Word of the day

05/08/2021

Cannonade –  to bombard; assault with heavy artillery fire; deliver heavy artillery fire; an extended, usually heavy discharge of artillery; a continued discharge of cannon, especially during an attack.


Sowell says

05/08/2021


Rural round-up

05/08/2021

Policies undermining instead of promoting NZ farmers – Glenn Tyrrell:

A national tragedy is occurring and no-one seems aware it is destroying our farming communities and will ultimately do major damage to our economy.

The media have mostly accepted Government spin that farmers are damaging our environment, our planet and our international brand reputation.

It is no wonder consumers are confused and also believe farmers are responsible for global warming when, in New Zealand, nothing could be further from the truth.

In 2006, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) produced a report that determined livestock and meat production contributed to 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions (GGGE), the same amount as transport. . . 

Paper concludes cutting meat won’t reduce a person’s carbon footprint much – Catherine Harris;

A new paper by New Zealand and English scientists concludes that going meatless will only have a small impact on a person’s overall lifetime carbon footprint.

The paper, published in the Swiss-based Sustainability Journal, was written by researchers at Auckland, Massey, Victoria and Oxford universities, the New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre, and the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI).

It found that giving up meat would only reduce the average person’s lifetime contribution to global warming by 2 per cent to 4 per cent.

That was because long-term, the benefits in not eating meat were largely offset by the carbon dioxide created to produce alternative foods and the relatively short life of methane, farming’s key greenhouse gas. . . 

New Zealand red meat exports close to $1 billion in June:

The New Zealand red meat sector continues to perform strongly with overall exports reaching $937 million in June, up 16% year-on-year, according to the latest analysis from the Meat Industry Association (MIA).

Sheepmeat exports increased by 15% to $345 million compared with June 2020.

Beef exports rose 8% to $411 million and co-products rose by 40% to $181 million.

There was also an increase in the value of all categories of co-products, with the largest two categories – prepared meat products and edible offals – increasing by 88% and 30% respectively. . .

Huge Far North water verdict looms as avocados boom – Nita Blake-Persen:

Plans for a massive water take to grow more avocados in the Far North could get the green light in the coming weeks, but there are major concerns among some locals about what that will mean for the environment.

An application to take billions of litres from Te Aupouri aquifer, which sits right at the top of the country, is currently being considered by independent commissioners.

A decision is expected in August. While there has been opposition from the Department of Conservation and many in the community, those wanting the water say the environment is their primary concern too.

In recent years the view from State Highway 1 north of Kaitaia has changed extensively. Former paddocks are now covered with bright wind breaks, protecting tens of thousands of avocado trees, stretching as far as the eye can see. . . 

Livestock feed support available for flood-affected farmers in the South Island:

Flood-affected farmers in the South Island are being encouraged to make use of livestock feed support services funded by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI).

Widespread flooding across the Canterbury, West Coast, Tasman, and Marlborough areas this winter has damaged pasture and caused losses to supplementary feed.

Since June, MPI has boosted feed support services and allocated more than $4.7 million for recovery grants, technical advice, and wellbeing support.

“Several of these regions had been battling long-term drought prior to the floods which have put further pressure on feed supplies heading into calving and lambing,” said MPI’s director of rural communities and farming support Nick Story. . . 

New charitable trust for New Zealand’s horticulture sector:

A new charitable trust has launched to support the horticulture industry.

The work of the MG Marketing Charitable Trust (MG Trust) is funded by New Zealand’s leading produce wholesaler, MG Marketing. The grower-owned cooperative provided a cash donation of $170,000. Ongoing funding will come from annual distributions generated by shares held by the MG Trust.

While the MG Trust will be supported by MG Marketing, it is run independently, with Trustees making key decisions about how funding is allocated.

Horowhenua grower and Chairperson, John Clarke, welcomed the launch of the trust and said that making a positive difference to the New Zealand horticulture sector is at the heart of the MG Charitable Trust (MG Trust). . . 


Yes Sir Humphrey

05/08/2021


Why we need free speech

05/08/2021

John Stuart Mill held that for any given belief, there are three options:

  1. You are wrong, in which case freedom of speech is essential to allow people to correct you.
  2. You are partially correct, in which case you need free speech and contrary viewpoints to help you get a more precise understanding of what the truth really is.
  3. You are 100% correct. In this unlikely event, you still need people to argue with you, to try to contradict you, and to try to prove you wrong. Why? Because if you never have to defend your points of view, there is a very good chance you don’t really understand them, and that you hold them the same way you would hold a prejudice or superstition. It’s only through arguing with contrary viewpoints that you come to understand why what you believe is true.

The government’s proposed hate speech law is a threat to democracy:

If the ability to say things that may offend is legally hindered, then the contest of ideas necessary to keep a democracy healthy is hindered as well, write Dr Michael Johnston and Dr James Kierstead 

Democracy is easy to take for granted. Arguably the last time it faced a true existential threat was during World War II, and those still living who remember those dark times are now in their 80s and 90s. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall more than 30 years ago, democracy, in various forms, has been the world’s dominant political order. . .

There is another value that is even more fundamental to democracy than equality, and perhaps even more difficult to maintain. That is the free expression of ideas, or ‘free speech’. This, we believe, is the bedrock of democracy. In a democracy, ideas and policies must always be contestable – and actually contested – so we can muddle our collective way towards improvement. The contest of ideas that democracies enable is arguably the reason they have been so good at increasing standards of living and, albeit gradually, liberty and equality as well.

Nonetheless, because we continue to fall short of realising the democratic ideal of equality, it is unsurprising that some see free speech as the privilege of the powerful to say whatever they want, often to the detriment of the less powerful. But, while understandable, this characterisation is superficial and fundamentally incorrect. If we were to abrogate free speech, we would undermine democracy and make full equality even harder to attain. As Holocaust survivor Aryeh Neier put it, “Those who call for censorship in the name of the oppressed ought to recognise it is never the oppressed who determine the bounds of censorship.”

The historical record, from the suffragettes to the civil rights movement to gay liberation, makes it clear: free speech has been a vital – perhaps the vital – tool in the struggle of marginalised peoples to defend their rights. Being able to speak your mind without being fined or imprisoned should also be seen as a fundamental right of all citizens and is acknowledged as such in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.

Unfortunately, our current Government and our current Prime Minister seem to have succumbed to a temptation to limit free speech in the name of keeping us safe. Jacinda Ardern no doubt means well in her intention to pass laws that will criminalise ‘hate speech’. Perhaps she sincerely believes such laws might have prevented the Christchurch atrocity. But she is taking the very system that elevated her to power for granted if she thinks such laws will have no unintended consequences.

A society that leaves it to politicians, the courts or – worse still – the police to determine which ideas may be expressed and which may not is no true democracy, whether or not it holds elections. If the ability to say things that may offend is legally hindered, then the contest of ideas necessary to keep a democracy healthy is hindered as well. Many good ideas may never be expressed, and many bad ones may go unrebutted.

Supporters of the Government’s intended ‘hate speech’ legislation might argue it is only the ill-intentioned – those who would deliberately offend, hurt or stir up hatred against vulnerable minorities – who need fear these laws. But if we hand to those in power the ability to control public discourse, they will inevitably use it to advance their own agendas. They might even do this with a clear conscience, having convinced themselves they are merely protecting the vulnerable. . .

Submissions on the proposed law close tomorrow.

The Free Speech Union’s submission is here.

The Free Speech Union has made it easy to submit here.

If you want more inspiration for a submission:

Rights Institute head Terry Verhoeven shares his submission at Not PC

Graeme Edgeler explains major problems with the proposals here.


Submit for free speech

05/08/2021

Vague law is bad law and the proposed legislation on hate speech is very, very vague.

Any speech that intends to excite hostility or ill-will against, or bring into contempt or ridicule, any group of persons in New Zealand on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national origins, sex, marital status is already illegal and covered under the Human Rights Act.

The Free Speech Union briefing paper on proposed legislation spells out the dangers of extending that :

It is impossible to provide statutory protection for every group in society. The Government hasn’t specified which groups they think should be added to protected lists, saying they want the public to decide on that, yet they have referred to the classes of people protected against workplace discrimination – including sex, marital status, religious belief, ethical belief, race, and political opinion.

Blasphemy has only recently been removed as an offence under the law but the government wants to protect religious belief.

Neither Minister Faafoi nor Prime Minister Ardern would clearly exclude political opinion from protection. If included as a protected group, people could be imprisoned for insulting others’ political beliefs, and so the essence of our democracy and free and frank debate would be undermined.

Are we to be no freer than North Korea to debate politics, disagree with political views and poke the borax at politicians?

While bigoted and resentful opinions are perhaps widely considered indefensible or condemnable, that does not mean they should be made
illegal. Belonging to a particular group within society should not privilege individuals or remove the rights of others to hold opinions, whatever they may be, concerning that group. What does it say of certain groups, when they are given particular legal protection? What does it say of others when they are not? Who gets to decide/ re-decide/re-decide again, as
our country continues to change? Increasing the number of groups specifically protected under hate speech law is a fool’s errand, which will never cover enough groups but always cover too many groups, depending on who you ask.

It is entirely unclear how these laws would be applied in competing cases. For example, would a fundamentalist religious aherent’s expressed views on homosexuality, and the Rainbow Community’s response to that religion be equally “hateful”? Do those sentenced then have to share a cell for up to three years?

The “hate speech” law in the United Kingdom, on which the proposed New Zealand legislation is based, has a special section which explicitly states that “…discussion, criticism, or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents…” is exempt from the law. Troublingly, there is no such provision considered by our lawmakers at present.

The proposed changes seek to move the current law from
the Human Rights Act into the Crimes Act. This may sound like a technicality, but it means that Police and courts will be charged with defining “hate speech” and deciding where the line is.

It will see the courts recognise Parliament’s intention for this law to have a more active role in our country, despite the ambiguities related to how it should be applied.

“Hate speech” legislation has always existed outside of the Crimes Act because of the difficulties in defining hate. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice have been unable to clearly state where the line is. This is an irresponsible way to legislate, and once again reveals the fraught nature of these proposals. For a law to be legitimate, the people it regulates must be able to clearly see what it allows and what it prohibits.

In the past, actions have been illegal. Thought has been considered relevant only to the extent that there is demonstrable, objective evidence to speak to an individual’s intent. However, now sharing your thoughts with others (if they could be interpreted as ‘maintaining or normalising hatred’) could be illegal, absent any action. What you think may become illegal. . . 

The dangerous path down which the proposed legislation would lead police can be seen here:

STREET PREACHING NZ posted a video to the social media platform in July which shows them being approached by a police officer on Karangahape Road.

In the video, the officer tells them “there is a difference between preaching and hate speech and you are very close to crossing the line”.

But the group argued they were only preaching and in fact, the people who had called the police on them had threatened their group.

“These people actually came up and assaulted us,” one member said.

“They have threatened to kill us, they have threatened to beat up these guys and say that we are preaching hate.”

But the police officer responds: “What you guys are saying is very subjective and saying it to people up here could be taken… in a way likely to incite violence, okay?” . . 

Okay?

Without knowing exactly what the people in the group had said we can’t know whether or not it was okay, but the report doesn’t show the officer making any attempt to find out.

If this happens under existing law, it would be much worse under the proposed legislation.

More than 10,000 people have already submitted against the proposed ‘hate speech’ changes:

The Kiwi public has responded loud and clear to the Government’s questions raised in the consultation document on proposed hate speech changes: they don’t want the Government policing their speech, says Jonathan Ayling, Campaign Manager for the Free Speech Union.

More than 10,000 kiwis have submitted to the Ministry of Justice, claiming the ambiguous, unworkable changes amount to an overreach by the Government into our civil liberties. Engagement like this at the consultation phase shows how strongly New Zealander’s feel, and the threat they see to their freedoms in these changes. That us why these changes shouldn’t go forward.

“The website created to facilitate submissions to the Ministry of Justice on this issue, www.FreeSpeechSubmission.com, went live on 17, July, and in a little-over-two-weeks, we have had an overwhelming response from the public endorsingthe submission of the Free Speech Union, and submitting their own views.

“In particular we are encouraged by the huge quantity of feedback from minority communities pointing out that anti-speech laws are far more likely to damage rather than protect social cohesion.”

“Ministers’ inability to to explain what would be criminalised under these proposals reveals the danger they pose to free speech. Vague intention is an irresponsible way to legislate. The Government should listen to the public, and drop these proposed reforms.”

The signatories to this open letter show this is not a left vs right political issue.

It is a matter or right vs wrong ; freedom vs unwarranted restriction, democracy vs dictatorship.

If you haven’t already submitted the link above can help you.

 

 


%d bloggers like this: