liberation

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.

 

 

 

 

 

John Moore: Michael Jackson and the spectre of censorship

Bite-sized alternative political analysis: Michael Jackson and the spectre of censorship

 

The facts:

 

The tainted legacy of Michael Jackson has become world news with the release of a documentary on the deceased artist. The documentary Leaving Neverland puts forward the case that Jackson sexual abused children. Leaving Neverland has most probably destroyed Michael Jackson’s legacy.

 

One political question that has come from the documentaries release is over the censorship of Jackson’s songs. NZME, which owns ZM, The Hits, Flava and Newstalk ZB, has made the decision to no longer play Jackson's songs on air. And similar moves are being taken by other radio stations nationally and internationally.

 

Analysis:

 

The big question is, can we differentiate an art product from its creator? And in this case, can we differentiate the musical legacy of Jackson, form Jackson the person? A problematic question, but nonetheless, people generally can and do differentiate an art product from its maker.

 

Some of the world’s greatest artists and authors have had tainted pasts and had questionable attitudes. For example, the English language’s greatest writer William Shakespeare has been accused of racism and anti-Semitism. Should his masterpiece, The Merchant of Venice, therefore be censored due to its alleged racist depiction of Shylock, the plays Jewish Character?

 

And what of film directors such as Roman Polanski and Woody Allan? Polanski was convicted of rape in America. And Allen has been accused of child sexual abuse. Should all the artistic work of both directors therefore be effectively banned?

 

And what of pop and rock stars who had relationships with underage girls, or have been accused of violence against women, or have been convicted of various crimes? In that case, we would need to stop listening to The Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Elvis Presley, Led Zeppelin, Johnny Cash, and a whole range of musical artists.

 

Perhaps we should equate an artist’s work with that artist themselves. If an artist is beyond the pale, then perhaps so should ban their artistic work. However, following this logic, media platforms, radio and TV would pretty soon start to look like media outlets in highly censorious countries such as North Korea and Iran. Is that what we want?

 

The concerns about Jackson’s legacy are legitimate. But if we support the effective censoring of his artistic output, we might suddenly find ourselves in a very unpleasant society where censorship is the rule rather than the exception.

___________

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: China expert treated as a pariah by Labour Party

Bite-sized alternative political analysis: China expert treated as a pariah by Labour Party

 

The facts:

 

University of Canterbury academic Anne-Marie Brady was blocked by Labour MPs from making to a submission on foreign interference. Professor Brady asked to make a submission to the Justice Select Committee regarding its inquiry into foreign interference in the 2017 general election and 2016 local elections. And in what was a shocking move, the Labour members on the committee voted against Brady giving a submission.

 

The Labour MPs voted against Brady ostensibly on the grounds that her request was late.  However, the National MPs on the committee supported Brady’s request. The Committee Chair is Labour MP Raymond Huo.

 

Raymond Huo has previously been singled out by Professor Brady for his close relations with the Chinese Government. Brady had previously written that Huo works very publicly with the Chinese Government’s “united front organizations” in New Zealand, and that he promotes their policies. 

 

After media scrutiny on the Justice Select Committee’s decision to block Brady, the Committee has now decided to accept Professor Brady’s submission.

 

Analysis:

 

The action of Labour MPs against Professor Anne-Marie Brady was quite extraordinary. Brady is New Zealand’s leading academic researcher on the Chinese state’s involvement in New Zealand affairs.

 

Any inquiry into foreign interference should by necessity involve Professor Brady. Yet Labour Party MPs have actively attempted to silence Brady. Of course, having Brady speak to the Committee will be highly embarrassing for the Committee Chair, Labour MP Raymond Huo. But that’s tough bikkies.

 

If Huo has nothing to hide, then he should be fine with Brady speaking to the Committee. But Labour’s attempts to block Brady just doesn’t look good for the Committee Chair Raymond Huo.

 

___________

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: Shane Jones in the shit, but no worries

John Moore’s bite-sized alternative political analysis: Shane Jones in the shit, but no worries

 

The facts:

 

NZ First MP Shane Jones has been accused of dodgy behaviour, and of lying about it. Jones has been found to of backed a project that he had a personal interest in. Specifically, Shane Jones' role in funding a Northland cultural centre has been questioned. The facility in Opononi was given $4.6 million by the Government. And Jones’ support of the centre seems to of been the big reason why the cultural ce­ntre received millions from the Government. Jones is Minister for Regional Economic Development and he is responsible for the $3 billion provincial Growth Fund.

 

Shane Jones had declared a conflict of interest with the Northland cultural centre and its “Manea, Footprints of Kupe” tourism proposal. Jones was to be the chairman of Manea Kupe Ltd. And the NZ First Minister has denied he has had any involvement in the funding for the cultural centre, since he declared a conflict of interest. But Jones seems to be telling fibs.

 

Documents from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) show that Jones did continue to advocate for the project after the point when he declared a conflict of interest. The Minister went to the single ministerial meeting which determined the application, and his advocacy for the Northland centre seems to of swung the Government’s final decision to fund the cultural centre.

 

Analysis:

 

Shane Jones’ dodgy dealings has become a major news story. There will now be pressure on Jacinda Ardern to sack her Regional Economic Development Minister.

Jones has been found to of been loose with the truth.

 

Certainly, politicians lie all the time. But in this case, a Minister’s fibbing is linked with millions of dollars. Shane Jones has control over a three billion dollars fund, a huge amount of money. Yet it seems there is little scrutiny over how this money has been managed up to now.

 

So, has the stink of corruption begun to taint the Government’s provincial fund? Jacinda and her Labour Party colleagues will be highly concerned about any accusations of Government money being misspent? But what can they do?

Shane Jones is a leading member of the New Zealand First caucus, and without this party’s support, Labour can no longer govern. Therefore, will expediency trump clean politics in this case? And will Jacinda stick her head in the sand and let a Minister tainted with dodgy dealings off the hook?

 

___________

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: Critical Politics alternative analysis – MPs’ views on student strike, Hillary not for President, Eminem vs the Nats

 

Wednesday 6 March 2019

 

1) NZ politicians have given their views on the upcoming student strike  

 

The facts:

A world-wide student strike to highlight inaction on climate change will take place on March 15. And some New Zealand politicians are throwing a tantrum over students skipping school to attend the climate change protests.

 

Deputy PM Winston Peters was particularly pissed-off with the up and coming strike. Peters sternly stated that attending school is compulsory. And Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern was also unsupportive of the strike, saying that the Government was already doing its bit about climate change.

 

National senior MP Judith “the crusher” Collins was scathing of the strike, and indicated she thought it was a waste of time. And National leader Simon Bridges felt the strike was just an excuse for students to muck around.

 

Green MPs were very supportive of the student protest. As surprisingly was Labour MP Damien O’Connor, an MP usually known for his conservative political stance on most matters.

 

Analysis:

The worldwide protest against inaction on climate change is incredibly significant. Although concerns about climate change are widespread, it is almost unheard of to have mass political actions targeting this issue. The politics of climate change tend to be elitist, in the sense that political discussions and decisions on the environment usually take place at conferences and forums involving elite politicians, corporate representatives, and bureaucrats.

Striking students are therefore making history, in the sense that they are transforming the issue of climate change from a problem to be managed by elites to an issue of mass participatory action. That NZ politicians of both the left and right find such a mass participatory event concerning, is therefore not surprising.

Both Jacinda and Simon Bridges have refused to come out in support of the student strike. Perhaps their impotency on dealing with climate change is being exposed here.

The fact that students are acting to politicise the central issue of our time, and are acting to expose the inaction of politicians on climate change, should be welcomed.

  

2) Hillary Clinton is not running for president.

 

The facts:

Hillary Clinton’s dream of becoming President of the United States is all but over. The former First Lady and senator has ruled out running for President in 2020.

Analysis:

Hillary Clinton has made a wise decision to opt out of the Presidential race 2020. She represents the politics of the past, and her mantle has been usurped by a new layer of zeitgeist Democrat politicians. Clinton is very much a Third Way politician, who accepts the prevailing economic coordinates and what was the prevailing liberal capitalist political consensus.

However, politics has taken a radical turn, with a new demand for bold and non-orthodox politicians. Hillary Clinton just doesn’t fit that mould, and so she has been relegated to the dustbin of history.

 

3) And finally, Hip Hop mega star Eminem is still at war with New Zealand’s National Party.

 

The facts:

Representatives of the rap star Eminem are going to the NZ Supreme Court to demand more dollars from the Nats. The National Party was previously found guilty of ripping off one of Eminem’s songs in a party commercial.

 

Analysis:

It is all rather ironic of course that the party of law and order is once again in court for breaking copy right laws.

 

___________

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: Critical Politics alternative analysis – Bumbling Kiwi Jihadi, Civil war in CTU, Ticket scalping ban

 

Tuesday 5 March 2019

 

1) Kiwi ISIS jihadist misses home

 

The facts:

A New Zealander who has been active with ISIS for five years is currently being held by Kurdish forces in Syria. The Kiwi jihadist, Mark Taylor, has received international news coverage. Taylor became known as the “bumbling jihadist” for his ineptitude in accidently sharing his, and an ISIS unit’s, location on social media.  

 

In a recent interview, Taylor looked a rather pathetic and sorry character. He made a half-hearted apology for his actions. However, he then completely undercut his apology with a discussion of his previous desires to own a slave while he was an active ISIS member.

 

Analysis:

The least one could say about ex-ISIS member Mark Taylor is that he is not a particularly nice guy. Taylor chose to join and participate in a religious death cult, and he also participated in the group’s propaganda efforts to recruit young Westerners. He may appear very sorry for himself now that he has been captured. But he deserves absolutely no sympathy.

We have an odd situation right now where many liberals find it hard not to show some concern for the position that a number of young ISIS-jihadists from the West now find themselves in. Indeed, for many liberals, the likes of Mark Taylor, or former ISIS bride Shamima Begum, are victims of the former so-called Islamic State. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Taylor, Begum and scores of other young Westerners chose to join a fascist-like group that engaged in the most grotesque forms of crimes against poor and marginalised people in the ISIS self-declared caliphate. Other Westerners have chosen to join forces fighting ISIS, including joining Kurdish forces. One must be judged on one’s moral actions.

Young Westerners who joined Kurdish fighters against ISIS should be seen as heroes. And young Westerners who joined ISIS should be judged as the equivalent of violent bigoted fascists. Does this mean that former ISIS members like New Zealander Mark Taylor should have all their rights taken from them? Absolutely not.

When we demand due process and the rule of law for the likes of Taylor, we should do so on the basis of protecting civil liberties and hard fought for political freedoms. We must not let the state opportunistically use the case of Western jihadist returnees as a way to chip away at our own civil liberties and political rights. The likes of Mark Taylor and Shamima Begum may have embraced fascist like totalitarianism when they signed up to ISIS. We in contrast need to stand up for political freedoms and moral justice.

 

2) The leaders of the Council of Trade Unions and the Public Service Association have egg on their face after a CTU resolution was passed backing striking junior doctors.

 

The facts:

The top leadership of the Council of Trade Unions (CTU) and the Public Service Association (PSA) had refused to come out in support for striking doctors. And the PSA leadership had played an active role in supporting a moderate breakaway junior doctors’ union. CTU union boss Richard Wagstaff has been accused of effectively backing the government and the District Health Boards (DHBs) with their efforts to thwart the activism of the militant Resident Doctors’ Association (RDA).

Two health sector unions – the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists (ASMS) and the NZ Nurses Association (NZNO) - have stood up to the CTU leadership by taking a resolution to the National Affiliate Council (NAC) of the CTU. The resolution condemned the union-busting efforts of the DHBs. The resolution was carried 9 votes to 4, with 2 abstentions.

 

Analysis:

The passing of this resolution in support of striking doctors is a huge slap in the face for the moderate union leadership of the CTU and PSA. What we are witnessing is effectively the start of a civil war within the union movement itself. More radical union leaders are at battle with more moderate union bosses. The very nature and modus operandi of New Zealand’s union movement has now been brought into question.

 

3) And finally, the government proposes banning ticket scalping

 

The facts:

Ticket reselling is to be regulated in New Zealand. The government is planning to effective ban ticket scalping with a range of new regulations.  Measures will include a price cap on resale tickets

 

Analysis:

Music fans are likely to be happy with this move to ban ticket scalping. But is this an opportunistic measure by the government to win brownie points with young voters? New Zealand has a capitalist economy where market forces are seen as the driver of the sale of goods and services. Orthodox economists would therefore ask the Government, why should the sale of tickets suddenly be heavily regulated, when the free flow of goods and services is allowed in most other areas? Perhaps the Labour-led Government wants its capitalist cake and to eat it too.

___________

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: Critical politics alternative analysis – Cops with guns, Foreign donation ban, India-Pakistan spat

Monday 4 March 2019

 

1) Does New Zealand still have a consensus on having an unarmed police force?

 

The facts:

New Zealand is only one of a handful of countries where most police officers do not carry fire arms. Yet, last week it was announced that all frontline police in Christchurch would be carrying firearms on their person. This extraordinary move was in response to two related instances where Christchurch police were allegedly shot at.

 

Police Minister Stuart Nash fully backed the decision, but denied that this meant that routine arming of police was on the horizon. Media reports of Christchurch residents’ views on the sudden arming of local police revealed a mix of reactions. Some residents were reported as supporting police carrying guns as a necessity for their safety. Other Christchurch locals expressed fears over police abusing guns.

 

Frontline police in the Canterbury region will no longer carry firearms on their person following the arrest of a young man on Sunday. The man has been charged with using an imitation firearm against Police.

 

Analysis:

The general arming of frontline Christchurch police was an extraordinary move. New Zealand is one of five countries where police are unarmed when they are on patrol. Yet the directive for all frontline police in Christchurch to carry guns was only met with a mooted response by the media and by political commentators and political players.

A serious debate is needed here over whether concerns over police safety should trump a historical consensus over New Zealand having an unarmed police force. Regardless of one’s position on arming the police, a thorough debate on the issue should be welcomed. Police should be prevented from arming by stealth. Such a move would be highly undemocratic.

 

Also, questions need to be asked about the alleged shooting at police, and the subsequent arrest of a culprit for carrying an imitation firearm. This story from the police doesn’t seem to add up.

 

2) The Green Party is pushing for a complete ban on foreign political donations.

 

The facts:

A bill banning offshore political donations has been introduced by Golriz Ghahraman. The Green MP has said the aim of her bill is "stop unfair influence and potential corruption in politics".

 

Ghahraman’s bill would also give prisoners the right to vote, allow Māori to change roll types at any time they choose, and lower the MMP threshold to 4 per cent.

 

Analysis:

We live in a period where the public’s concerns over corruption and interference in politics is at an all-time high. Therefore, the move by the Greens to further regulate political donations in NZ is a smart one. The banning of offshore political donations will appeal to many.

However, would such a move be xenophobic, and act to tap into the worse forms of bigoted fears of the foreign Other? Or, would such a ban strengthen NZ’s democracy and act to push back against alleged foreign interference in this country’s political system?

While the Greens are calling for a complete ban on foreign donations, they are only pushing for greater regulations of local donations. This blanket ban on foreign donations, while allowing for local doantions, does seem to be discriminatory.

3) Tensions between the two nuclear powers India and Pakistan are at an all-time high.

 

The facts:

Over the last week both India and Pakistan have been engaged in military strikes against each other. Earlier last week India carried out air strikes within Pakistani controlled-territory. This was in response to a suicide bombing that killed 40 Indian soldiers in Indian-administered Kashmir. A Pakistan-based group claimed responsibility for the attack. Pakistan then retaliated to the Indian air strikes with their own air strikes in Indian-controlled territory.

An escalation of the conflict seemed imminent. However, the return of an Indian fighter pilot by Pakistan has perhaps eased tensions. The Indian air force pilot was shot down in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

 

Analysis:

So, is what is going on between Pakistan and India a big deal? Yes, it’s a fucking big deal! The two countries have enough nukes to wipe each other out. And even a conventional war, without nukes, could lead to millions of deaths.

The current skirmishes between Pakistan and India relate to the ongoing conflict over the region of Kashmir. Kashmir is a majority Muslim area, claimed by both India and Pakistan. An ongoing civil war is occurring in Indian-administered Kashmir.

 

The question of which nation has a legitimate claim over Kashmir is an existential question of identity for both Pakistan and India. Kashmir is a majority Muslim area. Pakistan was founded as a nation for Muslims in South Asia, and on this basis Pakistan claims that Kashmir is an integral part of the Islamic country. India was ostensibly founded as a multi-religious nation-state, and the nation’s founders strongly disagreed with the partition of British India along religious lines. However, the continued rise of Hindu nationalism in India has acted to strengthen Muslim and Kashmiri separatist voices in India.

 

What do Kashmiris actually want? It is generally accepted by South Asian experts that most Kashmiris do not want to be controlled by India. Some Kashmiris just want to be absorbed into Pakistan, while others want to become an independent nation. Also, there has historically been a split within the separatist movement in Kashmir - between secular nationalists against radical Islamists. The Pakistan state and military has tended to support radical Islamists in the Kashmir region.

 

If a full-scale war was to breakout between India and Pakistan, then the conflict over Kashmir would be at the heart of such a war. And such a war could go nuclear.

 

___________

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

 

 

 

The stealthy power of lobbying in New Zealand

Originally published on the Newsroom Pro website in 2018:

 

Lobbyists and PR professionals play an increasingly central role in New Zealand’s political system, and yet the public knows very little about what these people do. But we should. More sunlight shone on the activities of communications professionals active in our democracy would offer greater protection against conflicts of interest and corruption.

 

The hidden persuaders

 

The low visibility of lobbyists and PR professionals is mostly by design. The very nature of their roles involves working behind the scenes – deliberately keeping a low profile, while surreptitiously influencing government and politics on behalf of well-resourced interests. Visibility only invites scrutiny and questioning of their role. So, these agents of influence make a concerted effort to fly beneath the radar.

 

The second reason for their relative anonymity is that their industry is entirely unregulated in New Zealand. Elsewhere in the world, lobbying has been forced to become somewhat more transparent – mostly through laws establishing public registration of lobbying practices.

 

In New Zealand some attempts were made by the Green Party to bring in tighter regulation in 2012. A private member’s bill was progressed, first by Sue Kedgley, and then by Holly Walker, which would have forced lobbying activities involving politicians to have to be declared. But when the bill came to be considered in select committee, the major flaws and overly-simplistic design of the Green legislation became apparent, and the bill was dumped.

 

A third reason that New Zealand society knows so little about lobbying is because the media generally don’t cover the activity much, and when they do, it normally takes the shape of profiles of industry figures, without much probing. This could be partly due to under-resourcing, or perhaps a lack of appreciation of how problematic lobbying can be for the democratic process. Or maybe it’s due to complacency about protecting integrity in politics – after all, according to Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index out today, New Zealand is now officially the least corrupt country on earth.

 

A case study in media coverage

 

Earlier this week I wrote a column for the New Zealand Herald about one particularly concerning lobbying-and-politics relationship – see: The Government's revolving door for lobbyists. The gist of the story is that Jacinda Ardern asked lobbyist Gordon Jon Thompson to be her Chief of Staff in the Prime Minister’s Office for a few months while she put together the new administration. He was hired with the full expectation that he would then return to his lobbying firm, Thompson Lewis, after he finished. And he did that this week – heading straight back into lobbying, taking with him all of his new networks of connections, inside information on the new administration, and the benefits of having hired many of the new staff.

 

Will Thompson’s experience as Ardern’s number one adviser help him in his lobbying activities? One industry insider told me that his firm could now expect a huge increase in customers wanting Thompson’s services, and that he could now start charging significantly higher rates.

 

The story raises plenty of questions about the “revolving door” of elites. This concept – of professionals from government – including politicians and senior public servants – flowing easily into the private sector to be lobbyists, has become so contentious elsewhere in the world that it’s made illegal. France, Canada, Australia, the US, and the USA all have “cooling down” periods that ensure high level political insiders can’t simply shift straight into jobs lobbying the government.

 

So, why did the Thompson story not receive greater media attention? After all, the details were well known.

 

One journalist told me this week, that many in the media won’t write stories – and certainly not negative ones – about lobbyists and spin doctors, because that would be “biting the hand that feeds”. Many of these well-connected lobbyists and party spin doctors provide tip-offs and stories to the journalists.

 

It’s an age-old tool of PR practitioners – to cultivate close relationships with the media, providing them with useful scandals and gossip to write about. It often serves the lobbyist’s cause in their job of influencing public narratives about politics or their clients. But, importantly, it also fosters the symbiotic relationship between the journalist and the PR or lobbying professional – they both benefit from each other, as long as neither turns on the other.

 

Thompson is clearly well thought of by journalists, many of whom regard him as “a mate”. And of course, it is going to be hard for journalists to deal with any stringency with an ex-colleague or someone that they regard as a friend.

 

It’s worth also pointing out that Thompson started out as a journalist, and he has worked in politics, as well as for various corporates. In many ways, he’s become the ultimate “political insider” – and one who is undoubtedly extremely well paid. And of course, he’s not the first – nor will he be the last – journalist to switch sides.

 

So, the story is not only one of New Zealand’s unregulated lobbying industry, but also a reminder of the peculiarities of the very small and closely-networked nature of politics, media and business in New Zealand – and especially in Wellington. There’s something of a harmonious “political class” that underpins how democracy functions – or doesn’t function properly – in this country.

 

As lobbying grows in importance in New Zealand – as it is in the rest of the world – there is likely to be more public demand for investigative work on who the lobbyists are, and how they operate. The public are increasingly suspicious of the influence of “vested interests” on the political system. Journalists – and others – will therefore have to rise to the challenge of digging into this largely unknown sphere.

 

 

Vested interests in political commentary

Originally published on the Newsroom Pro website in 2018:

 

Increasingly, a big part of the media’s coverage of politics involves analysis and commentary, rather than straight news reporting. We see, listen, and read this pundit commentary in all the media – from the Sunday television politics shows, through to even this online column for Newsroom. And as always, there will be various degrees of quality, bias, and usefulness in this commentary. That’s to be expected.

 

But what if some of this commentary is simply PR? What if it’s being informed, not by any attempts to be objective or analytical, but simply because someone is being paid to impart a particular political line? And what if this fact is being deliberately disguised?

 

That’s a situation that many would find repugnant, unethical, or perhaps just boring. Yet there is the suspicion that such political commentary is increasing. There’s a fear that the various pundits and analysts we get explaining and debating politics in New Zealand are representing vested interests. And obviously they often are.

 

Of course, just because someone is financially linked to a certain institution or business – by way of employment or contractual relationship – doesn’t mean that they are representing those clients in their views being imparted, nor that their analysis isn’t robust or useful. It’s always going to be up to the audience to make decisions about that. What to one person might seem like an incisive observation, will be to another person simply a biased hackery. 

 

The crucial factor here is disclosure. The audience needs to know of any conflicts of interest, or simply any significant financial arrangements that the commentator has. And sometimes if those disclosures are known, it might be inappropriate for that person to be commenting publicly on an issue.

 

But it’s not clear that this disclosure is always taken very seriously by commentators or the media that are hosting them. Some media seem rather lax about such ethics. And when disclosure isn’t made, then it’s hard to know whether the views and information being imparted is simply some kind of PR exercise for a vested interest.

 

That’s why the revelations yesterday about a lobbyist and political spin doctor appearing on the RNZ’s The Panel are worth examining and taking seriously. The minor scandal – or at least, what should be a scandal – was exposed during Parliamentary question time, by a number of questions to the Clare Curran the Minister of Communications. You can watch the five-minute video here.

 

It turns out that a communications adviser – i.e. a spin-doctor – working in the Prime Minister’s Office had been a participant on The Panel in February, under the guise of being an independent commentator. In fact, the person, Tracey Bridges, had been introduced to listeners as being from lobbying/PR firm Senate Communications. According to National’s Melissa Lee, this raised ethical questions for RNZ and the Prime Minister’s Office.

 

The allegations were then confirmed by RNZ – see RNZ’s own report by political editor Jane Patterson: National raises questions about RNZ commentator. According to this, RNZ were not aware the Bridges was now working for the Beehive, and the radio station, and programme manager David Allan is quoted saying “It is a timely reminder for RNZ that we need to be fully transparent about any potential conflicts of interest.”

 

Ethical questions arise from this, not just for RNZ, but also for the Prime Minister’s Office. The most obvious is: Was the Prime Minister aware that one of her spin doctors was appearing on RNZ to talk about government policies?

 

But a much more important question is about Tracey Bridges’ lobbyist status. After all, this story follows on from other revelations about the PM hiring lobbyist GJ Thompson as acting Chief of Staff, who has now gone straight back to his lobbying business. What the PM’s office should, therefore, be asked is: Has Bridges declared her other lobbying clients to Jacinda Ardern?

 

This is highly relevant because Bridges has told RNZ, ironically in her defence, that at the time of her involvement on The Panel, she was working for a number of clients of which the Beehive was only one. This, of course, makes the situation much worse. It appears that the lobbyist is working on the Ninth Floor, while also working for others, which raises obvious issues about potential conflicts of interest.

 

Of course, Bridges isn’t the only PR, lobbyist, or partisan communications flack doing political commentary. There’s plenty of others, offering various degrees of transparency about their work and potential conflicts of interest. The media, especially broadcast media, hosts plenty of such paid professionals as pundits. And on the political right, there’s the obvious example of Matthew Hooton on shows such as RNZ’s Nine-to-Noon. In his case, he seems to go out of his way to frequently declare conflicts of interest in terms of clients. And, his affiliations with National are known, and his lobbying firm, Exceltium is declared. But most importantly, unlikely Bridges, he’s not actually working for Beehive. 

 

Nonetheless, surely, it’s time for a bigger conversation about the use of so many PR pundits in the media. Some of these pundits may well have, like Hooton, earned their place as respected political commentators in their own right. But is it good for democracy that punditry is so awash with people who are representing vested interests?

 

Tracey Bridges is simply the latest case study example of a lobbyist or spin doctor being used in our public political debates. What about all the other media trainers who advice politicians, and then turn up on radio or TV to evaluate their performance – there’s been quite a few of these recently. And normally there’s not even any sort of proper declaration of their conflicts of interests.

 

This might make for good TV or radio – after all these are often talented communications experts. And they obviously come to the broadcasters cheaply, but of course, this is simply because they’re being paid by someone else – which is the problem at the heart of all of this. Quite simply, the examination of politics is being taking over by political insiders.

 

It’s time for a clean-up of this practice. Or at least we should be having a transparent debate about it all.