More wailing and gnashing of teeth about the possible Mana / Internet Party linkage

Speaking as a middle class, mortgaged European immigrant, I regard Hone Harawira as a man of honour and integrity. I admire his passion - which sometimes gets him into trouble - and the forthright way he responds to criticism. I wanted him and his values in parliament, which is why I voted for Mana in 2011 (in 2008, I felt unable to vote for any party and submitted a spoiled ballot paper - that's how seriously I take my political choices).

Dotcom, on the other hand, I regard as a self serving parasite who uses his wealth to buy influence to further his own interests. Buying a copy of Mien Kampf signed by Hitler as 'an investment' sums up the man perfectly - he sees the Holocaust as something he can make money out of, so he can have more baubles and buy more politicians.

 I can't see any relationship between the two parties working to the benefit of Mana. It will be tainted by the corrosive .com brand - he can play the loveable rogue only so much, and Mana will be continually question about why it is associating with a multi-millionaire possible criminal serial supporter of the right. It is a disastrous mis-step.

Heed me, Mana

If you form any sort of alliance with Kim Dotcom and his shabby, quasi-mythological 'Internet Party' I shall abjure you.

And as I make up 1.03% of your party vote in Palmerston North (that is, 1/97th) you had better listen to me!

Frankly, I do not understand the way some on the left seem to see Kim Dotcom as a friend or hero.  Yes, he makes John Key and John Banks uncomfortable.  But that does not make him our friend.  It simply shows what a pathetic effort the left have put into rattling the Key government and its revolting hangers on.

But our enemy's enemies are not necessarily our friends.  Some times they are just more enemies.  And feel free to express their enmity towards each other, because they have nothing to fear from us.

Great truths are often spoken in jest

Maybe I'm just a humourless dolt, but I didn't think Scott Yorke's spoof diary entry for Matthew Hooton was terribly funny.  But one line did strike me as being - perhaps unintentionally - very spot on.  Not because of what it says about Hooton, though:

I’m immensely intelligent, and I’m also right-wing. It’s no coincidence. 

So how can someone as well educated as Cunliffe be a leftie? That’s the biggest lie of all.

Maybe I'm just a cynical fool, as well as a humourless dolt, but I'm about as convinced by Cunliffe's leftwingery as I am of the existence of the Loch Ness Monster.

Foul polling lies from You Gov

Poll the other day suggested Labour only led the Conservatives by a single point.

This is blatant propaganda put about by the forces of reaction. The tinpot fraudsters who commissioned this so-called 'poll' - robably fresh back from the Crimea - are a joke.

Compare the fumbling efforts with a proper company like You Gov, who - just a fortnight ago - were showing a Labour lead of 9 points.

And only sporting instinct, support for the underdog and British fair play stopped them revealing the truth of the matter, which is that the Tories had actually registered a negative level of support and the number expressing support for Ed actually exceeding the number of people polled!

P.S.  I notice a subsequent You Gov poll shows a 2 point lead, which, of course should be described as Might Labour Effortlessly Double Lead Over Hopeless Tories!

And British justice is to become more Islamic (NOT)

I was disappointed to hear BOTH speakers on the National Radio panel getting in a flap about the supposed creeping Sharification of Britain, in this instance the issuing guidelines to lawyers to aid the drawing up of 'Sharia compliant' wills:

Under ground-breaking guidance, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether. 

The documents, which would be recognised by Britain’s courts, will also prevent children born out of wedlock – and even those who have been adopted – from being counted as legitimate heirs. 

Anyone married in a church, or in a civil ceremony, could be excluded from succession under Sharia principles, which recognise only Muslim weddings for inheritance purposes. 

Nicholas Fluck, president of The Law Society, said the guidance would promote “good practice” in applying Islamic principles in the British legal system. Here

Much nonsense has been spouted about this in an impressively short space of time, and not just by the people on the panel. The Telegraph article goes on to quote people claiming "Suffragette's would be spinning in their graves" ans so on, so forth. Others are banging on - as usual - about how this represents yet another concession to MUSLIMS and HALOWED BRITISH TRADITIONS are being ERODED by POLITICAL CORRECTNESS that has of course GONE MAD and so on, so on.

 Of course, they say that about everything when Muslims are involved. Sometimes they might even be correct. But not on this occasion.

As even a moments reflection will reveal, there is no special right being extended to Muslims. the Law Society does not have the power to change laws.

What is actually happening is that lawyers are being asked by clients to draw up wills, and they are doing that. Some of their clients are Muslims and want to draw up their wills in accordance with their own crackpot beliefs. Because most lawyers are not Muslim, doing that is quite difficult.

 So the Law Society has issued some instructions on how to do it.

 But - important bit - no special license or privilege has been extended to Muslims that would not apply to anyone else drawing up a will. If I wanted to exclude my wife from my will, or my sons if they turn out GAY, or leave everything to my cat because I believe her to be a higher being, then I have that right. There is nothing stopping me, apart from the fact that I am mostly sane.

Muslims - like all religious types - are a bit less so, and think nothing odd about settling their affairs as per instructions issued by a warlord 1500 years ago. So be it. We can all do that, and we could all have done that before these guidelines were issued.

Justice is swift in Egypt

Good to see that backing the overthrow of a democratically elected government by a clique of militarists hasn't lead to the curtailment of freedom or the corruption of justice in Egypt.  The courts are functioning with a smooth efficiency and justice is being meted out to those deserving in a fearless, but fair, manner.

Fears for the integrity of Egypt's legal system deepened on Monday after 529 supporters of the ousted Islamist president Mohamed Morsi were sentenced to death for the murder of a single policeman, in a mass trial that lasted less than two days.

How reassuring! Compare the gross inefficiency of the Muslim Brotherhood, where it apparently takes 529 people to kill one person! Here we see the improvements wrought by the coup against Morsi. Now one man can arrange the deaths of 529! One can only marvel at the speed with which Justice - so blind and impartial! - is meted out! There are no hold ups or backlogs or painful delays in this chap's court! 

And clearly, the fact that 529 people can be proven guilty so very quickly proves beyond a doubt that we were right to endorse and embrace the coup!  So many venal and wicked people, so swiftly brought to justice.

 P.S. Irony. It saddens me that I probably have to say that.