thedailyblog--2020-05-02--How can we prise corporate hands from the throat of our democracy?

Prising corporate hands from the throat of our democracy is more important than ever .
The public mood does not favour going back to “ business as usual ” after the pandemic where we all work hard to increase the wealth of the one percent .
But any break from “ business as usual ” will be extremely difficult because our main political parties are heavily reliant on corporate donations to fund their election campaigns .
Once upon a time National and Labour had tens of thousands of members and were more strongly democratic than they are today .
Policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way through regional conferences to annual party conferences where issues would be thrashed out on the conference floor for the whole country to see .
Some of those issues would make their way into party manifestos and public debates at election time .
Local party branches were the driving force for election fundraising , running cake stalls and raffles to brings in the small notes and coins which would build slowly into a campaign fund .
A friend of mine was such a staunch Labour supporter she ran a cake stall at her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every Saturday morning in election year , selling cakes and muffins baked by local branch supporters .
It was a political party version of “ Ladies a plate please ” .
Today National and Labour are a slim shadow of their former selves .
Membership figures are a fraction of what they were in the middle decades of last century , reflecting a drop in voter confidence in political parties generally and subsequently lower voter turnouts in national elections .
Policy debates are now pedestrian and off limits to the media ( policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the main role of party conferences is to provide an enthusiastic audience for the party leader to address – highly orchestrated events designed for prime-time television .
Needless to say , cake stalls and raffles no longer raise enough money for election campaigns so Labour , National and New Zealand First are now heavily reliant on corporate donations .
In return , big business expects corporate-friendly policies .
For example no increase in corporate taxes or any regulations which could stem the tide of corporate profits , irrespective of the impact on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corporate pipers calling the policy tune for political parties has led to some rules about the transparency in party donations .
However the one constant in national and local body politics is the length to which politicians go to hide the identities of their big donors .
Along with New Zealand First , both National and Labour are embarrassed to reveal the extent to which they are reliant on big business and the corporates themselves are equally keen to keep their influence over our politicians away from the public gaze .
Four National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court case where it is alleged two donations of $ 100,000 were deliberately split into amounts that would come under the $ 15,000 limit above which the donors would have to be identified .
New Zealand First is being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office in a similar situation where large donations were allegedly channelled into a “ New Zealand First Foundation ” and then used to pay New Zealand First election expenses .
Local body politics is similarly tainted with the re-elected mayors of our two largest cities under Serious Fraud Office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big donors .
It ’ s clear to most of us that tighter and more robust laws are needed to safeguard our democracy from this ever-encroaching influence of the corporate sector over our political parties .
So what changes would make a difference ?
Parliament voted for one significant change late last year to ban foreign donations of more than $ 50 but this applies only to national elections .
It must apply to local body elections as well .
All donations to parties or candidates should be in the name of individuals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , where the connections are often unclear , and we should know their names before we vote .
Currently candidates are only required to reveal their election donors many weeks after the election .
This issue became particularly important in the Wellington local body election campaign last year when a single large donor had a dramatic impact on the mayoral campaign .
The public found out about this big donor before the election but there was no legal requirement for the candidate to revel this beforehand .
There should be .
We should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out in the open at least a week BEFORE an election with it being an offence to receive donations after this time rather than months afterwards .
And why should the publicly notifiable limit for political parties be set at $ 15,000 ?
Why not reduce the threshold for public notification to $ 100 .
We could even look at setting a maximum amount any individual could contribute to an election campaign .
There ’ s also an argument to make for state funding of political party election campaigns .
We already fund @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our main political parties with just the last 20 % raised through donations .
Paying this last 20 % from the public purse would be a cheap price to help protect democracy .
If we don ’ t want to return to “ business as usual ” it ’ s time to wrench our democracy back from the tenacious grasp of corporate power and its political lackies .

Prising corporate hands from the throat of our democracy is more important than ever. The public mood does not favour going back to “business as usual” after the pandemic where we all work hard to increase the wealth of the one percent. But any break from “business as usual” will be extremely difficult because our main political parties are heavily reliant on corporate donations to fund their election campaigns.
Once upon a time National and Labour had tens of thousands of members and were more strongly democratic than they are today.
Policy debates began in branches and made their way through regional conferences to annual party conferences where issues would be thrashed out on the conference floor for the whole country to see. Some of those issues would make their way into party manifestos and public debates at election time.
Local party branches were the driving force for election fundraising, running cake stalls and raffles to brings in the small notes and coins which would build slowly into a campaign fund. A friend of mine was such a staunch Labour supporter she ran a cake stall at her back gate on a busy Auckland road every Saturday morning in election year, selling cakes and muffins baked by local branch supporters. It was a political party version of “Ladies a plate please”.
Today National and Labour are a slim shadow of their former selves. Membership figures are a fraction of what they were in the middle decades of last century, reflecting a drop in voter confidence in political parties generally and subsequently lower voter turnouts in national elections.
Policy debates are now pedestrian and off limits to the media (policy is mostly left to MPs) while the main role of party conferences is to provide an enthusiastic audience for the party leader to address – highly orchestrated events designed for prime-time television.
Needless to say, cake stalls and raffles no longer raise enough money for election campaigns so Labour, National and New Zealand First are now heavily reliant on corporate donations. In return, big business expects corporate-friendly policies. For example no increase in corporate taxes or any regulations which could stem the tide of corporate profits, irrespective of the impact on the rest of us.
Public concern about corporate pipers calling the policy tune for political parties has led to some rules about the transparency in party donations.
However the one constant in national and local body politics is the length to which politicians go to hide the identities of their big donors.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Along with New Zealand First, both National and Labour are embarrassed to reveal the extent to which they are reliant on big business and the corporates themselves are equally keen to keep their influence over our politicians away from the public gaze.
Four National Party figures are currently embroiled in a court case where it is alleged two donations of $100,000 were deliberately split into amounts that would come under the $15,000 limit above which the donors would have to be identified. New Zealand First is being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office in a similar situation where large donations were allegedly channelled into a “New Zealand First Foundation” and then used to pay New Zealand First election expenses. Local body politics is similarly tainted with the re-elected mayors of our two largest cities under Serious Fraud Office investigations over allegedly failing to identify their big donors.
It’s clear to most of us that tighter and more robust laws are needed to safeguard our democracy from this ever-encroaching influence of the corporate sector over our political parties.
So what changes would make a difference?
Parliament voted for one significant change late last year to ban foreign donations of more than $50 but this applies only to national elections. It must apply to local body elections as well.
All donations to parties or candidates should be in the name of individuals who are eligible voters rather than companies, where the connections are often unclear, and we should know their names before we vote. Currently candidates are only required to reveal their election donors many weeks after the election.
This issue became particularly important in the Wellington local body election campaign last year when a single large donor had a dramatic impact on the mayoral campaign. The public found out about this big donor before the election but there was no legal requirement for the candidate to revel this beforehand. There should be.
We should insist that all publicly notifiable donations are out in the open at least a week BEFORE an election with it being an offence to receive donations after this time rather than months afterwards.
And why should the publicly notifiable limit for political parties be set at $15,000? Why not reduce the threshold for public notification to $100. We could even look at setting a maximum amount any individual could contribute to an election campaign.
There’s also an argument to make for state funding of political party election campaigns. We already fund around 80% of the activities of our main political parties with just the last 20% raised through donations. Paying this last 20% from the public purse would be a cheap price to help protect democracy.
If we don’t want to return to “business as usual” it’s time to wrench our democracy back from the tenacious grasp of corporate power and its political lackies.


thedailyblog--2020-05-02--Denis Goldberg – fighting apartheid in South Africa and Israel – lessons from the front line

Last week the world lost one of the heroes of the South African anti-apartheid struggle when 87-year-old Denis Goldberg died .
I first became aware of Denis as a white face on a poster of South African political prisoners back in the 1970s ( see poster ) He was sentenced to life in prison in 1964 at the end of the infamous Rivonia trial of activists accused of planning armed struggle to end white rule in apartheid South Africa .
Denis was Defendant No 3 ( Nelson Mandela was No 1 and Walter Sisulu No 2 ) At 31 he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years in prison .
Details of the trial and Denis ’ s life are here Denis is being remembered for his “ unflinching commitment to the struggle against all forms of racism and Apartheid ” .
In his later years he was very critical of the ANC and in a 2016 interview said “ the members of the ANC need to renew the leadership from top to bottom ” .
Never a truer word said .
We must also remember what this courageous Jewish South African said about the brutal , racist state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apartheid in South Africa .
There ’ s no doubt in my mind that Israel is an apartheid state .
I can not allow in my name , the same kind of oppression to go on against the Palestinians .
I have to speak out against it .
And I have to try and speak out against it in a rational and calm voice when really I ’ m very angry about it [ … ] when [ Israeli ] people say , well , you South Africans , you ’ re biased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We ’ re talking international law…The pro-Israeli lobby , the SA Jewish Board of Deputies and SA Zionist Federation try to say that it [ the Palestinian Israeli issue ] is not a simple matter , [ they say that ] it ’ s complicated .
It ’ s not complicated !
It ’ s very simple , the simplicity is that a dominant group [ Jewish Israelis ] exclude the indigenous Palestinian people from equal rights ” .
Honouring the anti-apartehd struggle in South Africa also means being active in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face the same race-hatred and oppression from Israeli authorities that black South Africans faced from the white regime .

Last week the world lost one of the heroes of the South African anti-apartheid struggle when 87-year-old Denis Goldberg died.
I first became aware of Denis as a white face on a poster of South African political prisoners back in the 1970s (see poster)
He was sentenced to life in prison in 1964 at the end of the infamous Rivonia trial of activists accused of planning armed struggle to end white rule in apartheid South Africa. Denis was Defendant No 3 (Nelson Mandela was No 1 and Walter Sisulu No 2)
At 31 he was the youngest defendant and served 22 years in prison.
Details of the trial and Denis’s life are here
Denis is being remembered for his “unflinching commitment to the struggle against all forms of racism and Apartheid”.
In his later years he was very critical of the ANC and in a 2016 interview said “the members of the ANC need to renew the leadership from top to bottom”. Never a truer word said.
We must also remember what this courageous Jewish South African said about the brutal, racist state of Israel:
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
“Having lived through apartheid in South Africa. There’s no doubt in my mind that Israel is an apartheid state. I cannot allow in my name, the same kind of oppression to go on against the Palestinians. I have to speak out against it. And I have to try and speak out against it in a rational and calm voice when really I’m very angry about it […] when [Israeli] people say, well, you South Africans, you’re biased against us. We’re not. We’re talking international law…The pro-Israeli lobby, the SA Jewish Board of Deputies and SA Zionist Federation try to say that it [the Palestinian Israeli issue] is not a simple matter, [they say that] it’s complicated. It’s not complicated! It’s very simple, the simplicity is that a dominant group [Jewish Israelis] exclude the indigenous Palestinian people from equal rights”.
Honouring the anti-apartehd struggle in South Africa also means being active in the struggle against apartheid in Israel where Palestinians face the same race-hatred and oppression from Israeli authorities that black South Africans faced from the white regime.


thedailyblog--2020-05-03--Cannabis referendum Bill’s recipe for success

Among the many effects of the coronavirus pandemic was a postponement of New Zealand ’ s annual J Day cannabis celebrations .
But on the eve of what I had hoped would be the biggest cannabis event ever seen in New Zealand , the Labour-led Government instead dropped the full and final version of the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill .
Everyone aged over 18 can vote on this Bill at this year ’ s general election .
It comes after a recent poll found over half of Kiwis will vote Yes , another poll for Helen Clark found voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facts , and a local economic think tank predicted a tax windfall of up to $ 490 million if legalisation is done right .
It is what we ’ ve been waiting for .
It is an extremely well-crafted approach that strikes a really good balance , and it has everything needed to win the referendum – and then actually work when implemented .
Here ’ s what voting Yes would do : The Bill contains a long list of details I won ’ t go into , but if inclined you can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can also read good analyses from Russell Brown on Public Address , Derek Chang at grannie Herald , a thorough summary from Collette Devlin at Stuff , or just take it from me , this “ reefer-endum ” Bill is really good – and definitely good enough to win .
Many aspects had already been announced by Minister of Justice Andrew Little : • Cannabis will be made legal for adults aged over 20 .
Adults could buy , consume or grow their own in controlled ways .
• Consumption by adults would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ licenced premises – not in public .
• Public use would be decriminalised ( a fine ) and teenagers won ’ t be made criminals .
Underage use would get a fine or a health based approach , not arrest and permanent criminal record .
Providing to minors would still have severe penalties .
• Adults could purchase no more than 14 grams ( half an ounce ) per day .
This allowance is to let people stock up like we do with groceries .
It ’ s sensible and workable .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t be a barrier to going legal .
This is sensible .
• There could be Dutch-style coffeeshops .
Retail stores can include consumption spaces , or these can also be separate BYO cafes .
Premises must provide harm reduction information , food and refreshments , and can not sell alcohol or tobacco or allow these to be consumed with cannabis .
• Advertising would be banned , and instore marketing strictly controlled .
There won ’ t be any freebies or discounts .
Products will be banned if they appeal to children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ version of the Bill include : • Cannabis will be available in a staggered approach , starting with the forms we ’ re all accustomed to : dried or fresh flowers , basic concentrates , and seeds or live plants for those who want to grow their own .
• Edibles , topicals and other forms will follow , but gummy bears or beverages containing THC won ’ t be allowed at all .
• Dried cannabis would be limited to a maximum potency of 15 % THC .
While there are suggestions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ access to stronger cannabis , I think that cap is ample for most people , and those who need stronger products can grow their own .
• Public possession would be limited to 14 grams of dried cannabis or the “ equivalent ” in other forms : up to 70 grams of wet cannabis , 14 cannabis seeds , 210 grams of cannabis edibles , 980 grams of liquids or 3.5 grams of concentrates .
• A new Cannabis Licensing Authority will regulate the new legal market .
Licence applicants will tender for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and licences will be allocated according to social equity principles .
These include the degree to which the licence applicant : o represents or partners with communities disproportionately harmed by cannabis • Huge vertically integrated corporates won ’ t be allowed .
Producers can ’ t be retailers , and no entity can hold more than 20 % of the market .
• Small craft growers are encouraged .
The Authority will set aside for micro-cultivators a proportion of the market cap .
This is great for local growers , and for consumers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shelf flowers grown in small batches .
• Sales taxes will go to health and education .
While the tax amount is yet to be confirmed , it won ’ t raise prices over what people pay now .
Taxes will be based on THC content , like with alcohol .
Drug driving will remain an offence .
Legislation for this is already before parliament and will take effect regardless of the referendum result , so that neutralises that concern .
Medicinal cannabis and hemp are outside the referendum and will be regulated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fair to say that for many patients access to cannabis products would become much easier and cheaper .
Who will ( and won ’ t ) benefit ?
Well , under this model almost everyone wins .
Access to cannabis will be legal yet controlled , medical access gets easier and cheaper , current providers aren ’ t locked out and can go legal , social equity provisions are built in , overseas corporates are blocked , micro cultivators have a place , sales taxes support increased health and education and don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fund , our police get better things to do , and people will have legal options other than alcohol .
A Yes vote will take away money and influence from organised crime , and it will reduce the dominance of our alcohol industry , and the pharma trade won ’ t be part of this .
There won ’ t be cannabis stores on every corner .
There won ’ t be a Big Cannabis industry .
and imports won ’ t be allowed .
Vertical integration will be banned , and advertising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a big corporate approach may be ruing their bets .
Instead , this model supports local growers , producers and small businesses .
Unlike the capital-intensive medicinal cannabis industry , hundreds of small businesses could be involved , and consumers will have access to a plethora of hand cultivated flowers and small batches of craft products , not just corporate weed grown in a giant warehouse .
We know what we ’ re getting The parties that make up the current Government have pledged to make the result binding .
They ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re obviously supportive of it .
Notably , the final version of the Bill has not backtracked on any parts of the earlier draft .
I heard from many people who feared the provisions allowing limited home growing would be the first to be dropped if the Government came under any pressure .
But it ’ s still there .
Same with the daily purchase limit of 14 grams , which was the focus of much attention and waving of baggies of oregano .
We can be assured therefore , that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Technical aspects of the Bill may , of course , change here and there as it goes through the select committee process and parliamentary votes ) .
Meanwhile , National has refused to implement the result , no matter how people vote .
National ’ s drug policy spokesperson , Paula Bennett , has long pretended to just be asking questions , sweetie , but has finally admitted she ’ ll be voting No .
If the current Government is re-elected , which seems a certainty , they will pass this pre-written Bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could take another year .
It ’ s important this is done right : the legal market must compete with , and overtake , the illicit market in a careful way that does not create negative consequences .
I ’ m disappointed home delivery and mail order sites are still excluded .
These would let conservative local communities “ opt out ” if they don ’ t want retail stores in their town , while retaining consumer access especially for those who find travel difficult .
But I ’ m pleased this Bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreign corporates , and it lets those who have minor pot convictions enter the legal industry .
The Bill ’ s awesome new weapon is the addition of social equity principles .
These were flagged in the previous draft but now we have specifics that address the concerns held by middle New Zealand and ensure people who don ’ t consume cannabis also stand to benefit from law reform – which is crucial to getting a majority Yes vote .
The Bill incorporates several aspects of the CHOISE model I developed in collaboration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social equity aspects will let us right the wrongs of past policies .
They include removing barriers to going legal , so that more people can participate and share any economic benefits – especially those who suffered most under harsh punitive law enforcement .
Cannabis sales revenues will fund health and education rather than enriching foreign corporates .
Social enterprises will be favoured over pure profits .
There will be support for those at the bottom .
Social equity makes legalisation work for everyone .
The people we need to vote Yes also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Bill .
They want to know how cannabis use will be limited to adults , in private homes or specially licensed venues .
They want to know there will be no advertising , no Big Business , and more support for health and education .
With the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill , the choice for voters could not be more stark : vote Yes and New Zealand finally gives it a go , with a model that restores privacy to what people do in their own home and limits commercialisation while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote No to support a failed model that criminalises young people and enriches organised crime .
Chris Fowlie is the CEO of Zeacann Limited , a medicinal cannabis producer ; co-founder of the New Zealand Medical Cannabis Council ; president of the National Organisation for the Reform of Marijuana Laws NZ Inc ; co-founder of The Hempstore Aotearoa ; resident expert for Marijuana Media on 95bFM ; cannabis blogger for The Daily Blog , and court-recognised independent expert witness for cannabis .
The opinions expressed here are his own .

Among the many effects of the coronavirus pandemic was a postponement of New Zealand’s annual J Day cannabis celebrations. But on the eve of what I had hoped would be the biggest cannabis event ever seen in New Zealand, the Labour-led Government instead dropped the full and final version of the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill.
Everyone aged over 18 can vote on this Bill at this year’s general election. It comes after a recent poll found over half of Kiwis will vote Yes, another poll for Helen Clark found voters support legal cannabis when they know the facts, and a local economic think tank predicted a tax windfall of up to $490 million if legalisation is done right.
It is what we’ve been waiting for. It is an extremely well-crafted approach that strikes a really good balance, and it has everything needed to win the referendum – and then actually work when implemented.
Here’s what voting Yes would do:
The Bill contains a long list of details I won’t go into, but if inclined you can read all 154 pages here. You can also read good analyses from Russell Brown on Public Address, Derek Chang at grannie Herald, a thorough summary from Collette Devlin at Stuff, or just take it from me, this “reefer-endum” Bill is really good – and definitely good enough to win.
Many aspects had already been announced by Minister of Justice Andrew Little:
Cannabis will be made legal for adults aged over 20. Adults could buy, consume or grow their own in controlled ways.
Consumption by adults would be allowed in private homes and specially licenced premises – not in public.
Public use would be decriminalised (a fine) and teenagers won’t be made criminals. Underage use would get a fine or a health based approach, not arrest and permanent criminal record. Providing to minors would still have severe penalties.
Adults could purchase no more than 14 grams (half an ounce) per day. This allowance is to let people stock up like we do with groceries. It’s sensible and workable.
Having a cannabis criminal record won’t be a barrier to going legal. This is sensible.
There could be Dutch-style coffeeshops. Retail stores can include consumption spaces, or these can also be separate BYO cafes. Premises must provide harm reduction information, food and refreshments, and cannot sell alcohol or tobacco or allow these to be consumed with cannabis.
Advertising would be banned, and instore marketing strictly controlled. There won’t be any freebies or discounts. Products will be banned if they appeal to children.
Additional details released in the final version of the Bill include:
Cannabis will be available in a staggered approach, starting with the forms we’re all accustomed to: dried or fresh flowers, basic concentrates, and seeds or live plants for those who want to grow their own.
Edibles, topicals and other forms will follow, but gummy bears or beverages containing THC won’t be allowed at all.
Dried cannabis would be limited to a maximum potency of 15% THC. While there are suggestions that people consume less when they have access to stronger cannabis, I think that cap is ample for most people, and those who need stronger products can grow their own.
Public possession would be limited to 14 grams of dried cannabis or the “equivalent” in other forms: up to 70 grams of wet cannabis, 14 cannabis seeds, 210 grams of cannabis edibles, 980 grams of liquids or 3.5 grams of concentrates.
A new Cannabis Licensing Authority will regulate the new legal market. Licence applicants will tender for a share of the total market, and licences will be allocated according to social equity principles. These include the degree to which the licence applicant:
o represents or partners with communities disproportionately harmed by cannabis
o generates social benefit and builds community partnerships
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
o promotes employment opportunities and career pathways.
Huge vertically integrated corporates won’t be allowed. Producers can’t be retailers, and no entity can hold more than 20% of the market.
Small craft growers are encouraged. The Authority will set aside for micro-cultivators a proportion of the market cap. This is great for local growers, and for consumers who will be able to access top shelf flowers grown in small batches.
Sales taxes will go to health and education. While the tax amount is yet to be confirmed, it won’t raise prices over what people pay now. Taxes will be based on THC content, like with alcohol.
Drug driving will remain an offence. Legislation for this is already before parliament and will take effect regardless of the referendum result, so that neutralises that concern. Medicinal cannabis and hemp are outside the referendum and will be regulated separately. However, it’s fair to say that for many patients access to cannabis products would become much easier and cheaper.
Who will (and won’t) benefit?
Well, under this model almost everyone wins. Access to cannabis will be legal yet controlled, medical access gets easier and cheaper, current providers aren’t locked out and can go legal, social equity provisions are built in, overseas corporates are blocked, micro cultivators have a place, sales taxes support increased health and education and don’t just disappear to a general government fund, our police get better things to do, and people will have legal options other than alcohol.
A Yes vote will take away money and influence from organised crime, and it will reduce the dominance of our alcohol industry, and the pharma trade won’t be part of this. There won’t be cannabis stores on every corner. There won’t be a Big Cannabis industry. and imports won’t be allowed. Vertical integration will be banned, and advertising prohibited, so those who banked on a big corporate approach may be ruing their bets.
Instead, this model supports local growers, producers and small businesses. Unlike the capital-intensive medicinal cannabis industry, hundreds of small businesses could be involved, and consumers will have access to a plethora of hand cultivated flowers and small batches of craft products, not just corporate weed grown in a giant warehouse.
We know what we’re getting
The parties that make up the current Government have pledged to make the result binding. They’ve put forward the Bill, so they’re obviously supportive of it. Notably, the final version of the Bill has not backtracked on any parts of the earlier draft.
I heard from many people who feared the provisions allowing limited home growing would be the first to be dropped if the Government came under any pressure. But it’s still there. Same with the daily purchase limit of 14 grams, which was the focus of much attention and waving of baggies of oregano. We can be assured therefore, that we will get what has been proposed (Technical aspects of the Bill may, of course, change here and there as it goes through the select committee process and parliamentary votes).
Meanwhile, National has refused to implement the result, no matter how people vote. National’s drug policy spokesperson, Paula Bennett, has long pretended to just be asking questions, sweetie, but has finally admitted she’ll be voting No.
If the current Government is re-elected, which seems a certainty, they will pass this pre-written Bill within a year. Licencing and production could take another year. It’s important this is done right: the legal market must compete with, and overtake, the illicit market in a careful way that does not create negative consequences.
I’m disappointed home delivery and mail order sites are still excluded. These would let conservative local communities “opt out” if they don’t want retail stores in their town, while retaining consumer access especially for those who find travel difficult. But I’m pleased this Bill encourages local and craft growers over booze-owned foreign corporates, and it lets those who have minor pot convictions enter the legal industry.
A winning recipe
The Bill’s awesome new weapon is the addition of social equity principles. These were flagged in the previous draft but now we have specifics that address the concerns held by middle New Zealand and ensure people who don’t consume cannabis also stand to benefit from law reform – which is crucial to getting a majority Yes vote.
The Bill incorporates several aspects of the CHOISE model I developed in collaboration with other cannabis policy experts. These social equity aspects will let us right the wrongs of past policies. They include removing barriers to going legal, so that more people can participate and share any economic benefits – especially those who suffered most under harsh punitive law enforcement. Cannabis sales revenues will fund health and education rather than enriching foreign corporates. Social enterprises will be favoured over pure profits. There will be support for those at the bottom. Social equity makes legalisation work for everyone.
The people we need to vote Yes also want to know about the controls in the Bill. They want to know how cannabis use will be limited to adults, in private homes or specially licensed venues. They want to know there will be no advertising, no Big Business, and more support for health and education.
With the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill, the choice for voters could not be more stark: vote Yes and New Zealand finally gives it a go, with a model that restores privacy to what people do in their own home and limits commercialisation while spreading economic benefits widely, or instead vote No to support a failed model that criminalises young people and enriches organised crime.
***
Chris Fowlie is the CEO of Zeacann Limited, a medicinal cannabis producer; co-founder of the New Zealand Medical Cannabis Council; president of the National Organisation for the Reform of Marijuana Laws NZ Inc; co-founder of The Hempstore Aotearoa; resident expert for Marijuana Media on 95bFM; cannabis blogger for The Daily Blog, and court-recognised independent expert witness for cannabis. The opinions expressed here are his own.


thedailyblog--2020-05-03--Dr Liz Gordon: A peculiarly political pandemic

At the heart of this blog is the triangular relationship between the law , trust in government and human freedom .
All three elements are important .
The corpus of the law represents the current status of justice in Aotearoa ( for good or bad ) , including challenges , Judge-made law , common law and the intentions of Parliament .
Trust in government is just another term for politics .
Just as the economic system , via the share market , is driven by people ’ s feelings about the context ( which can be notoriously neurotic ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that boil down to trust .
The late Jim Anderton used to talk about the hopelessness of pushing political ideas when the ‘ tide is out ’ .
How to bring in the tide is the puzzle that all politicians have to face constantly .
Human freedom is not straightforward thing either .
Is it ‘ freedom from ’ or ‘ freedom to ’ ?
Freedom from the virus or freedom to go out and play .
When your freedoms impinge on mine , whose prevail ?
So having got the definitions out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a look at the issues .
• New Zealanders ‘ agreed ’ to the lockdown because they had high levels of trust in the government , not because they were certain that the government ’ s lockdown was lawful .
There were two legal challenges to the legality of lockdown and both failed in the High Court .
According to Andrew Geddis and Claudia Geiringer , both were poorly argued and doomed to fail .
However , they note , this does not mean that the law was sound .
There were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including the power which essentially put us all into quarantine .
The article is very much worth reading .
The point is , that there was such a strong support for a rationally argued programme of action that the legal base did not matter .
Politics , not the law , reigned supreme .
What is oddest about this is that Jacinda has constantly said things like “ this doesn ’ t have to be political ” , while relying exactly on the trust thing .
It is politics that looks like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was remarkably free of the ‘ freedom ’ virus that has attacked other countries and jurisdictions .
This movement has been most obvious in the United States , with gun-wielding mobs protesting against continued quarantine orders , with Old Trumpie out the back yelling “ liberate ” .
Don ’ t even try and understand that , by the way .
It is clear that disruption is Trump ’ s only agenda at the moment , his last hope to hold onto the Presidency against such an appalling record of misjudgement and inaction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case of Simon Bridges , in a situation of high trust in politics , calls against the grain are politically unacceptable .
This is something to do with human nature and human psychology .
We have ‘ adopted ’ the government ’ s messages as our own .
Any critique of the government is a critique of us .
The freedom argument , which has popped up in one way or another in a number of countries , is both a rational outcome of neo-liberalism , which places individuals in the marketplace in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ libertarian ) , and an offshoot of the kind of survivalism that has flourished , again in the USA , in recent years .
This is the kind of discourse that had Timothy McVeigh bomb a government building in 1993 .
In short , it is a profoundly political demand .
The existence of semi-automatic rifles at the recent Michigan demonstration shows that some are prepared to back up that demand with force .
Liberate , indeed , the rule of law !
The disinclination of people like pre-Covid Boris ( I still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have infected him with a little bit of sense ) , Bolsonaro ( Brazil ) , Erdogan ( Turkey ) , Trump ( USA ) and others to take measures that reduce human freedoms ( remember that initially the UK was talking herd immunity and let the oldies die , as they do ) is strongly reflected in the virus numbers .
As others ‘ flatten the curve ’ , the latecomers are shooting ahead of the competition to have the most cases .
The UK is catching up to Spain and Italy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swept past France and Germany in the past week ) , with Brazil and Turkey converging fast .
While others fall away as their mitigation policies start to work , our right wing friends are out in front .
However , Turkey is now flattening the curve a little , closing schools and workplaces , bowing to the inevitability that mitigation is the only thing that slows the virus down ( except possibly everyone injecting themselves with disinfectant , which would indeed mitigate… .
life ) .
Brazil is becoming the alarming case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national mitigation policies in place .
In the words of President Bolsonaro this week : “ So what ?
I ’ m sorry .
What do you want me to do ?
” .
All eyes should be on the United States next week , where Republican governors are under pressure to re-open business in states where the virus is just beginning to recede , loosening its grip on a socially distanced population .
It will return again , of course , in force , should this happen in places such as Florida @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contested Democrat states where the rightists are using every method possible , including legal as well as public demonstrations and opposition , to force a quick re-opening of business and economic activity .
It is almost civil war out there .
While the legal case for following lockdown is not that strong in New Zealand , and while the urgency for economic re-opening is building , there is a marked , populist ( how else to explain the marketisation of Ashley Bloomfield ’ s image ) relationship , built on that strongest of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ developed and continued here .
And that very factor alone , and the actions that follow from it , has seen us , the people , and our government , defeat ( for the time being at least ) the virus .
Dr Liz Gordon is a researcher and a barrister , with interests in destroying neo-liberalism in all its forms and moving towards a socially just society .
She usually blogs on justice , social welfare and education topics .

At the heart of this blog is the triangular relationship between the law, trust in government and human freedom. All three elements are important. The corpus of the law represents the current status of justice in Aotearoa (for good or bad), including challenges, Judge-made law, common law and the intentions of Parliament.
Trust in government is just another term for politics. Just as the economic system, via the share market, is driven by people’s feelings about the context (which can be notoriously neurotic), politics is driven by sets of feelings that boil down to trust. The late Jim Anderton used to talk about the hopelessness of pushing political ideas when the ‘tide is out’. How to bring in the tide is the puzzle that all politicians have to face constantly.
Human freedom is not straightforward thing either. Is it ‘freedom from’ or ‘freedom to’? Freedom from the virus or freedom to go out and play. When your freedoms impinge on mine, whose prevail?
So having got the definitions out of the way, let’s have a look at the issues.
New Zealanders ‘agreed’ to the lockdown because they had high levels of trust in the government, not because they were certain that the government’s lockdown was lawful.
There were two legal challenges to the legality of lockdown and both failed in the High Court. According to Andrew Geddis and Claudia Geiringer, both were poorly argued and doomed to fail. However, they note, this does not mean that the law was sound. There were significant questions as to the powers used, including the power which essentially put us all into quarantine. The article is very much worth reading. The point is, that there was such a strong support for a rationally argued programme of action that the legal base did not matter. Politics, not the law, reigned supreme. What is oddest about this is that Jacinda has constantly said things like “this doesn’t have to be political”, while relying exactly on the trust thing. It is politics that looks like personal responsibility.
2. New Zealand was remarkably free of the ‘freedom’ virus that has attacked other countries and jurisdictions.
This movement has been most obvious in the United States, with gun-wielding mobs protesting against continued quarantine orders, with Old Trumpie out the back yelling “liberate”. Don’t even try and understand that, by the way. It is clear that disruption is Trump’s only agenda at the moment, his last hope to hold onto the Presidency against such an appalling record of misjudgement and inaction.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
As we saw in the curious case of Simon Bridges, in a situation of high trust in politics, calls against the grain are politically unacceptable. This is something to do with human nature and human psychology. We have ‘adopted’ the government’s messages as our own. Any critique of the government is a critique of us.
The freedom argument, which has popped up in one way or another in a number of countries, is both a rational outcome of neo-liberalism, which places individuals in the marketplace in premier position (i.e. it is libertarian), and an offshoot of the kind of survivalism that has flourished, again in the USA, in recent years. This is the kind of discourse that had Timothy McVeigh bomb a government building in 1993. In short, it is a profoundly political demand. The existence of semi-automatic rifles at the recent Michigan demonstration shows that some are prepared to back up that demand with force. Liberate, indeed, the rule of law!
The disinclination of people like pre-Covid Boris (I still hold out hope for the virus to have infected him with a little bit of sense), Bolsonaro (Brazil), Erdogan (Turkey), Trump (USA) and others to take measures that reduce human freedoms (remember that initially the UK was talking herd immunity and let the oldies die, as they do) is strongly reflected in the virus numbers. As others ‘flatten the curve’, the latecomers are shooting ahead of the competition to have the most cases. The UK is catching up to Spain and Italy so fast it is dizzying (having swept past France and Germany in the past week), with Brazil and Turkey converging fast. While others fall away as their mitigation policies start to work, our right wing friends are out in front.
However, Turkey is now flattening the curve a little, closing schools and workplaces, bowing to the inevitability that mitigation is the only thing that slows the virus down (except possibly everyone injecting themselves with disinfectant, which would indeed mitigate…. life). Brazil is becoming the alarming case of what happens when there are no national mitigation policies in place. In the words of President Bolsonaro this week: “So what? I’m sorry. What do you want me to do?”.
All eyes should be on the United States next week, where Republican governors are under pressure to re-open business in states where the virus is just beginning to recede, loosening its grip on a socially distanced population. It will return again, of course, in force, should this happen in places such as Florida. We should not forget the highly contested Democrat states where the rightists are using every method possible, including legal as well as public demonstrations and opposition, to force a quick re-opening of business and economic activity. It is almost civil war out there.
3. In extraordinary circumstances, leadership can make a difference
While the legal case for following lockdown is not that strong in New Zealand, and while the urgency for economic re-opening is building, there is a marked, populist (how else to explain the marketisation of Ashley Bloomfield’s image) relationship, built on that strongest of human grounds, trust, that has developed and continued here. And that very factor alone, and the actions that follow from it, has seen us, the people, and our government, defeat (for the time being at least) the virus.
Dr Liz Gordon is a researcher and a barrister, with interests in destroying neo-liberalism in all its forms and moving towards a socially just society. She usually blogs on justice, social welfare and education topics.


thedailyblog--2020-05-03--Jailing of Jakarta Six fuels virus fears over Papuan political prisoners

By David Robie , who also blogs at Café Pacific The jailing of the Jakarta Six – five Papuans and the first Indonesian to be convicted for a Papuan protest – in Indonesia last month has focused global attention on the plight of political prisoners in the face of a failing struggle against the coronavirus pandemic .
Already several analysts are warning that both Indonesia and Papua New Guinea are at risk of becoming coronavirus “ failed states ” and this will be of concern to Australia and New Zealand .
While Papua New Guinea has had only eight confirmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is expected this month in spite of the state of emergency , Indonesia already has 10,843 cases with 831 deaths and the real toll is feared to be higher and climbing .
In Indonesia ’ s two Melanesian provinces of Papua and West Papua , the figures are reportedly 189 and 37 respectively with seven deaths overall and a new surge reported in the Mimika mining hub .
Remote tribespeople have taken to setting up their own blockades to protect their villages .
“ Countries with pre-existing conditions — poverty , limited healthcare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fragile , and it is these countries that covid-19 is threatening to push to the brink of survival , ” writes ABC ’ s foreign affairs correspondent Melissa Clarke .
She acknowledges those critics who suggest the United States has made a “ solid start ” for gaining such a dubious status , “ but for the Australian government , the real concerns lie just to the north – Papua New Guinea and Indonesia.
” Human rights advocates and civil society groups are voicing their condemnation of Papuans being held in crowded and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peaceful demonstrations and a “ Free West Papuan political prisoners ” campaign has gone viral on social media .
Political prisoners still held ETAN – East Timor and Indonesian Action Network , founded in 1991 and one of the most active US non-profit groups campaigning for human rights across Southeast Asia and Oceania , says that while Indonesia “ struggles to contain the spread of covid-19 ” , the government still holds anti-racism and pro-independence prisoners in jails across West Papua , Jakarta and Balikpapan .
“ In many cases , trials have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health of the prisoners , lawyers , judges and court staff , ” ETAN says .
An urgent appeal to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and UN Special Rapporteurs was filed last month by advocate Jennifer Robinson and Indonesian human rights lawyer Veronica Koman , backed by the human rights organisation Tapol , on behalf of 63 political prisoners .
The legal papers demonstrate that all of the detainees are being “ arbitrarily and unlawfully detained in violation of Indonesia ’ s international human rights obligations ” .
The prisoners are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , One Indonesia , and one Polish citizen .
“ While most of them are on remand and still awaiting trial , seven have been sentenced and others are currently on trials , ” says Tapol .
“ The great majority of the political prisoners – 56 – were arrested in the crackdown by Indonesian authorities during the mass political protest movement in support of West Papua last year – dubbed the “ West Papua Uprising ” .
Carrying , displaying flags “ The activities for which they have been detained range from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or Moluccan national flags , to participation in peaceful protests and being members of political organisations which support self-determination – all internationally protected activities.
” In its May Day message , ETAN condemned the conviction of the Jakarta Six for their “ peaceful expression of their opposition to Indonesia ’ s heavy-handed rule in West Papua ” .
“ We call for the immediate release of these prisoners and other Papuans arrested for freedom of expression and for the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for the terrible violence perpetrated on them.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jakarta District Court found the six activists guilty of treason on April 24 for holding a protest in support of Papuan independence in front of the Presidential Palace in Jakarta in last August .
The bench handed prison sentences to the activists – Indonesian People ’ s Front for West Papua ( FRI-West Papua ) spokesperson Surya Anta and students Charles Kossay , Deno Tabuni , Isay Wenda , Ambrosius Mulait and Arina Elopere – during a virtual verdict hearing .
All activists were handed a nine-month prison sentence ( including jail time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who was punished with eight months ’ imprisonment The defendants ’ lawyer , Oky Wiratama , said she was disappointed with the verdicts and questioned the judicial process .
Amnesty International Indonesia director Usman Hamid said the treason charges might have been misused by the government against people who should never have been arrested or detained in the first place .
Students targeted On August 16 , the day before Indonesians celebrate independence , Papuan students in dormitories in East Java were targeted by students after rumours spread that the Papuans had “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and later vigilantes such as the Islam Defenders Front , a notoriously violent Islamist group , attacked West Papuan students , calling them “ pigs , ” “ monkeys ” and “ dogs ” .
Accounts of these attacks show Indonesian security forces directing attacks , and in later attacks participating in the violence against Papuans and Asia Pacific Report widely covered the crisis .
The challenge now is over the risks to these political prisoners languishing in their Indonesian jails .
Reports suggest that covid-19 deaths in Indonesia may be substantially higher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overcrowding , the prisons are likely to be vectors for the spread of the coronavirus .
In the Philippines , where jails are also congested , nearly 10,000 prisoners have been released in a bid to halt the spread of covid-19 after outbreaks at several facilities .
While announcing the release of 9731prisoners , Associate Supreme Court Justice Mario Victor Leonen told media the justice system was “ very much aware of the congested situation ” in prisons .
‘ Shameful ’ media freedom threat Meanwhile , World Press Freedom Day today is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and frontline workers at the heart of the coronavirus outbreak .
Among the first statements were from Australia ’ s Media , Entertainment and Arts Alliance ( MEAA ) union for journalists which called for serious reforms to reverse a raft of “ national security ” laws that can be used to criminalise journalism and punish whistleblowers for telling the truth .
The union said that Australia ’ s reputation as a healthy democracy was now at risk , adding that it was “ shameful ” that on World Press Freedom Day , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police raids last year “ still have the threat of prosecution hanging over their heads ” .
In MEAA ’ s just-released annual The War on Journalism report , 89 percent of 2472 respondents in a survey stated the health of press freedom was poor , or very poor – a sharp deterioration from 71.5 percent in 2019 .
“ While covid-19 casts a shadow over journalism , we celebrate the bravery of those on the reporting frontline , ” declared Journalism Education and Research Association of Australia ( JERAA ) president Dr @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little to celebrate this World Press Freedom Day with Australia slipping five places to 26th in the Reporters Without Borders ( RSF ) World Press Freedom Index – New Zealand dropped two places to ninth , and other Pacific countries such as Papua New Guinea , Samoa and Tonga have also slumped .
“ Covid-19 is casting our struggling news industry into deeper turmoil , populist world leaders are cheering on attacks on journalists , and funding cuts at Australian universities pose a looming threat to journalism education and research , ” she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that colleagues could “ honour the extraordinary work of our frontline reporters , many of them just out of our classrooms , putting their own safety at risk covering the covid-19 pandemic ” .

By David Robie, who also blogs at Café Pacific
The jailing of the Jakarta Six – five Papuans and the first Indonesian to be convicted for a Papuan protest – in Indonesia last month has focused global attention on the plight of political prisoners in the face of a failing struggle against the coronavirus pandemic.
Already several analysts are warning that both Indonesia and Papua New Guinea are at risk of becoming coronavirus “failed states” and this will be of concern to Australia and New Zealand.
While Papua New Guinea has had only eight confirmed covid-19 cases so far – a spike is expected this month in spite of the state of emergency, Indonesia already has 10,843 cases with 831 deaths and the real toll is feared to be higher and climbing.
In Indonesia’s two Melanesian provinces of Papua and West Papua, the figures are reportedly 189 and 37 respectively with seven deaths overall and a new surge reported in the Mimika mining hub. Remote tribespeople have taken to setting up their own blockades to protect their villages.
“Countries with pre-existing conditions — poverty, limited healthcare, ineffective or corrupt governments — are fragile, and it is these countries that covid-19 is threatening to push to the brink of survival,” writes ABC’s foreign affairs correspondent Melissa Clarke.
She acknowledges those critics who suggest the United States has made a “solid start” for gaining such a dubious status, “but for the Australian government, the real concerns lie just to the north – Papua New Guinea and Indonesia.”
Human rights advocates and civil society groups are voicing their condemnation of Papuans being held in crowded and risky Indonesian jails for taking part in peaceful demonstrations and a “Free West Papuan political prisoners” campaign has gone viral on social media.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Political prisoners still held
ETAN – East Timor and Indonesian Action Network, founded in 1991 and one of the most active US non-profit groups campaigning for human rights across Southeast Asia and Oceania, says that while Indonesia “struggles to contain the spread of covid-19”, the government still holds anti-racism and pro-independence prisoners in jails across West Papua, Jakarta and Balikpapan.
“In many cases, trials have continued against these political prisoners endangering the health of the prisoners, lawyers, judges and court staff,” ETAN says.
An urgent appeal to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and UN Special Rapporteurs was filed last month by advocate Jennifer Robinson and Indonesian human rights lawyer Veronica Koman, backed by the human rights organisation Tapol, on behalf of 63 political prisoners.
The legal papers demonstrate that all of the detainees are being “arbitrarily and unlawfully detained in violation of Indonesia’s international human rights obligations”.
The prisoners are 56 indigenous West Papuans, five Moluccans, One Indonesia, and one Polish citizen.
“While most of them are on remand and still awaiting trial, seven have been sentenced and others are currently on trials,” says Tapol.
“The great majority of the political prisoners – 56 – were arrested in the crackdown by Indonesian authorities during the mass political protest movement in support of West Papua last year – dubbed the “West Papua Uprising”.
Carrying, displaying flags
“The activities for which they have been detained range from simply carrying or displaying the West Papuan or Moluccan national flags, to participation in peaceful protests and being members of political organisations which support self-determination – all internationally protected activities.”
In its May Day message, ETAN condemned the conviction of the Jakarta Six for their “peaceful expression of their opposition to Indonesia’s heavy-handed rule in West Papua”.
“We call for the immediate release of these prisoners and other Papuans arrested for freedom of expression and for the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for the terrible violence perpetrated on them.”
A panel of judges at the Central Jakarta District Court found the six activists guilty of treason on April 24 for holding a protest in support of Papuan independence in front of the Presidential Palace in Jakarta in last August.
The bench handed prison sentences to the activists – Indonesian People’s Front for West Papua (FRI-West Papua) spokesperson Surya Anta and students Charles Kossay, Deno Tabuni, Isay Wenda, Ambrosius Mulait and Arina Elopere – during a virtual verdict hearing. All activists were handed a nine-month prison sentence (including jail time already served), except for Wenda who was punished with eight months’ imprisonment
The defendants’ lawyer, Oky Wiratama, said she was disappointed with the verdicts and questioned the judicial process.
Amnesty International Indonesia director Usman Hamid said the treason charges might have been misused by the government against people who should never have been arrested or detained in the first place.
Students targeted
On August 16, the day before Indonesians celebrate independence, Papuan students in dormitories in East Java were targeted by students after rumours spread that the Papuans had “disrespected” the Indonesian flag.
Students and later vigilantes such as the Islam Defenders Front, a notoriously violent Islamist group, attacked West Papuan students, calling them “pigs,” “monkeys” and “dogs”.
Accounts of these attacks show Indonesian security forces directing attacks, and in later attacks participating in the violence against Papuans and Asia Pacific Report widely covered the crisis.
The challenge now is over the risks to these political prisoners languishing in their Indonesian jails. Reports suggest that covid-19 deaths in Indonesia may be substantially higher than officially reported. With the mass overcrowding, the prisons are likely to be vectors for the spread of the coronavirus.
In the Philippines, where jails are also congested, nearly 10,000 prisoners have been released in a bid to halt the spread of covid-19 after outbreaks at several facilities. While announcing the release of 9731prisoners, Associate Supreme Court Justice Mario Victor Leonen told media the justice system was “very much aware of the congested situation” in prisons.
‘Shameful’ media freedom threat
Meanwhile, World Press Freedom Day today is being marked by many statements honouring journalists and frontline workers at the heart of the coronavirus outbreak.
Among the first statements were from Australia’s Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) union for journalists which called for serious reforms to reverse a raft of “national security” laws that can be used to criminalise journalism and punish whistleblowers for telling the truth.
The union said that Australia’s reputation as a healthy democracy was now at risk, adding that it was “shameful” that on World Press Freedom Day, three journalists who were the subject of police raids last year “still have the threat of prosecution hanging over their heads”.
In MEAA’s just-released annual The War on Journalism report, 89 percent of 2472 respondents in a survey stated the health of press freedom was poor, or very poor – a sharp deterioration from 71.5 percent in 2019.
“While covid-19 casts a shadow over journalism, we celebrate the bravery of those on the reporting frontline,” declared Journalism Education and Research Association of Australia (JERAA) president Dr Alex Wake.
She said there was little to celebrate this World Press Freedom Day with Australia slipping five places to 26th in the Reporters Without Borders (RSF) World Press Freedom Index – New Zealand dropped two places to ninth, and other Pacific countries such as Papua New Guinea, Samoa and Tonga have also slumped.
“Covid-19 is casting our struggling news industry into deeper turmoil, populist world leaders are cheering on attacks on journalists, and funding cuts at Australian universities pose a looming threat to journalism education and research,” she said.
However, Dr Wake added that colleagues could “honour the extraordinary work of our frontline reporters, many of them just out of our classrooms, putting their own safety at risk covering the covid-19 pandemic”.


thedailyblog--2020-05-04--Are We In A “New Security Environment”, Or Just The Same Old Anti-Chinese One?

HOW SHOULD NEW ZEALAND make its way out of the Covid-19 crisis ?
More and more powerful and influential players are lining-up to answer that question .
At stake is considerably more than the nation ’ s physical and economic health .
Domestic policy choices can not avoid having foreign policy consequences .
Covid-19 has further deranged what little remained of the US-led post-Soviet world order .
Faith in the American hegemon is faltering and the OECD Club ’ s fear of China is increasing by the day .
Aware of the pivotal role the Chinese play in maintaining the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own – America ’ s European and Australasian allies find themselves torn between the equally urgent demands of their US patron and their own populations .
The situation in Australasia is particularly fraught .
A major regional player , Australia stands resolutely alongside its American “ mate ” , dutifully repeating all of the United States ’ foreign policy and defence lines .
That China absorbs at least a third of all Australian exports is known by Canberra ’ s elites , but somehow this central economic fact of the country ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diplomatic and military calculations .
At some point – and perhaps quite soon – this central contradiction at the heart of Australian foreign policy will become critical .
If Canberra chooses Washington over Beijing , then the Australian economy will tank .
If it chooses Beijing over Washington , then Australia will be plunged into a profound identity crisis .
New Zealand ’ s economic wellbeing , like Australia ’ s , is dependent upon its exporters ’ access to the Chinese market .
Unlike Australia , however , New Zealand ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to avoid taking a side in the growing stand-off between Washington and Beijing .
Wellington is neither as diplomatically nor militarily committed to the United States as Canberra .
As a consequence , it has substantially more room for diplomatic manoeuvre between the two great powers .
In the present , highly volatile strategic environment , that confers a considerable advantage .
In Washington and Canberra , however , Wellington ’ s diplomatic manoeuvrability has become a source of considerable aggravation .
It would suit the Americans and the Australians much better to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ ANZUS ” tent .
In geostrategic terms , a US-aligned Australasia is crucial to Washington ’ s new “ Indo-Pacific ” plan for containing China ’ s ambitious “ Belt and Road ” project .
It has become a matter of some urgency , therefore , to facilitate a decisive shift in New Zealand foreign policy towards Washington and away from Beijing .
In conformity with the maxim that it is shameful to let a good crisis go to waste , the pro-Washington faction within New Zealand ’ s foreign policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to oversee a “ pop-up ” think tank dedicated to assisting the New Zealand Government “ devise a resilience strategy that will ensure New Zealand ’ s independence and sovereignty are protected during the Covid-19 pandemic and after.
” The think tank has been “ popped-up ” by SSANSE ( presumably pronounced “ sanes ” ) an international research institute dedicated to exploring the challenges facing “ Small States and the New Security Environment ” ( i.e .
the world since Russia and China stopped playing nice ) .
Based in Iceland , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would likely have passed without notice in this part of the world had it not been for the prominent role played in SSANSE ’ s activities by our very own Professor Anne-Marie Brady .
Professor Brady is , of course , the academic face of the campaign to reorient ( if you ’ ll pardon the pun ) New Zealand foreign policy away from Beijing and towards Washington .
Alongside her fellow SSANSE directors and co-directors , Professor Margarete Šešelgytė , Professor Baldur Thorhallsson and Professor Alan Tidwell , Brady composes the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tank .
Its pitch is nothing if not portentous : “ The global environment has not been so challenging for New Zealand since 1942 when British forces in Singapore , who were New Zealand ’ s shield , fell to the advance of the Japanese .
New Zealand must now face up to the national security risk of the Covid-19 outbreak .
The current situation poses a risk not only to New Zealand , but collectively , for our Pacific , Five Eyes and NATO partners , as well as like-minded states who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Chinese clearly taking the place of the Japanese in this grim geostrategic scenario , and the “ One Belt , One Road ” project standing in for Imperial Japan ’ s “ Great East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere ” ?
If New Zealand ’ s economic survival wasn ’ t at stake , this sort of re-heated Cold War rhetoric would be laughable .
Professor Brady is not , however , without powerful friends in high places .
Not the least of whom is New Zealand ’ s Foreign Minister , Winston Peters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” of 15 December 2018 , Peters has made it clear that he , too , favours redirecting New Zealand ’ s diplomatic effort away from the nation that takes the lion ’ s share of this country ’ s exports and back towards its traditional friends and allies – who don ’ t .
The Foreign Minister referred to this reorientation as “ The Pacific Reset ” : “ The Pacific Reset [ … ] reflects New Zealand ’ s response to the increasingly contested strategic environment in the Pacific in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This calls for close cooperation with Pacific Island countries , Australia , the United States , and other partners with historic links in the region–countries such as Japan , the EU , UK and France–to uphold values that we share and want to promote in the region ; values like democracy , good governance , greater women ’ s participation , and above all the rules based systems on which the region relies.
” There they are again , those “ rules ” .
The same ones , no doubt , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2003 !
Was it just one of those incredible coincidences that the man who heads up the Center for Australian , New Zealand & Pacific Studies at Georgetown University ( which hosted Peters ’ visit ) is none other than Professor Alan Tidwell , SSANSE Co-director and Professor Brady ’ s associate on the editorial board of the University of Canterbury ’ s pop-up think tank ?
No greater coincidence , I ’ m sure , than Professor Brady following Foreign Minister Peters on “ Newshub Nation ” last Saturday morning .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occasion to voice his support for Australia ’ s call for an inquiry into China ’ s mishandling of the Wuhan outbreak of the novel coronavirus we now know as Covid-19 .
Australia is about to pay a high price for once again shouldering the burdens of America ’ s “ Deputy-Sheriff ” ; and unless the growing influence of the pro-Washington faction of our foreign policy establishment is stopped in its tracks – so will we .

HOW SHOULD NEW ZEALAND make its way out of the Covid-19 crisis? More and more powerful and influential players are lining-up to answer that question. At stake is considerably more than the nation’s physical and economic health. Domestic policy choices cannot avoid having foreign policy consequences. Covid-19 has further deranged what little remained of the US-led post-Soviet world order. Faith in the American hegemon is faltering and the OECD Club’s fear of China is increasing by the day. Aware of the pivotal role the Chinese play in maintaining the global economy – not to mention their own – America’s European and Australasian allies find themselves torn between the equally urgent demands of their US patron and their own populations.
The situation in Australasia is particularly fraught. A major regional player, Australia stands resolutely alongside its American “mate”, dutifully repeating all of the United States’ foreign policy and defence lines. That China absorbs at least a third of all Australian exports is known by Canberra’s elites, but somehow this central economic fact of the country’s economic life is simply excluded from its diplomatic and military calculations. At some point – and perhaps quite soon – this central contradiction at the heart of Australian foreign policy will become critical. If Canberra chooses Washington over Beijing, then the Australian economy will tank. If it chooses Beijing over Washington, then Australia will be plunged into a profound identity crisis.
New Zealand’s economic wellbeing, like Australia’s, is dependent upon its exporters’ access to the Chinese market. Unlike Australia, however, New Zealand’s foreign policy establishment has so far managed to avoid taking a side in the growing stand-off between Washington and Beijing. Wellington is neither as diplomatically nor militarily committed to the United States as Canberra. As a consequence, it has substantially more room for diplomatic manoeuvre between the two great powers. In the present, highly volatile strategic environment, that confers a considerable advantage.
In Washington and Canberra, however, Wellington’s diplomatic manoeuvrability has become a source of considerable aggravation. It would suit the Americans and the Australians much better to have New Zealand safely and securely in the “ANZUS” tent. In geostrategic terms, a US-aligned Australasia is crucial to Washington’s new “Indo-Pacific” plan for containing China’s ambitious “Belt and Road” project. It has become a matter of some urgency, therefore, to facilitate a decisive shift in New Zealand foreign policy towards Washington and away from Beijing.
In conformity with the maxim that it is shameful to let a good crisis go to waste, the pro-Washington faction within New Zealand’s foreign policy establishment has persuaded the University of Canterbury to oversee a “pop-up” think tank dedicated to assisting the New Zealand Government “devise a resilience strategy that will ensure New Zealand’s independence and sovereignty are protected during the Covid-19 pandemic and after.”
The think tank has been “popped-up” by SSANSE (presumably pronounced “sanes”) an international research institute dedicated to exploring the challenges facing “Small States and the New Security Environment” (i.e. the world since Russia and China stopped playing nice). Based in Iceland, with funding from NATO, the institute would likely have passed without notice in this part of the world had it not been for the prominent role played in SSANSE’s activities by our very own Professor Anne-Marie Brady.
Professor Brady is, of course, the academic face of the campaign to reorient (if you’ll pardon the pun) New Zealand foreign policy away from Beijing and towards Washington. Alongside her fellow SSANSE directors and co-directors, Professor Margarete Šešelgytė, Professor Baldur Thorhallsson and Professor Alan Tidwell, Brady composes the “Editorial Board” of the new think tank. Its pitch is nothing if not portentous:
“The global environment has not been so challenging for New Zealand since 1942 when British forces in Singapore, who were New Zealand’s shield, fell to the advance of the Japanese. New Zealand must now face up to the national security risk of the Covid-19 outbreak. The current situation poses a risk not only to New Zealand, but collectively, for our Pacific, Five Eyes and NATO partners, as well as like-minded states who uphold the international rules-based order.”
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
With the Chinese clearly taking the place of the Japanese in this grim geostrategic scenario, and the “One Belt, One Road” project standing in for Imperial Japan’s “Great East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”? If New Zealand’s economic survival wasn’t at stake, this sort of re-heated Cold War rhetoric would be laughable.
Professor Brady is not, however, without powerful friends in high places. Not the least of whom is New Zealand’s Foreign Minister, Winston Peters. Since his in/famous “Georgetown Speech” of 15 December 2018, Peters has made it clear that he, too, favours redirecting New Zealand’s diplomatic effort away from the nation that takes the lion’s share of this country’s exports and back towards its traditional friends and allies – who don’t. The Foreign Minister referred to this reorientation as “The Pacific Reset”:
“The Pacific Reset […] reflects New Zealand’s response to the increasingly contested strategic environment in the Pacific in which more external actors are competing for influence. This calls for close cooperation with Pacific Island countries, Australia, the United States, and other partners with historic links in the region–countries such as Japan, the EU, UK and France–to uphold values that we share and want to promote in the region; values like democracy, good governance, greater women’s participation, and above all the rules based systems on which the region relies.”
There they are again, those “rules”. The same ones, no doubt, that sanctioned the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003!
Was it just one of those incredible coincidences that the man who heads up the Center for Australian, New Zealand & Pacific Studies at Georgetown University (which hosted Peters’ visit) is none other than Professor Alan Tidwell, SSANSE Co-director and Professor Brady’s associate on the editorial board of the University of Canterbury’s pop-up think tank? No greater coincidence, I’m sure, than Professor Brady following Foreign Minister Peters on “Newshub Nation” last Saturday morning. If you missed it, Peters used the occasion to voice his support for Australia’s call for an inquiry into China’s mishandling of the Wuhan outbreak of the novel coronavirus we now know as Covid-19.
Australia is about to pay a high price for once again shouldering the burdens of America’s “Deputy-Sheriff”; and unless the growing influence of the pro-Washington faction of our foreign policy establishment is stopped in its tracks – so will we.


thedailyblog--2020-05-04--Dave Macpherson: Is Covid-19 a threat to mental health?

Some of the more disingenuous right-wing social media commentators have started using the line that the Covid-19 lockdown has led to increased suicides and mental health crisis callouts .
While it ’ s a revelation to see how right-wingers have suddenly become not only attuned to mental health problems in the community , but actuallyconcerned about them , their angst can be revealed as crocodile tears designed to sway doubtful lockdown supporters against Level 4 and Level 3 restrictions .
Mental health authorities and , more importantly and more independently , police have stated that there has “ been no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mental health .
Social media rumours that there has been a spike in suicide rates during the lockdown have been described by the Mental Health Foundation as “ irresponsible and untrue ” .
This includes claims made to me by a bunch of Tauranga National supporters that there had been an upsurge in farmer suicides because of the lockdown .
Interestingly , I saw a comment by a sheep and beef farmer who is Mayor of Mackenzie District , attacking Mt Cook ’ s Hermitage Hotel for closing , accusing it of creating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ farmers have resilience ” and that tourism businesses should follow their example .
Having said all that , there is no doubt that the lockdown has thrown up unique mental health challenges for many Kiwis , just as it has thrown up new examples of individual and community resilience .
More than ever people have needed contact with their friends and whanau , but there are hundreds of thousands of social media-carried examples where this contact and ‘ checking in ’ has increased , and where people have been more inclined to say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had in person a couple of months ago .
A major concern is the ability of mental health and community support services to cope with a new crisis , on top of the previously existing mental health crisis .
There is a looming large increase in unemployment and financial hardship , and the link between economic wellbeing and mental wellbeing is clearly established .
In the Canterbury microcosm , the Christchurch earthquakes have shown this country some of the long-term effects of major crises , but the big question is – has the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this .
While not yet true , the right-wingers ’ scare stories of dramatically increased mental health problems and suicides might yet be realised if the Government does not have a plan beyond business handouts and big infrastructure builds in the next stage of the crisis .
I am unconvinced that their agencies , the Ministry of Health and it ’ s attendant DHB Mental Health Services , have the foresight , ability or organisation to cope with the mental health fallout from the coming large increases in unemployment and economic hardship .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ sector , the NGOs who always end up picking up the pieces in crises like this , but who don ’ t have the capacity to handle what is coming their way .
The foodbanks , nightshelters , community centres and community-based health services will be the frontline of the Covid-19 crisis in the near future .
I fear also for families , who bear the initial brunt , and often the whole load , of caring for loved ones who the system is incapable of caring for , and who get close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who generally regard family members of mentally unwell people as interfering privacy invaders .
This problem is not new , it has continued slightly under the radar over the last 2 months , but it will be exacerbated if there is an upsurge in calls for mental health support .
In the last two weeks , my partner and I have been contacted for help by four families of people with severe mental health issues , that have to date been failed by official support organisations .
These are not Covid-19 related cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failing mental health system has not taken the opportunity of the last two month ’ s reduced scrutiny to improve anything , let alone to crack on with the reforms that the Government has funded it to undertake .
The combination of the Covid-19 crisis and a lame duck Minister of Health seems to have allowed the much-heralded community mental health support improvements from the 2019 Budget to be put to one side .
What this country needs are hard-driving advocates of change in the metal health system to actually be put in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ People with strong community links and a good vision of the needed end result .
Unfortunately , what we ’ ve currently got are the current leaders of the mental health profession being asked to manage changes to the system they devised – akin to turkeys being told to campaign for an early Xmas .
As the Covid-19 crisis restrictions ease , I ’ ve no doubt the focus on the poor state of our mental health system will once again come to the forefront .
Dave Macpherson – TDB mental health blogger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ son was killed by public health incompetence .

Some of the more disingenuous right-wing social media commentators have started using the line that the Covid-19 lockdown has led to increased suicides and mental health crisis callouts.
While it’s a revelation to see how right-wingers have suddenly become not only attuned to mental health problems in the community, but actuallyconcerned about them, their angst can be revealed as crocodile tears designed to sway doubtful lockdown supporters against Level 4 and Level 3 restrictions.
Mental health authorities and, more importantly and more independently, police have stated that there has “been no significant spike” in calls related to mental health.
Social media rumours that there has been a spike in suicide rates during the lockdown have been described by the Mental Health Foundation as “irresponsible and untrue”.
This includes claims made to me by a bunch of Tauranga National supporters that there had been an upsurge in farmer suicides because of the lockdown. Interestingly, I saw a comment by a sheep and beef farmer who is Mayor of Mackenzie District, attacking Mt Cook’s Hermitage Hotel for closing, accusing it of creating unnecessary unemployment and stating that “most farmers have resilience” and that tourism businesses should follow their example.
Having said all that, there is no doubt that the lockdown has thrown up unique mental health challenges for many Kiwis, just as it has thrown up new examples of individual and community resilience. More than ever people have needed contact with their friends and whanau, but there are hundreds of thousands of social media-carried examples where this contact and ‘checking in’ has increased, and where people have been more inclined to say how they are feeling electronically than they had in person a couple of months ago.
A major concern is the ability of mental health and community support services to cope with a new crisis, on top of the previously existing mental health crisis. There is a looming large increase in unemployment and financial hardship, and the link between economic wellbeing and mental wellbeing is clearly established. In the Canterbury microcosm, the Christchurch earthquakes have shown this country some of the long-term effects of major crises, but the big question is – has the Government learnt from this and prepared for this.
While not yet true, the right-wingers’ scare stories of dramatically increased mental health problems and suicides might yet be realised if the Government does not have a plan beyond business handouts and big infrastructure builds in the next stage of the crisis.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
I am unconvinced that their agencies, the Ministry of Health and it’s attendant DHB Mental Health Services, have the foresight, ability or organisation to cope with the mental health fallout from the coming large increases in unemployment and economic hardship.
I fear for the independent community support sector, the NGOs who always end up picking up the pieces in crises like this, but who don’t have the capacity to handle what is coming their way. The foodbanks, nightshelters, community centres and community-based health services will be the frontline of the Covid-19 crisis in the near future.
I fear also for families, who bear the initial brunt, and often the whole load, of caring for loved ones who the system is incapable of caring for, and who get close to zero support from mental health authorities who generally regard family members of mentally unwell people as interfering privacy invaders. This problem is not new, it has continued slightly under the radar over the last 2 months, but it will be exacerbated if there is an upsurge in calls for mental health support.
In the last two weeks, my partner and I have been contacted for help by four families of people with severe mental health issues, that have to date been failed by official support organisations. These are not Covid-19 related cases, but show us clearly that the failing mental health system has not taken the opportunity of the last two month’s reduced scrutiny to improve anything, let alone to crack on with the reforms that the Government has funded it to undertake.
The combination of the Covid-19 crisis and a lame duck Minister of Health seems to have allowed the much-heralded community mental health support improvements from the 2019 Budget to be put to one side.
What this country needs are hard-driving advocates of change in the metal health system to actually be put in charge of seeing through that change. People with strong community links and a good vision of the needed end result.
Unfortunately, what we’ve currently got are the current leaders of the mental health profession being asked to manage changes to the system they devised – akin to turkeys being told to campaign for an early Xmas.
As the Covid-19 crisis restrictions ease, I’ve no doubt the focus on the poor state of our mental health system will once again come to the forefront.
Dave Macpherson – TDB mental health blogger & Former Waikato DHB Elected Member whose son was killed by public health incompetence.


thedailyblog--2020-05-04--How crazy are these warmongers? Cancel RIMPAC 2020

The United Nations has called on the world for a global ceasefire in all conflicts and a stop to war preparations while humanity focuses on the fight against Covid 19 .
But the US military doesn ’ t want to know .
They want RIMPAC to go ahead .
RIMPAC ( mainly involving countries around the rim of the Pacific ) is the biggest war games exercise in the world .
It is run out of Hawaii and happens every two years with the US calling the shots .
The US has put RIMPAC back to August and say it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( normally it would involve air and land forces as well as warships ) because of the pandemic .
How brainless is this when we all know ships are floating viral incubators ?
Despite all this our obsequious Minister of Defence Ron Mark is dead keen for New Zealand to take part .
We must join hands with people from around the Pacific and around the world to tell our governments to stop this dangerous behaviour .
Tell the government to withdraw from RIMPAC 2020 .
Sign the letter to the Prime Minister @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to j.ardern @ ministers.govt.nz

The United Nations has called on the world for a global ceasefire in all conflicts and a stop to war preparations while humanity focuses on the fight against Covid 19.
But the US military doesn’t want to know. They want RIMPAC to go ahead.
RIMPAC (mainly involving countries around the rim of the Pacific) is the biggest war games exercise in the world. It is run out of Hawaii and happens every two years with the US calling the shots.
The US has put RIMPAC back to August and say it will be “only at sea” (normally it would involve air and land forces as well as warships) because of the pandemic.
How brainless is this when we all know ships are floating viral incubators?
Despite all this our obsequious Minister of Defence Ron Mark is dead keen for New Zealand to take part.
We must join hands with people from around the Pacific and around the world to tell our governments to stop this dangerous behaviour.
Tell the government to withdraw from RIMPAC 2020. Sign the letter to the Prime Minister here and send her your own note to j.ardern@ministers.govt.nz