Labour exempts Australians from ban on foreigners buying land; Harre defends Internet-Mana's f*** you John Key video; Govt agrees to leave Rena on seabed

Labour exempts Australians from ban on foreigners buying land; Harre defends Internet-Mana's f*** you John Key video; Govt agrees to leave Rena on seabed

By Bernard Hickey

With six weeks to go until the September 20 election, here's my daily round-up of political news from in and around Wellington on Friday August 8, including David Cunliffe saying a Labour Government would not have to pay compensation to Shanghai Pengxin if it blocked the sale of Lochinver Station.

Cunliffe rejected John Key's comments the Government faced legal action if Labour prejudged the OIO decision on any sale of Lochinver.

"It is not a liability on the crown to pay compensation if a sale is declined," Cunliffe said on the campaign trail.

He questioned Lochinver owner Stevenson's argument that it would recycle Shanghai Pengxin's capital into its Drury South project.

"Those 8000 jobs could also apply equally if a New Zealand interest purchased the land," he said.

He also clarified that any ban on overseas buying of land would not apply to Australians, who qualify under CER. He wasn't sure of this in a Radio New Zealand interview on Thursday.

Craig lawyers up

Meanwhile, Conservative Party Leader Colin Craig injuncted TV3 in the High Court to ensure he was included in a minor party leaders debate on TV3's The Nation tomorrow morning.

The Nation originally said it only wanted to included the leaders of Mana, Maori, United Future, ACT and New Zealand First in the debate because they had been in Parliament for at least three years.

"I'm hopeful we will reach some sort of satisfactory resolution, but if we don't we are actually working on an injunction proceeding and I'm sure that would be our last recourse if we had to go there," Craig was quoted as saying on Stuff.

"If ACT can be included, given they're a party with no MPs in Parliament, far, far weaker polling than we've got, it seems very strange that we're not included," he said.

Late on Friday afternoon, NewstalkZB reported Craig had been granted an interim injunction, but that TV3 had decided not to hold the debate at all. The Nation itself clarified that it had decided to go ahead with the debate, but including Craig.

'Internet-Mana defends video'

Internet-Mana released a video on Youtube showing Kim Dotcom riling up an audience at a party meeting in Christchurch last week.

"Are you ready for a revolution? Are you ready to take down the Government? Are you ready to extradite John Key?," he says in the video.

The crowd then appeared to respond "F*** John Key", although there was debate online from those present at the meeting about whether the chants had broken out earlier without Dotcom's prompts.

Laila Harre defended the video, saying youth had a right to express their feelings.

Key said he would not dignify the video with a comment, except to say it would "confirm what a lot of New Zealanders think of the guy."

John Key was more fortcoming on Internet Mana generaly.

"They are literally the billionaire poverty party. It doesn't make any sense at any level and this is just another demonstration of where they're at odds."

'RMA reforms coming'

Elsewhere, Nick Smith gave an address to the Environmental Defence Society that laid out National's 'Bluegreen' principles and foreshadowed National's planned reforms to the Resource Management Act, which he said would be released closer to September 20.

He announced officials from the Ministry for the Environment, the Ministry for Primary Industries, the Department of Conservation, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, Land Information New Zealand and Local Government New Zealand would look at biodiversity offsetting.

'Leave Rena on seabed'

Meanwhile, the Government released its submission into the hearing of the Rena owner's consent application to leave the wreck on the Astrolabe reef.

The Government opposed leaving the bow section of the Rena on the top surface of the reef at shallow depths, but said it would not oppose leaving wreckage below 30 metres.

“We consider that the environmental impacts on leaving the sections below 30m could be managed through a tighter set of consent and monitoring conditions," Attorney General Chris Finlayson said.

"Our submission includes recommendations to improve the monitoring and consent conditions in order to ensure the long term effects of what remains of the wreck are appropriately managed.”

"The submission strikes a balance between concerns about the wreck remaining on the reef, and the risks (including health and safety for workers at that depth and the risk of damage to the reef) and cost of full wreck removal of the lower sections in deeper water," he said.

(Updated with Colin Craig threatening legal action to ensure he's included on a minor party leaders debate on TV3's The Nation; Injunction successful after TV3 relents)

I'll keep updating this diary throughout the day.

See all my previous election diaries here.

See the index for Interest.co.nz's special election policy comparison pages here.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

58 Comments

FYI updated with Colin Craig threatening legal action to ensure he's included on a minor party leaders debate on TV3's The Nation.
Cheers
Bernard

I wonder what the reaction would be if National Party supporters started chanting "F... Laila Harre

If Dot Com can mobilise disenfranchised voters as easily as he got them chanting, it will be all over John Key... 

(Inappropriate comment deleted, Ed. See our commenting policy here - http://www.interest.co.nz/news/65027/here-are-results-our-commenting-pol...)

Nigel Latta took down a FB post yesterday on the same subject as it similarly descended into this "unproductive" (his word for it) vein.

Youth just don't realise how powerful they could be;
 
http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2014/08/demographics-and-fucking-john-...

I wonder if the sleeping giant that is youth is actually awakening. The Green's sure seem to be chasing the young voter, and representing them, good.
regards
 
 

"They are literally the billionaire poverty party."
That is a good thing, isn't it? John Key is a billionaire rich people's party...

Kim Dot Com now has a cult following similar to that of another fat criminal named Kim who resides north of the 38th Parallel on the Korean Peninsula

Or the diss affected youth struggling with low paying jobs and paying off their loans perhaps? This election is getting more interesting by the day.
 

North Korea? You mean that place that is just great mates with the Peoples Republic of China?

So can they register a company in Australia and buy land here?  

(Inappropriate comment deleted, Ed. See our commenting policy here - http://www.interest.co.nz/news/65027/here-are-results-our-commenting-pol...)

China's corruption crackdown catches up to its 'naked officials'

Australia is clearly one of the top destinations for corrupted Chinese officials. Liu Tienan, a former vice minister of the powerful National Development and Reform Commission, the key economic planning agency was caught last year with a fake Australian passport and $2 million in cash.
Beijing has recently announced plans to go after corrupt officials who are living overseas. This could put a strain on the China/Australia relationship.
 
 
 

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/8/8/china/chinas-corrup...

 

Different levels of foreign investment. Level one, Shania Twain and James Cameron (rich individuals looking for a nice holiday spot). Level two, foreign companies ( not so good profits going offshore). Level three, foreign companies owned by foreign governments ( not acceptable in my mind should be illegal.)
  A question for you . If the NZ govt bought all the land in Tasmania, would Tasmania become part of NZ or would it be Australia? Who's to stop the Chinese government from setting up a military base on their land here?

Profits may go offshore if made by a foreign company in New Zealand.  They may also go offshore if made by a New Zealand company in New Zealand.  And they may come onshore to New Zealand having been made offshore by foreigners, or by expatriate New Zealanders. 
 
Rich people and successful companies don't get that way by letting irrational sentiments such as patriotism guide where they invest their money.   Wherever it comes from, money goes to wherever its owners think it will make the best return or deliver the most benefits.  If we want money made in New Zealand to stay here, we should make New Zealand an attractive place to keep money, not try to stop it from arriving here in the first place.
 
Ownership is not the same as sovereignty.  National laws apply the same throughout that nation, whoever owns the land.   Even if the New Zealand government owned all the land in Tasmania, it would still have to abide by Australian laws there.   Ownership of land in New Zealand does not give the Chinese government the right to set up a military base on it, any more than you have the right to set up a military base on your farm. 
 

Yes , i can understand your reasoning. The only flaw i can see with globilisation is that it assumes nations won't go to war. If for example China goes to war with America and the Chinese government owns 3% of our land, where do we stand? The Chinese govt could take over ownership of all of the  world manufacturing plants that exist within it's borders. Look what has happened with Russia and the sanctions it has imposed.( We can't afford to post sanctions against them as our dairy is so dependent on Russia and China) I think that the west has fallen in love with the economic benefits of dealing with the Chinese, but needs to also be aware of the political risk of dealing with them. For example kiwirail has bought 40 trains from a company owned by the Chinese government in return they buy our milk and want to buy our land. If we say no to selling them land will they supply parts for the trains? The Chinese are an economic superpower with state control, if we get too in bed with them they have a lot of power to bully us.
 I guess this is really what i object to with the National govt. I don't see it as governments job to set up these reciprical trade deals that can potentially throw the country into disarray.

It doesn't look like any country has found an answer to the Chinese move in to buying real estate tim.  The story on Saskatchewan is interesting.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/06/22/chinese-buy-up-canada-farms-is-b...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-03/chinese-are-buying-large-chunks...

This is my biggest fear. The west are so selfish that we won't take a loss. And are prepared to sell our future to the Chinese government?

Tim12 - the world loves German capital as well, certainly NZ does as they have at least as much capital here as the Chinese - big difference is, the Germans started two world wars and the Chinese, none...it's called paranoia.

Then why have kiwirail continued to buy Chinese trains even though they have been notoriously unreliable and are mostly out of action as they are trying to remove  asbestos from them?

My question for John Key. Was the decision to buy Chinese trains part of a wider trade deal with China? Are we running kiwi rail into the ground to protect trade links for farmers?

Um, south korean trains I believe? and what was bought, that was for kiwirail to decide on.
regards

You are wrong Steven. Here an article titled

Asbestos on Chinese-made trains could cost workers lives
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11212556

"Earlier KiwiRail said the inclusion of asbestos in the trains was in breach of a contract specification which clearly stated the material should not be used."
So a breach of contract.
"They have taken full responsibility for this and have undertaken to do whatever is necessary to rectify the situation as quickly as possible for us,'' Mr Reidy said."
so will rectify, probably a sub-contractor...
regards

Does nobody else see that globalization will only ever eventually end up with one thing, a one world government. 
Now, try and figure out how that is going to work, and whose system of governance is going to be the one that, like cream, floats to the top.
The bigger things get the more controls have to be put in place to keep things on an even keel, in other words, in a one world government world I see totalitarian as more likely a regime to be, that we will find ourselves under.
I find it odd that it is the free marketeers that think globalization is great, but are the first to run for the hills the second someone mentions one world government.

Only conspiracy theorists see that ...

Only people who are able to extrapolate things out are able to see it, lets see where shall I start as an example. I know, Auckland Super City. 
No conspiracy, just the way it will go, just about all by itself. If we choose to allow it of course. 
 

THE biggest and most simplistic mistake people make about markets and economics is extracting a trend into the future 

but are you not also doing so? assuming BAU? or do you understand the paradgym shift that peak oil will / has cause(d)?
regards
 
 

No I don't think so Steve - I have  no doubt that the world will run out of cheap oil (it's already on that path), but what I don't know, and you certainly don't either, is how much the world will wean itself off it as the price increases, and more importantly, how other known power sources source as nuclear, and unknown future power sources and technology evolve to cover it - the peak oilers are right, but what they are likely well wrong about in their life times anyway is the consequences i.e. They're some of the biggest extrapolaters of them all.

I extrapolated human nature out, far higher hit rate

tim12, who is really behind this ice cream factory 
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=1130...
 
Who really knows who is behind offshore companies?

I agree Casual, good to see the Chinese prepared to risk their capital to sustain a business that will employ NZers when NZ capital is reluctant or unable to do so. We need more of it.

... just a few weeks ago Universal Robina , a Philippines company , bought Grifffins from Pacific Equity Partners ...
 
Griiffins employ 800 staff in Auckland ...
 
... where was the outrage then , where were the hickeysterical headlines about foreigners taking over , why weren't the xenophobes and racists pointing their ray guns of venom at the Fillippinas , why wasn't David Cunliffe calling it a strategic asset and threatening to block the sale , why wasn't Winsome Peters foaming at the mouth ???????
 
 .... Gummy can't have a good cup of tea without a couple of Super Wines ... that's a strategic entity in my mind ...
 
If you squint your eyes a little , when you look at them , Filippinas even look a little bit like a Chinese person does ....

You can always start new bikkie companies can't you but land, they aint making any more of.
BTW how do you feel about the People's Republic of China appearing as a part owner on titles of properties in NZ then?

Yes, I am too concerned about the Chinese govt's part in all of this and the last few days has actually brought my objection to foreign ownership into focus.
Ideally, I would like to see foreigners out of the market, but realise I may not get my wish, but tell you what, I think we have to have a serious look at foreigners accumulating lots of land and setting up production processes in competition with us. I think this is probably the most urgent aspect of it all.
I think we are foolish to the nth degree to allow a foreign govt to inveigle its way into the country and cut us out of the market using OUR land. Not good enough, at all.
Those posts of Henry Tulls over the last few days with links to horses mouth info really put the proverbials up me, and I think it is time that these free market purists just have a look at where the ideologies could lead this country. Frankly I think they are barking mad

FYI updated with Craig's injunction successful, but TV3 unable to hold debate at all.
cheers
Bernard

FYI updated with TV3 now saying Craig will be included in the debate.
cheers
Bernard

The Conservatives polled higher than 4 of the other minor parties in the 2011 election. 
So the Media determines who gets publicity?  

 
Why would the establishment want to prevent Colin Craig from participating in a TV debate? Surely this would be a prime opportunity to make the man look foolish - according to the received "wisdom" of the "teenage scribblers" who seek to inform NZ opinion.
 
Frankly one smells fear. Why, because the incisive observer will recognise the Conservatives as the real threat to the establishment. They support binding referendums and that essential foundation stone of conservatism - the business of sovereign nation. This is absolute anathema to the cozy Cultural Marxist "cabal" which runs New Zealand - where Labour does the heavy ideological lifting and the simpletons in National consolidate the gains. The hard left is well known and understood and can always be bought off if sufficient money and perks are made available. Look at Internet Mana? The Conservatives may well be different and that is why they must be contained at all costs.
 
The famous statesman Chancellor Bismarck once reminded us: "man cannot set the tide of events, he can only hope to swim with it and steer". Well the tide is going out on Marxism and those rather silly young people screaming obscenities before the great Dotcom might do well to look at much of Europe - where Laila Harre type ideas have left so much of the continent's youth bereft of hope. Go ask them what ruinous taxation, bloated politicians, population replacement, and an omnipotent Marxist European superstate has done for their future?
 
Colin Craig needs to "up the ante". He particularly needs to make clear that no young Kiwis will be sent for slaughter if the United States gets its longed for war with Russia. He also needs to recognise that National is the true enemy of political conservatism. At least, to borrow the words of Cicero, the left: “carry their banner openly”.  National betrays conservatism whilst, again to borrow from Cicero, it is found: “speaking with accents familiar”. Irrespective, one suspects the tide of events will steadily ebb in favour of New Zealand conservatism going forward with the left ever more aggressive and nasty - rather as the tide is in favour of Nigel Farage in Britain. This is why the establishment is increasingly afraid.

If crazy colin comes across as well as you justt have above he's truly stuffed, I can but hope.
Air time, well mostly because with limited air time and a party that is extemely unlikely to get an MP just how small do you go?
Libertarians got 1000 votes last election and 850 the one before, that is some growth rate, do we include them? 
Why is he on? well I think its because they expect him to come out looking bad.  Ask some tough questions of him on front of a camera and see if he answers or evades as he normally does, with everyone watching.
"Conservatives" a threat? no I dont agree.  Consider that the marriage equality bill/act has passed. That should be telling you just how non-extremist type conservative NZers are.
"at all costs" now there is an interesting statement by a self-proclaimed "conservative" bugger democracy? better your dead than Im red? yeah right.
Europe's youth has been let down by a system more akin to capitalism than marxism.
The fact that you see Colin Craig as an extremist in similar vein as your writings tells me much about your diatribe and how not very conserative you and he really are, not much, more tea party.

 
The marriage equality bill was never subject to analysis of the views of those of conservative disposition - or those of liberal disposition for that matter. It was passed by a group of politicians who took their cue from overseas. A key driver was Britain - a country that waxes lyrical about human rights whilst simultaneously destroying them in Iraq, Syria, and Libya etc. A country that waxes lyrical about human rights whilst simultaneously allowing Sharia Law to burgeon in London and elsewhere. A suggestion, go ask someone from the Chagos Islands about how their human rights fared under so-called liberals like Blair, or so called moderate Conservatives like Cameron? Remind us - who booted them out of their home originally so Uncle Sam could turn it in to a B52 bomber base? Wasn’t it was your caring, sharing, socialist Harold Wilson? Who has been a key campaigner on behalf of the Chagos Islanders and their right to return home - isn’t it the arch Conservative MP from my own English hometown Andrew Rosindale? Remind me, who was it who put his career on the line to speak on behalf of the Kenyan Mau Mau in the 1950s when the political careerists sat silent? Wasn't it the arch Conservative Enoch Powell?
 
"Europe's youth has been let down by a system more akin to capitalism than Marxism" - one of the most ludicrous comments I have ever read! At the heart of true capitalism is moral hazard. Europe represents the antithesis of this. Millions of our young people are now slaves to usury - courtesy of the bankers who gave them the Euro. Instead of letting bondholders take a massive haircut the ordinary person gets financially pulverized. Classic socialism - well-connected interests co-opt the monopoly power of the state. The facilitating politicians take a cut - a tribute to finance their lavish lifestyles. Go do your due diligence on the incomes paid to Eurocrats - then compare and contrast with what the young Greek, Italian, or East European girl serving up the Pizzas in London gets.
 
It is simply astonishing to see how easily the gullible are hoodwinked by the empty gestures of the Marxist political class. Conservatism is inevitably a threat to the current Marxist hegemony because the world is cyclic. This is how William Playfair was able to so accurately predict the collapse of the British Empire in 1805 - when it was just getting started. It is a measure of the paucity of debate, the moral bankruptcy of debate that we give such scant regard to what so-called advocates of human rights have done to other people's countries. Express a conservative idea and you are an extremist. Yet send your armed forces to overfly someone else's country, bomb them, destroy their infrastructure, unleash extremism and all is well so long as you offer pieties about "human rights" at home. You might even get a job as a "Peace Envoy" like Tony Blair. I wonder. What would so many people now suffering in the Middle East have preferred? The true conservative idea – that you keep your nose out of other people’s business or the ideas that emerge from the “spreaders of democracy”. Who I enquire are the real extremists?

haha, the Marxist political class? I wasn't aware that the Mana party alone controlled the media, the government and all political debate ;o)

Marxist political class? Ha you mean the people who are concerned about a communist government having its name of property titles in this govt, kind of Marxist political class?

It certainly was open to discusion and MPs could be contacted by their consituants. I wrote to my MP and got a reply. beefore it passed the civil union was protested, on both sides, I was there. Also it was also a vote of conscience, and not along party political lines and I believe. JK has said that even if Crazy colin wants it repealed it would be along the same voting lines.  So just how 60+ MPS "listen stupidly" to overseas influence is a bit of a stretch.
oh and "arch Conservative Enoch Powell" um no, "his voting record on most social issues, such as homosexual law reform (he was actually a co-sponsor of a bill on this issue in May 1965" speaks volumes, and not your song book.
"to speak on behalf of the Kenyan Mau Mau in the 1950s" um I would have said he was more for punishing the wrongs done.  "Powell was one of the few MPs who campaigned against the brutality of British troops in combating the Mau Mau rebellion. He called for British troops guilty of atrocities to be punished:"
Now I'll admit I have not studied Enoch Powell very much, but the little I have I can admire, he certianly doesnt come across as a 'tea party" nut job, unlike some.
The real extemists are those who will not contemplate or tolerant a difference of an opinion to their extremist views. These can be the hard left or hard right, they share one thing in common, utter refusal to contemplate others views. in either case they are a tiny minority whos fanatical views are often confused and contradictory. eg So you want to keep your nose out of others business, yet stand against marriage equality? how pray does that stack up?
"Classic socialism - well-connected interests co-opt the monopoly power of the state"
um no, that I would say was more like real world facism/ right wing eg a banana republic like say the USA where Pollies are bought and sold. Socialim is more collective rather than individual/corporate, hence facism, but sure explain.
regards
 
 
 
 

A very thoughtful reply, especially regarding Enoch Powell who defined true British post-war conservatism. You are right regarding his pioneering of homosexual law reform but it is unclear how he would have reacted to the specific debate over gay marriage. Powell, who I have studied extensively, was also very much a traditionalist. After all, he longed to be Viceroy of India.

 
As to "tea party nut jobs" we are talking of an American phenomenon and Powell was vehemently anti-American. As an intelligence officer serving under field Marshall Montgomery in North Africa he became convinced that the American's were determined to use the war to destroy the British Empire. As a humanitarian he was also disgusted with America's doctrine of unconditional surrender, which of course weakened the hand of those like Field Marshall Rommel who wanted Hitler gone. He is also the man who warned John F. Kennedy's Defense Secretary that they were going to lose in Vietnam. As an old soldier he greatly admired Russia and believed they were Britain's natural friends in Europe. He pleaded with us: "stop chasing up and down after the vagaries of the latest ignoramus to become president of the United States". Pity we didn’t listen! A greater pity for the people of Iraq and elsewhere I suspect. A suggestion. Go ask them how their human rights - especially for minorities - are doing following the West's "humanitarian interventions" and "democracy bombings". It was also Powell who reminded his conservative colleagues that a “Conservative”, or “National” Party must be reposed on the business of “sovereign nation” – or it has no rationale to exist. In this regard one suspects he would have found common cause with Colin Craig’s Conservatives.
 
Interesting that you mention fascism - because Powell was an admirer of F.A. Hayek who wrote the 1944 masterpiece 'The Road to Serfdom' whilst a refugee from Nazi Germany at the London School of Economics. The whole hypothesis of that work is that initially moderate and well-meaning socialism always morphs into fascism. This is well illustrated by Hitler's chosen name for the most formidable warship the world had ever seen - the Bismarck. Why did he name it so? I would suggest because he astutely understood that the pioneering benign socialism of Chancellor Bismarck had laid the foundations for the fascist monster that followed and that he led. Let me ask you - why was the movement that Hitler created called The National Socialist German Workers Party? Isn’t it because socialism and fascism are essentially just points along the same political continuum – the same “Road to Serfdom” that New Zealand is currently travelling.
 

 

Both socialism and fascism share commonalities, however I think of them as going in opposite directions and as they get more extreme a) but both end up at the same point, totalitarianism. and b) the faster they get there. hence to me its essential that a democracy stays at the mid or balance point.
"Let me ask you" I will reply with, why is it countries with "democratic" in their name display the least real democracy? I'd suggest its a name to hide behind as is/was  "The National Socialist German Workers Party"
Have you ever read works on Mao? really he flirted with both the communist party and natioanlist party.  Really his polictics was best described as "wooly" ie he didnt care what he was as long as he was in charge, or thought he could get to a position of being in charge.  An utter monster who ended up wrapped in a red flag but it could just as easily been wrapped up in the Nationalist one. 
You didnt answer on keeping out of others business yet opposing marriage equality btw.
Hayek, I dont consider a materpiece, that you follow austrian economics however doesnt suprise me.
regards
 
 

""humanitarian interventions" and "democracy bombings"'
I will agree with you there. I dont in the least consider the US ambivalent towards anyone, only striving to make the end profit for the US.
I would very much prefer we go back to being as ostrichised in Washington as we were in the 1980s it did us a lot of good IMHO on the world stage.
 

 

For what its worth I have not reached a conclusion on the Gay Marriage issue. I can see both sides of the argument with my bias being to the liberal side. What concerns me particularly is the piety of politicians over the issue as they claim a very shaky - and frequently illogical - moral high ground. Consider for example the British Prime Minister. The importance of human rights over this issue was emphasized - but what about the rights of people in the Middle East that he has helped to extinguish. What about the rights of Christians - who have lived there for millennia - who are now being forced to leave their homes (and even face slaughter) because London and Washington sent in the bombers? What about members of the gay community in those countries’ - how will they fare? How do we deal with this intellectual dichotomy - human rights for some but not for others?
 
We also need to remind ourselves that the likes of Cameron and Blair - and all those other self-righteous European leaders - preside over emerging Sharia Law in certain major urban centres and elsewhere. Some of us are perhaps more conversant with this issue - and just how serious it is becoming - than others are. I was in the centre of emerging British Caliphate (Bethnal Green) only recently. It will be made much worse of course by the accession of Turkey to EU Membership. Correct me, but aren’t those great doyens of human rights David Cameron and Obama most keen on Turkish accession? Again correct me, but weren’t women in Turkey recently instructed not to laugh in public and to know their place? Do you see the dichotomy? Those who wax most lyrical about human rights to one audience appear to simultaneously have a very different agenda. Either that or they are very naive. Incidentally, wasnt it Adolf Hitler - in his lamentation to Alber Speer - who pointed out that the impediment to a fascist 'Eurabia' was "meek and flabby Christianity". Didnt he go on to bend Speer's ear about the tragedy of Islam's European advance faltering at the battle of Tours? 

 

"The importance of human rights over this issue was emphasized - but what about the rights of people in the Middle East that he has helped to extinguish."
Agree, of course that goes back to 1947~48, how successful our British govn has been for decades, not. ie not just christians, palestinians, for instance, etc hence why I wish to avoid religion.
"Do you see the dichotomy"
Very much so, hence why I detest the US as much as the CCCP, both two faced and morally corrupt IMHO.
Hitler, not someone I have studied in detail. I think he was more into alternatives than christianity, not sure. Maybe like Mao and Stalin he expected ppl to worship "the leader".
Islam, well like I said I wish to avoid religion, that includes it being forced upon my children in say school.  So whether its islam, christianity, Judaism all seem to have ppl who will use them for their own gains, power plays, control.  Yet all have good morals as a basis, but then you dont need religion to have good morals.
regards
 
 

"No decision on Gay marriage", Do you see the dichotomy? Surely if you are so firm in the belief that Govn should be out of ppls lives then on a subject that effects no one but two ppl it should be an easy decision?
regards
 

"I would very much prefer we go back to being as ostrichised in Washington as we were in the 1980s it did us a lot of good IMHO on the world stage."
 

But that would interfere with F'JK's retirement golfing buddie times in Hawaii.

and like Im meant to give a flying f*****?
Good riddence, probably safer for him as well, if the likes of Kunstler are right.
regards

And he can then ignore the devastation he and his Nat mates have visited on this country.  Not to induce religion into the issue, but none of them obviously believe in a Day of Judgement.

Fiddling while Rome burns....
Just looking at some hedge funds actions, I mean actually betting on a 2nd Great Depression occuring and then striving to make it happen.  Argentina, hedge funds holding out on the debt using US courts which will probably collapse the country and cause another default.
Yes indeed, it strikes me as utterly disconnected from reality, so obviously they do not expect a judgement day.  I hope they are right though, because a dudgement day for them (aka Kunstler) would mean us in an extremely desperate position for us.
Consider in the 1970s oil embargo I think Americans were shooting each other in gas lines waiting for petrol? Could that happen again? in the USA, yes it could get very violent. Just reading / watching youtube with someone looking at the stats for permit to carry incidents, something crazy in terms of numbers, somehow it doesnt seem that far fetched over there. 
regards
 
 
 
 
 

It's seems to be getting pretty violent in Auckland lately. Growing difference between rich and poor.