Category Archives: Peter Dunne

Apartheid, Bigotry and Hate, Christian Libertarianism, Constitution, Freedom, Guns, Imbeciles In Large Numbers, Indoctrination, Justice, King James Bible, Liberate your Mind!, Libertarianz, Local Government, Megadeth, Nanny State, NZ First, Peter Dunne, Racism, Refugees, Satan Laughing Spreads His Wings, Sheeple, Socialism, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Winston Peters

The Great Xenophobe Winston Peters Fathers NZ Asian Political party.

3 Comments

winston-peters-1200

The Master Puppeteer Winston Peters has gullible Pakeha Kiwi dancing to his fiddle again.
Supportive posts of his latest antics are flowing into my Facebook news feed.

Winston Peters has always been a populist politician … Its always about the math.
Never allowing his politics to be scuttled by un-popular moral principle… yet always opportunistic to suiting up his self-interested populism in some pious garb….whenever convenient.

This time he has climb upon his soapbox to Cry outrage at the foundation of an Asian political party…

Read /watch Here> Peters lashes out at ‘ethnic-based’ People’s Party

“The Gaul of these Boat People! We let them in out of the goodness of our hearts… they steal all our jobs, Buy up all our houses”…. they are taking over the Joint!…We should ship them all back to Katmandu!”

No… sorry Winston never said that… *Not exactly that* … yet again that is exactly the sort of mindset he’s pandering too… of the sort of people who Idolize him… laugh at his jokes… and keep voting for him.

Yet Lets ask the obvious question… why on earth would Kiwi Indians and Asians ever think they would need such a political Party?

I agree that there can be no legitimacy for Racial parties… that the rise of such phenomena is frightfully regressive, yet when it comes to politics of race… of all people *The hypocrisy* of Winston Peters is staggering!
*He of all New Zealand politicians * has made political Capital by attacking Asian immigration, Asians buying property, Asians driving on our roads, etc etc…. to the degree that His pandering to Xenephobia would be the chief reason he has remained in parliament for so long.

*Given the Racist nature* of New Zealand politics and Media, we should not be surprised that some Kiwi Asians have thought that establishing their own Political party to champion their own interests is a smart idea.
So Winston truly is a scoundrel… and New Zealanders who buy into his Posturing are as thick as two short planks… allowing such a Charlatan to play them so easily… lapping up his Bullshit…. never holding him to account for his own despicable politics…. because he’s smart enough to *pander to the despicable and ignorant opinions of the Sheepish Kiwis.

6a00d83451d75d69e20147e06f5a50970b

This is the Political environment Shameful Politicians of division have created… and Winston Peters Ranks Right up there with Tariana Turia, and The rest of the Racist Maori politicians.
Whereas The Maori radicals have made political capital out of stiring up Maori grievance and victimism, Winston Peters has not simply Capitalized off the Pakeha Backlash… which is legitimate, he has pandered to a deeply rooted Xenephobia towards Migrants, and Asian migrants in particular…. the sort of small minded, easily spooked paranoia that lurks within almost every population… and is a ‘sure bet’… for Populist politicains the world over…. the most famous of these currently being the Republican party candidate for US President Donald Trump.

donald-trump

Ever wonder why Western Civilisation is a sinking ship?
Trumps Campaign has been propelled forward by tapping into the very same *Bigoted* and Paranoia driven mindset lurking within so many Americans…. and it is these sorts of Popular phobias and prejudices that make Democracy a frighteningly Barbarous and Backward means of choosing Political leadership, and granting them the powers that they may wield.

It is because Democracy tends to be driven by mass hysteria rather than ‘Mass wisdom’ that an Enlightened Constitution is essential… to enshrine *The Rule of Law*… Principles of Justice… and limits to Government power… to Keep Populist Politicians in check and prevent them from enacting Laws that dont embody the principle of Equality for all regardless of Race, sex, etc.
It is only when a nation has no such Constitutional Defense, That Politicians like Trump and Winston Peters think they can win votes by making Statements that patently single out ethic groups to be politically suppressed and legally dis-advantaged.
So despite what so many Pakeha think about Winston Peters being ‘a great man of principle because he vocally condemns special treatment for Maori… in reality *He is exactly the same sort of Politician as the Racist Maori radicals*… when it comes to Asian ethnicties…
Yet of course they turn a blind eye to this… because Winston is pandering *To their personal anti-asian sentiments.
This is what really pisses me off the most about so many people in the ‘One Law for all’ movement… In reality the only evil they are fighting is the Waitangi racism that directly disadvantages themselves…. in the next breath they are quite happy to forget all about racial equality and freedom… and to support politicians who peddle Racist politics against a demographic they personally fear and disdain.
So underneath their pious calls for One law for all… there still lurks a petty mind driven wholly by self-interest… the use of the Principle of Equality is little more than a convenient tool to get their own way… Tragic.

korea

The American Constitution is Battered and Crumbling… their population has become virtually lobotomized as to what their constitution represents, why It says the things it does, and how it is being subverted…
Without an Ironclad constitution Democratic Government is not *Lex Rex*….The Rule of Law…. but the opposite…. completely arbitrary… the rule of whim… and its that whim that is the play thing of populist politicians… (many like Peters and Dunne vocally express their contempt for ‘Ideology baced politics.)

This Millenia has been called ‘The Information Age’, yet in reality I think a better term is “The age of Bullshit”.
The Law of Compensation appears Ironclad.
On one side of the scale… The Internet, and social media have created an unprecedented freedom of information, and made it almost impossible for Governments and the powers that be to prevent uncomfortable facts for becoming public knowledge… so that one of the greatest aspects of political powers has been how they can keep their secrets secret… punish whistle-blowers, etc… all the while claiming to be ‘transparent’ and for justice to be seen being done (yet still allowing secret courts, Police to charge private citizens filming them, etc)

Many Believe the Internet is therefore this positive power for the people…

Sadly there is a Natural… ugly… counter-balance… the Law of Compensation…

Because of the internet, and social media there exists today an unprecedented means for Mass Bullshit, paranoia mongering, and herding the Sheeple…. Burring the truth under mountains of lies…. mis-directing the gaze of the population away from issues of great magnitude.. towards petty disputes and follies.
And The shear Volumes of Miss-information, lies, and Chaos renders the Internet just as much a tool for control of the masses as a tool for liberation.

The internet and social media *Expose the Pettiness and Mass delusions* of humanity… the shared ignorance and commonly held evils that lurk within the minds of men… of various societies… that have been cultivated, manipulated, and capitalised upon by the likes of Trump and Winston Peters.

Standing against the Politics of Race, as A Libertarian not only have I actively opposed Waitangi Treaty separatism, Special Indigenous Rights and Seats in Government for Maori, I have also campaigned of a New Constitution that outlaws Racist political institutions and Laws, and Guarantees equal rights and liberties for all.

When standing for Council, I have attended Election Meeting organised by Asian community groups and when asked about then having representatives in Council to promote their interests, Often I was the only candidate who stood up and said that as a Libertarian I would listen to the Asian communities concerns and applications with the same care as to any other sector of the community… and that I believed my position was the *minimum standard* and principle that All politicians ought to adhere to… and that the notion that various ethnicities need to have *Race based Representation* to get justice… was a very sorry situation.

*It is true* that many Indian/Asian migrants working in Convenience stores, Liquor outlets, and Gas stations have born a greater share than most of New Zealands rising violent crimes… and that successive governments have not merely turned a blind eye towards their plight… but have systematically made things much worse… in so many ways.
Not only have theses Businessmen and workers been left easy prey… denied their right to keep defensive weapons available to protect themselves from violent dangerous criminal determined to Rob them… Rapacious Tax Greedy Nanny State Social policies have caused the value of Cigarettes, and Alcohol, Fuel.. to sky rocket… making them a valuable contraband on the black market… and also making the Cash registers of these businesses much more attractive to Criminals.
As a Libertarian I directly campaigned advocating the right of Dairy, Liquor store, and Gas station owners and operators to have the means of self defense at hand, and also Spoke out against the Rapacious taxation.

If we had a Libertarain constitution and form of Government, It would be clear to Asians New Zealanders that they were at no political disadvantage… not an alien population… but Fully enfranchised and enjoy Full Liberty, and protection of the Law… to raise their families… to work for their own prosperity… and pursue their own happiness.

Tim Wikiriwhi
Christian Libertarian.

Read > Tim Wikiriwhi’s Submission to the New Zealand Government’s Constitutional Review. 2013

4221396001_4651092960001_TRUML

Postscript:

Politicians are Famous fabulous Liars and feigners… along with Lawyers, Insurance salesmen, and Used car dealers.

That Lies and falsehoods exist in reality is not something any sane person would deny.
Science tell us the Universe had a beginning… and so logic demands that there has been a finite amount of time from that beginning, and that at some point backwards… some one…. some being *Told the first lie*.
Someone invented Lying.
The Bible says this first ‘Father of Lies’ was Lucifer/ Satan.
The Bible also says that using lies Satan deceived Mankind and convinced man to sin/ rebel against God Almighty… and that is where all our troubles as a species began.
Jesus calls the Lost ‘Children of Darkness’… Children of the Devil…
“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”
John8;44

The Internet… and this ‘Age of Bullshit’… proves just how True the Bible is.

752021

And How Naive to view such Politician like Peters and Trumps as Saviors of Humanity!
They wear a cloack of Righteousness, yet are ministers of Satan… playing the Devils game… with that Hapless legions of lost souls… of the Children of the Damned.
Satan Laughing spreads his wings.

The Gospel of Democracy is False.
That is the moral of this story.

Jesus said “Broad is the way that leadeth to Damnation and many there be thereon. Narrow is the way that leads to life and Few there be that find it”…. so… according to scripture… *Following the many* is not a wise principle… it certainly is not a valid moral justification for Law.

ACT, Censorship, Christmas, Ephesians, Free Speech, Humour, Keeping It Real, King James Bible, Liberate your Mind!, Martin Luther, Matthew, Peter Dunne, Proverbs, Semantics, Things Jesus Never Said

Salt is a four-letter word

1 Comment

[WARNING: This blog post contains lots of very strong language and is practically guaranteed to give offence to weak-minded prudes. Please proceed at your own risk.]

vl5tk

The use–mention distinction is a foundational concept of (Western analytic) philosophy. To fail to recognise the distinction is, at best, to invite disaster.

The following true statements illustrate the distinction.

(1) Salt is an ionic compound, viz., sodium chloride (NaCl).
(2) ‘Salt’ is a four-letter word.

The first sentence is a statement about the substance called “salt”—it uses the word ‘salt’ to refer to that substance. The second is a statement about the word ‘salt’—it mentions the word without using it to refer to anything other than itself.

‘Salt’ is a four-letter word. Salt is not a four-letter word. And neither salt nor ‘salt’ is a four-letter word in the usual idiomatic (and only incidentally numeric) sense of the term. It’s perfectly polite and indeed good table manners to ask someone please to the pass the salt!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMkNsMMvrqk

In this post I want to say a few words about four-letter words (e.g., ‘fuck‘ and ‘shit‘) and their cognates (e.g. ‘fucking shit‘) and briefly discuss whether (and in what contexts) Christians ought or ought not to be using such vulgarities and profanities.

And it struck me that the perfect way to make the main point I want to make is to recycle the metaphor that Jesus uses in Matthew 5:13 right after the Beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus says to his followers

You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot. (NIV)

George Carlin aptly refers to the words I’m talking about as “just words which we’ve decided not to use all the time.” And “that’s about the only thing you can say about them for sure.” Carlin’s bang on the money! Because, if we used the words all the time, they’d lose their “saltiness”! They’d no longer be effective cuss words and they’d no longer be good for anything more than just plain old communication. Which would be a dingleberry of a disappointment.

(Or would it? If we no longer had an inventory of “reserved” words with which to insult others effectively, we’d have to relearn the art of the insult. And our prose would begin to be colourful like Bill Shakespeare‘s or Martin Luther‘s prose is colourful. And actually that would be fucking awesome!)

Say what you mean and mean what you say. Is probably the one blog post of mine I regularly link to. It explains how (according to me, but I’m not wrong) words acquire their meanings. The meaning of a word (any word) is determined by the conventions that govern its use. And those conventions can and do vary between different communities of language users. Amongst the kind of people I usually hang out with, the words ‘fuck’ and ‘shit’ are used fairly indiscriminately. They’ve pretty much lost their saltiness in those contexts. (But I use those words extremely judiciously, if at all, if I’m having dinner with, say, my mum or any of her older friends.) Whereas both I and my peers still tend to hold back on using the terms ‘cunt’ and ‘motherfucker’. Those two words remain mostly reserved for when we need convenient terms to refer to truly despicable people, such as Peter Dunne.

But here’s the interesting thing. In the circles in which I usually move, the words ‘cunt’ and ‘motherfucker’ can cease to be insults at all simply by prefixing them with the words ‘good’ and ‘formidable’ respectively. To call someone a good cunt is to pay them a genuine compliment. And it is a mark of utmost respect to call someone a formidable motherfucker. Mohammed Ali was a formidable motherfucker. Vladimir Putin is a formidable motherfucker. Good or evil, you don’t want to cross such people! Not unless it’s from a safe distance, anyway. (I.e., well outside of Russia in the latter case.)

Let another praise you, and not your own mouth; a stranger, and not your own lips. (ESV)

Here’s a picture taken Wednesday evening of me (on the right) and a couple of good cunts. 🙂 🙂

good_cunts

Now to the question, ought Christians to be using the sort of language I’ve been using here? The answer is simple common sense, really. It depends on the context and the occasion and the company. None of the cuss words above is at all appropriate during a church service, for example. (But you may say “piss” if you’re reading from the KJV.) Such terms should be used sparingly, if at all, in polite company. Because they’re impolite. But in impolite company (such as on my Facebook page) they’re not impolite. Here’s what the Apostle Paul says

Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. (NIV)

Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. (NIV)

It’s contextual, you see. Don’t go calling someone a good cunt if it’s “out of place” to do so. But do go calling them that if it’s “helpful for building them up according to their needs.”

I’ll finish by noting that there’s a big tension between being a good cunt and being a formidable motherfucker. If you succeed at being both simultaneously then you’re practically a saint.

2 Corinthians, ACT, ALCP, John, Labour Party, Metallica, National Party, Peter Dunne, Romans, Satan Laughing Spreads His Wings, Vote 2014

Am I evil? Yes I am.

Leave a comment

I’ve been honoured once again to have received Liberty Scott’s endorsement of my candidacy in his 2014 New Zealand voting guide for lovers of liberty.

Statue of Liberty

 
 
Mana – Safe Labour – Richard Goode Kris Faafoi or Hekia Parata? To hell with them both, vote for libertarian Richard Goode standing under the ALCP banner. He believes in more than just legalising weed, he believes in a smaller state and so your vote will be principled.

It’s true. I do believe in a smaller state and I am principled. Well, mostly.

I had intended to post my own series of Eternal Vigilance electorate candidate endorsements. In the end, I posted only two, one for Grant Keinzley and one for Alistair Gregory. Why only two?

I ran out of time, as I so often do. More exactly, I ran out of time to do a proper job. I’m a bit of a perfectionist, you see. And that brings me to the other reason I posted only two endorsements in the end. The paucity of perfect candidates, indeed the paucity of anywhere-near-perfect candidates. As far as candidates worthy of a Christian libertarian’s endorsement go, Alistair Gregory is about as good as it gets. But I have since had serious qualms about my other candidate endorsement and I resile from it.

Here at Eternal Vigilance we champion principle over pragmatism. Two of us (me and Tim) are former Libertarianz activists, candidates and spokesmen. Libertarianz was New Zealand’s only Party of Principle, and Tim and I actively carry on its proud tradition of promoting more freedom and less government. As do some other former Libz members, two of whom are running as candidates for the pseudo-libertarian ACT Party this election. (Although at least one former Libz activist is beyond giving a shit.)

To its great credit, and the credit of all in the party at the time, Libertarianz never compromised. Even to the point of promoting the practically unworkable Tracinski’s ratchet. The Libz recognised that the greater good is never a moral defence of government action, and voting for the lesser evil is always morally indefensible. (Are you ratcheting evil?)

Sensing the Libertarianz Party’s impending demise, I jumped waka and joined the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party. Legalising cannabis is a libertarian policy, and it was the policy of the Libertarianz Party for which I was the Spokesman on Drugs, so there was no cognitive dissonance for me and no ill-feeling from any of my fellow libertarians who all wished me well with my open infiltration of the ALCP. (Check out the ALCP’s ten principles and tell me if you see a libertarian influence.)

But the devil is in the details. While I steadfastly stand by my party’s policy of regulating cannabis Colorado-style, I recognise regulation for what it is.

Regulations are actually prohibitive – if government defines the one way they will allow something they are really prohibiting all other ways.

Thus I fail any libertarian purity test.

1. Is there a positive candidate to endorse?

But so does Liberty Scott. As a libertarian, does he really have any business asking questions 2 and 3?

2. Is there a likely winner worthy of tactically voting to eject because he or she is so odious??
3. Is there a tolerable “least worst” candidate?

It’s no secret that I consider Peter Dunne to be New Zealand’s most evil Member of Parliament. Evil in an utterly banal way, like Adolf Eichmann. Dunne now faces the very real risk that he will lose his Ohariu electorate seat to Labour Party challenger Virginia Andersen. So I hope and pray that Virginia Andersen is Ohariu’s new MP when the votes are counted tomorrow night!

I admit I was even tempted to get out on the streets and help Andersen with her electorate campaign. But I didn’t, and in the end I couldn’t even bring myself to endorse her candidacy explicitly when I spoke at a recent Meet the Candidates evening in the Ohariu electorate. Compared to Dunne, Andersen is the lesser evil. But what about the even lesser evil on the Ohariu voter’s ballot paper, fellow libertarian Sean Fitzpatrick? He’s explicitly stated he’s seeking only the party vote for the pseudo-libertarian ACT Party. Perhaps he, too, secretly hopes that Ohariu voters will give their electorate vote to Andersen? But aside from that, Fitzpatrick’s party has no cannabis policy. That’s why I call it pseudo-libertarian. Drug legalisation is the litmus test for being a libertarian. The ACT Party fails on that count. What’s more, post-election the ACT Party may enter into a coalition agreement (to provide confidence and supply) with the National Party. How evil is that?

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? (ESV)

Jamie Whyte & co. are believers in individual freedom and personal responsibility at least.

They’re lesser evils. But what about my own candidacy? Am I evil? Yes I am!

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (ESV)

but some fall shorter than others. I’ve come to the reluctant conclusion that I’m a lesser evil just like all the candidates in the list below. I’m standing to give Mana voters the choice to vote for a lesser evil. Am I evil? I’m your man!

Without further ado, here are my candidate endorsements. I’ll spare you the details.

Christchurch East Robert Wilkinson (ALCP)
Dunedin North Abe Gray (ALCP)
Dunedin South Julian Crawford (ALCP)
Epsom Adam Holland (Independent)
Kelston Jeff Lye (ALCP)
Mana Richard Goode (ALCP)
New Plymouth Jamie Dombroski (ALCP)
Ohariu Virginia Andersen (Labour)
Palmerston North Iain Lees-Galloway (Labour)
Te Atatu Adrian McDermott (ALCP)
Te Tai Tokerau Kelvin Davis (Labour)
Te Tai Tonga Emma-Jane Mihaere Kingi (ALCP)
Tukituki Romana Marnz Manning (ALCP)
Upper Harbour Stephen Berry (ACT)
Wellington Central Alistair Gregory (ALCP)

Politics is a dirty, worldly business and we know who is god of this world. Should Christians, who are in this world but not supposed to be of it, even get involved in politics?

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.

ALCP, Peter Dunne, Psychoactive Substances Act, Vote 2014

Richard gets Dunne

1 Comment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pne8AZvjYqo

Good evening. Thank you all for coming.

My name is Richard Goode, I’m here tonight representing the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party. I’m the Legalise Cannabis Party’s candidate for the Mana electorate just north of here.

We have one policy. To legalise cannabis

Before another decade is up, New Zealand will almost certainly follow the lead of Colorado and other U.S. states and legalise cannabis for recreational, spiritual, medicinal and industrial purposes.

But, when the time comes, we need to legalise cannabis sensibly and safely. That’s why we need Legalise Cannabis Party representation in Parliament.

What does sensible, safe cannabis law reform look like? It looks like Colorado, the U.S. state where, since 1 January this year, cannabis is now regulated like alcohol and tobacco.

What’s been the result since Colorado legalised cannabis? Positive outcomes. The crime rate? Down. The homicide rate? Down. The suicide rate? Down. Motor vehicle accidents? The road toll is down.

The immigration rate? Up! Many of you will have seen recent documentaries about a strain of cannabis called Charlotte’s Web and its use in treating epilepsy. Whole families have picked up and moved to Colorado, since Charlotte’s Web cannabis is the only thing that stops life-threatening epileptic seizures in their children.

Now let me tell you what sensible, safe cannabis law reform DOESN’T look like.

It doesn’t look like the recent legal highs debacle which was presided over by the National government’s Associate Minister of Health, Peter Dunne.

Instead of legalising safe, natural cannabis, Peter Dunne gave the Ministry of Health’s seal of approval to dozens of so-called “synthetic cannabis” products that actually contained 11 different untested, unsafe research chemicals with almost no history of human use about whose likely long-term health effects we knew absolutely nothing.

And this was after he’d made the following promise.

We are going to reverse the onus of proof so the manufacturers of these products have to prove they are safe before they can bring them on to the market.

Here’s a harrowing tale of addiction from a friend who switched from smoking natural cannabis to smoking one of Dunne’s chemical concoctions, thinking it must be safe because it had been approved as “low risk”.

im 34 been smoking buds since i was 15 never had an issue had sweet jobs good life got my dream job as a dairy farm manager everything going sweet till i heard my boss was going to do drug testing so i thort id give this synthetic shit ago didnt expect much since i[t] was sold in dairys and yea it was down hill from there. one packet and i was hooked like with weed i could go a couple or more days without it with this shit i had to have it and i couldnt stop myself honest sometimes i would cry asking myself what the fuck i was doing tho the whole time chuffing away on the pipe like a cracker.

There were hundreds of such cases of severe addiction, psychosis, and seizures. Yes, seizures.

Right now, thanks in large part to the Associate Minister of Health, seriously ill New Zealanders, including children with life-threatening seizures, are being denied legal access to the medicine they need.

Peter Dunne’s bright idea was to give the MOH’s seal of approval to chemicals that caused addiction, psychosis, and seizures in our young people instead.

Now, the guidelines I was given for tonight were to introduce myself, my party and my party’s policy’s, but also to discuss local issues.

In fact, I’ve just been talking about the biggest local issue facing the Ohariu electorate.

Peter Dunne entered Parliament as a Labour Party MP when David Lange’s Labour Party won a landslide victory in 1984. We got rid of Muldoon, but we got Dunne! He’s been propping up both Labour and National government’s and impeding safe, sensible drug law reform ever since.

He did a deal with Helen Clark in 2002. One of the terms of the support agreement that Peter Dunne insisted on was

The government will not introduce legislation to change the legal status of cannabis and will implement a comprehensive drug strategy aimed at protecting young people and educating them on the dangers of drug use.

The voters of Ohariu will be the judge of how good a job the man behind the legal highs debacle did at protecting young people and educating them on the dangers of drug use.

Please, this September 20, give your party vote to the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party and your Mana electorate vote to me.

And, Ohariu voters, please consider very carefully to whom you give your electorate vote.

Thank you.

TawaUnionChurchSlider

Apartheid, Hell, National Party, Peter Dunne, Racism, Unicorns, Vote 2014

Hikois from hell

6 Comments

Hikoi-foreshore

It’s National Party policy to abolish the Maori seats but John Key says not on his watch.

Dropping Maori seats would mean ‘hikois from hell’

Abolishing the Maori seats would rip the country apart and attract “hikois from hell”, John Key said.

Speaking to the Herald last week before the release of Nicky Hager’s book Dirty Politics, the Prime Minister said that while it remained National Party policy to abolish the seats, even if he had enough numbers to do so, he would abolish them only with the agreement of Maori.

“It would divide the nation,” he told the Herald’s Hot Seat series . “Despite the fact that a lot of people say they don’t like it and they were there for a particular reason, actually it would be an incredibly divisive thing to do to New Zealand and New Zealanders.”

“Do you really want to rip a country apart? I’ll tell you what would happen – hikois from hell.”

Whether you were on the Maori roll or the general roll everyone got two votes.

While abolishing the seats has been long-standing policy for National, Act and United Future policy, the Maori Party’s confidence and supply agreement with National saw it parked as an active issue. But even if the Maori Party were not in the next Parliament, Mr Key has in effect protected them.

Political party 1law4all isn’t happy. On Facebook they posted

Post by 1law4all.

 
But I agree with John Key.

Having a Maori electoral roll as well as a general electoral roll is not, in itself, racist. It is merely arbitrary. Everyone gets two votes, regardless of which roll they’re on.

What’s racist about the Maori roll is that only Maori get to choose whether to be on it or to be on the general roll. If we opened up the Maori roll to non-Maori, there’d be no racism.

And no problem. Because we have to divide the country up into electorates somehow. (Or do we?!) Dividing the country up geographically is arbitrary. We might just as well divide the country up according to the age of the voters. It would be instructive to do so. Who would win the 20-year-old’s seat? Who would win the 60-year-old’s seat? Now we’re talking ageism, instead of racism!

But isn’t our current system geographicalist? I’d love to be enrolled in the Ohariu electorate so that I could vote for someone other than Peter Dunne. But I can’t. I’m stuck with Mana. (It’s like school zoning, I’m against it.)

Key’s more important point is that abolishing the Maori seats today would lead to “hikois from hell”. That’s a euphemism for blood on the streets. Do we really want to trade a harmless anachronism for violent civil unrest?

Retaining the Maori seats is the small price we pay for keeping a lid on the simmering resentment of some Maori towards the descendants of the colonials whom they believe inflicted a holocaust on their ancestors leaving them disadvantaged to this day.

Retaining the Maori seats is a good social insurance policy. Much like retaining the dole. The dole costs [from memory, I might come back and edit this figure] $18,000 per year per beneficiary. Incarceration costs [again, this figure is from memory] $90,000 per year per inmate. If we abolished the dole, there’d be a crime wave tsunami as an army of unemployed, suddenly bereft of income, found thieving (and worse) ways to make ends meet. Kiwis, beneficiary and non-beneficiary alike, would suffer. So let’s not abolish the dole, mmmkay?

Let’s be clear. The productive and colour blind are being held to ransom. In paying the dole and retaining the Maori seats, we are complicit in perpetuating unjust systems of social welfare and racist democracy. But what choices do we have?

Remember, too, that people’s welfare is a consideration that must temper considerations of justice. Okay, now I look forward to my co-bloggers dumping on me from a great height. See the comments section below.

Peter Dunne, Prohibition, Psychoactive Substances Act

This garbage is not worth re-electing

Leave a comment

dunne_accused_of_conflict_of_interest_1904360225

Minister criticises pro-cannabis groups over medicinal marijuana

The Associate Health Minister has weighed in on the medicinal marijuana debate criticising pro-cannabis groups as “misleading and emotive”.

Peter Dunne says the claims from pro-cannabis groups that the Government is blocking research into medicinal marijuana is wrong.

“That is not only absolutely wrong but also shows a woeful ignorance of the process for approving any new medicinal products,” says Mr Dunne.

This comes after the issue was put into the spotlight on TVNZ’s Sunday and Breakfast programmes when a Kiwi dad spoke out asking the Government to “step up” and reassess its laws on medicinal marijuana, saying the positive effect it has had on his daughter has exceeded his expectations.

Brent Gallien, the father of an 11-year-old who suffers from a rare and severe form of epilepsy, says his daughter was suffering several seizures every day before she was prescribed a cannabis extract called Sativex.

Mr Gallien says there are better products that have a far less risk of causing negative side effects but the Government has so far refused to approve them.

But Mr Dunn says if cannabis is sought for its medicinal benefits, then it must be subject to the same rigour and testing that’s expected of all pharmaceutical products. He says consumers need to be directing their questions to the pharmaceutical industry not the government.

“The fact is the government does not oppose the trial and development of cannabis-based medicines, as the availability of Sativex on the New Zealand market already shows.”

Here’s a paraphrase of Peter Dunne’s position about this time last year when he voted to enact the Psychoactive Substances Act, a vile piece of legislation, and Dunne himself was its chief architect.

Mr Dunn says if synthetic cannabis is sought for its recreational benefits, then it need not be subject to the same rigour and testing that’s expected of all other pharmaceutical products. He says if you’ve already been selling it for three months or more and no one’s complained yet then it can stay on the shelves.

Reread the paragraph below to fully comprehend the scale of the double standard now on show.

But Mr Dunn says if cannabis is sought for its medicinal benefits, then it must be subject to the same rigour and testing that’s expected of all pharmaceutical products. He says consumers need to be directing their questions to the pharmaceutical industry not the government.

I do believe that when we read

The Associate Health Minister has weighed in on the medicinal marijuana debate criticising pro-cannabis groups as “misleading and emotive”.

we are seeing a disordered personality engaging in projection, the ascription of one’s own faults and failings to others. Dunne is the one whose utterings on drug policy have ever been misleading and emotive.

Regardless, Dunne’s criticism of pro-cannabis groups is the height of insolence for a public servant, especially in view of the fact that his drug policy is manifestly not in the best interests of those whom he is supposed to serve. He treats those who rightly criticise his policy and those who suffer under it with utter contempt. This is characteristic behaviour for Peter Dunne.

It’s nothing new. In 2006, Dunne responded to medicinal cannabis user Greg Soar’s pleas with

This garbage is not worth replying to

and recently, Dunne pulled his head out of the sand long enough to tell us

I have yet to see any evidence that cannabis in any form has contributed in any way to help children, or indeed anyone, recover from serious diseases.

I hope Dunne watched the recent Sunday program on ONE about Charlotte’s Web. He needs to educate himself about the many and varied therapeutic uses of medicinal cannabis. His wilful ignorance and wanton denial are epic.

Dunne is not worth re-electing. I look forward to bidding good riddance to bad rubbish this September 20.

10514205_10152336254677252_2584346595172963134_o

ALCP, Cannabis, Jihad on Drugs™, NORML, Peter Dunne, Psychoactive Substances Act

The STAR Trust is perishing from an orgy of weasel words

6 Comments

My outlook for Thursday was good but Thursday turned sour when I read the following report and watched a 3 News interview with Grant Hall of the legal highs industry lobby group the STAR Trust.

Did legal highs reduce crime?

Today is a global day of action for groups around the world campaigning for drug law reform.

Really? It’s the first I heard of “a global day of action for groups around the world campaigning for drug law reform.” I belong to (at least) a couple of groups in New Zealand campaigning for DLR. I’m the Vice President of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis and a member (and former board member) of drug law reform umbrella group NORML. I’ve been a drug law reform activist for more than a decade. While it’s entirely possible that I was told about it but was paying no attention, I don’t recall ever hearing of a global day of DLR action on a Thursday. At the end of June. I spoke to a couple of other DLR activists and they hadn’t heard of it either.

(The global day of action for groups around the world campaigning for drug law reform is, in fact, the first Saturday in May. In New Zealand, we celebrate J Day. In Nimbin, Australia they celebrate the Nimbin Mardi Grass. Elsewhere, the Global Marijuana March is held in cities around the world.)

In New Zealand, advocacy group the Star Trust has released research it says shows that the Psychoactive Substances Act was working, before synthetic high products were pulled from the shelves.

I’m not sure what Grant Hall means by “working”. The Psychoactive Substances Act was supposed to ban all new psychoactive substances not already banned by the Misuse of Drugs Act, with the exception of products containing psychoactive substances that had been shown to pose only a low risk of harm after being submitted to a battery of scientific tests, which products would then be approved for regulated, legal sale. That was its stated intent. While all new psychoactive substances have now been banned, none has yet passed the scientific tests. The Ministry of Health, in charge of implementing the Act, has yet even to tell us what the scientific tests that NPS must pass actually are. I don’t call that “working”. I call that prohibition. (As for the fiasco that was the so-called “interim” period, during which untested, unsafe NPS were temporarily approved for sale, don’t get me started.)

The trust’s Grant Hall says they would like a “compassionate” approach to dealing with drug harm, instead of the current “punitive” regime.

What does a “compassionate” approach to legal highs retailers look like?

“All of the data during the interim period of the Psychoactive Substances Act… there were two things that came out of it that are really interesting,” he said on Firstline this morning.

“There was a reduction in crime – we saw a 22.7 percent reduction in cannabis-related crime… quite a significant number.”

There is no such thing as cannabis-related crime. Cannabis does not cause crime. So we saw a 22.7% reduction in what? A 22.7% reduction in cannabis use? A 22.7% reduction in arrests for cannabis “offences”? I say that the reason there’s been a 22.7% reduction in “cannabis-related crime” (whatever that is) is because it’s an election year.

Watching the actual interview, Grant Hall indicates that the reduction is in cannabis use. But people smoking less cannabis isn’t a good thing, because what are they smoking instead? Less safe, less fun synthetic cannabinoid products manufactured by the industry for whom Grant Hall is spokesman.

He says only 14 people contacted the Ministry of Health about addiction problems with synthetic highs, out of 11,000 people using them a day.

“We would say that’s a pretty good outcome.”

I’d say that’s a pretty good outcome, too. If only 14 people experienced addiction problems. But it wasn’t only 14 people, it was hundreds of people who became seriously addicted to legal synthetic highs. The 14 people who contacted the Ministry of Health were just the tip of a very large iceberg that advocates of the PSA’s interim period simply don’t want to know about.

Lost

I’ve been blogging on the PSA for a couple of years now. Synthetic cannabis addicts would sooner comment on my blog posts than contact the Ministry of Health. I mean, why on earth would someone with an addiction problem even contemplate for a moment calling the Ministry of Health anyway?

Synthetic cannabis addicts are regularly in the headlines. Here‘s a chap who appeared in the MSM the day before Grant Hall’s interview. Did he phone the Ministry of Health in between committing aggravated robberies, I wonder?

A “polite and well-mannered” South Auckland teen with an unblemished record committed two aggravated robberies in four days, driven by his synthetic cannabis addiction.

What the legal highs industry should have done is proactively investigate reports of addiction to their products. They should have front-footed it. But they don’t want to know.

Someone else who doesn’t want to know is Peter Dunne. He doesn’t want to know about the miraculous and thoroughly well-documented healing properties of natural cannabis. Anecdotal reports are not hard science but they do stack up. Here‘s one that’s hard to dismiss.

Christine said the cannabis oil had an immediate and dramatic impact. Ellen’s seizures reduced from hundreds each day down to only a handful, allowing her to return to school for the first time in five years.

“She’s gone from 120 hospital admissions in 2012 to just eight last year. It’s quite amazing. She is still on some pharmaceuticals. We’ve found that combination with the cannabis oil has been hugely beneficial.”

But Peter Dunne dismisses it.

“I have yet to see any evidence that cannabis in any form has contributed in any way to help children, or indeed anyone, recover from serious diseases,” he said.

I know that Grant Hall is a veteran campaigner for medical cannabis. Good on him. I know that Grant Hall wouldn’t dismiss any of the numerous reports of the benefits of medical cannabis as anecdotal. And yet he chooses to ignore the numerous reports of the addictive nature of synthetic cannabis.

In fact, the legal highs industry is well aware of the potentially addictive nature of some of their products. That’s why Matt Bowden was up front. His Stargate products came with appropriate warnings, e.g.

Frequent or daily use is not recommended, users should be aware that development of dependence on this type of product has rarely been reported, and appropriate limitations on use may be required in some individuals.

A report I read about a year ago, of a Nelson man arrested for selling natural cannabis to get the money to feed his synthetic cannabis addiction, should have sounded the alarm with the legal highs industry. That’s when the plot lost them.

Now Hall says people are turning back to hard drugs like P, and that synthetic highs were only banned because of the upcoming election.

Bullshit. We put people who are addicted to opiates on the methadone progamme, because methadone itself is an opiate and it substitutes for other opiates. Methamphetamine (“P”) is a stimulant. Synthetic cannabinoids are not stimulants. If I wanted to find the energy to stay up partying all night or simply do the housework … P would be great … but the last thing I’d do is smoke some synthetic cannabis. It’s not a stimulant and doesn’t substitute for other stimulants. I’d get nothing done at all and then fall asleep.

Speed freaks were taking stimulants before, during and after synthetic cannabis.

[Hall] There was a reduction in crime. So we saw a 22.7% reduction in cannabis-related crime during the interim period, now that’s quite a significant number.

[3 News] Was that inevitable? Because they’re just going to synthetic highs.

[Hall] Yes, but isn’t that a good thing? That’s a good result, isn’t it? So we’ve transitioned those people away from the black market into the white market where they are controlled …

Transitioning people away from safe, natural black market cannabis to unsafe, synthetic white market cannabis is harm reduction? Not in my book.

Watch the video for the full interview with Grant Hall.

Check out what Grant Hall has to say about “congestion issues” and “restricted retail environments”. Weasel words! They had congestion issues and a restricted retail environment in Colorado in early January, and nothing bad happened. (Except that the cannabis ran out, obviously.)

As for the claim that “synthetic highs were only banned because of the upcoming election.” Actually, no. Synthetic highs were banned because a group of mothers whose teenage children had become addicted to synthetic cannabinoids or otherwise schizzed out kicked up one hell of a fuss. And then got on Campbell Live.

The reality is that journalists have got more power and influence around this issue than the scientists.

Grant Hall got that much right. It will be John Campbell who legalises cannabis in the end.

art-drugs2-620x349

The demonisation of cannabis (and other drugs) started in earnest with prohibitionist propaganda campaigns like Reefer Madness in the ’30s. I’d say we reached peak demonisation in the ’70s. 1970 was when Keith Stroup, funded by a $5,000 grant from the Playboy Foundation, founded the National Organisation for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) in the U.S. That’s when drug law reformers started in earnest to undo the decades of prohibitionist propaganda damage. It’s taken 40 years of hard slog to counter all the prohibitionist lies and misrepresentations about cannabis.

I’m work shy. So it irks me when anyone, be they prohibitionists or non-prohibitionists, tells lies about and misrepresents the harms (whether by exaggerating or downplaying) of any drug. How are we ever going to have sane, evidence-based drug policy when those making and influencing the policies refuse to face up to the facts? I’m work shy but I’d still much rather spend my time getting the word out to the masses than spending it patiently pointing out to my fellow DLR activists that they’re doing it all wrong.

I’d like to see Grant Hall quit the STAR Trust and return to his roots. I reckon he’d make a great spokesman for GreenCross New Zealand. They could use a level head.

Green Party, Labour Party, Mudvayne, National Party, Peter Dunne, Psychoactive Substances Act

Memories of Peter Dunne

2 Comments

Wednesday night last week I was at the Backbencher pub on Molesworth Street, across the road from Parliament Buildings, for the filming of the first episode of the 2014 season of Back Benches.

Back Benches is a political panel discussion show. Hosted by Wallace Chapman and Damien Grant, it airs on Prime TV 10:30 pm Wednesday evenings, having been filmed earlier in the evening. It’s a great show. (You can watch it here.)

bb_header

Last week’s political panel featured Labour MP Trevor Mallard, National MP Mark Mitchell, Green MP Jan Logie … and Peter Dunne. Topics included cannabis law reform … and animal testing.

Animal testing has been a hot topic in New Zealand in the last couple of years because of the Psychoactive Substances Act. The Psychoactive Substances Act, which became law in July last year, made provision for the testing of new psychoactive substances on animals. Peter Dunne, the National government’s Associate Health Minister, was the bill’s main architect and front man.

Earlier this month, in a surprise (to some) move, Parliament enacted the Psychoactive Substances Amendment Bill. The amendment, drafted by Peter Dunne himself, rules out the prospect of any testing of psychoactive substances on animals being incentivised by the government. This is very good news.

Section 12 replaced (Duty of advisory committee relating to use of animals when evaluating psychoactive products)
Replace section 12 with:
“12 Advisory committee not to have regard to results of trials involving animals
“(1) In performing the function set out in section 11(2)(a), the advisory committee must not have regard to the results of a trial that involves the use of an animal.
“(2) However, the advisory committee may have regard to the results of a trial undertaken overseas that involves the use of an animal if the advisory committee considers that the trial shows that the psychoactive product would pose more than a low risk of harm to individuals using the product.”

Wednesday night last week, Peter Dunne made the following remarks.

Can I just say two things.

I’m in favour of testing for medicinal purposes on low down the stratum [sic] sets of animals.

With regard to psychoactive substances I ruled dogs and that level out as long ago as November 2012. They were never, ever in the frame. The debate subsequently was about rodents and more latterly rabbits …

Well, that’s not how I remember it. I remember a headline from December 2012 which told a very different story.

Last year hundreds marched against animal testing. With their beagles. It’s not how they remember it, either.

Peter Dunne is a sick puppy.

Is still my opinion.

But how do we best square what Peter Dunne said last week with what he apparently said and thought back in December 2012?

Let’s canvas the possibilities.

1. The Sunday Star Times misreported.

2. Peter Dunne misspoke.

3. Peter Dunne is in denial about what he said.

4. Peter Dunne is trying to rewrite history.

Politicians lie. We know this because their lips move. Peter Dunne is a consummate politician. So I’m rooting for option (4). Otherwise, it’s hard to explain why Dunne is so specific about the date. “I ruled dogs out as long ago as November 2012.” Except that he didn’t.

Here’s what I think really happened. I think Peter Dunne lacks empathy. Otherwise, how to explain this? And he simply forgot to remember that normal people consider the gratuitous poisoning and killing of household pets to be morally unacceptable.

Mark II, National Party, Peter Dunne, Psychoactive Substances Act

Legal Heroin Ban: PSA and the Evil of Politics.

4 Comments

In-a-parallel-universe

It’s a great relief to me that at least one of my libertarian friends gets it.

This compelling piece on the diabolical Psychoactive Substances Act by atheist blogger and fellow freedom fighter Mark Hubbard is so good, I’m syndicating it.

Be sure to check out more of Mark’s blog. I wish I had more time to read his posts.

Legal Heroin Ban: PSA and the Evil of Politics.

I wish I had more time to write this post.

Search this blog for the Psychoactive Substances Bill, animal welfare, or animal testing, and you’ll see around the time that 119 of New Zealand’s 120 members of Parliament were enacting infamy, their egos driving them for a world first, I was warning them of the inhumanity they were about to force on us. Although now that the results of legalising synthetic, toxic poison – on the heinous principle of animal testing for our human recreation- has been in place for less than a year, even I am left breathless at the devastation and misery that has been caused.

This is what the 119 that I declared a philosophical war upon, have done. They legalised a line of hardcore addictive drugs in the league of P or heroin, nothing similar to the non-toxic, non-addictive, medicinal cannabis that many other countries are sensibly legalising, and then by keeping cannabis criminalised they successfully addicted possibly thousands of mainly young Kiwis to the equivalent of heroin, because by taking the legal heroin they would not face the force of the law, or lose their jobs, unlike smoking cannabis for which they would be convicted in the government war on drugs. So government policy addicted them to heroin, and I’ll keep making this point, heroin, which is what I’m calling it from now on, because that’s what this drek is: these MP’s have been hiding behind the euphemisms legal high and synthetic cannabis for too long. They legalised a hardcore, psychosis forming, addictive drug while keeping the harmless option criminalised.

And then much worse. Because it’s election year, and Campbell Live has been exposing the ruined lives that have been addicted to legal heroin, Labour decided it would be a vote catcher to announce a policy of banning it. Not to be outdone, merely minutes before Labour announcing its ban yesterday, the instigator of legal heroin, Peter Dunne, whose son, remember, is the foremost legal representative to the legal heroin industry, in a knee-jerk political action announced his own ban of all 41 legal brands of heroin currently on sale, from two weeks hence.

Now, hands up those who understand addiction, who believe that these new government created addicts are going to miraculously stop taking their heroin fix in two weeks? Of course they’re not: they can’t. No what Dunne has done with the ill-thought out ban, as the solution to his incompetent, ill-thought out legislation, is deliver a brand new customer base to organised crime; the violent gangs whom will happily take up supply at some magnitude of the current price, meaning a burglary crime wave is also headed our way. (Perhaps young James Dunne better line up his legal aide application.)

Has there been a better example of the evil transacted by government in New Zealand in our recent history? Noting an important point made by one tweeter that opposition to the Psychoactive Substances Act, is still consistent with the belief I hold that prohibition does not work: it’s just that in this case government policy actually forced users to take the most harmful of drugs, by keeping harmless cannabis criminalised. As I write in too many of my posts; you can’t make this stuff up. Thousands of lives ruined chasing world first law-making – that is, one man’s ego – which is a disaster, and yet still, despite the evidence world-wide, including the states in the US seemingly experiencing no problems with cannabis legalisation, not a single MP in New Zealand talking of legalising non-toxic, non-addictive cannabis, to perhaps keep some of these new heroin addicts out of the clutches of the gangs while the ban is on. (Or forget the PSA, at the very least, to look at putting cannabis into hospitals to help manage the side-affects of cancer treatments, and many other of the medicinal uses cannabis has.)

I revise my former oft used epigraph by saying we’re something a lot worse than a kindy of a country.

There are some questions I will quickly recite to end, but first another principled point. This post is all about ethics, but the MSM and majority of the political blogs will cynically write this up as part of the political game: who announced the ban first, how will it affect election chances et al. Most, other than John Campbell – and good on you John – will forget the addicts. This blog is probably considered by most as a political blog, which is ironic, as I hate politics, and politicians who are taking us all at pace from the free, civilised society, to their brave new world of politick, which is a slave pit where the masses are kept chilled with legal heroin. Aldous Huxley got it right. Was Peter Dunne concerned with the addicts here? Hell no, his reply to Labour MP Iain Lees-Galloway on that party’s proposed bill:

There’s no victory here Peter, we’re all losers. If there is one bit of justice out of this it will be your disappearance after this year’s general election.

Questions for the 119 MPs:

Dunne has stated all current 41 heroins will be banned until they pass the test of ‘low or no risk’: however as the legal heroin industry pointed out last night in a tweet, there are still no guidelines set out by our inept law makers as to what constitutes low or no risk. So what is this criteria? And after that, show factually why the plant cannabis does not comply, because I’m willing to bet it does, and you won’t need to test a single animal for that, just look at cannabis use by humans over the last 6,000 years, with not one recorded death from toxicity.

I originally wrote on this Act when in bill form from the point of view of the cruel animal testing it proposed, which via a series of nationwide protests, Kiwis thankfully showed themselves to be implacably against, to the extent that to this stage no animals have been tortured for our recreation under the Psychoactive Substances Act. However in the last tweet from Mojo Mathers to myself, she stated that the expert advisory panel set up to look at the testing of this heroin was still stuck on – the barbarity – of using animals for reproductive testing, thus animal testing is still on the laboratory table.

I suspect there will now be huge pressure to use animal testing as a way to get one of these heroin brands back into the shops, and the economics of this has been changed. Formerly the cost of testing was prohibitive, however that cost is now tempered by the carrot of getting a single heroin to market, and so a legal monopoly.

Will every one of the infamous 119 MP’s who voted for this monstrosity, please put on record if you are going to allow a single animal to be harmed under the Psychoactive Substances Act. Don’t you worry responding Peter Dunne: I’ve realised via this you’re a vainglorious, ego driven man who couldn’t care less about an animal’s welfare (or a human’s as it has ended up.)

Signing off in my usual disgust.