that they would have received the necessary support from a majority of MPs to push through with new gun reforms. NZ First, in particular, would more-than-likely have opposed such a comprehensive ban.

 

The counter-argument against gun reform goes that the Government is being unnecessarily draconian with its gun ban. Gun owners may well feel they are being unfairly punished because of the actions of a “lone-wolf terrorist”. However, the gun lobby has supported reforms in general.

 

The New Zealand Government’s gun reform has caught the attention of American politicians. Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders called for America to follow New Zealand's lead. However, the issue of gun reform is far more politicised in America.

 

Americans have a constitutional right to own guns, a right that dates back to the American Revolution. In the United States, libertarian arguments against gun control dominate American political discourse. In contrast to other Western nations, Americans can be seen as having an inbuilt fear of government, and the ability of government to squash individual rights. The argument against gun control in the US is therefore framed within an anti-state libertarian discourse. American’s right to bear arms is painted as a bulwark against state tyranny.

 

Such arguments are generally absent from the New Zealand debate on gun control. 

 

 

Gayaal Iddamalgoda: Kia Ora Te Whanau (speech to Wellington vigil for the victims of the Christchurch mosque terrorist attacks)

Kia Ora Te Whanau

 

I am Gayaal Iddamalgoda from the Migrant and Refugee Rights Campaign.

 

To be honest with you all, I have struggled to find words to share with you today.

 

Our Muslim friends and neighbours have been hurt so badly by this evil act of terrorism. I don't think I'm alone in trying to process our collective grief, I don't think I'm alone in trying to find every way to comfort our Muslim brothers, sisters and friends.

 

Today, before I came here, I resolved to try and tell you 'the truth' as I see it. There's so much emotion. Please bear with me as I really do feel that words are failing me. And, it is difficult to tell what is true and what is not when I feel so much anger and confusion and I am trying very hard to not let these feelings overwhelm me. I have so many questions. Hard questions that I really think need to be answered by all of us.

 

• Why was our secret service busy surveilling our innocent Muslim neighbours and not the extremists who sought to victimise them?

 

• Why have the police spent over $100,000 of taxpayers money to attack peace activists, protesting weapons conferences and arms dealers while letting racist terrorists acquire semi-automatic weapons?

 

• When will politicians, left and right own up to the fact that they have scapegoated and blamed migrants and refugees, for so long, for social and economic problems that they are not responsible for?

 

• And when will they admit that while they have been doing this, they have allowed unspeakable hatred to brew under their noses?

 

I want answers. I want accountability. I want something to change.

 

But right now, while I wait for these answers, I want to do something to cancel out the hateful, paranoid vision of the extremists and offer instead a vision of hope.

 

Today I call for two things:

 

1. I call upon the New Zealand Government to immediately remove the previous Government's ban on Middle Eastern and African refugees, [that is still in place and based on bogus security concerns]and;
2. I call for New Zealand to triple the refugee quota. I call for these things and hope to say in the single voice we have today; refugees are not blamed, they are not feared, they are not vulnerable when they are in our midst.

 

They are truly welcome here.

 

Please sign the 'triple the quota' petition that is being circulated today.

 

I gave some thought of what I would say to the victims of this tragedy and strangely for me, I thought of something I learned long ago from a holy book I studied when I was young

 

"Better than a thousand useless words is a single word that can give peace'

 

I'm sorry but I do not have such words for you today. I hope you can look at the people gathered here in love and unity and find some strength.

 

Finally, I have a brief but important message for those who committed this crime and their associates. It is the message that good people send whenever fascism dares to rear its ugly head

 

Never, never again

 

 

 

John Moore: The politics of the mosque shootings tragedy

 

New Zealand has now come face to face with 21st Century terrorism and the politics of extreme hate and violence. It is now clear that no country is immune from political violence and extreme sectarian politics.

 

People in this country have expressed their grief and feelings of shock at the terrorist attack that happened on Friday in Christchurch. The attack on Muslim worshippers has been met with a deep sense of humanity and empathy from people in New Zealand. A universal sense of humanity has come to the fore, with a heartfelt sense of solidarity shown towards the victims of this terrorist attack and their communities. It is difficult to comprehend such as evil act as this anti-Muslim attack. And this outpouring of love, of sadness, and of grief after this horrific event points to the ability to make new and lasting interfaith and intercommunity connections.

 

Many questions need to be asked about this terrorist attack. We do need to understand why it happened, and why it took place in New Zealand. And we need to understand the motivations of the terrorist, as well as the warped ideology that he held to.

 

To prevent further terrorist attacks, and to counter extreme nationalist politics, we need to analyse this horrific event, and the person or people connected with this fascistic violent act in Christchurch. For example, do we have an actual base of “extreme rightwing” politics in New Zealand? Certainly, New Zealand does not have a large extreme nationalist movement. However, this country does have a history of small extremist groups that have promoted various forms of fascistic ideology.

 

We are yet to know if Brenton Tarrant had any connections with local extreme right groups or individuals in this country. However, it seems that Tarrant gained his warped world view from the internet and from his international travels. And he was influenced by other “rightwing terrorists” and murderers, including Norwegian murderer Anders Breivik.

 

Norwegian white supremacist Anders Breivik had also released a manifesto before his murderous spree. The possible correlation or connection between Anders Breivik’s manifesto and that of Tarrant’s will be of interest to police, as well as to political scientists attempting to understand the motivations and ideology behind the Christchurch mosque killings.

 

How could this terrorist attack happen in New Zealand? And have we been blind to the rise of extreme reactionary politics in this country? Some commentators are pointing the finger at free speech liberals. Such commentators have argued that New Zealand has allowed alt-right figures to circulate their toxic views in New Zeeland and that such toxic views are the basis behind the Christchurch terrorist attacks.

 

In the last year, alt-right Canadians Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux visited New Zealand and received significant media coverage. And rightwing psychologist Jordon Peterson also recently visited these shores, and received both praise as well as severe criticisms from the media and the general public.

 

Therefore, is it fair to point the finger at “free speech liberals” and at New Zealand’s open-door attitude to alt-figures? Certainly, the rise of the alt-right internationally is having an impact here in New Zealand. Any person can easily access alt-right material online, and the warped politics and pseudo-science of the alt-right has appeal to some alienated young males here.

 

The finger has also been pointed at politicians who engage in a politics of “Othering”. Anti-immigrant politics, especially anti-Chinese sentiments, have been promoted by politicians across the political spectrum. And the NZ First party and its leader Winston Peters’ have flirted with anti-Muslim politics.

 

The argument goes that the politics of Othering - the demonization of the “foreign” Other - provides the necessary fertiliser for more extreme and violent forms of nationalist, communalist and sectarian politics. And a number of New Zealand politicians have all played a role in promoting various forms of xenophobic politics in New Zealand.

 

Winston Peters of NZ First is infamous for his attacks on the Chinese community and has stated that the large presence of Asian immigrants has had a negative impact on New Zealand’s culture. Peters has also played the Islamophobic card, and has stated in the past that Muslims in New Zealand put on a moderate face while hiding their extremism behind closed mosque doors.

 

Don Brash - previously a National Party leader and subsequently an Act Party leader - has spread the falsehood that Maori in New Zealand are privileged and enjoy exclusive beneficial rights. He has also played the xenophobic card with his call to give preferential treatment to immigrants from countries with “our values”.

Phil Twyford of the Labour Party infamously acted to scapegoat Chinese when he claimed that “foreign” Chinese were to blame for New Zealand’s housing crisis. And the Labour Party leader at the time, Andrew Little, targeted immigrants and claimed “high levels of immigration” were to blame for the lack of job opportunities for “New Zealanders”. 

Even the socially progressive Greens have dabbled in anti-immigrant rhetoric, such as when former Green co-leader Russel Norman complained of Chinese investment in NZ and of Chinese businesses using “foreign Chinese workers”. In 2006, the Green Party reacted strongly to proposals from a visiting Chinese minister who put forward the position for allowing increased numbers of Chinese workers here on temporary vistas. A Dominion Post article of 5 October 2006 said, ‘but the Green Party says it would trigger a “race to the bottom” for New Zealand wages and conditions.’ Also: ‘Dr Norman said there would have to be a genuine shortage of New Zealand workers and the Government would have to prove it had made efforts to offer training to local workers to fill vacancies.’ 

 

However, despite the finger pointing, there is no direct link between alt-right figures coming to NZ and this terrorist attack. Neither is there a direct link between anti-immigrant sentiments promoted by mainstream politicians and the actions of extreme nationalist terrorist Brenton Tarrant. Nonetheless, alt-right ideology and the politics of Othering can certainly provide the fertilizer for various forms of toxic xenophobic and racist politics.

 

Once we have moved beyond the grief stage with this tragic event, let us start thinking carefully about how we can act against the rising popularity of this new form of extreme nationalist ideology. And let us have an open discussion, in good faith, that leads to an understanding of this horrific event.