Deluded Damien Grant versus Phil Goff Over Gaza

Former New Zealand High Commissioner Phil Goff has never been one to shy away from calling a spade a spade, and his recent comments on Israel’s actions in Gaza are no exception to this rule. In a searing piece published on Stuff, Goff didn’t mince words, stating that Israel “doesn’t care how many innocent people it’s killing” in its relentless genocide.

But along comes the deluded Damien Grant, a largely irreverent journalist whose only claim to infamy is doing time for 34 convictions of credit card fraud and appearing on the now defunct Working Group podcast. Not content with shooting fireworks at his neighbours, Grant has scribbled a retort that Stuff has for some unknown reason chosen to publish, claiming the Gaza conflict is more "complicated” than Goff’s assessment.

Unfortunately for him, Grant’s attempt to make excuses for Israel and muddy the waters doesn’t hold up when you dig into the numbers and the reality on the ground.

 

Last week, Stuff reported:

Phil Goff: Israel doesn’t care how many innocent people it’s killing

This is not the once progressive pioneer Israel, led by people who had faced the Nazi Holocaust and were fighting for the right to a place where they could determine their own future and be safe.

Sadly, a country of people who were themselves long victims of oppression is now guilty of oppressing and committing genocide against others.

New Zealand recently joined 23 other countries calling out Israel and demanding a full supply of foreign aid be allowed into Gaza. Foreign Minister Winston Peters called Israel’s actions “ intolerable”. He said that we had “had enough and were running out of patience and hearing excuses”.

Goff’s argument is rooted in grim statistics that paint a stark picture. The United Nations reports that over 14,000 babies in Gaza are currently suffering from severe acute malnutrition, with half a million people, a quarter of Gaza’s population, facing starvation due to Israel’s aid restrictions. The Gaza Health Ministry, as cited by Al Jazeera, estimates over 43,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israel since October 2023, with 70% of those being women and children. That’s roughly 30,100 non-combatants dead in a population of just 2.3 million. The UN also notes that 1.9 million Gazans, 83% of the population, are displaced, often multiple times, with nowhere safe to go.

Goff calls Israel’s partial lifting of the aid ban a “token effort,” and he’s not wrong. The UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported in May 2025 that only 12% of required humanitarian aid reached Gaza in the first quarter of the year, despite international pressure. This isn’t complexity; it’s a deliberate stranglehold on basic necessities. Goff’s point is clear: Israel’s actions prioritise military objectives over civilian lives, a stance that aligns with reports from Haaretz, where Israeli soldiers themselves admit that outdated target lists lead to civilian deaths, with buildings struck repeatedly even after being identified as non-threatening.

Enter the Israeli apologist Damien Grant, who argues the conflict’s complexity excuses Israel’s actions. He suggests Goff oversimplifies a messy situation involving Hamas, regional politics, and Israel’s security needs. But Grant’s framing conveniently sidesteps the disproportionate toll on Palestinian civilians. He implies that Hamas’ presence justifies the scale of destruction, yet fails to mention that Israel’s own military data shows a failure to update target lists, directly endangering non-combatants. 

The self-proclaimed Libertarian also ignores evidence from the Hind Rajab Foundation, which uses Israeli soldiers’ own social media footage to document war crimes, like the killing of a five-year-old girl and paramedics trying to save her. This isn’t “complicated”; it’s a pattern of impunity that is leading to a genocide of the Palestinian people.

Yesterday, Stuff reported:

The conflict in Gaza is more complicated than Phil Goff makes out, writes Damien Grant

Goff quotes the death toll, 54,000 killed, but neglects to mention that this is from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Ministry of Health. Now. This doesn’t mean that the figure is wrong, we have little other data to work with, but Hamas has done enough to allow us to question their credibility.

Hamas and its domestic allies committed horrendous crimes against civilians on October 7 and failed to keep many of their hostages alive, with credible evidence that some were killed in captivity.

Again. Reasonable people can question if the military response is proportionate, or will prove effective, but it is not reasonable to write, as Goff does, that: “Sadly, a country of people who were themselves long victims of oppression is now guilty of oppressing and committing genocide against others.”

The genocide claim is inflammatory. The assertion is often justified by reference to the Convention on Genocide’s expansive definition that includes “Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.”

 

Clearly Grant’s biased article leans heavily on Israel’s security narrative without acknowledging reports from Haaretz or the UN that highlight systemic issues in Israel’s military tactics, such as targeting civilian infrastructure. This selective framing undermines his claim of complexity. I mean Israel isn't exactly being complex when they bomb children in tents are they?

While Grant correctly notes the conflict’s multifaceted nature, his propaganda misrepresents the scale of civilian suffering and Israel’s documented war crimes, such as the humanitarian aid blockade. Statistics from the UN, Al Jazeera, and Haaretz, showing 43,000 deaths, 70% civilian, 1.9 million displaced, and severe malnutrition, support Goff’s critique over Grant’s dismissal. Grant’s failure to engage with these figures and his selective focus on Hamas’ actions render his analysis misleading and therefore largely irrelevant.

The befuddled insolvency practitioner's attempts to downplay the crisis also clashes with international findings. The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants in November 2024 for Israeli leaders, citing “reasonable grounds” for war crimes, including the use of starvation as a weapon. Meanwhile, Grant’s claim that Hamas’ actions drive the conflict ignores that 65% of Gaza’s casualties are women and children, hardly the “combatants” he insinuates are causing the conflict. Like the BBC, Grant misreporting Palestinian combatants as civilians doesn’t negate the overwhelming data on civilian deaths.

Goff’s outspokenness cost him his diplomatic post, sacked by Foreign Minister Winston Peters for earlier comments on Trump. Yet, his willingness to call out Israel’s actions echoes the sentiment of 22 countries also condemning the aid ban.

Grant, by contrast, offers no substantive counter to the stats or the humanitarian toll. No ideas on how to initiate peace other than to wipe Hamas out. His “complexity” argument feels like a dodge, a way to avoid confronting the moral and legal failures laid bare by the numbers. It''s a similar position taken by the current coalition of chaos government. Where exactly is New Zealand's condemnation of the genocide in Gaza? Despite a few platitudes and a bit of posturing, Winston Peters is once again MIA. He obviously has no concern for Palestinian lives or peace negotiations, negotiations that Israel and the United States are making a mockery of.

The Gaza conflict isn’t a puzzle too intricate to solve. When 83% of a population is displaced, 30,100 non-combatants have been obliterated, and babies are starving to death, the numbers scream louder than any apologist’s prose. Goff’s right: silence is complicity. Grant’s wrong: complexity doesn’t absolve accountability. Maybe Damien Grant should just sit this one out. After all, it's better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you're a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

Committee to Challenge The Coalition’s Pay Equity Debacle

By ramming through divisive pay equity reforms under urgency without a whisper of public consultation, the National-led Coalition of Chaos has exposed its contempt for democratic process. The coalition’s pattern of bypassing scrutiny, seen also in their “Kiwi Killing Bill” and Regulatory Standards Bill shenanigans, reveals a government allergic to accountability. This isn’t governance; it’s arrogance personified. But thankfully, former National MP Dame Marilyn Waring has stepped up, assembling a “People’s Select Committee” to do what this government refused: hear the voices of New Zealanders on the gutting of pay equity laws. This move is a bold rebuke to a coalition that has little concern for democratic fairness.

Waring, a trailblazing feminist economist and former MP who once stared down Robert Muldoon’s authoritarian tendencies, is no stranger to fighting entrenched power. Her committee, comprising a cross-section of seasoned ex-MPs like Nanaia Mahuta, Sue Bradford, and Jo Hayes, brings over a century of parliamentary experience to scrutinise the coalition’s hasty changes to the Equal Pay Act. These reforms, spearheaded by ACT’s Brooke van Velden, extinguished 33 existing pay equity claims and raised the threshold for female-dominated professions, making it harder for women to seek fair pay. Passed under urgency, the changes dodged select committee scrutiny, leaving workers, mostly women in undervalued sectors, silenced. As Waring pointedly asks, “Where was the evidence?”

Didnt you get the memo ⁦@NicolaWillisMP⁩.
I saw you falling over your words to say it wasnt needed to balance the budget but little Snapchat davey says otherwise. Looks like brooke van velden has single-handedly saved your budget. You must be eternally grateful to her. pic.twitter.com/fd3giKdQPF

— Catherine (@MrsMacNZ) May 7, 2025

The coalition’s justification? Van Velden claims the reforms make the system “simpler and more robust,” but without a regulatory impact statement or public input, this smells like a cost-cutting exercise dressed up as policy. The $13 billion reportedly saved smells more like wage theft than fiscal prudence, especially when Finance Minister Nicola Willis’s budget required these savings just to balance the books. This is the Coalition of Chaos at its worst, promising tax cuts for the wealthy and handouts to landlords while slashing equity for low-paid women, effectively sacrificing decades of progress for short-term political wins.

Waring’s initiative isn’t just grassroots resistance. Her committee, backed by the PSA and CTU, will hold public hearings starting August 11, 2025, in Wellington, with Zoom sessions to ensure nationwide access. They’re inviting submissions until July 31, giving voice to the 33 claimant groups and others sidelined by the coalition’s “constitutional vandalism,” as PSA’s Fleur Fitzsimons aptly calls it. This isn’t just about gathering evidence; it’s about exposing the coalition’s disregard for democratic processes which are the foundation of a functioning democracy.

As the Coalition of Chaos barrels forward, trampling democratic norms with reckless abandon, Marilyn Waring’s People’s Select Committee stands as a beacon of hope and defiance. Her fight isn’t just for pay equity...it’s for the soul of New Zealand’s democracy, a reminder that power unchecked is power abused. With only 42.5% of women backing this government, as per the April 2025 Roy Morgan Poll, the coalition’s mandate is shaky at best. Waring’s hearings, amplifying the silenced voices of low-paid women, are a rallying cry for every Kiwi who values fairness over expediency. Let this be the moment we reclaim our democracy, proving that when the powerful turn their backs on the people, the people will rise up, louder and stronger than ever before.

PM threatens to remove Charities Board

When John Key was Prime Minister he used to say some pretty dumb shit that often got him into trouble. However he would usually perform well for the media spotlight, often making political capital from his mistakes. They didn’t call him Teflon John for nothing.

The current Prime Minister however doesn’t have the same cunning. When Bill English tries to copy from Key's ploy book he just looks awkward and evasive. Take for instance the slow burning Todd Barclay affair where English was simply dishonest. Take for instance his reaction when the National led government was caught in the complicit act of illegal spying on Greenpeace.

It’s relatively easy to trap English in his lies, as was evident again when Family First reported on the PM speaking his mind at one of their events.

On Monday, the NZ Herald reported:

Family First stripped of charity status

The Charities Registration Board said in a decision today the reason was "because it does not advance exclusively charitable purposes".

This is great news. Family First isn’t a charity by any stretch of the imagination. They’re barely a functioning lobby group. Clearly the bigots at Family First were disappointed that the Charities Board had made the correct ruling against them. It also appears that the non-charity was upset with the Prime Minister for not coming to their rescue.

Yesterday, Scoop reported:

"Charities Board Should Be Removed From Public Service" - PM

Family First NZ says that the Prime Minister Bill English at their recent Forum on the Family in July has challenged the basis of the Charities Board’s intent to deregister Family First.

In response to a question by National Director Bob McCoskrie: “For some reason (the Charities Board are) gunning for us because we believe things like marriage is one man one woman. Do you think that is right?”, the Prime Minister responded:

“Well if they were gunning for you on that basis, then the people doing that would of course have to be removed from the public service because the law is not anything to do with what the advocacy is…”

So the PM gave his opinion that public servants, who essentially work for him, should be fired because they apparently don’t believe in traditional marriage. WTF!

Family First has instructed its lawyer to file an immediate Notice of Appeal in the Wellington High Court against the Charities Board’s formal decision to deregister Family First NZ because our views about marriage and the traditional family “cannot be determined to be for the public benefit in a way previously accepted as charitable”.

I certainly do hope Family First has submitted an appeal based on what the Prime Minister said. That would be a very foolish and costly mistake on their part. Let’s hope the Judge leaves the door open so we can once again hear a fool whining about money.

Mr English went on to say;

“You've come up against this legal argument as I understand it about advocacy versus actual good works and the charitable definition is focused around good works... Until or unless that law changes, then the people overseeing it have to administer it without fear or favour or any colour to the political argument, the political position that people take… 

Good god man! Arguing against marriage equality and LGBT rights isn’t good work. The fact that the Prime Minister has made such a statement about why a law should be changed to allow what is essentially a hate group the ability to avoid paying their fair share of taxes is an affront to our democratic system, not to mention an insult to the people Family First targets.

In one breath English says the public servants working for the Charities Board should be removed because he agrees with Family First’s argument, and in another he says the Charities Board shouldn’t fear administering the law.

This is clearly another good reason to not vote for Bill English or the National party this coming election.

Judge has no compassion for blind 5-year-old child

New Zealand has always prided itself with being a fair and equal society that looks after people when they’re injured or sick. Unfortunately with a right wing National government in power that's no longer the case.

On Saturday, the NZ Herald reported:

Blind 5-year-old, described as a 'burden' on NZ health system, to be deported to South Africa

A blind, disabled child's family is "devastated" that she will be deported back to South Africa despite her family's legal efforts to allow her to stay in New Zealand.

In a High Court judgment released this week, Justice Gerald Nation ruled in favour of Immigration New Zealand's decision to deport 5-year-old Caitlyn Davies after the girl's family appealed the move.

Immigration NZ had argued it would not be "unjust or unduly harsh" for Caitlyn to be sent back to South Africa and her medical conditions would prove a burden on New Zealand's health system.

This is despite agreeing Caitlyn's "life chances generally would be far better if she were able to remain in New Zealand".

This seems completely unfair. After all the family is contributing to New Zealand's health system through their taxes, which I’m sure would be more than the cost of helping to look after Caitlyn.

Justice Gerald Nation even acknowledges that his decision could shorten Caitlyn’s life, so you’ve really got to wonder how he became a High Court judge?

But what makes this story even worse is that a decision has been made that could ultimately split this family up.

The terrible burden placed on them by Immigration NZ, the Immigration and Protection Tribunal and now an ignorant High Court Judge simply because the family of five have a dependent child with disabilities is completely unacceptable!

The tribunal said the family were "not destitute before coming to New Zealand" and had not proven they would become so if they returned to South Africa.

It also considered the separation of the Davies family, with the possibility Jonathan might remain in New Zealand to earn a higher wage for his family.

The issue here isn’t only one of whether the family would be adversely affected if they moved back to South Africa… it’s whether Immigration NZ is treating a child with disabilities differently to a child without disabilities.

That would amount to discrimination under the Human Rights Act, which should apply to Immigration NZ decisions no matter what country the child is from. Besides, the cost to look after one disabled child is not a factor Immigration NZ should be considering. The cost to look after injured or disabled people is factored into our economic system. One child isn't going to make a difference if we're considering the entire immigration and health systems.

Of course the majority of financial cost would be on the family and only be excessive in the long run if medical professionals failed to do their jobs properly. Obviously our health system isn’t going to entice people with disabled kids to flock to New Zealand. After all it's not even looking after Kiwi’s properly.

While Caitlyn did not meet "exceptional humanitarian circumstances" she did, due to her disabilities, face "huge challenges".

The tribunal concluded it maintained its position to deport Caitlyn "to maintain the integrity of the New Zealand immigration system".

How cruel and inhumane is that?

When idiots are justifying the huge amounts of immigration into New Zealand because apparently there aren’t enough Kiwi’s to stack shop shelves and children are being discriminated against and deported because of their disabilities, do we really have any integrity in the New Zealand immigration system left?

At a time when immigration is the hot topic it seems rather convenient for Immigration NZ to be in the media getting all nasty about letting a disabled child live with her family in god’s own. With the lines of separation between the state and judiciary so blurred at the moment this could be just another political decision made by a corrupted minister and High Court judge.

Clearly Justice Gerald Nation’s potentially life ending and family-destroying decision solely based on the almighty dollar shows that we don’t have a system with integrity. We instead have a cold and callous mechanism governed by old men blinded by dollar signs.

Give homeless basic human rights

We should all know by now that the government doesn't much like poor people. In fact much of National's first and second terms in power were dedicated to persecuting the poor, who for obvious reasons cannot easily defend themselves.

The consequences of the government's war on the poor are more homeless people on our streets, inequality and let's face it suffering. That's the result of the National parties neoliberal agenda, a country divided and consequently weakened.

Today, Radio NZ provided yet another example of National's heartlessness:

Homeless banned from gathering

People sleeping rough in abandoned buildings in Christchurch are being ordered to stay away from the people they were caught with.

Up to 10 homeless people were arrested over the weekend for being unlawfully in an abandoned building and were issued with non-association orders by the Christchurch District Court.

The homeless people say they know they're breaking the law but when bad weather hits, there's no where else to go.

Not only is the government failing these people by not having any facilities available to properly house them, they're trying to ensure that they aren't even allowed to find shelter themselves. That's not the New Zealand I grew up in, and it certainly isn't the New Zealand we should be accepting as the new normal.

The abandoned houses these homeless people are using have no other function. So why not designate some of them as homeless shelters once any safety precautions are taken? It's not as if these homeless people have the funds to compete in the terribly expensive Christchurch rental market, so there really should be no objection.

Every Tuesday lunchtime and Thursday night the city's homeless gather to receive food, blankets and clothing from charities and volunteer groups.

But those issued with non-association orders, say it makes these gatherings hard because they are at risk of breaching the order and being arrested.

Police say the non-association order is to stop people committing crimes with the same group.

If it were obeyed, the non-association order would also stop people gaining nourishment, which makes the court's decision and the Police's enforcement of it incomprehensibly stupid! Has New Zealand become such a cold and heartless country that the state would try to put a halt to people even accessing food?

It's bad enough that the Police are impeding people from accessing shelter or having friends, but when orders are made to inhibit struggling people from sustaining themselves with the help of charities, then the state has gone way too far.

Unfortunately I doubt that things will improve anytime soon either, being that the National party has no moral compass to speak of. Their core supporters seem to even enjoy watching the suffering of others, which makes them look rather unpatriotic to say the very least.

It would be great if the National party pulled their heads out of the sand and actually did something about the housing crisis in New Zealand instead of actively making it worse and then persecuting those caught up by the government's social policy failure.

Israel celebrates killing of children

As the Israeli bombardment and occupation of Gaza intensifies with Unicef estimating that 230 Palestinian children have been killed to date, the international response to numerous Israeli war crimes appears to be floundering. Although an investigation will be conducted, without American support for economic sanctions and other measures to coerce Israel into a peaceful solution even the United Nations appears unable to ensure a halt to the bloodshed.

Such a slow and ineffective international response to what can only be described as attempted ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is in clear breach of International humanitarian laws specifically designed to safeguard peaceful civilians and ensure they aren’t caught up in other people's conflicts.

In complete disregard for the unconditional rules of warfare, the Israelis are actively targeting schools, playgrounds, hospitals and innocent people's homes in clear violation of the Geneva Convention, which was ratified by Israel way back in 1951.

Despite a strong propaganda campaign in order to try and justify their entirely unjust war against the people of Palestine, Israel's clear violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention with such abhorrent acts of barbarism has ensured worldwide criticism, condemnation that will have widespread implications for the rogue and terrorist nation, Israel.

Here are a few of the Palestinian children killed or injured in the conflict:

If that killing and maiming of innocent children wasn't bad enough, the Israelis are actually celebrating their atrocious war crimes. Not only are the Zionists cheering on the bombardment of Gaza from the sidelines, they're openly dancing in the streets and chanting about just how great it is to kill innocent Palestinian children.

Yesterday, The Times of Israel reported:

Far-right Israelis celebrate Gaza kids’ deaths

In video from Tel Aviv demonstration, crowd can be seen chanting, ‘There is no school tomorrow; there are no children left in Gaza’

Video has emerged of far-right Israeli protesters celebrating the death of children in Gaza during a counter-demonstration to an anti-war rally in Tel Aviv’s Rabin Square over the weekend

“There is no school tomorrow; there are no children left in Gaza,” the men can be seen chanting as part of a roughly formed song that also included the stanzas “I hate all the Arabs” and “Gaza is a cemetery.”

The mob also called for Israeli Arabs to be stripped of their citizenship.

No wonder people are saying the Israelis are acting like Nazis.

Here's the video of Israelis in Tel Aviv celebrating the death of children in Gaza.

What a bunch of sick and soulless bastards!

Dangerous drugs tested on children

It's been somewhat concerning to see how much the media is manipulating information to try and ensure the current government retains enough support to win the 2014 election. Not only do we have various news outlets continually reporting their biased viewpoints, we often have no proper reporting at all on topics that are of great public importance.

One such story by the Herald on Sunday that was published online, but failed to make it into the print edition, is a good example of just how manipulative the mainstream media is being in trying to hide important information that makes the government look bad.

Last Sunday, Stuff reported:

A drug company has been cleared to test experimental drugs on intellectually disabled people, despite earlier concerns that it was illegal and risky.

It comes amid renewed debate over medical trials conducted on patients without their permission or even knowledge, with the Ministry of Health recently cautioning its Health and Disability Ethics committee to adhere to law after "concerns" were raised about some approved trials.

Drug company Roche Products sought approval to test the safety of a new drug, RG1662, on adolescents and young adults with Down syndrome, which it hoped would increase their IQ.

The initial application included testing on adults in Wellington, Dunedin and Auckland who were not mentally capable of giving consent and had no parents to consent on their behalf.

This is a disgusting travesty that should be receiving the widespread media attention it deserves. Instead the corrupt media in New Zealand is determined to ignore this and other stories that make it clear that many medical institutions under the governments authority have gone rogue.

In April, the ethics committee declined the drug trial. It said it was unconvinced the drug would benefit participants, many of whom could not understand it.

The drug was yet to be proven safe and the potential side effects included increased risk of suicide.

"It was not clear that the proposed research would be in the best interests of the participants," the committee said.

However last week, the committee agreed to approve the trial to proceed with children only, with their parents' consent.

Although a parent or guardian has the right to give consent for treatment on behalf of a child when that child is unable to provide valid consent for themselves, that treatment must be in the best interest of the child.

Nobody could argue that testing dangerous drugs on children, some of whom will be intellectually handicapped, is in their best interests. That makes such drug trials an illegal practice under the current law that was specifically written to protect vulnerable people from abuse.

The relevant laws state:

Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994 (PDF):

A Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights prescribed by regulations made under section 74(1) shall contain provisions relating to the following matters:

The principle that, except where any enactment or any provision of the Code otherwise provides, no health care procedure shall be carried out without informed consent.

There are no provisions within an Act or the code that allows for dangerous drugs to be tested on children.

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (PDF):

Right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation

Every person has the right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation without that person's consent.

Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 (PDF):

No court shall empower a welfare guardian, and no welfare guardian shall have power,

To consent to that person's taking part in any medical experiment other than one to be conducted for the purpose of saving that person's life or of preventing serious damage to that person's health.

There is no ambiguity about these laws. They clearly show that children should not have dangerous drugs tested on them.

These are not just words that Roche Products, the University of Auckland, the Ministry of Health, the Health and Disability Ethics committee or the Health Minister Tony Ryall himself should be ignoring. They are binding words of law that are meant to ensure people aren't experimented on without their informed consent.

It's bad enough that dangerous drugs are being tested on vulnerable people like mental health patients and prisoners, but when the government allows testing on children, then they need to be stopped. The best way to do that is to vote for a political party that actually has a social conscience in the upcoming general election.

Grand Designs: Manus Island

Bill English misleads the House

Yesterday, PC World reported:

Deputy Prime Minister Bill English struck out against critics of the bill, saying "What we've heard [from the opposition] is a whole lot of left-over, half-warmed rhetoric about democratic rights ... they simply have not contributed at all to settling the issues which they say are so important."

English claimed that the Human Rights commission, which has been critical of the bill, "didn't read the legislation".

The Human Rights Commission didn't read the legislation? Then how exactly did they write an extensive report (PDF) on the subject matter outlined in that legislation? English claiming that the HRC didn't read the GCSB amendment bill and the TICS legislation is obviously wrong!

What makes his untrue statement even worse is that the deluded Bill English made it in an official capacity in parliament. He has therefore mislead the House of Representatives in a most disrespectful way.

Even though his claim was obviously false, the asleep at the wheel speaker unfortunately failed to hold the Deputy Prime Minister to account, which is just another indication that our government is dysfunctional.

A Minister of the Crown shouldn't be able to lie to the House of Representatives with impunity. It's as simple as that.

Greg Shuttleworth - Asshole of the Week

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

The employer of an Invercargill man whose racist rant against a taxi driver was captured on camera has released a statement condemning its employee's actions.

In the exchange in a cab early on Friday, Greg Shuttleworth, a technician for engineering firm Jesco, describes the driver as an "Islam prick'' and says: "F*** off back to where you come from''.

He tells Pakistan-born driver Tariq Humayun he will pay the $7 fare when, "you tell me that you'll piss off back to the country where you come from ... you shouldn't be in New Zealand in the first place ... we don't require your Muslim bulls*** in this country."

That's despicable behaviour that nobody should have to put up with. The problem here is that such racist sentiment is actually widespread in New Zealand, with immigrants getting a real hard time by a bunch of bigots who usually get away with their abuse.

In fact I would go so far as to say that such racism is endemic and entrenched in our divided society and there appears to be little if any political impetus from the government to bring about the change that is required.

Mr Shuttleworth told the Herald he regrets the incident and wants to meet Mr Humayun to apologise.

Does Shuttleworth truly regret the incident or does he only regret that he got caught on camera being a complete tool?

Yesterday - as condemnation and criticism against him mounted and police said they would investigate - Mr Shuttleworth said it was a "one-off situation" which involved too much alcohol and for which he was now paying the price.

In the video he seems pretty lucid to me and clearly believes what he's saying. Besides, being drunk isn't an excuse to be a racist prick, as Bomber succinctly pointed out in a tweet today:

I'm not racist (except when I get drunk) isn't really much of a caveat is it?
— Martyn Bradbury (@CitizenBomber) July 28, 2013

If being drunk for doing or saying dumb shit was a valid excuse, the police and our prison system would be a whole lot less busy.

However, what makes this all the more contemptible is that Shuttleworth thinks his behaviour is somehow vindicated because apparently all Muslims are bad.

But he was still concerned about Muslims in New Zealand. "They don't stand in a pretty light overseas ... And I am worried about what they've come to New Zealand [for] and what we let past our borders."

First the racist idiot blames his behaviour on being drunk, then he tries to justify what he said by further denigrating Muslims. What a complete asshole!

Family First wrong

Yesterday, Voxy reported:

Family First NZ says that six years since the anti-smacking law was passed in a supposed effort to lower our child abuse rates, it has been confirmed as a spectacular failure based on flawed ideology.

Actually, the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 (PDF) is likely to be the main reason children requiring the care of the Chief Executive reduced by 18 per cent (from 6136 cases to 5020) between 2008 and 2011. Likewise, children being placed in CYF's care reduced by 14 per cent (from 4522 placements to 3885) in the same time period.

The amendment came into effect in June 2007, and the only plausible explanation for such a dramatic reduction is that the law change has in fact worked.

On Monday, the Prime Minster was interviewed on Breakfast TV about the issue:

But there were about 6000 children who were in um Child Youth and Family care, so essentially looked after by a foster parent or more likely than not last year in which there were 23 cases of abuse. So we do have to say most foster parents do a fantastic job of looking after children, some are not.

If Key's figures are correct, it's astounding that there's been such a huge increase of children requiring the states assistance. From 5020 in 2011 to "about 6000" in 2012 is an astronomical jump in just one year. So what's the reason for this increase?

Family First is also rubbishing claims by Prime Minister John Key that the increased numbers of child abuse simply reflect an increase in reporting.

Thankfully Mandatory reporting for Police and DHB's was implemented in 2009, so we would expect to see an increase in children being placed in care in the following two years if there was previously widespread underreporting.

Personally I think Key and Family First are both wrong! For Key to be correct, underreporting would have to be extensive, which is clearly not the case. The conservative Christian group is simply wrong! There has been four years of steady decline in severe cases of abuse requiring the states intervention since the law was amended.

In my opinion, that initial decline in children being referred to CYF's care because of the law change has now been surpassed by the degradation the neoliberal agenda has caused society. With reduced wages, less services and a harsher welfare regime, more people are stressed, and this sometimes results in them taking it out on their children.

It would help the debate immensely if those concerned with the welfare of children got their facts straight. With approximately 15 per cent of children in New Zealand at risk of abuse, and over 80,000 children witnessing family violence each year, this is something we simply cannot get wrong.

Natz discriminate against disabled

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

On any number of counts, the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill represents a particularly sorry piece of law-making.

Both its content and the manner in which it made its way through Parliament warrant the strongest criticism. The bill, which allots $23 million annually to people who care for disabled adult family members, was passed under urgency, denying public input through select committee hearings. To add insult, official advice from the Health Ministry on the legislation was heavily censored, with whole sections of the 28-page document blacked out.

It's unusual for an editorial in the NZ Herald to be so critical of the National party. With a plethora of equally bad legislative changes since 2008, one would think that such articles would be more commonplace.

The legislation limits the liability of the Government. Payments of the minimum wage are limited to adults assessed as having high or very high needs. It is estimated that the cost would jump to $65 million a year if payments were extended to all carers and all disabled adults.

In the normal course of events, those rendered ineligible by the legislation would surely mount a legal challenge to see if the Government's policy complied with the verdict of the Court of Appeal. But under the legislation people can no longer bring unlawful discrimination complaints about the new law or any family care policy to the Human Rights Commission or take court proceedings.

National should really listen to what the editor has to say... Instead we have John Key claiming:

Prime Minister John Key has defended the urgent passing of controversial legislation which restricted who could be paid for caring for disabled family members, saying that the Government faced further legal action if the law was not changed.

The government would normally face further legal action by discriminating against those who are eligible as a carer of disabled family members. But to impede the course of justice we have National trying to limit their liability by acting undemocratically.

Mr Key said that the Government risked further legal challenges if it did not change the law. "There are lots of permutations and combinations which could pose a very significant liability on future governments." He also said the Minister of Health was looking at similar cases which could be taken against the Government.

The parents as caregivers case was initially lodged with the Human Rights Commission over 14 years ago, and has been dragged through the courts since September 2008. National and Labour have both been fighting tooth and nail against the HRC and court rulings all the way.

The governments appeal against the decision by the high court was more recently dismissed, yet we still have National trying to avoid their responsibilities and essentially continue to discriminate against families with disabled members.

Clearly people who look after disabled family members should be financially supported. In my opinion, that financial help should be in proportion to the disability the family member has, not subject to continued discrimination that doesn't uphold the courts ruling.

Ensuring all disabled people get the assistance they require would amount to a fraction of the Ministry of Health's enormous budget. That means this isn't a financial decision, or even a legal one made for the reasons dishonest John outlines.

It's about National not wanting families with disabled members to stick to together... It's about National wanting to further discriminate against the disabled to ensure they cannot attain the dignity they deserve.

Where's McVicar?

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

The man accused of murdering Turangi service station attendant Rodney Tahu has made a shock retraction of an earlier admission that he had killed the father of two.

I would think that such a statement would be considered an admission of murder, and therefore couldn't be retracted?

The Crown alleges Hallett shot Mr Tahu twice, once in the shoulder and a second shot to the head.

"The accused looked down on Mr Tahu injured on the ground," said Mr Pilditch.

"He took aim for a third and final time with a certain knowledge that pulling the trigger would end his life - and Mr Hallett pulled the trigger."

"The Crown's case is that he is guilty of nothing short of murder."

Where's that reprehensible Garth McVicar from the (un)Sensible Sentencing Trust to declare that Hallett is guilty and should therefore be locked up forever?

Oh that's right, Menzies Hallett is a white guy and the person he killed was a Maori. I guess that fact changes everything for McVicar and his little band of right wing racists!

Freedom and other constitutional matters

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

Would GCSB even have uncovered its unlawful behaviour if the court had not found that they had broken the law by illegally spying on Kim Dotcom? Similarly, it took 29 deaths before we had an inquiry into the regulation of mining in New Zealand. It took a wrongful disclosure of the private information of thousands of people by the EQC to raise questions about the fairness of its methodology concerning claims payments.

Any quality audit, finding errors of this kind, would conjecture that they are just the tip of the iceberg and as the government is 40 per cent of the economy, that should worry the rest of us who pay for that government. What other breaches are occurring that we never hear about?

It was only through a judge insisting that the rule of law be applied to the GCSB that the illegal spying on Kim Dotcom was unearthed. Without the court requiring disclosure, we would be none the wiser. In turn we wouldn't have learnt that there's another 88 cases of the GCSB illegally spying on other New Zealand citizens.

Clearly cases like the illegal spying on Kim Dotcom are just the tip of the iceberg, therefore considering New Zealand to be one of the least corrupt countries in the world is just silly. The corruption has simply been very well hidden, not only because of the inherent secretiveness of corruption itself, but also because of the systemic dysfunction within our political system to uncover it in the first place.

One thing that could go some way in rectifying that inherent corruption within governmental departments is a formal constitution and in my opinion, that constitution should be based on New Zealands only founding document the Treaty of Waitangi. It should also incorporate other relevant legislation that outlines the fundamental rights to which every person is inherently entitled.

Unfortunately not everybody shares my egalitarian views. On Q+A last weekend, Michelle Boag said that we didn't actually need a formal constitution because some of the Treaty is already incorporated into government legislation anyway. The former National Party president also said that there's freedom of the press and New Zealand is perceived as a corruption free nation.

This is rather oxymoronic being that the press is often impeded from publishing information that's of public interest. Take for instance the teapot tape saga whereby Bradley Ambrose was dragged through the courts in order to try and stop publication, and it's pretty clear there's no real freedom of the press in New Zealand.

Couple that fact with multiple cases of government departments acting outside their mandates to encroach upon if not entirely ignore people's rights, and the claim that our country isn't corrupt along with Boag's argument against a formal constitution effectively evaporates into nothing.

Of course there's other opposition to the constitutional review... Here's what the racists over at the Centre for Political Research have to say:

The government's constitutional review is a major threat to New Zealand's democracy. A biased constitutional advisory panel and a consultation process that locks out non-Maori threatens to permanently put power and privilege into the hands of the tribal elite.

Clearly any constitution isn't going to "give the tribal elite supreme power in New Zealand" so we can basically ignore these nutters! I mean that's about as stupid as saying the "Maori grievance industry has gone too far and is now damaging the fabric of our society." That idiot Muriel Newman certainly has a lot to answer for.

Anyway, let's hope such racist sentiments aren't taken seriously and a comprehensive review process will result in a robust constitution that benefits all New Zealanders, irrespective of religious or political beliefs, ethnicity or financial circumstances. Let's also hope that it will curb the government breaching our existing human rights, because something certainly needs to done about that pronto.

Devoy train crash

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

Seventy-six per cent of responses gathered by TV3's The Vote on Wednesday night agreed with the proposition that New Zealand was racist.

The result prompted newly appointed Race Relations Commissioner Dame Susan Devoy to say New Zealanders should feel "ashamed that they perceive themselves as a racist country".

"It's staggering. I think it just highlights the issues we are facing."

What on earth is Susan Devoy on about? Clearly people shouldn't feel ashamed for correctly perceiving the entrenched and widespread racism that plagues New Zealand... Instead, the racists should feel ashamed for causing that perception.

Devoy's statement was entirely inadequate when it's clearly not the perception of racism that's the problem; it's the racism itself.

This really gets to the crux of the matter, in that the Human Rights Commission more often than not determines cases of racial discrimination in favour of the racists. It's not enough for a perception of racism to exist for the commission to act, even if that perception is based on reality. It's also not enough to show that there has been unfair treatment that can only be explained by racial discrimination. There has to be hard irrefutable evidence of discrimination based on racism, and even then the commission often fails to uphold its mandate.

The way the Human Rights Commission determines whether racial discrimination has occurred is in my opinion flawed, and this is allowing racism to flourish like a toxic weed. Take for example the number of complaints that were recently upheld by the commission concerning media releases, only three since 2007.

Now put that in contrast with the almost weekly racially discriminatory releases from some of our main media outlets, and it's pretty easy to see why 76% of respondents believe New Zealand is a racist country. The commission entirely fails to act to curb that entrenched and widespread promotion of racism through our mainstream media.

Being that having racism so often published will justify in the bigots mind their discriminatory ways, the Human Rights Commission should be far more proactive in trying to reduce the promotion and dissemination of racist attitudes that infect our media outlets.

Couple these unaddressed issues with Susan Devoy's latest woeful public appearance described as a "train crash in slow motion" and it's pretty obvious that the Human Rights Commission won't help to reduce racism with Devoy at the helm, which is perhaps why she was appointed in the first place.

At first I thought Judith Collins making the unqualified Devoy head of the HRC was judged too harshly, and she should be given time to rise to the challenge. She has now proven herself beyond all doubt to be entirely incompetent... She should resign.

Just a coincidence?

Is it just a coincidence that after the Human Rights Commission decides to hold the (not so) Sensible Sentencing Trust to account, they have their funding cut?

Here's a report by Radio NZ from last Wednesday:

A lawyer for the Human Rights Commission has told a court the Sensible Sentencing Trust not only broke name suppression for a convicted paedophile, but breached his privacy by getting his private police record.

Then yesterday, National announces funding cuts for the Human Rights Commission:

Staff at another Government funded agency have an axe hovering over their heads.

Around 15 percent of jobs at the Human Rights Commission are going, thanks to a cash shortfall and a freeze on funding until 2020.

There is no question that the Sensible Sentencing Trust is politically affiliated with the right wing, and if funding decisions are being based on whom the Human Rights Commission decides to prosecute, then that amounts to economic sabotage!

We shouldn't be worrying about New Zealand turning a bit socialist with policy that gives people cheaper power prices, we should be concerned with New Zealand turning towards fascism!

The Human Rights Commission is an effective tool against the rise of fascism, and should therefore have its funding increased. This is especially the case when they're targeting organisations that promote racism, like the Sensible Sentencing Trust.

Two victories!

It's not often that left wing MPs manage to get their bills passed through parliament these days. Usually it's the right wing ramming through socially detrimental legislation that passes with slimmest of majorities.

Sometimes there isn't even any select committee or public input into the process, which is somewhat demoralizing and puts into question whether we still have a functioning democracy in New Zealand?

However yesterday the left had two significant victories: the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill 2012 and the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, both passing despite strong opposition inside and outside parliament.

David Clark's Holiday Bill passed by only one vote, with the Maori Party and Peter Dunne switching allegiance to vote in favour of the worthwhile legislative changes. In my opinion, they should be commended for supporting left wing principles.

The Marriage Bill passed by 77 votes to 44, with many right wing MPs siding with the bills sponsor, Labour MP Louisa Wall. Even John Banks voted for the law change to allow same sex marriages, which is sure to get under the skin of most Act party supporters.

This is pretty big news around the world, with The Guardian reporting:

New Zealand's parliament has voted in favour of allowing same-sex marriage, prompting cheers, applause and the singing of a traditional Maori celebratory song from the public gallery.

Seventy-seven of 121 members voted in favour of amending the 1955 Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples to wed, making New Zealand the first country in the Asia-Pacific region to do so.

"Two-thirds of parliament have endorsed marriage equality," said Louisa Wall, a gay opposition Labour party MP who campaigned in favour of the bill. "It shows that we are building on our human rights as a country."

The bill was widely expected to pass, given similar support for the change in a preliminary vote held last month. It is likely to come into effect in August.

New Zealand becomes the 13th country to legalise same-sex marriages, after Uruguay passed the law last week. Australia rejected a similar proposal last year.

So an excellent result, and one that has assuredly reduce discrimination. In fact the public discussion surrounding the process has likely helped to change some people's perceptions for the better.

Now on to the next victory!

Why NZ needs to operate under a UN framework

Margaret Thatcher made me a Socialist

Citizen A with Marama Davidson & Faasoa Ma Faanana