Just before Christmas, 2023, a swanky bach in Cook's Beach went up in smoke. It was immediately claimed that some sort of electric vehicle was responsible, with the claim being advanced via social media and repeated in traditional media - albeit in the latter case with caveats that it was hearsay from 'neighbours' and 'eyewitnesses' and had not been established.
Soon after, the local fire service made a public announcement, stating the fire was not started by an EV / PHEV and originated elsewhere in the house, adding the vehicle was not in the garage at the time the fire started and that it was not charging.
In a sane world that might have been the end of it - an official announcement had been made. We don't live in a sane world, however, so instead it was decreed this was simply a part of the cover up, a deliberate lie put out by FENZ to advance the EV agenda.
Because, yes, there are - supposedly - shadowy organization and powers whose purpose is to make people drive electric cars for ... reasons that remain unclear.
A few days after the fire some footage surfaced, filmed by a witness. It was immediately seized upon by the anti-EV voices because it seemed on the surface to contradict the official narrative.
Here's a You Tube wannbe influencer's called Simon's take on it, titled New Zealand (Cooks Beach) Fire: Media claims "EV not to blame":
His main points are that multiple eyewitness described it as being caused by an EV. The media initially reported this but later - mysteriously - changed their story to report the EV was not to blame. FENZ said the fire started elsewhere in the house, yet the garage is ablaze and the rest of the house is intact. And(of course) there is some nefarious attempt to "pull the wool" over our eyes by someone.
(SPOILER: in this case, it is the media.)
So, here is what he has to say. Describing the blaze itself, he says, "The initial media reports indicated that some kind of EV was responsible for the fire" - this is NOT TRUE as we will see. The media reports he cites don't apportion blame - they simply repeat information they have been given. They simply quote unidentified sources saying this is what they (the sources) thought happened; Simon neglects to acknowledge the caveats these media sources often included. He's presenting a false account of the media reports.
He hits us with the extracts from the media reports that he thinks back up the claim that "initial media reports indicated that some kind of EV was responsible for the fire"
A witness told 1News that the initial fire started in the garage where a hybrid car was parked.
Note there are discrepancies - in one case, it is an 'electric car' and in the second it is 'hybrid'; in the first story it is described as charging, and in the latter it is parked. The second report says the fire started in the garage, but the first one only says it started 'while an electric car was parking in the garage,' without explicitly saying where it started.
Eyewitness accounts (and note Newshub does not use the term 'eyewitness') are notoriously unreliable, and here we have complete chos after just two sentences.
Of course, our genial host has already prompted us to think it was the EV charging that ignites the garage, and the media reported this so we overlook these discrepancies.
His third source is the NZ Herald, which simply repeats (with due acknowledgement) what 1 News reported; he also provides some TV news footage, neither of which add anything to the mix, though the TV footage voice over describes the "inferno the locals say was caused by an electric car catching fire while charging in the garage."
So, finally we have a claim that the EV caused the fire - but here the "neighbours" and the "witness" have been downgraded to "locals" - by this stage, we could be getting the thoughts of anyone who was in Cook's Beach at the time and who was willing to talk to a journalist, regardless of whether they saw anything at all. And if I know one thing about people who don't like EVs, it is that they are happy to talk about them and how wicked they are, usually from a stance detached from any sort of direct experience or knowledge.
This is all worth mentioning as it gives the lie to the suggestion the media are not covering negative stories about electric vehicles, a common claim and one which Simon circles back to at the end of his diatribe. Here we have three different mainstream outlets all reporting information that it would have been easy for them - perhaps even journalistically responsible - for them not to report at this stage.
Our host then continues: "All these media outlets are basically saying the same thing - eyewitnesses who were on the scene when the fire started said it was caused by an EV with the fire spreading to the garage."
This statement is untrue. And I am not talking about the quibbles about whether they were describing it as a hybrid or an EV. He has upgraded the "neighbours" and "locals" to "eyewitnesses" who were "on the scene when the fire started"; but only 1 News 1 News used the term 'witness' (and the NZ Herald echoed it in its doppelganger reporting.
So it is untrue to claim - as he does - that "all these media outlets are basically saying the same thing" - only one of them (and its echo) is claiming to be speaking to anyone who could be said to have seen anything.
The other "neighbours" and "locals" don't say how the fire started; only the unidentified TV news coverage directly says their source claims the fire "was caused by an EV". 1 News referred to a "witness" who told them the fire started "in the garage" rather than stating the car started it; News Hub don't even suggest a location for it.
And remember, that TV news coverage only identified its source as "locals" - not dignifying them with the title of "witness" and who may not have seen anything at all. Yet here they are presented as "eyewitnesses who were on the scene when the fire started." Wild, wild surmising and invention from Simon.
That isn't what our host wants to talk about, really. After all, if that was how the story was covered, he would probably be quite happy. But, as he describes it, "But then, two days later, on the 18th of December, the New Zealand Herald put out another article ..." referring to this passage:
Social media posts and a media outlet then reported a witness as saying the fire had been started by an EV (electric vehicle) in the home’s garage.
But Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Fenz) investigator Ed Hopping said that was not the case.
“The investigation is still ongoing... but I’m comfortable to put it out there in the world that the fire wasn’t a result of the battery in the car failing,” Hopping said.
He said the fire started within the home, while the car was parked outside the garage and was not plugged in for charging at the time.
“It’s just important to put out there that hybrid cars... aren’t that vulnerable to fires,” Hopping said.
“And then in this instance, the car wasn’t plugged in and wasn’t inside the garage or the structure.”
Based on Fenz experience so far, he said it isn’t common for fires to be started by electric vehicles in New Zealand.
Simon offers his take on this: "So I'm glad we're getting all the key points of 'the message' out in this article ... I emailed the Fire and Emergency New Zealand media with the following questions: multiple eyewitness reports claim that the fire started in an hybrid vehicle that was parked outside the garage ..."
Again, "multiple eye witnesses" were not mentioned. A single "witness" was referred to and how much the rest may have known or seen is unclear. He is simply wrong here. WRONG.
(AN ASIDE: whatever these people may or may not have seen, they all said the car was INSIDE the garage. "In the garage" is repeated in all the reports - even though they can't decide if it was a hybrid, an EV, or whether it was charging or just parked. Yet hear is Simon blithely proclaims it was outside, immediately nixing the credibility of those "eye witnesses" (or whatever) he is relying on. You can't have it both ways, trusting them when they say the fire was started by a charging car (though only one of them, the "local" says that) and then happily ignoring them when they say the car was in the garage.)
Now we get to the nub of Simon's complaining - that Hopping said battery failure was not involved and the fire started else where in the house. He wants to know how this could have been confirmed "so quickly" (his words).
The obvious implication being this is a BIG LIE and a COVER UP. The possibility FENZ might have spoken to the people who owned the house and car and got information from them seems to have eluded our host. Though I am willing to be all the money in the world if Hopping had said "The investigation isn't complete but it was totally caused by the EV combusting" our host would not be complaining about the speed of that conclusion being made public.
“I can’t comment on the cause, because the investigation is not yet completed, but I can say where it did not start and that was in the garage,” Hopping said.
“The car did not have anything to do with it, and it was parked outside of the garage at the time.”
“It looks like the fire started at the rear of the property. It did not start where the car was.”
Significantly, he tells us to "take mental note of that very carefully because its going to be relevant in a minute."
He then engages in some boilerplate conspiracy waffle: "It's all very tidy isn't it? Nothing to see here folks, please disperse." If you say so, Simon. Though if I was running a cover up, I'd probably have made sure I had an alternate explanation out in the media, rather than just saying what it wasn't. Just get someone to say they left the iron on in the laundry adjacent to the garage, problem solved.
And, finally, we get the reward for all our patience. Simon has a video to show us, "sent to me by one of my viewers" which supposedly exposes the coverup. It is only a few seconds long and shows the garage of the house, the door open and flames pouring out of, with a Mitsubishi Outlander in the process of cooking up nicely.
Simon claims it is "very early on in the fire" and "you can see the only part of the house where smoke is coming from is the section where the car and the garage are. The rest of the house is not involved at all at this point ... as we get closer we can see that the garage itself is on fire. The car which is, I understand, a Mitsubishi Plug In Hybrid, is also on fire and the edges of the garage are on fire and the car. But there's no sign of the rest of the house being involved at this stage. And I don't see any evidence of the fire having started at the rear of the property which is completely out of sight compared to this view ... the main part of the house is not involved yet ... its not even involved. Its only that car and the garage that are on fire right now. So for them to say that it started at the rear just doesn't make sense with the evidence ..."
He also shows us some drone footage of the property blazing away, shortly after the clip.
He is overlooking a couple of pertinent things here, however.
First, of course, the first clip shows the front of the house. We can see the garage is in flames. But we can't see the back of the house. Tellingly, perhaps, the drone footage does show the rear of the house, and there are gouts of flame erupting from the read of the property:
As you can see, the rear of the house is pretty clearly 'involved' as Simon likes to say.
But ... but ... but ... that drone footage is clearly taken from later on, as there are now firefighters fight fire, down on the left (Simon has helpfully drawn a circle round them). Obviously, by this time the fire has spread through out the house, starting in the garage and only later 'involving' the rear of the house.
Possibly. But fires are tricky things - I know because I watched Backdraft obsessively in the 90s and still think it is a top, top film. It isn't uncommon for fires in oxygen poor environments to die down to virtually nothing (this, of course, is how you put them out, if you can only starve the fire of sufficient oxygen) but flare up again when they find sweet, sweet air to breathe. So if the fire had started at the rear of the house, if there wasn't plentiful oxygen, it could well have died down to the point where it wasn't obvious to someone in the street. There aren't ready pathways for smoke to pour out (otherwise, oxygen would be pouring in and the fire would be having a fine old time); the exception to this is the garage, where the door has been fatefully left open, giving the fire oxygen to breath.
(n.b. I am not saying this is what happens; and I repeat my credentials are virtually nil - but I reckon they are as robust as Simon's. And unlike him, when I am engaging in fantastic speculation I am making it pretty obvious this is what I am doing. And I amn't wasting the emergency services time with mendacious communications.)
Simon rounds it all off with a typically mealy-mouthed quasi-caveat, saying he would, of course, be delighted to learn it wasn't actually an EV that caused the fire but he just can't, for the life of him, see how this can fit with the facts he's presented. Someone, he implies, is telling us lies, and "What I really, really hate is having the wool pulled over my eyes by media outlets determined to push a particular message rather than be truthful with the facts."
Wait, what ... media outlets? Dude, they were simply reporting what they were being told. First, by the "neighbours" and "witnesses" and "locals" in Cook's Beach; and then by Fire Emergency New Zealand.
In spite of having emailed FENZ and quoted from their response and regurgitated the information stated in public by a spokesperson for FENZ, Simon is trying to blame the media for what he claims is a misrepresentation? This is outlandishly silly. How can the media dictate what Hopping and FENZ say?
Just go back to the title of Simon's clip for a moment: New Zealand (Cooks Beach) Fire: Media claims "EV not to blame". No, Simon, the media didn't. FENZ said the fire started else where and the car did not cause it. The media simply REPORTED what FENZ said. But claiming FENZ is spread false information is a riskier proposition than making vague, absurd claims about unidentified "media".
I know blaming 'mainstream media' is bread and butter for conspiracy trolls like Simon; but it helps if you can actually point to something bad the media have actually done. Here they have literally just done their job, telling readers and viewers what happened and what people are saying about it, in a fairly even handed way - and I know this because there is plenty of complaining on EV social media sites about how the media mentioned the claims about an EV / hybrid being involved.
If the New Zealish Labour Party thought it had woes, then they need only look across the ditch and see what REAL problems look like. And it is really sad as, viewed pragmatically, Abbott's victory offers a brilliant opportunity for the Labour Party to regroup and get ready for what should be a straightforward return to power in 2016, for it won't take long for Tony Abbott to become so hated that people would even vote Kevin Rudd back in.
However, I confidently expect the Australian Labour Party will not manage to put its house in order and will go into the 2016 election - and the one after that, and the one after that - as a disorganised, dishevelled, hate-inspiring rabble of self-serving divisionists, gleefully plotting against each other and not giving a damn about the party, far less the country, because their seats will be safe. After all, if they've managed to cling on to their seats through the routing of Rudd, they'll probably never lose them.
Blessed with playing opposition to what will be the most hated
government since ... er ... their last one, Labour will not be ready. Abbott is going to be
loathed, his policies are going to be hated and his MPs are going to
turn out to be drivelling morons who couldn't even find a place in One
Nation. In fact, there is a possibility Labour and the Coalition will be
so hated that, next time round, Australia will see it first ever Green
government, with One Nation forming the opposition. Or the other way
round ... because both the big parties are going to be despised and
disowned for a very long time.
(Okay, that last bit is a bit fanciful.)
So, what now for the Labour Party. In a sane world, Rudd would step down. But this isn't a sane world. This is the mad world where Tony Abbott gets to be PM, so all bets are off. He should go. But who would replace him? There
aren't enough Labour MPs left to have a leadership race and an
election, are there?
You can imagine the conversations between the remaining members of caucus: "Right, I'm standing and so are you. I'll vote for
you and you vote for you, and that way we can say the new leaders was
elected after a fiercely fought contest, winning the overwhelming
support of the Labour Party cauccus. All three of them ..."
At least the travails and misery of the (sort of) left in Australia should serve as some sort of warning to our lot. But will they heed it? I fear not.
First of all, let me say I profoundly don't care which of the scumbags gets to be Prime Minister of Australia. They are both loathsome human beings, in a way that even John Key isn't.
But the machinations of politics does fascinate me, and as the psychodrama of the NZ Labour leadership toddles tediously along, the show across the Tasman provides a welcome bit of Grand Goignol.
The Guardian is calling the election for the Coalition, Abbot for PM, and proclaiming the demise of Kevin Rudd. This seems to me to be a very superficial reading of events.
Rudd was not brought back to win the election but to minimise the defeat. It's a measure of how much of a (shortlived) impact his return had that this was immediately forgotten and replaced with a 'Who will win?' narrative. But it was never a win/lose proposition, no matter how much Sunny Kev might try to make out he expects to be PM on Monday. He was brought back because an awful lot of marginal Labour MPs were worried they might lose their jobs.
If he can save them, they'll save him.
Whether or not he has made a difference to the scale of Labour's defeat remains to be seen. I suspect he may do well enough to hold on to have another tilt next time, if he wants to - he seems to be the only person who wants to be leader of the Australian Labour Party, and who can blame the others for shirking a slurp from that poisoned chalice?
Abbot is already unpopular and he hasn't even won the election yet, far less started doing anything to really annoy people. Wait a few months and see the real hating start. Whoever is in charge of Labour for the next election will have a good chance of condemning Abbot (assuming he isn't rolled, as happened to Rudd and then Gillard) to the ignominy of being a one term wonder.
Something Rudd hasn't actually achieved, of course, as he got booted out before the 2010 election.
Someone uploaded this clip on youtube the other day and it has been brought to my attention by American types. It purports to show what happened in Australia after gun ownership was restricted and a buy-back scheme introduced.
Apparently, this lead to soaring crime rates and an increase in homicides:
Only, it is from 1999 (or there about). It identifies Trevor Griffin as the Attorney General, something he stopped being in 2001. The data in the clip is - unsurprisingly - out of date. A quick Google check indicates the rates of gun crime and gun homicide in Australia have fallen to record lows - aside from an anomalous spike immediately after the restrictions and buy-back were introduced, which is the 'rise' the clip refers to.
Still, if you're dumb enough to think having 90 guns per 100 people is a good idea, you're dumb enough to accept this sort of stuff at face value.
Hey! Gun lovers! The Earth ain't flat! Have you discovered that, yet?
An Indian court on Monday found two Muslim men and a woman guilty in twin bombings that killed 52 people and wounded 100 in the country's financial capital, Mumbai, six years ago.
Two taxis carrying explosives blew up within minutes of each other Aug. 25, 2003, at the Gateway of India, a popular tourist attraction on the waterfront, and at a busy shopping complex.
The bombings were one of the worst attacks in Mumbai's history. No one else has been charged.
Ashrat Shafiq Mohammed Ansari, Syed Mohammed Haneef Abdul Rahim and his wife Fahmeeda Syed Mohammed Haneef were arrested under India's tough anti-terrorism law shortly after the attacks. (1)
I noted the name 'Mohammed Haneef' with passing interest. As regular readers (Hah!) of lefthandpalm will know, I had a sizeable swarm of bees in my bonnet about the arrest and detention of Mohammed Haneef in Australia, in 2007 (2).
Then, the aforementioned moment of illumination:
Judge M.R. Puranic said all three were members of Lashkar-e-Taiba, a banned, Pakistan-based militant group formed in the 1980s — with the alleged blessing of Pakistani intelligence — to sow trouble in the disputed Kashmir region. The three denied involvement with the group. (3)
A vague memory was stirred. Wasn't Mohammed Haneef linked to an India terrorist organisation? I checked (4). He was. He was alleged to have been a member of SIMI, the Students' Islamic Movement of India, "a clandestine organisation that has frequently been held responsible for bomb attacks in India in the name of Islamic extremism" (5).
Dots started to get joined up in my head. Was there a link between SIMI and Lashkar-e-Taiba? I did what every two-bit internet detective would do, and zapped the names through google. According to Indian police, there are:
The terror outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) has been providing the necessary training and support to the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) and Indian Mujahideen, which have been behind the recent series of terrorist attacks in India, Delhi Police said on Saturday.
-snip-
"When LeT's terrorists were arrested (Pakistan's intelligence agency) ISI had a problem internationally. So their strategy was to train more and more people of Indian origin. So they approached SIMI and Indian Mujahideen and coordinated with them," Singh said.
"SIMI provided the money and execution support to the Indian Mujahideen,” he added. (6)
That's from 2008, whereas the luckless Mohammed Haneef was detained in 2007, so there isn't quite an overlap - but it is an interesting pointer, and it raises some questions.
When Mohammed Haneef's name was run past the anonymous Bangalore police source (7), did it sound familiar enough to set alarm bells ringing and prompt the source to identify him as a possible terrorist? Was Haneef, essentially, detained, humilated and smeared because he had the dual misfortune of having a terrorist as a distant relative, and a "John Smith" sort of name?
Was Mohammed Haneef detained, even though Syed Mohammed Haneef Abdul Rahim had ALREADY been in custody in India, for YEARS?
This might seem a bit tenuous, but compared to the case the Australian government made against Haneef, it is cast iron and impregnable.
Of course, there are lots of reasons why New Zealanders head overseas to live. .... Some go because they’re sick and tired of the political correctness – around race or gender – in New Zealand. (1)
In the broader context of the speech, he's talking specifically about Australia - the speech is subtitled, "Can we ever catch Australia?"
His - pretty obvious - intention is to brand New Zealand, particularly New Zealand under Labour, as strangled by political correctness. Especially, he points out, "around race or gender." But, unintentionally he reveals how he sees New Zelanders - and, by extension, how the people he represents see New Zealanders.
By Don's lights, New Zealanders are fundamentaly racist and sexist. Disgusted by the tardy and tokenistic efforts made by New Zealand to address the massive historical injustices done during colonisation, New Zealanders up sticks to the other side of the Tasman, to a place that knows how to keep the darkies in their place. Because we have to assume that he's talking about white - maybe, a t a pinch, yellow - New Zealanders here, not the other sort. I can't think that there are too many Maori stropping off to Australia because they've had a gutsful of racial political correctness.
Then there's the issue of political correctness surrounding gender. Seriously, Don, WTF? What are you talking about here? What shocking examples of reverse sexual discrimination blight New Zealand? The fact they voted for a woman over a man - particularly you - in 2002 and 2005? What are we to make of the girl-on-girl electoral action of 1999? Political correctness gone mad? Or is it the Electoral Bill of 1883, granting women the vote, that still rankles?
Finally, let's not mince words here. Let's be clear that if people are leaving the country because of political correctness about race and gender, we're losing a substantial chunk of the racist, sexist section of our population. Which is no great loss to anyone, other than talkback radio show hosts.
After failing to bully the Melbourne International Film Festival into withdrawing a documentary about Uighur leader Rebiya Kadeer, Chinese hackers have now defaced the festival's website:
Hackers attacked the Melbourne International Film Festival website on Saturday, replacing information with the Chinese flag and leaving slogans criticising exiled Uighur leader Rebiya Kadeer, The Age newspaper reported.
Chinese directors have already withdrawn their films over the August 8 screening of the Kadeer documentary and festival director Richard Moore has accused Chinese officials of trying to bully him into pulling the documentary.
The Age reported that festival staff had been inundated with abusive emails over Moore's refusal to withdraw the film and cancel Kadeer's invitation to attend the screening.
"The language has been vile," Moore told the newspaper. "It is obviously a concerted campaign to get us because we've refused to comply with the Chinese government's demands." (1)
Not content with conquering the independent (or at least, soviet dependent) Second East Turkestan Republic, systematically supressing the culture of the minority population, flooding the region with Han settlers who are given the best jobs and all the real power and impoverishing the Uighir majority (2), they now try to stop anyone even talking about the Uighurs.
What a bunch of despicable crap heads these totalitarian bastards our esteemed trading partners are.
In his address in Sydney, the Pope made the point of apologizing for the sexual abuse of minors. However, his carefully chosen words avoided admitting any responsibility by the Church over failure to act to protect children from sexual predators in the church:
Here I would like to pause to acknowledge the shame which we have all felt as a result of the sexual abuse of minors by some clergy and religious in this country. Indeed, I am deeply sorry for the pain and suffering the victims have endured and I assure them that as their pastor I too share in their suffering. (1)
I'm not even going to bother with the Pope's patronising claim that he has a "share in their suffering." That isn't the issue.
Nor, surprisingly, is the issue the fact that a few priests committted terrible crimes against children. Wicked people do horrible things. Some of them wear priestly garb, some of them don't. I don't expect the Pope to apologise for the sins of any individual, priest or otherwise, any more than I expect any given Maori to apologise over the Kahui killings or any random German to apologise for the Holocaust.
But the Catholic church, as an institution, acted to protect itself first, instead of the victims of the abuse. Rather than expose the predators, the church chose to sheild them, allowing them to continue to abuse. That is what the Pope should apologise for. But, at least on this occasion, he failed refused to do so. Like Bill Clinton, he is more than ready to feel the pain of whoever he is trying to reach out to (2). But he isn't going to admit that his church's inaction and hypocrisy contributed to that pain.
Without acknowledging that the church shares the guilt for the abuse, the shame remains, and his words are empty.
1 - "Text of Pope's apology for sexual abuse in Australia," unattributed translation of the address given by the Pope, published by Reuters and reproduced on ONE News, 19th of July, 2008. (http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425822/1920111). 2 - This piece of Clintonesque emphatic vacuity occurred on the campaign traill in 1992, apparently. Tragically, it probably marks a high point for Clinton's sincerity in that decade. (http://www.actupny.org/campaign96/rafsky-clinton.html)
Kevin Rudd's apology (1) and talk about 'closing the gap' beleween white and black Australia is good start. Rudd's done what the Liberals didn't manage to do in over a decade - apologise for a greivous wrong.
Where it goes from here will need a lot of hard work, but for the moment, good on you, Australia.
Just before Christmas, the appeal by former government of Australia, against the court ruling restoring Mohammed Haneef's visa was dismissed:
An Indian doctor briefly charged over failed bomb attacks in the UK in June has won a court battle to return to Australia on a work visa.
The Federal Court of Australia dismissed an appeal by government lawyers against a judge's decision to restore Mohamed Haneef's visa.
Ex-Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews revoked the former Gold Coast Hospital registrar's visa on character grounds.
Dr Haneef was accused of links with failed attacks in London and Glasgow.
The decision by the former immigration minister to cancel the Indian doctor's visa was quashed by a federal court judge in August. (1)
So "hurrah" for that. Good to see that even when berserk rightwing racist goons seize control of the state with a combination of bribery and racist incitement, the courts are still strong enough to stand up to power. And that the Aussie public will (eventually) see through lies and charlatanism and boot the lying charlatans out.
There needs to be an inquiry into the case, however, to see how a reasonable action (detaining the cousin of a terrorist bomber as he tried to flee the country) developed into an attempt to thwart the will of the courts (2). The shameless lies and smears (3) of Kevin Andrews and his apparent personal vendaetta against Haneef need to be investigated as well.
I enjoy listening to the panel on National Radio, even though Jim Mora hasn't read out any of my emails yet. It serves the useful purpose of demonstrating that lefties can generally be erudite and funny about stuff, and take the piss - even Pompous Chris (1) - whereas righties are generally annoying, dull, montonous ideologues who can only bleat on about Labour and how scurrilous Labour / Greens / anyone who doesn't have extensive passages of Atlas Shrugged tattoooed across their buttocks, is.
Today (2), it was one of the latter variety, with two rightie panellists, Mike Ponder and Richard Griffin. Griffin is a frequent paneleer and generally Not An Idiot. Ponder I have no knowledge of, perhaps because he spends his time flitting betxit New Zealand and Aussie, which puts me in mind of something Muldoon once said.
Anyway, during the panels deliberations, the topic of How Much More Splendid Australia Is cropped up, as it does every other week or so. This time, it was in the context of Michael 'Ebenezeer' Cullen's comments (3) about tax cuts not briding the income gulf between New Zealand and Australia. Ponder agreed with Cullen in general, explaining that Austalia was so much more fabulous than New Zealand that a few dollars couldn't compensate for the horror of being trapped in a country that (from his tacit description) gave North Korea a run for its money.
All very well. People can like Australia more than New Zealand, no matter how odd their reasons. His reasons for valourising Australia were: that Australia had a better climate, which is nonsense - ask any Aussie farmer; Australians enjoyed better opportunites, which is a wonderfully vague term, especially with no example given; the general way of life was more purposeful. Also, Aussies cherished their heritage and history more. While I'll concede that are many Australian cultural colossi, like Patrick White, Ivan Southall, Peter Weir, John Pilger, Clive James and Nick Cave, Aussie's, as a rule, aren't an international by-word for cultural savvy.
All debateable points, but not scurrilous or absurd. But there was more, oh yes.
Crucially, New Zealanders hated the New Zealand government (elected , last time I checked, by New Zealanders) and were sick of "the Maori issues. People just get sick of the Maori issue in their face all the time." Then Griffin - usually Not An Idiot, remember - chipped in, pointing out "in terms of the aboriginals, the the Australian's ... white Australian policy was disgraceful, but it's now an issue that's history."
Whoa, Nelly, what?
New Zealanders are leaving New Zealand because of "Maori issues"? What about the ... um ... New Zealanders who happen to be Maori, and who are leaving? Are they leaving because they are sick of "Maori issues"? Or is there tacit implication that New Zealander means white, and Maori must be something else?
And then Richard 'Not An Idiot' Griffin announces that the vast over-representation of Aboriginal Australians (note his slip - at first it is just 'the Australian's' who have an atrocious historical record, quickly ammended to ''White Australians') in all the bad statistics - crime, povert, child abuse, alcoholism, low life expectancy and all that - is "an issue that is history." Yeah, right. Sorry, but bollocks.
You can't just draw a line under mammoth injustices like thos inflicted on the Aboriginals. Even to do attempt to do that and say, "That's all finished with, we'll treat you nice from now on" is de facto racism, because the Aboriginals so over represented at the bad of the social statistics. You have to make redress, balance it out, take affirmative action, whtever you want to call it. New Zealand - slowly and painfully and reluctantly - is doing that. Maori tribes acan seek redress through the courts for past injustices (4), and Labour is improving the lot of Maori through - bluntly - race specific policies coupled with socially progressive measures. It is working, at a pace that New Zealanders - of all colours and backgrounds - seem to be accepting.
So, if there are New Zealanders - and by that I mean craven Pakeha scum who are in denial of historical injustice and the need to sort it out - are really moving to Australia becasue they're sick of the "Maori issues," then they can piss off. The country is better off without tacitly racist morons like that.
1 - Pompous Chris will be my new name for Chris Trotter, as The Moustachioed One seems too adulatory. This label, and Halt All Racist Tours, will be John Minto's lasting contributions to New Zealand society. 2 - Monday, 12th of November, 2007. Unfortunately, the audio is only available online for a week, that I'm aware of, so I won't bother linking. If this is not the case, please advise me. 3 - 'Labour's tax cut commitment doubted,' unattributed TVNZ article, 11th of November, 2007. (http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1320238/1441580) 4 - Yes, I know. Foreshore and Seabed. Nothing is perfect. But this is not perfect and much worse.
With brilliant timing, just as John Howard had called an election, Mohammed Haneef's lawyers want an investigation (1) into how so much inaccurate information came to be levelled against Dr Haneef:
Peter Russo, Dr Haneef's lawyer, has welcomed the finding and is of the opinion that it was a flawed case from the very beginning.
''The difficulty with what's happened really now is it has left it open. It's really created more questions than it has actually answered,'' he has been quoted as saying by the Australian media.
''Perhaps it's something that needs to have an inquiry because the biggest difficulty we've got is that we don't know where the misinformation came from,'' Russo added. (2)
This follows an independent review which found that the case against Haneef contained "errors of fact" (3). It is not unresonable to wnat to know how so many errrors, of such magnitude, happened. The investigation should also cover why the police and ministers were so willing to leak material on Haneef, of course.
Howard's decision to call an election for the 24th of Novemeber, in the immediate aftermath of the Haneef appeal, scheduled for November 15th (4), looks even stranger and even more suicidal. Perhaps he's hoping is party will get such a trouncing that Costello won't be around to depose him.
And Kevin Andrews continues to behave in an apalling manner:
Meanwhile, in an unrelated case, a Federal Court judge has criticised the Australian Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews over the 'involuntary removal' of a man to New Zealand. In what is being considered as an ‘unprecedented’ attack, the judge has gone to the extent of calling the Immigration Minister's action as "truly disgraceful." (5)
Business as usual. But hopefully, not for much longer.
1 - "Haneef’s lawyers seek probe into charges," unattributed article on sify.news, 13th of October, 2007.(http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14542740) 2 - ibid. 3 - "Australia 'terror doctor' case flawed: review," unattributed AFP article, 12th of October, 2007. 4 - sify.news article, op. cit. 5 - ibid.
Games up awareness seems to have percolated through the inches thick, scaley hide that shields Kevin Andrews's from heavy blows and new ideas. Faced with the very real possibility that his ministerial career, akin to the dinosaurs in its lumber process and pea brained-ness, may be facing its own dinosaurian extinction, he has done what any good Australian 'Liberal' would do - lash out at others to divert attention to himself.
First though, the shocking revelation that ALL IS NOT AS IT SEEMS in the Haneef case. Indeed, it would appear that the allegation made against Dr. Terror, aka Mohammed Haneef, DO NOT QUOITE STACK UP. Catch your breath. I know that will have been a shock to you all.
Kevin Andrews, it will be recalled, claimed that Mohammed Haneef and his brother Shuaib had engaged in a very suspicious internet chat (1), prior to Haneef's attempt to flee Australia like a craven terrorist. Never mind that brother Shuaib has not been linked publically with any terrorist schemes in any way shape or form. This is the genius of the Andrews doctrine: Haneef is tainted by his association with cousin Kafeel. So Shuaib, through his association with Haneef, must also be guilty. So a conversation between the two of them can not be innocent. Follow me so far?
Anyway, Andrews came up with a summary of the potent exchange between Haneef and Shuaib. It was obviously edited, but Mr Andrews, presummably with our best interests at heart, ommited some cardinal details, such as the fact that terrorist-by-association Shuaib had in fact TOLD HANEEF TO LEAVE HIS CONTACT DETAILS WITH THE BRITISH POLICE (2).
Truly, you can see Haneef and Shuaib learned to be terrorists alongside second cousin Kafeel Ahmed, the Glasgow bomber who suceeded in killing himself and no-one else. Keystone, or Keeltystone, cops Australia has already, but now it seems the lucky country is lucky enough to be blessed with Keystone terrorists as well, whose idea of making a surreptitious exit is to ask leave of your employer, and tell the police how to get in touch with you. Perhaps they wanted to mock the police after eluding them, who knows? But that seems unlikely.
The consequences of his blundering have finally reached Andrews's fore-brain, and his Liberal survival instincts have kicked in. Presumably, he looked for some minority ethnic group, preferable immigrant, to blame, but found none available. So the blame is to be placed on the shoulders of the equally saurian Mick Keetly. Responding to suggestions that he had selectively quoted evidence to frame Haneef, Andrews claimed angelic innocence:
But Mr Andrews rejected the notion that he had misled the public, unfairly tarnished Dr Haneef or even selectively quoted from the discussion.
"That is absolutely not true," his spokeswoman told the Herald. "That was only the material that the AFP would enable the minister to release. There is still a range of material we could not release on security grounds." (3)
The AFP was also blamed for Andrews being given false information when mulling the decision to cancel Haneef's visa. The trend is becoming clear - the hapless Immigration Minister, mislead by Mick Keelty, is not responsible. Though even if we accept this rather ludicrous idea, it still leaves big questions unanswered about Andrews's competence to do his job, if he has been lead such a merry dance by Keelty. It looks likely that Andrews Rex (or Andrews Wreck) is doomed to extinction. Hopefully the other Liberal dinosaurs will also be wiped out in the near future.
Though I suspect they may be trying to stupify us into submission with the blatant nature of their idiocy and hypocrisy. Or they are constructing some sort of real-world satirical meta-narrative, though given the intelligence of those involved, that seems unlikely.
... Because he feels they aren't broad enough. He is claiming that Mohammed Haneef walked free, not because of the fatal combination of a lack of any real charge to bring against him and the incompeence of the AFP and *cough* Kevin Andrews *cough*, but because they aren't wide enough:
"The reason why the charge against Haneef was withdrawn goes to the question of whether or not the people involved, or allegedly involved, in the UK were members of a terrorist organisation," he said.
"Had the legislation been written in a different way that referred to people engaged in terrorist activities, rather than a reference to a terrorist organisation, then it may well be he'd be facing a charge today." (1)
Obviously the people who drafted the laws were fools and incompetents. Who was that, then, Kevin? Perhaps that could have been sorted out, if more time was allowed for discussion before the law was passed. Again, whose fault was that, Kevin? (2)
Andrews is a fool. If the secret evidence is so confidential that it can't be revealled due to "intelligence concerns and the need to protect investigations" (3), then surely even hinting at it may jeopardise it? He should keep quiet about the whole thing, unless of course his true aim is excusing his behaviour.
Immigration Minister, Kevin Andrews, was at it again yesterday - casting aspersions against Mohamed Haneef without providing any details to back his claims.
"I have been provided with no information to lessen my suspicion in relation to Dr Haneef. Any further information I've been provided actually heightens my suspicion," Mr Andrews told reporters.
Perhaps it it is a learned reaction, like Pavlov's dogs salivating at the sound of a bell, Andrews and the Howard administration are so used to electoral reward for immigrant bashing they can't help themselves any more.
As usual, Andrews presents nothing to support his allegations, just vague suggestions that he's still holding back some dynamite revelations for the proper time. When that might be, or how allowing Haneef to leave the country fits in with the idea that he is a duplicious, terrorist fiend.
What Andrews doesn't seem to realise is that his continual slanders are becoming counter-productive. People will see through a magicians trick if they watch it done enough times - and the Howard administration has played this trick numerous times. Even the most knuckle-headed - or loyal - Liberal supporter must be wondering why, if Haneef presented such a grave and present danger, he was allowed to leave Australia.
Still, Andrews's latest outburst is instructive. Assuming that it isn't merely childish pique - and my opinion of Andrews is so low that I can't rule this out - it suggests the Howard administrationis going to carry on. Some pretext will be found to refuse Haneef's re-entry into Australia. The judge, while restoring Haneef's visa, offered an opportunity for theat the minister to make a further fool of himself, pointing out that
the visa could have legitimately been cancelled on the grounds that Dr Haneef was a person of interest to British police or based on the fact he had been charged with a terrorism offence (which has since been withdrawn) (2)
Hopefully, Andrews will take the bait, and the subsequent challenge to his decision will force the Australian government and police to reveal what they are holding back. Though when they do, expect it to be less than overwhelming.
Mohammed Haneef has won his appeal (1) to overturn the cancellation of his work visa for Australia. The decision by a Brisbane court suggests that the courts in Australia won't cravenly follow the rule by ministerial fiat witnessed in the Haneef case. Of course, Queensland Magistrate Jaqui Payne had already tried to do some elementary justice for Haneef, only to have her efforts quashed by Kevin Andrews (2). It is fitting that it was Andrews's decsion to cancel Haneef's visa, thus effectively cancelling Payne's decision on bail, that has now delivered a fatal blow to the Howard government.
Andrews was found to have committed a "jurisdictional error" (3), which means the court found he had over-stepped his authority. Bad judgment and incompetence have been a feature of this case. Haneef was detaiend on spurious charges, his visa was cancelled - a bullying tactic intended to keep him incarcerated - as a result of false information given to Andrews by the AFP, and then finally, the absurd travesty of Haneef being released and bustled out of the country, with John Howard (5), Mick Keelty (6) and Kevin Andrews (7) lining up to make nasty insinuations about Haneef's character. The Howard government have shown themselves willing to mis-use power to hang on to it. Hopefully, they won't have it too much longer.
The court decision marks - HOPEFULLY - the end of the Howard administration. They've nailled their colours to the mast so firmly, losing this round must be a huge setback. There are a few months still to potter through, and I wouldn't put it past Howard to try to cook up some new fear and loathing scare story to try to scrape another victory. But the Haneef case will probably be seen as the last act of his political career. Beyond this - again, HOPEFULLY - lie the dismal prospect of defeat and the possible ignominy of losing his seat. I'd feel more sympathy for him if he hadn't spent so much of his time in power making himself so utterly intolerable.
The AFP have provided Haneef's lawyers with the transcript of the 12 hours they interrogated the Indian doctor before charging him on July 14 with providing resources to a terrorist organisation.
That charge was dropped when the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions decided there was not a reasonable prospect of conviction. Haneef's lawyers were given the interview transcript on August 8, the day the doctor's appeal against Andrews' decision to cancel his work visa on character grounds was heard in the Federal Court, The Age reported on Friday.
In an accompanying letter, the manager of the AFP's domestic counter-terrorism unit asked Haneef's lawyers not to make the transcript public. (1)
This lack of even-handedness suggests that the AFP aren't neutral in this - perhaps Andrews and Keelty have realised that they sink or swim together.
A row has erupted in parliament over Maori MP Hone Harawira, who has gone AWOL from a parliamentary visit to Melbourne.
He had been on a select committee trip but while other politicians were still in Melbourne Harawira travelled to the Northern Territory with a film crew to see for himself how some of Australia's indigenous people live. (1)
I can't see what the fuss is about. There is predictable a bit of whinging about "abusing an official trip" (2) and the like, but he's probably making better use of his time than if he were hanging about in Melbourne with the official party. Melbourne is a lovely city and if I were minded to go abscond from official duties, I'd have stayed right there. Or gone to a bout a million different places before I ended up in a Aboriginal settlement on the outskirts of Alice Springs (3).
Hone hasn't just been lying back and enjoying the wonderful vista of corrugated iron, grog shops and gang tagging, however:
Mr Harawira told the Herald from Alice Springs yesterday he had gone to the Northern Territory to discuss indigenous issues with Aboriginal groups.
He met tribal authorities and was last night accompanying patrols to Aboriginal camps.
"I want to see the other side of the rabbit-proof fence," he said.
He has criticised the Australian Government's emergency legislation to intervene in Northern Territory Aboriginal communities to try to stop sexual abuse of children.
"I wanted to discuss the racist piece of legislation that no one out here has been consulted on," he said. (4)
Whatever he's seeing and doing out there, its probably more relevant than what his colleagues are work-shopping in a Melbourne conference room.
If he's mis-used tax-payer money, or failed in his duty, some form of censure is needed, of course. Legitimizing his behaviour would set a precedent that other MPs will exploit, though I suspect that most of them would do their 'research' somewhere more appealing than the ramshackle suburbs of Alice Springs.
Even though John Howard has already ruled it out (1). Howard is quoted as saying "We don't need a judicial inquiry, that is a politically inspired call by Mr Rudd," (2) which is pretty brazen as his own claim that there is no need for an inquiry is as obvious a piece of sweeping troublesome political dirt under the carpet as you could wish for.
Anyway, the ACT Human Rights and Discrimination Commissioner, Dr Helen Watchirs, has added her voice to the demmands of the Greens and the johnny-come-lately Labor Party for an investigation, saying:
"I think an independent inquiry by a judicial officer and possibly the police integrity commissioner to look at the actions of the AFP (Australian Federal Police) is needed,
"I'm not sure who would do an inquiry into the DPP (Director of Public rosecutions).
"You would probably need an independent judge with Royal Commission powers to do that." (3)
Expect a total-refusal-to-care-what-other-people-think from the Howard camp.
Meanwhile, Howard has made another invidious comment about Mohammed Haneef, rejecting Haneef's rather naive request to be given "honorary" Australian citizenship with the implication that Haneef is a bad person:
"I’m not sure that we have honorary Australians anyway, but he wouldn’t be the sort of person you’d make an honorary Australian" (4)
What does that mean John? Do you have anything to back up this calumny? If so, why did you let him go? Or do you just like making nasty comments about innocent people?
