A pragmatic idealist

by WH on April 19, 2019 at 9:30am
ABIGAIL DOUGHERTY/STUFF Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern

In the media question time following Ardern’s humiliating back-down over her favourite campaign plank, Capital Gains Tax, Ardern explained it away by claiming that she was a “pragmatic idealist”.

One would expect that someone with a communications degree would understand that such a statement is an oxymoron, but no, that is what Ardern said.

Pragmatic. adjective: – dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.

Idealist. noun: – a visionary or impractical person.

So we have a self-confessed impractical person who claims to deal with things in a practical way. So glad that the country is in such capable hands.

Audrey Young picked up on Ardern’s pragmatic idealist statement. (As did Soper.) Quote.

[CGT] was [Ardern’s] first captain’s call that she was later forced to reverse when it became too damaging during the election campaign.

Today, she explained her third position on capital gains by saying while she supported it in principle, she was a pragmatic idealist.

Another way to explain it is to imagine the counter-factual.

Pragmatically speaking, if Ardern had not ruled it out, three things would have happened which she has now stopped by refusing to campaign on it again.

National would have hounded Labour about it week in and week out.

Even a diluted capital gains tax would have presented opportunities for National to portray it as a Trojan Horse for further expansion.

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters would have continued to campaign to voters as the ultimate insurance policy against any further expansion of capital gains tax to farms and other businesses.

The only way he could do that now would be to suggest that Labour and Jacinda Ardern might not keep her word on a capital gains tax – and that is not something a Deputy Prime Minister would say about a Prime Minister.

The third reason, and not least, for Ardern’s decision to rule out a future capital gains tax is that the Labour Party base would have expended a lot of energy about whether it should go into its fourth consecutive campaign in 2020 supporting such a contentious tax.

It would have been a distracting and possibly divisive debate.

Ardern has decided it is not worth it. She has built up political capital in her 18 months as Prime Minister and she has decided to cash it in.

This may be her second captain’s call on capital gains tax but this time it is a sensible one, based on pragmatism and her party’s interests rather than idealism. End quote.

 

A newspaper

I doubt anyone believes that Ardern made a captain’s call to cancel the CGT. She was told what to do by her puppet master. The one who keeps her high salary coming in, Winston Peters.

Puppet master Winston. Photoshopped image credit: Luke

What Ardern’s ‘year of delivery’ has delivered so far

by SB on April 19, 2019 at 9:00am
excited new year GIF

An almost dead Capital Gains Tax.

face fail GIF by Cheezburger

A completely flawed and failing Kiwibuild.

six feet under goodbye GIF
six feet under goodbye GIF

A Zero Carbon Act that is unlikely to survive..

rainbow unicorn GIF by Trolli

A Wellbeing Budget next month that will focus less on economic and financial measures and more on unicorn words like ‘human, social and natural capital’ In other words, a PR triumph of style over substance .

Calling us all racists is not the path to racial harmony

by Christie on April 18, 2019 at 9:00am
Dame Susan Devoy

Most of us breathed a sigh of relief when Susan Devoy declined to renew her contract as the head of the Human Rights Commission. She had done a terrible job, and to cap it all off, the Commission was under scrutiny for having an awful culture itself, even though it is supposed to be the main body upholding ALL human rights. Clearly, Ms Devoy must take some responsibility for that, and it is hard not to believe that this was a major factor in her decision not to seek reappointment.

She may be gone, but sadly she is not silenced. Far from it. In the aftermath of the Christchurch massacre, she wrote for The Spinoff, agreeing with similar fools such as Anne Salmond, that we are all racists and have blood on our hands. quote.

But addressing those who over-reacted to her Christmas comments, Devoy wrote: “Do not write an op-ed today crying about how shocking [the Christchurch] murders were. Because you helped make it happen. You helped normalise hatred in our country. You helped those murderers feel that they were representing the thoughts of ordinary New Zealanders.” end quote.

Like many others, she forgets a few inconvenient facts. Brenton Tarrant was not a New Zealander. He chose New Zealand partly because it is a peaceful, tolerant sort of place and also because security tends to be very lax here. How exactly ordinary New Zealanders going about their daily business ‘helped make it happen’, is a mystery.

Devoy was apparently upset that people accused her of waging a ‘war on Christmas’, which she clearly did. As Human Rights Commissioner, she seemed to completely forget that the largest ethnic group in New Zealand has rights too. Especially the right to be able to celebrate their festivities as they see fit, just as minority communities do. After all, we celebrate Chinese New Year and Diwali here quite happily, but the then Human Rights Commissioner wanted to discourage people from celebrating Christmas because it was offensive to racial minorities. No wonder she faced a backlash, but as her emotional rant at The Spinoff shows, she still harbours a grudge about it.

According to her, this is another reason why Brenton Tarrant went on his murderous rampage. This woman is clearly deranged. quote.

But while she was not speaking for the state, Devoy’s comments were quite something from somebody who had occupied such an important position.

And this is why civil libertarians ought to be concerned at calls for more censorship in the wake of the Christchurch murders. Because while those in favour of more state control of opinions protest that they are only talking about extremist views, the polarised political times have produced a tendency to soften the definition of extremism.

Banning fascism is a more troubling proposition if you have a proclivity to declare almost everyone with whom you disagree of being a fascist.

And this gets to the problem with censorship. Those in favour of more Government regulation of opinions invariably point out that they wish to restrict the most odious forms of speech which, in theory, should be reassuring.
Yet we live in an era when all the loudest people spend quite a bit of time accusing each other of being Nazis all day.

Stuff. end quote.

People like Susan Devoy really need to be ignored. She never accepted that people had the right to express their opinions on her stance about Christmas. Ordinary New Zealanders are less likely to adopt an inclusive stance if they see their way of life being threatened, and the former Human Rights Commissioner should understand that encouraging inclusiveness, rather than lecturing people about how bad they are, is the path to racial harmony. Yes, she may have seen cases of racism in her role, but she was blind to the racism that she herself was guilty of.

Most of us encounter people of other races on a daily basis, and we don’t care at all. I like to think I judge people by who they are, not by how they look. There are good and bad people in all races and, if anything, the Christchurch massacre opened up the world of Muslim New Zealanders to us in a way not seen before. I was impressed by what I saw. And yet, I have lost count of the number of times I have effectively been called a white supremacist. People like Susan Devoy beat a path of righteousness, unaware of the enormous damage they are doing. It is time for this nonsense to stop.

A good read

I wrote this story in The Australian newspaper regarding Rugby Australia’s plan to sack Israel Folau:

The so-called Israel Folau affair, if we dismantle the humbug, can be summed up quite simply.

If the young man is not free to state his religious views, let alone Christian views, then we are all in trouble.

It would be helpful if people analysed what he said before condemning him to rugby oblivion.

He issued a warning to “drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists, idolaters, hell awaits you, repent, only Jesus saves”.

“Jesus Christ loves you and has given you time to turn away from your sin and come to him.”

For this he faces, it appears, the termination of his playing career.

Of course, the fools who run Australian Rugby, and I use the word advisedly, because on so many other fronts, they have proven their foolishness — are preaching breach of contract while at the same time demonstrably being in breach of their own procedures.

Before proclaiming Folau’s guilt, one would have thought he is entitled to the deliberation of a tribunal. And perhaps, just perhaps, Israel might be given a chance to defend himself.

No, none of that. We have read that his contract is to be ripped up and he will never play again.

And in an edict reminiscent of a Romanian or Soviet dictator, he has been banned from joining his teammates in training and is not welcome at team functions.

As former federal MP Wilson Tuckey wrote at the weekend, “In the days of the Roman Empire, to stand up in public to espouse your Christianity was most likely to result in a trip to the Colosseum for a brief meeting with a couple of hungry lions for the entertainment of the masses. The Israel Folau case indicates that little has changed in today’s ‘progressive empire’.’’

Those arguing for the prosecution of the young man preach about terms of his contract and the “values of the game”. If the “values” of the game involve censorship or, what’s worse, termination for articulating Christian values that are as old as Christianity itself, then it is Rugby Australia that needs to change not Folau.

Of course, Rugby Australia wants to parade as guardians of morality yet this has got nothing to do with morality and everything to do with money.

Qantas presumably has threatened to pull its sponsorship. It has played this game before. The Qantas CEO Alan Joyce has tried this on in the past.

He is entitled to his view even though, apparently, Israel is not. But surely he cannot appropriate his view to the whole Qantas family. Alan Joyce apparently does not agree with Israel, but there are thousands in the Qantas family who do not agree with Alan Joyce.

Israel Folau is from a devoutly religious Polynesian family. He has not sought to impose his views on anybody. He has merely repeated, as one correspondent wrote at the weekend, “what his religion has held for thousands of years. Whether you choose to believe it is up to you. And if you don’t, then probably you don’t believe in hell either. I suspect that had Folau been a Muslim stating exactly the same religious beliefs that, in the unlikely event he was dismissed, it would have led to calls of Islamophobia”.

We have come to the turning point in a long road.

This has been going on for too long and the whingers, the whiners and the self-appointed victims have tried to shut people up on a variety of fronts.

They have not succeeded in shutting up Israel Folau so the demand is for punishment, banishment and termination.

It’s interesting that the drunks and the liars and the thieves and the fornicators and the atheists are not complaining. Those who are, are the ones who expect tolerance towards themselves and their views but won’t extend that tolerance to others.

And let’s face it. People who differ in their views from Israel Folau, and there are many, have the same opportunity as he has to put their views on social media; and are free to criticise him. But they don’t want that. ­Minorities know that in today’s world you can shut anyone up if you complain and whinge loudly enough.

Here is a young man, a dedicated Christian expressing a legitimate view based on biblical teaching and he has been made a pariah.

Put simply, Christians around the world are under siege. It appears that sanctions of the most draconian kind are now being imposed on Christians here who dare to proclaim their faith.

It is interesting to note that ­Israel’s post was “liked” by several of his teammates.

Consistency has never been the long suit of the discredited ­administrators of Australian rugby. But if they are to be consistent here, they surely must sack his teammates.

But there are a lot of Pacific ­island players around the world, also deeply religious, who support Israel Folau.

Is not Qantas in partnership with a national airline whose government imposes laws infinitely more damaging to homosexuals than Israel’s utterance of his biblical beliefs?

But without the Qantas money, I hear it argued, rugby goes broke and Israel has destroyed the game.

This is fanciful nonsense.

Rugby Australia has proven unable to adequately manage the game and its finances to such an extent that it now has to go cap in hand to Qantas and, shamefully, do its bidding.

What is the old saying? We’ll jump, just tell us how high.

Interestingly, the federal government recently appointed an eminent former High Court judge, Robert French, to investigate the denial of free speech in universities.

Among other things, French argued that the perception of a free speech crisis is enough to create a chilling effect on the flow of ideas.

In a 300-page report, the former High Court chief justice recommends that universities adopt a model code that states that staff and students have a right to enjoy freedom of speech.

Rugby Australia should adopt a similar model code and be done with the hypocrites who demand tolerance and approval which they won’t extend to others.

Not for the first time, Israel Folau has shown a rare degree of moral courage.

It is in this, even beyond his rugby skills, that the example lies for young people who have been his supporters. Rugby has joined a battle in the minds of the vast ­majority of the rugby public that it cannot win.

Face of the day

by Whaleoil staff on April 17, 2019 at 6:30am

[…] Tamaki [said] it was his “God-given responsibility” to preach the word of the holy spirit, declaring he is here to protect Kiwis’ freedom of speech.

“The war that will rage is a confrontation of beliefs. I am confident I speak for many New Zealanders, who don’t have a voice or public profile but still believe in the Bible as the Word of God, and the supreme authority in all matters of faith and morality, and we will not accept it being censored in any way,”

[…] “The war we will fight, although non-violent, will be resolute in its stand. We will strongly declare what we believe through protest, submissions or whatever means we can or at our disposal to protect our right as New Zealanders’ to freedom of speech.”
[…] Tamaki says the lack of consultation is an insult to New Zealanders and he will let the Government push through legislation without a fight.
“We will not go along with, or lay down while this Government push through quick legislation or law that has not had the appropriate participation, consultation and involvement of those who will be affected by that legislation or law,”

[…] “This is short-sight, and often regrettable law.
“I for one will not be bound in my pulpit. I have the right, and indeed the God-given responsibility to preach the Word of God in my Church any given Sunday.
“I abore the way my preaching has been taken out of context and used against me by opportunists for the purposes of creating news, [for example] my message spoken in 2011 the Sunday morning before the Christchurch earthquake.
What do you say about inciting hate towards me and the Word of God through the twisted reporting of that message? How is it that media and other minority groups now have more freedom to use whatever platform at their disposal to incite hatred towards the founding faith of this nation.”

The White Nationalist who wasn’t

by SB on April 14, 2019 at 9:30am

The MSM recently got very excited this week as they went on a witch hunt to find a juicy target. He seemed to fit all their talking points. There was talk of him wearing Pro-Trump clothing and of being a White Nationalist. They were wetting their pants with excitement. We were told that he had made a public nuisance of himself, being horrible to people outside a mosque and that the police were now looking for him.

Keeping the spin alive that White supremacy is a growing movement in New Zealand and that there are White Nationalists under every rock is what the MSM are depending on right now to sell papers. They can only milk the Christchurch tragedy for so long and they need new evidence of hate and division in our society in order to advance the narrative of hatred and division.

Finally they found the guy and then the stories abruptly stopped.

Disappointingly his surname really didn’t suit the White Nationalist theme story – it wasTuapawa. He wasn’t a member of any Nationalist groups. Instead, he was a man who had stopped taking his anti-anxiety medication and who was on drugs and alcohol at the time of the incident. Far from being a card-carrying White supremacist, he was extremely apologetic and embarrassed by his behaviour.

The reporters must have been deeply disappointed. quote.

A man wearing a Trump shirt who abused people outside a mosque targeted in the Christchurch terror attack wants to say sorry to the victims of his insulting behaviour.
Daniel Nicholas Tuapawa, 33, a labourer, says he cannot remember his actions, has nothing against Muslim people, and was shocked and distressed when police showed him the video taken by a witness. 

[…] He pleaded guilty to “being in a public place when he behaved in an insulting manner that was likely in the circumstances to cause violence against persons to start”.

[…] About 4.30pm on Wednesday, Tuapawa, wearing a black shirt with the words “Trump for New Zealand” on the back, yelled abuse at members of the Muslim community gathered at Masjid Al Noor on Deans Ave, where more than 40 people were shot dead in the March 15 terror attack.
He yelled: “I am sick of these f…wits, they need to f… off,” and “All Muslims are terrorists, they should get the f… out of here”, and “I’m over these Muslims and they need to leave”.
Two armed police officers were present at the mosque, but did not arrest him. He walked off through Hagley Park. Six officers worked all day Thursday to try find the man, arresting him that night.

[…] Defence counsel Steven Hembrow said Tuapawa was deeply ashamed and could not explain his behaviour.
He said he had gone walking through the park, stopped to look at flowers and could not remember what happened next.
[…] Hembrow said Tuapawa had a history of alcohol and drug abuse, and had stopped his medication for anxiety for some time before this incident.
Tuapawa said outside court that he had blackouts and needed to get his mental health “sorted”.

[…] He said he was “so sorry” about what he said and had not realised he said what he did. “I’m very sorry and I would shake their hand. I’m sorry, I am.”

Marama goes where Golriz fears to tread

 by SB on April 12, 2019 at 8:30am

 

When asked how a hate speech law change in New Zealand would affect freedom of religion, Green list MP Golriz Ghahraman, like many campaigners against hate speech, did not want to discuss it. When asked directly if she would condemn Islamic Brunei’s strict religious laws that prescribe death by stoning for homosexuals and adulterers Ghahraman refused to answer the question.

The co-leader of the Greens Marama Davidson however, yesterday rushed in boots and all, quite happy to publicly condemn a personally held religious belief as hate speech.

Marama Davidson MP

✔@MaramaDavidson

Israel Folau’s bigoted comments about our rainbow whānau and our transgender community are the opposite of peace-building. Rugby Australia c’mon this is hate speech.

211 people are talking about this

There is a very good reason why Golriz Ghahraman has avoided discussing this particular problem with the proposed hate speech laws. That is because anyone with half a brain can see that they are religious blasphemy laws brought in through the back door. Marama, in her hurry to score points against Israel Folau, has exposed this issue for all to see.

Christian bashing has always been a favourite pastime of the Left and if they are fundamentalists who follow the old testament rather than the new testament then they are an even bigger target.

However, if fundamentalist Christians are committing hate speech by expressing their religious views about gays and transgenders then so are Muslims whose holy books and religious law calls for gays and transgenders to be killed.

If the old testament part of the Bible is full of hate speech and needs to be banned then so is the Koran and all the Hadiths which are full of calls to action that are hateful and violent.

The Green party can’t have it both ways and, by unleashing on Israel Folau, Marama Davidson has opened up a massive can of worms that exposes very clearly why we cannot allow hate speech laws to go through.

Hate speech laws will take away all religious freedom and will logically force both the Bible and the Koran to be banned.

Marama seems too thick to realise that by bashing fundamentalist Christians she is bashing fundamentalist Muslims. If she takes away freedom of religion for Christians she is also taking away freedom of religion for Muslims and indeed every other religion.

Maori land must be exempt from CGT

by Christie on April 13, 2019 at 9:00am

As the arguments for and against Capital Gains Tax go back and forth, an inevitable question rears its very ugly head. What about Maori land? Will that be subject to CGT? On the face of it, there is no obvious reason why not. All land sales are to be subject to CGT. Yet even before the government has come out and signalled its intentions regarding the treatment of the sale of Maori land, we already have those campaigning in favour of a special exemption for iwi. This could make the whole issue, complex as it already is, completely divisive.

First of all, I would like to say that the issue will probably not become a major one, because not much Maori land is ever sold. With the Maori attitude being that they see themselves as tied to their land, it goes without saying that they will not part with it easily. However, there will be times when land is sold, possibly to free up capital for other projects. This will particularly apply to those iwi that have used their settlement funds to set up in business.

While I’m prepared to consider any arguments put forward that suggest exemptions should apply for Maori land, the first of such arguments falls flat on its face straight away. See what you think of this. quote.

Naturally, no-one enjoys parting with their hard-earned cash – which is why the proposed capital gains tax is such a great idea. It fairly taxes cash which is not hard-earned. It taxes money you make from sitting on land and doing nothing. Money you make because you already have enough cash to invest would be taxed under this scheme. It stops double dipping, and closes a loophole which lets investors pay less tax than the rest of us. end quote.

All of that is rubbish, of course. Most people paid for their assets with ‘hard earned’ (and already taxed) money. It doesn’t stop double dipping in any way. It merely taxes the profit made on the sale of an asset. quote.

One possibility is to exempt the “family home” from the tax – this is mostly just a crowd-pleasing idea, which will almost certainly be exploited. end quote.

Yes, the exemption of the family home is definitely being exploited, but not in the way Glenn McConnell thinks. So many family homes have been specifically excluded from the exemption, (lifestyle blocks, homes with a room used as an office, homes that have rented out rooms) that it is almost pointless. quote.

While business people across the nation scramble for excuses about why they shouldn’t pay this very fair tax, iwi leaders have found a reason which actually stacks up: They’ve already had their land “taxed” numerous times. end quote.

Er… what? quote.

The exemption of hapū and iwi held land is essential to the integrity of a capital gains tax. Unlike property developers and investors, Māori will not make a capital gain from their land. Because of Crown abuse, they have lost capital.

end quote.

The original price paid, whenever it was, is irrelevant to capital gains tax. The land will be valued at the date of the implementation of the tax, and any capital gains made on sale after that will be taxed. Same rules apply to everyone. If there was a loss of capital at some point in the past, it is irrelevant. All that matters is the value of the land now. quote.

By 1975, Māori had about 3 per cent of their land. The other 97 per cent certainly wasn’t sold for a capital gain.

When the Treaty claims settlements came along, Iwi Chairs Forum spokesman Ngahiwi Tomoana said Māori settled for about 2 per cent of the value of their claims.

“We already think we have been taxed 98 per cent of our Treaty settlement,” he told RNZ‘s Te Manu Korihi. end quote.

I repeat, CGT has nothing to do with former values or settlements for less than (what is perceived by the parties to be) fair value. It is a tax on sale price less the value of the asset on the day the tax was introduced. What McConnell is talking about happened decades ago. It is nonsense.

McConnell’s argument seems to be, because Maori have not had all the lands they previously ‘owned’ returned to them, they should be exempt from the application of CGT, because, somehow, he views the fact that 97% of the land was not returned to Maori as a form of taxation. This is nonsense. He is applying one issue – the ‘return’ of Maori land – to another where there is no nexus whatsoever. If only 97% of Maori land was ‘returned’ to Maori, that does not provide an exemption from paying tax. The two issues are poles apart. quote.

Desperate as ever, it appeared the National Party was willing to forgo important facts and histories to make it seem like Māori would be granted some sort of unfair advantage.

Stuff. end quote.

It would be an unfair advantage, and if the government adopts this policy, it could blow the whole issue wide apart. Many groups think themselves to be unfairly disadvantaged by the tax, such as those who have rented out rooms in their homes to make ends meet, or such as people with Kiwisaver funds. If an iwi opts to sell land, it should be treated in the same way as everyone, and it would be an unfair advantage if that were not the case.

Prepare yourselves for more of these arguments though. This one can be batted away easily for the pure idiocy that it is. The next argument may not be quite so ridiculous.

Golriz goes too far

by Christie on April 1, 2019 at 8:00am
Green party list MP Golriz Ghahraman

We have all observed how, after the Christchurch massacre, both Marama Davidson and Golriz Ghahraman have used their platform of love and inclusion to incite hatred, particularly towards those of European descent. It is a huge paradox, of course. In an attempt to eliminate ‘hate’, they incite hate against a different racial group.

If there really is a strong movement of white supremacy in New Zealand (and I can honestly say I am not aware of it at all), then it is fair enough to condemn the attitude that prevails. While Brenton Tarrant was clearly of that type of thinking, he was an Australian and he does not totally fit the definition of a ‘white supremacist’. Remember, he called himself an ‘eco-fascist’ and, until now, we had no idea that such thinking existed.

You could put the current anti-white rhetoric down to an emotional reaction to a terrible massacre but we should always reject condemning a whole group because of the actions of one madman. This is what we are always told when an Islamic terrorist goes on the rampage and it is fair enough too. Most Muslims are peaceful people who just want to get on with their lives. But then so are most Europeans and, for some reason, this is not a tenable view any more.

Here is Golriz’s latest, extremely offensive tweet.

Spider bite@ExciteableBouy

View image on Twitter

Golriz Ghahraman

✔@golrizghahraman

You realise white supremacists are historically big into mass murder of the Rainbow community right? If you want to associate an entire race or religion with the way extremists treat minorities you would have to start with people of Western European descent. Wonder why you aren’t

70 people are talking about this

This is a shameful and disgraceful statement for a member of our parliament. I am truly shocked by this statement. Even for Golriz
Ghahraman, this is extreme, and she has said some unacceptable things, particularly recently.

First of all, I am honestly not aware of any kind of ‘mass murder’ of the Rainbow community by Europeans anywhere. Golriz was, of course, replying to justified questions about Brunei’s decision to reintroduce the practice of stoning gay people to death. It is a barbaric practice that just about everyone in New Zealand will find horrific, but Golriz cannot condemn it. Instead, she has to deepen her anti-white rhetoric, basically by simply making stuff up.

I am not saying that no gay or trans people have ever suffered any kind of discrimination in New Zealand but, by and large, most people accept them as part of the community. While it is always unusual to come across a trans person, mainly because the numbers are so small, nevertheless, most of them are able to live in their communities with at least a modicum of peace and tolerance. Gay people are mainstream these days. No one cares. Here, they have equal rights unlike for gay or trans people in the Islamic world, as Brunei is illustrating. Golriz should have the decency to acknowledge that.

Instead, she simply fabricates events to pour forth more and more bile onto people of European descent, the vast majority of whom tolerate gay and trans people with a live-and-let-live attitude.

This person has no place in the parliament of a country that is generally peaceful and tolerant. Most European New Zealanders, horrified by the Christchurch massacre, are actually making an effort to reach out to members of other ethnic communities, feeling a small amount of guilt, not about the shootings themselves, but about the fact that people from other ethnic groups feel marginalised, and that is not the New Zealand we want to live in.

Nobody wanted the Christchurch shootings to happen.

Golriz Ghahraman needs to step down as a member of our parliament until she is able to adopt an attitude of peace and tolerance herself; not just to minorities, but to all New Zealanders of all racial groups.

She is the loudest promoter of hate in our parliament, and it has to stop. Now.