NZ Must Undertake a Peacekeeping Role in Trump's Wars

Donald Trump’s return to the White House and aggressive posturing is undermining global diplomacy, and New Zealand must stand firm in rejecting his reckless, fascist-driven policies that are dragging the world toward chaos.

As a nation with a proud history of peacekeeping and principled foreign policy, we should limit our role to humanitarian rebuilding efforts and steer clear of any complicity in conflicts sparked by Trump’s dangerous anti-prosperity agenda.

Aotearoa must not be seen to be taking sides, particularly against our largest trading partner, China. There is no doubt that Trump will cause international relations to destabilise, and we’d be fools to get sucked into the vortex of United States-initiated wars, from the shameful Gaza genocide to the unending Ukraine conflict that the US appears to be swapping sides on.

Yesterday, the BBC reported:

Trump blames Zelensky for starting war after massive Russian attack

"When you start a war, you got to know you can win," the US president said.

Trump has repeatedly blamed Zelensky and Biden for the war, despite Russia invading Ukraine first in 2014, five years before Zelensky won the presidency, and then launching a full-scale invasion in 2022.

Trump’s idiotic claims and destructive rhetoric are a lit fuse for global conflict. His proposal to “take over” Gaza, displacing two million Palestinians to turn the war-torn strip into a “Riviera of the Middle East,” is not just delusional...it’s a blatant endorsement of ethnic cleansing. This plan, coupled with his unwavering support for Israel’s Nazi-like government, pours fuel on an already catastrophic fire.

By suggesting U.S. troops could occupy Gaza and permanently resettle its people, Trump is greenlighting annexation and further violence, thumbing his nose at international law and the two-state solution. His cosy relationship with Netanyahu, who smirked through Trump’s Gaza press conference, shows a shared contempt for Palestinian rights and regional stability.

The U.S., under Trump’s influence, has long played a dirty hand in global conflicts. In Gaza, decades of American military and diplomatic support for Israel have enabled the ongoing genocide, with over 50,000 Palestinian deaths, most of them children, since October 2023. The Biden administration laid the groundwork, but Trump’s explicit backing of Israeli settler policies and his withdrawal from UN human rights bodies signal a new level of complicity.

 

Last week, The Guardian reported:

Trump was ‘the candidate of peace’. Now he’s fanning the flames of war

But less than 100 days into his second term, Trump has not only instigated economic and political chaos at home, he is also stoking multiple conflicts abroad. Last month, Trump launched a new US bombing campaign against Houthi rebels in Yemen, who have been disrupting international shipping in the Red Sea. Trump also supported the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, after he imposed a new siege on Gaza and restarted Israel’s devastating war against the Palestinian territory. And on 28 March, Israel bombed Beirut for the first time since agreeing to a US-brokered ceasefire with the Hezbollah militia in Lebanon, jeopardizing another fragile truce in the region.

In Ukraine, Trump’s “peace diplomacy” is a sham. His push for a rushed ceasefire, demanding Kyiv cede territory and abandon NATO aspirations, effectively rewards Putin’s aggression. The U.S. helped escalate this war by expanding NATO eastward, poking the Russian bear while arming Ukraine to the teeth, turning it into a proxy battleground. Trump’s current posturing as a deal maker only emboldens authoritarian regimes, risking further instability in Europe.

New Zealand’s role must be clear: we are peacekeepers, not pawns in Trump’s imperialist chess game. Our history in East Timor and the Solomon Islands shows we can rebuild communities and foster stability in an effective way that utilises both our skill-set and existing military equipment. Any involvement in or help to escalate Trump’s conflicts...whether in Gaza, Ukraine, or future flash points, risks tainting our reputation and dragging us into unending conflicts that only serve U.S. interests, not ours. We should focus on humanitarian aid, reconstruction, and supporting UN-led peacekeeping missions that prioritise people over power.

Trump’s fascism thrives on division and destruction. New Zealand must reject his warmongering siren call and instead work to promote on our independent, principled foreign policy. Let’s invest in the rebuilding of war torn countries, not help the United States to destroy them...because the world deserves better than Trump’s apocalyptic vision for an Earth on fire.

Seymour's latest social media fail

We should all know by now that the Act party are a bunch of nasty right wing sycophants who should never have been allowed into our parliament let alone the government.

Their MP's are without a doubt some of the most corrupt New Zealand has ever seen. From pressuring woman to get abortions to stealing the identity of dead babies, the Act party candidates have shown on numerous occasions that they simply cannot be trusted.

But just in case you were in two minds about who to vote for this coming election, here’s another good reason to not support the little weasel of a leader, David Seymour.

Really loving this #content from the group @dbseymour set up. Call it out and delete it, David. pic.twitter.com/DUEypUJhyW

— Reed Fleming (@reedfleming) August 31, 2017

Of course the idiot Seymour feigned ignorance.

Huh? I haven't set up any groups, where is this?

— David Seymour (@dbseymour) September 1, 2017

Unfortunately for him, the Internet never forgets.

That'd be the one your staff and candidates are running, and is named after you. pic.twitter.com/0BrL4yWx0g

— Reed Fleming (@reedfleming) September 1, 2017

Heres a photo (Excuse the quality) of you posting in said group ... "David Seymour Memes for Over-taxed Liberal Teens" pic.twitter.com/dagZcZS0ym

— louis donovan (@louisdonovan2) September 1, 2017

Chalk another one up for an Act party own goal. It’s no wonder they're only polling 0.3%.

Spark explains why their network failed

After claiming that it was all the customers fault because they were looking at pictures of nude celebrities, Spark has today admitted that it was instead a DDoS attack from somewhere overseas.

Here's their explanation:

Cyber criminals based overseas appear to have been attacking web addresses in Eastern Europe, and were bouncing the traffic off Spark customer connections, in what is known as a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack.

The DDoS attack was dynamic, predominantly taking the shape of an ‘amplified DNS attack’ which means an extremely high number of connection requests – in the order of thousands per second - were being sent to a number of overseas web addresses with the intention of overwhelming and crashing them. Each of these requests, as it passes through our network, queries our DNS server before it passes on – so our servers were bearing the full brunt of the attack.

While the Spark network did not crash, we did experience extremely high traffic loads hitting our DNS servers which meant many customers had either slow or at times no connectivity (as their requests were timing out). There were multiple attacks, which were dynamic in nature. They began on Friday night, subsided, and then began again early Saturday, continuing over the day. By early Sunday morning traffic levels were back to normal and have remained so since. We did see the nature of the attack evolve over the period, possibly due to the cyber criminals monitoring our response and modifying their attack to circumvent our mitigation measures – in a classic ‘whack a mole’ scenario.

How did they get access through the Spark Network?

Since the attacks began we have had people working 24/7 to identify the root causes, alongside working to get service back to normal. During the attack, we observed that a small number of customer connections were involved in generating the vast majority of the traffic. This was consistent with customers having malware on their devices and the timing coincided with other DNS activity related to malware in other parts of the world.

However, while we’re not ruling out malware as a factor, we have also identified that cyber criminals have been accessing vulnerable customer modems on our network. These modems have been identified as having “open DNS resolver” functionality, which means they can be used to carry out internet requests for anyone on the internet. This makes it easier for cyber criminals to ‘bounce’ an internet request off them (making it appear that the NZ modem was making the request, whereas it actually originates from an overseas source). Most of these modems were not supplied by Spark and tend to be older or lower-end modems.

So modems not supplied by Spark, but perhaps supplied by Telecom? Spark has also contradicted themselves here because they had previously claimed it was only people using fibre, which would likely mean they are using newer modems.

What remains clear is that good end user security remains an important way to combat these attacks. With the proliferation of devices in households, that means both the security within your device and the security of your modem.

What did Spark do?

We have now disconnected those modems from our network and are contacting all the affected customers. We have also taken steps at a network level to mitigate this modem vulnerability. We are now in the process of scanning our entire broadband customer base to identify any other customers who may be using modems with similar vulnerabilities and will be contacting those identified customers in due course to advise them on what they should do.

With respect to malware we continue to strongly encourage our customers to keep their internet device security up to date, conduct regular scans and regularly update the operating software and firmware on their home network. We also continue to advise customers not to click on suspicious links or download files when they are not sure of the contents.

There they go again, blaming the customers. The problem here is that Spark was warned that an attack was imminent and appeared to be incapable of reacting swiftly enough to ensure people's data and connectivity weren't compromised.

We have also taken steps at the network level to make it more difficult for cyber criminals to exploit the DNS open resolver modem vulnerability and we’re using the latest technology to strengthen our network monitoring and management capabilities. For security reasons we can’t detail these steps, however this is an ongoing battle to stay one step ahead of cyber criminals who are continually using more and more sophisticated tactics.

Why only Spark?

We can’t say what other networks experienced. However, it’s typical that cyber criminals look for clusters of IP addresses to use in any particular denial of service attack. That makes it more likely that these IP addresses belong to the customers of a single ISP – even more likely with a large ISP like Spark. They do this because it’s then easier for them to monitor the steps the ISP is taking to mitigate the attack and change their tactics accordingly. We definitely saw this happening over the weekend.

There are only a few countries in the world capable of undertaking a DDoS attack like the one that brought down the Spark network last Friday and Saturday. It certainly isn't able to be achieved by any individual hacker group apart from perhaps Anonymous. We know it wasn't them because they usually announce their attacks well in advance of carrying them out.

Countries with the available technical expertise and resources required to undertake such an exercise include the United States, China and Israel. If I were a Spark technician, that's where I would initially focus any search for the source of the attack.

Oliver Stone on NSA Spying

Nothing to Hide, Nothing to Fear

MegaBreakfast II

Rap News 19 - feat. Edward Snowden

Slater is pathetic

The ever-deceitful Cameron Slater has been posting like a madman in an attempt to discredit the 'Say No To Asset Sales' campaign.

It's a bit pathetic really, especially because Slater is so blindly opposed to keeping our power companies in public hands that he's willing to promote total lies, which for anybody who's familiar with Slater's propaganda should come as no surprise.

Today, WhaleOil reported:

This was the scene last night as the Green taliban [sic] and Labour conducted an anti-asset sales rally in Frank Kitts park:

Slater has also used a photo of around a hundred people who attended an Against Domestic Violence rally at the same location in an attempt to show that nobody cares about keeping our assets.

However his post's are entirely non-factual, and the turnout to the anti-asset sales rally at Frank Kitts park was respectable at around a thousand participants... Here's the proof:

There's already been well over 370,000 stop the asset sales signatures collected (over 11% of eligible voters), which easily meets the amount required for the petition to trigger a referendum on the issue.

With over half of those who voted for National at the last election also not wanting asset sales, a referendum will assuredly mean that New Zealand retains its most profitable and socially beneficial assets for future generations.

In my opinion, National would be pretty damn stupid not to allow a referendum to go ahead... But not half as stupid as Slater's pathetic attempts to mislead the public. That guy is a total plonker!

Join the sign-a-thin or download the petition here.

Kim Dotcom tells it like it is

Slater gets served

In a recent newsletter, Cameron Slater's repugnant blogsite, WhaleOilBeefHooked, gets served:

Some of you may have read comments on Cameron Slater’s “Whale Oil” blog prior to Christmas. Like me you probably thought – “Why such an unusual name?” Well as it happens it is an appropriate name for this blog – consider some facts about whale oil:

Whale oil is obtained from the blubber of whales. Whale oil was used as a cheap illuminant, though it gave off a strong odour when burnt and was not very popular. Until the invention of hydrogenation in the early 20th century, it was only used in industrial-grade cleansers because its foul smell and tendency to discolour made it unsuitable for cosmetic soap.

So in short, Whale Oil comes from fat; it is cheap, is unpopular, stinks, discolours and is unsuitable for anything good. An appropriate name for this blog site.

~ Patrick Lee-lo, President of the Building Services Contractors New Zealand.

Priceless! Not only has Mr Lee-lo accurately described the history behind whale oil, he's precisely described the scribblings of the right wing propagandist Cameron Slater as well.

Why such a cesspool of gutter politics is the most visited blogsite in New Zealand is beyond me, but I guess such a stench would attract a lot of flies and other insects to it.

Labour vs The Standard

Today, the Otago Daily Times reported:

Dunedin South MP Clare Curran admitted she was the senior MP attacked online at the weekend and yesterday for complaining to Labour Party hierarchy about comments made by commentators and bloggers.

The Otago Daily Times contacted Ms. Curran after noting the increasing number of mentions the Labour Party MP and IT spokeswoman was receiving on Twitter.

Among the allegations was that Labour Party MPs identified anonymous bloggers by their IP addresses on the party's Red Alert blog.

That's nothing new, Red Alert has a policy of identifying commentators through their IP and an active email address so that their details can be passed onto the police if needed. Most blogsites automatically log such details these days.

Ms.Curran said the people she complained about were party members, some of whom were using pseudonyms and had contributed to other party members being attacked and the Labour Party being undermined.

"There are questions about the conduct of anonymous bloggers who belong to the party but may be bringing it into disrepute, and it's an issue the party needs to grapple with in the digital age."

While not saying who her complaints were against, several left-wing bloggers named the person as "Colonial Viper", from Dunedin, a member of the party.

So it wasn't Claire Curran that named Colonial Viper, it was CV himself and other left wing bloggers. This contradicts the claims that Curran was targeting any specific dissident members of the Labour party and threatened to out them ie make their real name publicly known. It appears that her raising the issue with the council was to gain advice on what the party should do, if anything, about negative commentary from party members.

You can understand why she might want clarification on such issues, being that members have access to the internal workings of the party and can use that information against Labour, as we have seen in recent weeks from The Standard with posts like this one by Irish Bill.

In my opinion Labour should move to inhibit the damage that selective and biased leaking of information to the media can cause, especially when it's source is party members who shouldn't be undermining Labour with information that cannot be verified.

It appears that what Clare Curran was talking about was Labours ability to identify dissidents and protagonists, and potentially remove them from the party membership.

The claims that she wanted to out people are clearly a fabrication promoted by people who want to further damage Labour for some reason. Interestingly enough they're the same so-called left wing bloggers and commentators who promoted the Cunliffe coup, which also makes me question where their loyalties lie? They clearly have no place within Labour if they constantly try to undermine the party by attacking its leadership.

Having said that, in my opinion the threshold would have to be very high indeed to implement such a policy to rescind membership, although I think it's a required policy that all political parties should have in place. In fact most of them already do have such policy to varying degrees.

So let's examine some of Colonial Vipers comments to see if he meets that threshold:

1. Funny then that the only people who escalated talk of a coup to the media…were ABC MPs.  

[...]

2. Fuck off. Its the Shearer camp who escalated this publicly with off record leaks and on record comments to journalists.

Well that's obviously not true... The Cunliffe coup so to speak was initially promoted by various blogger's who were supportive of a leadership change, and the media then picked up on the controversy within the blogosphere.

As far as I can tell, at no stage was a coup promoted by "Shearers camp". CV is therefore promoting a falsehood to undermine the Labour party leader, which by association undermines the effectiveness of the opposition.

3. Shearer comes across very genuinely but he is inexperienced as an MP. He seems to own precious little left wing philosophy and politics in general. And he has also been badly advised.

Perhaps a valid criticism... However being that I'm not a Labour party member I have no insight into David Shearer's advisory to know if such an assertion is correct. I'm therefore relying on CV's account of the situation. Unfortunately CV has already promoted untruths to try and undermine Shearer, so it's a case of the boy who cried wolf on too many occasions.

4. Outside of Auckland, hardly any ordinary Labour Party members (not the activists) knew that David Shearer existed, let alone anything about him, until the last 2 weeks of loud, positive press coverage.

An observation to again try and undermine David Shearer by implying he's not experienced enough. In fact CV has argued extensively in favour of John Key as Prime Minister in comparison to David Shearer, which seems a strange position to take for a supposed Labour party supporter and member.

5. Something like 18 or 19 Labour MPs, some of whom were very experienced, voted Shearer in to that top job. They picked him, in their best judgement, as the best choice to lead the Labour Party into the 2014 election.

Yeah, I don’t get it either.

Another falsehood... The entire Labour party has endorsed David Shearer. People who aren't aware of that fact might rely on CV's questionable insight into these matters, but I don't.

6. And Shearer himself should have said, thanks but no thanks, I’ll take my turn when I’ve time under my belt and it’s right to do so.

The continued low level snipping from CV towards David Shearer goes on and on. However I don't think it's to a degree that warrants his removal as a member of the Labour party and I don't think Clare Curran was specifically talking about him when she raised the issue with the council.

Colonial Viper has obviously chosen not to follow his convictions and leave the party of his own accord. Instead he and The Standards admin have claimed that Clare Curran is bullying people into silence, while not remaining very silent at all themselves on these issues. They have also not been able to provide any evidence of that bullying.

I'm somewhat disappointed in all of this, mainly because it takes the focus off the real problems National is causing. I'm also disappointed that the move by some of the protagonists to once again undermine Labour in order to halt Clare Curran's potential policy changes has gained such support on the left. This means that any move by Labour to now remove what are effectively traitors in their midst who obviously don't support Labour is less likely to be initiated.

In my opinion Labour need to close ranks and focus on the real enemy, which is the neoliberal agenda that's currently destroying the social fabric of New Zealand. Without that unity, Labour has a rather large disadvantage compared to National leading up to the next election, which the right wing are sure to exploit. Let's hope Labour including all it's membership, like the Greens, can provide a unified effort to win the next election... God knows the country needs it.

Vint Cerf, the father of Internet says:

On Monday, Google reported:

Starting in 1973, when my colleagues and I proposed the technology behind the Internet, we advocated for an open standard to connect computer networks together. This wasn’t merely philosophical; it was also practical.

Our protocols were designed to make the networks of the Internet non-proprietary and interoperable. They avoided “lock-in,” and allowed for contributions from many sources. This openness is why the Internet creates so much value today. Because it is borderless and belongs to everyone, it has brought unprecedented freedoms to billions of people worldwide: the freedom to create and innovate, to organize and influence, to speak and be heard.

But starting in a few hours, a closed-door meeting of the world’s governments is taking place in Dubai, and regulation of the Internet is on the agenda. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is convening a conference from December 3-14 to revise a decades-old treaty, in which only governments have a vote. Some proposals could allow governments to justify the censorship of legitimate speech, or even cut off Internet access in their countries.

I cannot express enough gratitude to Vint Cerf for his most excellent creation.

The issue he's highlighted does sound rather serious, and would seem to follow the same perverse moves by many governments around the world to crack down on the Internet. The main concern here is that any changes in the law could allow for governments to further abuse people's freedoms. They could attempt to undemocratically limit valid criticism, which isn't of benefit to mankind in any way whatsoever.

The great thing about the internet is the ability for people to share information that can be highly beneficial in promoting peace and restoring justice in countries ravaged by war. Public opinion is a hugely powerful tool that government propagandists used to have complete control over. The internet has given the power to the people... So it's no wonder they're moving to change things back to the status quo. We shouldn't let them.

Top 10 reasons not to get Igloo

On Monday, Sky and TVNZ launched their hardly anticipated new subscription television service. Here’s our list of reasons why it shouldn’t be under your tree this Christmas or anywhere else in your house for that matter.

10. It’s probably still broken.

The custom built platform was supposed to be launched months ago but has been delayed due to “technical problems”.  Is the launch simply exploitation of the spending season or a Christmas miracle?

9. TVNZ are involved.

Remember when TVNZ said “TiVo transforms television“? How are all those customers feeling today?  How long before Igloo too melts down?

8. A comparable Freeview box is less than half the price.

There are a number of basic models of DVB-T receivers which also have the ability to record to a connected USB storage device.

7. Sport is ultra-expensive.

The base “30 day channel pack” plus purchasing every Super XV match The Chiefs play during that period would cost you up to $99.74. On Sky this would cost $72.46 and include more channels, every Super XV game and a lot more sports besides.

6. Paying for content that used to be free.

Two of the eleven Igloo channels feature content that TVNZ used to broadcast for free:  Kidzone24 and TVNZ Heartland.

5. All Igloo content is Standard Definition.

The only content that you’ll be able to view in High Definition is from any of the free-to-air channels that broadcast in HD.  All of the extra content you’re paying for is delivered in standard definition.  This includes movies and sport.

4. High per channel price.

The “Sky Basic” package costs approximately $1.36 per premium channel compared with $2.27 per premium channel on Igloo.

3. Igloo is not a middle option.

Currently, a new 12 month “Sky Basic” package (~63 channels) with 3 months free sport and SoHo and free installation costs $553.44. A new Igloo box (~34 channels) which you install yourself and a 12 month subscription costs $478.05. A new Freeview box (~29 channels) which you install yourself costs from $99.

2. Two thirds of the channels you can already watch for free.

That’s right.  They’re already free.  And also the most watched.

1. You’re not an Eskimo.

They’re the only ones who should have an igloo.

Those are our top 10 reasons why you shouldn’t get igloo and now we want yours.  We’ve got a brand new Samsung MyFreeview HD digital TV recorder (BDE-8500) worth $649 to give away.

In addition, if anyone reposts this on their own blog, we’ll include any comments made there in the draw to win the free Samsung digital TV recorder. Have at it.

H/T Regan Cunliffe at www.throng.co.nz

Everyone in US under virtual surveillance

How low can you go?

Today, Whaleoil bleats:

Yesterday [sic] the NBR followed up on the Greg King story that TRUTH broke over a week ago. New sources have come forward confirming aspects of our story.

They have confirmed the “18 hours of legal aid” details that TRUTH was aware of. There are further specific details regarding that but I shall remain silent on those until the DomPost comes clean.

It is unacceptable for the editor to issue only a short statement saying simply that the TRUTH story was “wrong”.

The Dominion Post has to come clean about a muckraking story in the unTRUTH? Ridiculous! Clearly saying the article was wrong is adequate, considering the Dominion Post wouldn't want to get drawn into a fabricated story that's disrespectful of the late Greg King.

I've never read the unTRUTH newspaper before and after learning about this story, I never will. The editor and convicted criminal (PDF) Cameron John Slater has clearly flipped his lid and started screaming blue murder about an article the Dominion Post hasn't even published.

There are also unfounded claims that a phone call could have been the "catalyst" to causing the untimely death of the well-respected lawyer, who recently gained media attention for his defence of Ewen Macdonald against the charge of murdering Scott Guy.

If Slater is really concerned about something that may have caused somebody to take their own life, I suggest he stop publishing hateful articles that are only written to make people feel bad.

What the unTRUTH and the NBR are doing isn't journalism; it's abuse. Their witch-hunt without any proper corroborating evidence to back up their claims is also highly defamatory.

In my opinion, it's unlikely that the Dominion Post has anything to answer for, because we simply cannot know what was said to Greg King or whether this had any bearing on his untimely death. It's likely that their enquiry was conducted properly, and until there's some evidence that it wasn't, people should respect a person in death and not try to dig up an article that wasn't even published, if it exists at all.

Clearly the unTRUTH and the NBR are just trying to be controversial in order to gain readership by exploiting the death of Greg King. What a bunch of cretins!

Bloggers are voters too

Yesterday, the NZ Herald reported:

Labour leader David Shearer is brushing off a crescendo of calls for him to step down by left-leaning bloggers and commentators, saying it is "nonsense" and should be ignored.

3 News reported:

Labour MPs say the blogosphere's worried about Mr Shearer, but they're not.

“Blogs? Who cares about blogs?” says Labour MP Clayton Cosgrove.

He was echoed by fellow MP Andrew Little.

“The blogs don't get a vote in the Labour Party, so we don’t pay much consideration to it,” he says.

Today, Tumeke reported:

It's like all 3 of them have taken Claire Curran's dream of a Labour Party with a modern forward looking electronic electorate and smashed it into a thousand pieces with hammers first used to knock down the doors of a local library for book burnings.

The strategic backlash of what they've started by attacking their own online supporter base is difficult to calculate. Watching Labour Party MP after Labour Party MP slag off The Standard is as surreal as Republicans turning on Fox News.

Although I think Bomber Bradbury is making a number of unfair attacks on Labour at the moment, it is disappointing that Labour MPs have reacted in this way. Sure, they wouldn't have liked some of what was written about David Shearer, especially the more extreme and negative commentary, but don't they understand that voters run blogs and they can influence people, people who also vote?

What politicians need to realize is that bloggers come from all walks of life, have diverse opinions and can help or hinder political causes in many ways. For instance blogs can help by trying out ideas to gauge public reaction to potential policy. Blogs can also give plausible deniability whereby negative material that voters wouldn't tolerate an elected official releasing is disseminated through a third party. David Farrar and Cameron Slater employ these tactics effectively, and Labour shouldn't potentially remove that string from their bow with ill-advised insults directed at the largest left wing blog site in New Zealand.

In many ways, Labours response is in line with Nationals in terms of being largely dismissive of the blogosphere. In doing so, they confirmed the insular nature of the government, which has often displayed an inability to connect with the people. That disconnect can be highly detrimental to political parties during a campaign... I think that disconnect is detrimental to Labour now.

Labours comments sent a signal that they're disinterested in listening to the people, it therefore sent the wrong signal. In my opinion, that's not what Labour should be about. Leave the head in the sand politics to John Key and his merry band of idiots! Labour needs to reach out to the people it represents and properly distinguish themselves from Nationals failings. This would ensure people couldn’t draw similarities between the two parties, an essential thing to do if Labour wants to increase their support.

In my opinion, the Labour party needs to embrace social media en masse. Look at the respect gained for Labour politicians who have actually made the effort to engage with the public on forums such as The Standard. Look at how effective the Obama campaign was through its use of social media. Look at how well the Greens utilize social media to reach people with similar beliefs. They clearly work with their activists, not against them, and that's political strength money usually can't buy.

Thankfully, most Labour MPs are not like this. But on the whole, what New Zealand politicians are failing to understand is that the blogosphere sometimes rivals more traditional forms of journalism for people's attention. It's now a huge influence that shouldn't simply be ignored or dismissed out of hand. It's also not going away anytime soon, so they had better get their heads around it pronto.

Jacinda Ardern vs Paula Bennett

Zero tolerance for racism

Yesterday, 3 News reported:

Internet safety watchdog Netsafe says it's disturbed by the growing number of racist hate speech pages turning up on social networking sites like Facebook.

The race relations conciliator says Facebook has been slow to respond to complaints, and when one site is taken down another will rear up in its place.

A friend of actor Ian Hughes alerted him to a Facebook page with 9000 followers about things Maori supposedly never say.

The comments, which 3 News has chosen not to show, denigrate Maori education standards, honesty and even cleanliness. Mr Hughes was disgusted.

“It was obviously racist, it was just a site full of all of the sort of nasty preconceptions and all of the worst stuff that's doing nobody any favours.”

Mr Hughes asked Facebook to pull the site, but he, and others, received a standard reply.

So Facebook is just letting these racist sites be published... How despicable! Here's what their generic response to complaints states:

Thanks for your recent report of a potential violation on Facebook. After reviewing your report, we were not able to confirm that the specific page you reported violates Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities.

It's likely that they haven't even bothered to look at the page properly. Either that or Facebook admin are as thick as pig shit. They're also wrong! Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities says:

You will not use Facebook to do anything unlawful, misleading, malicious, or discriminatory.

Claiming that the stupidshitmaorissay page doesn't violate Facebook's terms and conditions is incorrect but largely irrelevant! The racism that's expressed there is clearly discriminatory in nature, and therefore illegal under New Zealand law. The Human Rights Act 1993 states:

63 Racial harassment

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to use language (whether written or spoken), or visual material, or physical behaviour that—
(a) expresses hostility against, or brings into contempt or ridicule, any other person on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national origins of that person.

Thankfully the students who set up the initial racist Facebook page come from a school that has an effective policy for dealing with racist cyber-bullies. They have been suspended. Here's a small excerpt of what the Inglewood High School Principal said at their assembly yesterday:

What you do in the privacy of your own homes is your own business. Facebook is a public space. For all the world to see. Not just your supposed ‘friends.’ In 48 hours, the page had over 10,000 visitors. Some of them are sitting in the hall now. Some of you ‘liked’ the page. If you thought it was funny. Think again.

Racism is not funny. Nor is it OK, It’s wrong. It is disrespectful and potentially very hurtful and always says more about the person who is racist than the butt of their comment or so-called joke. Racism makes some people angry, especially if the racism is directed at them or someone they love or know.

Very well said. It's worth reading the entire speech by Miss Mabin.

Unfortunately racism is often published on the Internet... But even more concerning is that it's sometimes published in our most widely read newspapers and magazines as well. While this continues, New Zealand will have a divided society with many deluded people believing in generalizations about other people with different coloured skin. Their misconceived racism ensures that ethnic people are often scapegoated and ostracized. This leads onto the very same dysfunction bigot's use as an excuse to be racist.

People are educated into being racist. It's not a natural condition. Therefore it's imperative that racism within popular media is stamped out. There should be zero tolerance for racism, especially when idiots are trying to publish and promote it. Only then will we ensure the next generation doesn't perpetuate the mistakes of the past. Only then will we have a truly progressive and inclusive society.

No excuse for police perjury

Today, One News reported:

When spoken to by the Sunday Star-Times, Wormald said the answer had been taken out of context, and rejected suggestions he had been lying. "I'm saying I told the truth."

However, a police source said Wormald has argued the answer to his question has been taken out of context. He said he was asked about "physical surveillance" and was not referring to the snooping of emails and phonecalls which GCSB is understood to have carried out.

Thankfully we know what the question from Dotcoms' lawyer Paul Davison QC was:

So apart from the surveillance which [the police surveillance team] might have been going to undertake on your behalf was there any other surveillance being undertaken here in New Zealand to your knowledge?

Detective Inspector Grant Wormald then perjured himself by saying; "No there wasn't".

Wormald refused to go into the matter further because it was in front of the courts, but said a transcript of the hearing would provide context to what he said.

But they haven't released the transcript of the court case... What does that tell you?

Marshall backed that stance, saying it was "deeply concerning" there had been "considerable recent speculative, inaccurate and selective commentary" around the actions of police officers involved in the Dotcom investigation.

Today, Q+A had a video of Grant Wormald saying exactly what had already been reported. Any speculative or selectivity doesn't necessarily make the reporting inaccurate. It's the media's job to report on people's opinion and selectively choose what information is newsworthy. A Detective Inspector misleading a court of law is obviously newsworthy.

It's a pretty far-fetched excuse by Peter Marshall, who's expecting the public to believe that reporters have intentionally misreported the facts of the matter and are therefore liable for a defamation case. Wormald hasn't laid a complaint with any media outlet though, nor undertaken legal action to protect his position, because he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Today, Whaleoil reported:

Campbell Live used selected quotes from a cop in court – DotCon’s lawyer continued the theme in court the next day (nice strategy) – and the rest of the media dutifully repeated this, saying the cop’s evidence was inconsistent.

In my opinion, Wormald wasn't just inconsistent; he clearly perjured himself in a court of law. He said to his knowledge there was no other agencies involved in the surveillance of Mr Dotcom, knowing full well that the GCSB was involved. In fact he attended a meeting on December 14 with GCSB operatives. For him to say he wasn't aware of their involvement is an obvious lie.

The defence lawyer is trying to get his client off, as you would expect – but shouldn’t the media have been more circumspect with its reporting?

By "circumspect" Slater actually means the public shouldn't have been informed at all. However it's to late to brush it all under the carpet and thankfully reporters have a higher standard than the right wing fool!

Paul Davison QC has a duty to his client and the truth. The media rightfully reported on Wormald's perjury and the GCSB's involvement. It is their involvement that could ultimately let Dotcom off, because it was unlawful.

Now the stupid Greens are trying to interfere, even though they will have no idea of what was and wasn’t said in court.

The Greens have a duty to represent the public's interests. It's not in the public's interest to have the GCSB illegally spying on New Zealand citizens and/or residents. It's not in the public's interest to have Detective Inspector Grant Wormald get away with perjury.

Of course the Green's are far more diplomatic than the Jackal, with Russel Norman saying:

This is one of their senior officers giving inconsistent evidence under oath - that's a pretty serious matter. In the first instance, let's see how the police deal with that, but clearly they do need to deal with it.

Unfortunately it appears that the police are dealing with it by making pathetic excuses that are inconsistent with the facts of the matter. Instead of ensuring justice is done, the police are closing ranks to protect one of their own, no matter how unlawful the Detective Inspector has been.

This is entirely detrimental to the police force, which can only operate properly when people have confidence that justice is being served. Such blatantly obvious corruption also lowers police moral, with the damage caused to the organizations functionality not to be underestimated.

Compounding the problem further with more lies, which insults people's intelligence, is not a solution. But none of this concerns National propagandist Cameron Slater, who writes:

So, my question to the media and everyone else out there – is there a transcript of what was said in court? Have you checked it? Are you confident the full facts of what was said have been reported? If not, are you at all concerned you might have got this very wrong? Are you concerned you might have prejudiced a court case?

As I'm sure the ignoramus Slater knows, there is a transcript of the court case but it hasn't been made public. In fact all court cases in New Zealand are transcribed. We already know what was said because it was recorded and accurately published. In this instance, people should have confidence that what was reported is correct.

It's apparent that there's no omission of information by reporters that might let Wormald of the hook. The evidence is very clear... Grant Wormald knowingly perjured himself in a court of law. He should therefore resign or be sacked. In the very least, there needs to be a full and independent inquiry into the matter.

The police should also conduct an investigation... However, their objectivity is in question, and it's doubtful that any charges or a prosecution of Wormald would eventuate by simply leaving it up to them to deal with.

The dishonest Detective Inspector is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years for committing perjury, so it's no wonder they're trying to bullshit their way out... They take their cues from John Key after all.

Rogue spies or coverup at the highest level?

A week after Kim Dotcom visited Parliament and spent a considerable amount of time in the gallery studiously watching John Key, the floundering Prime Minister made the announcement that the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) had illegally spied on the internet tycoon and Megaupload founder, who is currently facing controversial internet piracy charges in the US.

Is it just a coincidence that Key apparently found out about the supposed unauthorized spying at the same time Kim Dotcom was in the house? Was it the big mans imposing presence that perhaps shook some sense into those responsible? Certainly the week it took for the Prime Minister to inform the public, which just so happened to coincide with the announcement of 500-600 redundancies, looks very suspect. I bet Banksie's breathing a sigh of relief though.

But more importantly was the illegal spying really unauthorized? The Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 (PDF) makes it very clear that the GCSB is not to exercise its powers against New Zealanders, and sets out some pretty solid rules for when authorization is required.

Interceptions not to target domestic communications

Neither the Director, nor an employee of the Bureau, nor a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may authorise or take any action for the purpose of intercepting the communications of a person (not being a foreign organisation or a foreign person) who is a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident.

It's unbelievable that the Director of the GCSB, Ian Fletcher, was not aware of Kim Dotcoms' residency status. But even if he wasn't, an authorization warrant is still required to spy on foreigners. Before issuing a warrant at the request of the Director, the Minister in charge (the Prime Minister) must also consult with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Murray McCully, about the proposed warrant. That means more than one minister is implicated in what is turning out to be a huge disaster for National.

The Director of the GCSB is meant to report directly to the Minister responsible, John Key. The law requires that the Director consult with Key and attain a warrant to authorize the GCSB to spy on any foreigners.

You would expect there to be a warrant especially in such a high profile case, and it appears that Key is merely saying there is none because it implicates him in an illegal practice. If the warrant was uncovered with his signature on it, that would effectively mean an end to his political career.

In trying to say there's no warrant, Key is expecting us to believe that the entire chain of command has failed, and the GCSB is acting like a rogue agency, which goes far beyond it being a simple "disappointing mistake" by the Director Ian Fletcher. If the entire chain of command has failed because of gross incompetence, John Key as the Minister in charge is ultimately responsible.

It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.