Reflections on October 7th

I have been intending to write down my thoughts on the massacre of Israelis by Hamas terrorists and Gaza civilians on October 7th, 2023, ever since it happened, but I’ve found myself unable to do so until now. The reason it has taken me so long is that I was so profoundly disturbed by the events of that day that I couldn’t put my feelings into words. I felt like my own family had been attacked, which may seem strange for someone living in New Zealand with no close relatives in Israel, but perhaps it was the fact that I have Jewish ancestry (at least one of my great-grandparents was Jewish) that meant it had more of an impact on me than I would have expected.

I felt I had to do something practical in the days immediately after the attacks and, after some investigation, I chose to donate to two organisations, Magen David Adom and the Friends of the IDF. The former is the Israeli affiliate of the Red Cross and was active in treating victims of the Hamas attacks, often while its personnel were still under attack themselves. The latter provides welfare services for the soldiers and veterans of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), and their families. I selected these two organisations because I wanted to support those at the frontline of Israel’s response to the attack, and I wanted to be sure no part of my donations would end up in the hands of any organisation providing aid to Hamas or its supporters.

It wasn’t just the attacks of October 7th that appalled me, it was the reaction of so many in the West. Within 24 hours, protestors began to appear on the streets of Western cities, not to condemn the actions of Hamas but to celebrate them. These jubilant supporters were not deterred by the horrific reports that came out of Southern Israel, often substantiated by video and photographic evidence that in many cases was uploaded to the internet by the attackers themselves. As some people pointed out, this was the worst attack in terms of casualties on Jews since the Holocaust, but with the difference that the Nazis tried to hide the evidence of their crimes at the end of the war, whereas these genocidal anti-Semites were so proud of what they had done they were happy to broadcast it to the world.

I am a keen student of history and have had a particular interest in the Holocaust since I studied it at high school, and one of the most troubling questions for me is, how could ordinary Germans have participated in such a monumental crime? I have read many books that address this question, such as Victor Klemperer’s I Shall Bear Witness and To the Bitter End, which are his first person accounts of the inexorable progress of the Nazi persecution of the Jews from the time of Hitler’s rise to power to the collapse of the Third Reich at the end of World War II. These diaries expose the banality of the evil (to use Hannah Arendt’s phrase) perpetrated by the Nazis and the complicity of most of the German people. Another book that I recommend to anyone interested in the subject is Ordinary Men by Christopher R Browning, which describes the journey of regular German policemen who were recruited from towns and village throughout Germany to serve as civilian officers in Poland after the German occupation of that country in 1939. These men were not Nazis (at least not initially) and could elect to return home, but the vast majority of them stayed and ended up committing acts we tend to associate only with the fanatics of the SS - rounding up innocent Jewish men, women and children from the villages, marching them out into the surrounding countryside, and forcing them to dig their own graves before gunning them down.

I’ve been thinking about the connection between those protesting on the streets of Western cities in favour of Hamas’s actions and the ordinary Germans who supported and participated in the Holocaust. The mainstream media has been quick to suggest that these pro-Hamas protestors are only concerned about the welfare of Gaza civilians, but their slogans call for the complete destruction of Israel and the elimination of the 8 million Jews who live there (Hamas leader Khaled Mashal has clarified since October 7th that the slogan “from the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free”, means “we will not give up on our right to Palestine in its entirety, from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea, and from Rosh HaNikra to Eilat or the Gulf of Aqaba…[and we will never recognise] the legitimacy of the Zionist entity”). No one screaming this slogan today, as NZ Green MP Chloe Swarbrick did in Auckland in the weeks following the attacks, could be under any illusions about its message - they are calling for a second Holocaust. 

But it isn’t just the prominent cheerleaders for Hamas who concern me. I have found myself a lone voice amongst my friends and colleagues when it comes to my unalloyed support for Israel in its current struggle. Most New Zealanders seem to have accepted the propaganda (and what else could you call the uncritical reporting of statements from the murderous Hamas) that the IDF is committing war crimes against the people of Gaza in its mission to hunt down and destroy Hamas’s leadership and military capability. What Hamas did to civilians on October 7th is the very definition of a war crime (i.e.“intentionally killing civilians”), but what Israel is doing in response doesn’t begin to fit the definition. In fact, Israel is taking every measure it possibly can to minimise civilian casualties short of abandoning its mission entirely. 

I am prepared to accept that my friends and colleagues are ill-informed but while that is an explanation, it is not an adequate excuse. No decent human being who heard about what happened on October 7th can deny that Israel has a legitimate right to defend itself against such attacks, and no rational person would think that that involves anything other than the IDF going into Gaza, where Hamas is hidden, to find and destroy its attackers before they have the opportunity to repeat that atrocity (which they are committed to doing). The calls for a ceasefire are completely disingenuous. There was a ceasefire in place on October 7th, which Hamas broke in the most irredeemable way. To trust the Hamas leadership to stick to a ceasefire again would be foolhardy in the extreme, and those who are calling for this are complicit in Hamas’s duplicity. Israel must continue its defensive action in Gaza until it is assured that Hamas lacks the capability to repeat its October 7th massacre.

Douglas Murray said recently that “if these people [chanting "from the River to the Sea"] ever got their way, I would pity them, because they would one day wake up and realise they were the Nazis.” I don’t share his pity for the future guilt of the Hamas fans - it would be cold comfort to the surviving Jews around the world to know that those who supported a second Holocaust regretted it. I hope these people realise that they are guilty now, and that anyone who takes the side of those who carried out the mass rape, murder, infanticide, torture, dismemberment and other utterly evil acts that were committed in Southern Israel on October 7th has no claim to any moral discernment in this matter at all.

Fortunately for the Jewish people, Israel exists as their sanctuary and it has the military capability to fight back against modern day pogroms. I console myself by knowing the Israeli people are overwhelmingly united in the current struggle and that no Israeli leader will be allowed to accept a ceasefire until the threat from Hamas is substantially eliminated. It doesn’t matter what my friends and colleagues think. What matters is that Israel exists and continues to do so.

Am Yisrael Chai. Forever!

Should the Treaty of Waitangi dictate how NZ is governed today?

In 1877, the Supreme Court of New Zealand declared the Treaty of Waitangi to be a "simple nullity" and said it had no force in law. Today, the Treaty, which was signed in 1840, is regarded as the founding document of New Zealand and it increasingly has the status of inviolable constitutional law. It has achieved this status only since 1975 when the Treaty of Waitangi Act established the Waitangi Tribunal to make recommendations on Maori claims for breach of the Treaty. That and subsequent acts have enshrined in law the concept of a "Treaty partnership" between the Crown (i.e. the New Zealand Government through its head of state, Queen Elizabeth II) and Maori tribes.

The Treaty is a simple document consisting of three articles. In the first article, Maori ceded sovereignty or "kawanatanga katoa" (most often translated as "governance") over their lands to the Crown. The second article guaranteed Maori "exclusive and undisturbed possession" or "tino rangatiratanga" over their property. The third article gave Maori the protection and all rights accorded to British subjects. The Treaty does not say anything explicitly about a governing partnership.

In any event, the Treaty of Waitangi was just that - a treaty, not a constitution - and it was never intended to be a detailed prescription for governing New Zealand. If proof of this is required, consider the many laws and proclamations that followed the signing of the Treaty, which provided the actual constitutional framework for New Zealand as a separate state with its own government:

• The New Zealand Government Act, passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom in August 1840, providing for the establishment of a colonial administration in New Zealand separate from that of New South Wales.

• The royal charter of November 1840 that allowed for the establishment of the New Zealand as a colony in its own right and the establishment of the Legislative Council and Provincial Councils.

• The declaration on 3rd May 1841 of New Zealand as a Crown colony with William Hobson as its first Governor.

• The New Zealand Constitution Act 1846, passed by UK Parliament, empowering the government in New Zealand.

• The New Zealand Constitution Act 1852, which repealed the earlier Constitution Act.

• The royal proclamation in September 1907 of New Zealand as a Dominion.

• The 1931 Statute of Westminster Act and 1947 Statute of Westminster Adoption Act that made New Zealand an independent nation.

One interesting aside is that the reason there was two New Zealand Constitution Acts is that the first one was suspended for six years because Governor George Grey opposed provisions that established separate Maori and European districts - so clearly consideration of separate Maori political structures is not a new thing.

New Zealanders of all stripes have been very accepting of the need to redress historical wrongs perpetrated towards Maori. For the most part, these wrongs have been redressed by way of monetary and property settlements to the present-day Maori tribal authorities. But New Zealanders have become concerned as these claims have become more outlandish, encouraged in part by poorly-drafted legislation that has become the enabler for spurious claims for possession of everything from water resources to the entire coastline of New Zealand. But even these claims pale against the agenda that was outlined in a document that the current New Zealand Government tried to keep secret - the report known as He Puapua [PDF download].

He Puapua proposes that ultimately New Zealand will be split into three spheres of governance:

• Rangitiratanga - in which Maori exclusively govern "people and places"

• Kawanatanga - the sphere of Crown governance

• Joint - in which Maori and the Crown share governance over matters of joint concern.

The document suggests that the effect of this will be three parliaments - one for Maori, one for non-Maori and a joint one. In effect, the 16% of the population with some Maori ancestry will be on constitutional parity with non-Maori, i.e. the Maori suffrage will be worth six times the non-Maori vote. This is already reflected in the Ardern Government's health reforms - with a Maori and non-Maori health funding agency and the right of veto of one over the decisions of other - and in the Three Waters reforms. Of course, no one is proposing that Maori pay half of the taxes to fund these ambitions.

I believe that individual human beings are sovereign and that, in Thomas Jefferson's inimitable words, governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Consistent with this belief is the principle that any group of people, whether defined by geography, ethnicity, language, religion or some other factor of importance to themselves, has the right to self-determination. Therefore I believe that if people of Maori descent (or of a particular tribe) want to govern themselves, they are entitled to do so, but by the same token, people should not be forced to be subject to a polity to which they have no means of consenting. There is also a practical problem of having different legal jurisdictions in the same territory, which He Puapua recognises when it says, "self-determination...require[s] spaces and places for Māori to exercise authority, decision-making and choice within New Zealand’s territories."

I can imagine a future where Maori tribes govern their distinct territories within the Realm of New Zealand, in a similar arrangement to Tokelau. Northland tribes, for example, might decide to reconstitute the Confederation of United Tribes that signed the 1835 Declaration of Independence, and Tuhoe are likely to want to implement the self-governance that was envisaged (but never implemented) under the 1896 Urewera District Native Reserves Act. People in those territories would still be New Zealanders but they could determine their own laws within a constitutional framework that reserves some powers and responsibilities, such as foreign policy and defence, to the national government. Populations that did not wish to be part of the self-governing territory, for example predominantly non-Maori towns and cities, could opt not to join it.

It is up to the people of this country today to determine how they should be governed. Our form of government was not, and should not be, prescribed by a treaty between Queen Victoria and Maori chiefs nearly two centuries ago. The Treaty of Waitangi is an important founding document of New Zealand but it should not be used to abrogate the rights of modern day New Zealanders. Debating what the actual words of the Treaty were intended to mean is of limited value in informing how New Zealand should be governed today. More important than the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are the fundamental principles on which modern, liberal democracies are based - the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the rule of law, equality before the law, secure property rights and the right of due process. We should honour the Treaty of Waitangi to the extent that it is consistent with these fundamental principles, not as an alternative to them.

One of the problems with much of the debate about the Treaty and proposals for Maori self-determination is that those involved seem to regard the Crown as a separate entity to the people of New Zealand. This is a false assumption - the Crown's legitimacy today is solely through the consent of the people of New Zealand and if sufficient New Zealanders so decided, we could abolish the Crown in New Zealand and become a republic, as Barbados has just done. The debate about Maori self-determination needs to involve all of the people of New Zealand, not just some government ministers and officials in back rooms who claim to represent the Crown. The people of New Zealand must consent to any constitutional changes, unless those proposing them are thinking they can impose them by force (unfortunately it appears that this is the case, given the arrogant and dictatorial approach that is already apparent in the current Government's approach to these reforms).

I believe most New Zealanders want to accommodate Maori aspirations for self-determination, but few will be prepared to accept the imposition of new constitutional arrangements that have the effect of making non-Maori second-class citizens in their own country. A government that sets itself against the will of its people cannot last - or at least, not as a democratic government. We need a genuinely open debate on how New Zealand is to be governed in future without anyone who expresses a contrary view being labeled racist. I have always thought the most important clause in the Treaty of Waitangi was Article 3, which envisaged that we would all be British subjects - in modern parlance, equal citizens. That is the aspiration that should drive all consideration of how New Zealand is to be governed in future.

Why Lockdown Libertarians are Wrong

Libertarians have been divided over whether governments should have locked down entire populations to stop the spread of Covid-19. Perhaps that split is not surprising - the libertarian movement has always been a broad church with a range of views from a religious-conservative right to an anarchist left. Most libertarians agree that some government is desirable but that its role should be limited to protecting the genuine rights of individual citizens. They also agree that rights don't exist at the discretion of governments, but rather the opposite - that governments exist at the behest of individuals, each of whom has their own inherent rights that can't be taken away. As Thomas Jefferson wrote so eloquently in the US Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

The last sentence is perhaps the most important - the only legitimate function of governments is to protect individual rights and governments should be limited to this function. In other words, we delegate to governments the powers to protect our rights and nothing more. This begs the question, what are the legitimate actions of government in protecting our rights? Almost everyone agrees that stopping the initiation of violence against us is a legitimate action of government, even if that requires the government to use violence in our defence. If someone is intent on murdering us, we accept that the government can use force to detain or, if necessary, even kill that person. But what about someone intent on infecting us with a deadly disease?

The case of Typhoid Mary in the United States was a classic legal case in the early 20th Century. Mary Mallon was an asymptomatic carrier of typhoid, then a very deadly disease. Public health authorities asked her to self-isolate and she refused, continuing her work as a cook, infecting hundreds and causing the deaths of at least five people. Ultimately, she was forcibly detained for the remainder of her life. Few people today would dispute that the authorities were right to detain her - she was a real danger to the lives of people she came in contact with and she refused to voluntarily remove the deadly threat she presented to others.

Covid-19, like typhoid, can be spread by asymptomatic carriers of the disease. However, Covid-19 is far less deadly than typhoid, with a global case fatality rate (CFR) of 1-2% (which drops exponentially with age and is decreasing rapidly across all ages as vaccination rates increase). This compares with an untreated typhoid CFR of 10-20% (and even when treated with modern antibiotics, typhoid still has a similar CFR to Covid-19). Typhoid Mary's case was exceptional precisely because they locked her up, and even in her case that was a controversial decision at the time. With Covid-19, governments are locking up entire populations (at least to the equivalent level of house arrest).

I agree that extraordinary times require extraordinary measures and that threats to life not only justify but require governments to act to safeguard us. The alternative is anarchy and I am not an anarchist. I agree that someone who is infected with a deadly disease should be detained if necessary to protect everyone else. However, I do not accept that governments have the right to lockdown entire populations in response to Covid-19 for the following reasons:

1. Covid-19 is not a sufficient threat to justify such an indiscriminate response
2. Lockdowns are an ineffective public health response and there are alternatives
3. Lockdowns are a slippery slope that will be very hard to reverse.

I will address each of these reasons below.

We live in a time when the precautionary principle seems to apply to many public policy questions, whether it is climate change, natural disasters or public health. The problem with this principle of almost complete avoidance of risk is that the costs of mitigation are never considered and the alternatives often dismissed. Thus in New Zealand we have spent billions of dollars earthquake proofing buildings since the Christchurch quakes, when that money would almost certainly save more lives if it was spent on improving cancer treatment or building safe roads. The optimal risk management involves weighing the threat against the cost of mitigation and the alternatives. There are a number of considerations that have not been adequately considered in decisions on Covid-19 policy, including:

• the vast majority of people being locked down are not infectious
• Covid-19 does not represent a deadly risk to all but the most vulnerable in the population
• the economic, social and health impacts of lockdowns are huge
• there are alternatives to the wholesale abrogation of individual rights.

A more reasonable response would be to protect by isolation only those most vulnerable - the elderly and those with co-morbidities - and let the rest of the population go about its business. This is the approach taken in Sweden, Israel and a few other countries, which, although they have experienced far more deaths than New Zealand, have a lower Covid mortality than many countries with the most draconian lockdowns. It is also the approach recommended in the Great Barrington Declaration, which has been signed by thousands of epidemiologists and public health experts worldwide. The authors of the Declaration have pointed out that the costs of the lockdowns, even on people's health, almost certainly exceed the benefits in saving lives.

Finally, there is the slippery slope issue. Already public health authorities concerned about influenza and climate change policy advocates are pushing for lockdowns to be adopted to mitigate those risks. You may think it is unlikely that the public would accept such responses to those issues, but eighteen months ago no one thought the citizens of Western countries would accept the Covid-19 lockdowns. It has always been much easier to give up freedoms than to reestablish them and we forget that the liberal, rights-based order is a rare phenomenon in human history that sits on a fragile foundations. We can and do regress, as the people of China and Russia are discovering to their cost today, and dictatorial governments always have sound reasons to justify their policies.

Rights-based freedoms should not be given up cheaply and in my view preventing Covid-19 amongst the general population does not justify the cost, particularly as the CFR trends towards zero. What is done is done but we need to ensure we are not captured by the sunk cost fallacy and continue the lockdowns for fear of losing the benefits. We need to evaluate our Covid policies objectively from this point on. Australia has shown the way in determinedly coming out of lockdown and I hope the Ardern Government has the courage to do the same.

In the meantime, libertarians need to rediscover their principles.

Equity vs Rights

There is a realignment of politics that has been occurring around the world for some time. The traditional battle lines between the left and the right are no longer relevant in an age where progressive leaders align with global corporations to suppress free speech and conservative parties are attracting support from low income, working people. The new battle lines are becoming clear. On one side is the globalist, corporatist, governing elites; on the other side is the demos, the hoi polloi, the hard-working common people who keep the world functioning. It is a fight between those who think they are uniquely qualified to run everyone else's lives and those who want to be left alone to run their own lives.

The first group consists of those who regard every issue as a justification for expanding the power of government, whether it is climate change, economic inequality or Covid-19. It doesn't matter what the problem is, the answer is always more steps down the road towards totalitarianism - banning behaviour and views they consider undesirable, intruding more on our privacy, seizing more money from the most productive in society, and restricting movement and freedom of association. These are the people with the power in our society - they are highly organised, very well funded, have almost exclusive control of the mainstream and new media, and are in lockstep on every issue. 

On the other side is a disorganised rabble that often doesn't even know it shares a common interest. Many don't have a strong political philosophy but they tend to be sceptical about the extent of the problems the powerful profess to be concerned about and the solutions promoted by the elites. They accept that humans do have some impact on the climate, that economic inequality is growing by some measures, and that Covid-19 is a real killer, but they are smart enough to realise that they are the ones expected to bear the greatest costs of the solutions while the elites reap the benefits.

The issues are similar across the world but vary in degree from country to country. In the United States, race is the key issue. In Europe, immigration is the main battleground, and national and religious identity are important factors. Here in New Zealand it is Maori tribal rule, rather than race per se, that is the principle cause that the elite has adopted.

Identity politics is at the root of all these fights. The key question is whether your value as a human being is related to some immutable characteristics such as your ancestry, sex or gender and sexuality, or whether it is related to factors that you have some control over, such as your moral character, your behaviour and your achievements. More than three thousand years of Western civilisation led to a social system that put the greatest value on the latter factors - it was the gradual recognition of the dignity and sovereignty of the individual that paved the road to modern, liberal society. This philosophical thread can be traced through Judaism, Athenian democracy, the Roman republic, Christianity, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the American Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, the abolition of slavery and the establishment of universal suffrage. There was much backsliding along the way, but the direction was overwhelmingly towards judging people as equal in rights regardless of their inherited characteristics.

Equity - equality of outcome - is the professed goal of those on the authoritarian side, but equity is the opposite of equality as understood by Enlightenment thinkers. John Locke, who has as much claim to be called the father of the Enlightenment as anyone, defined equality as the "equal right...to...natural freedom" and said it was dependent upon "not being subject to the will or authority of any other man". In other words, Locke realised that rights are all about the absence of force. 

Equity is the opposite - it means subjecting everyone to the levelling power of some all-powerful authority that must "harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions." Alexander Solzhenitsyn recognised this conflict when he said, "Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free." 

Those who value equity above all else believe that the means justify the end. If you believe that the purpose of the individual is to serve the good of the collective, there is no limit to what can and should be done to individuals to achieve this. If you believe people are good or bad because of their immutable characteristics, there is no possibility of redemption for their original sins (viz. "white guilt"). And if you believe that the way to achieve equality is to bring those who are "privileged" down to size, sooner or later you are going to start chopping off feet.

Covid-19 has provided governments with the justification for repressing the rights-based freedoms we have taken for granted for decades - freedom of association, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, and freedom to operate a business or to go about your work. But governments have been selective in their application of these restrictions - certain businesses considered essential by some arbitrary criteria were allowed to remain open during lockdowns (e.g. in New Zealand supermarkets were open but not butchers), and protests and even violence by groups such as Black Lives Matter and Extinction Rebellion have been condoned, while small, peaceful gatherings of people that the authorities disapprove of have been treated as insurrections. In other words, Covid-19 has established the principle that rights are the property of the government to bestow on those they see fit, and a privilege to be denied to those who do not have the government's favour.

The former prime minister of New Zealand, John Key, said this very explicitly when talking recently about Covid-19 vaccinations: "If you want to get the young people who are not being vaccinated, to be vaccinated, take away some of their rights." This demonstrates his utter ignorance of the nature of rights. I don't intend to get into a detailed discussion here about the metaphysical and ethical basis of rights, as I have written many earlier posts on the subject, but while philosophers might disagree about the nature and source of rights, almost all agree that rights don't exist at the discretion of governments. The fact that the Nazi regime killed six million Jews in the Holocaust doesn't mean Jews didn't have the right to life. If John Key believes the government can take away rights of young people who aren't vaccinated, then, like many political leaders today, he shares some philosophical principles (or, at least, the lack of them) with the Nazis. Perhaps it is not surprising that his government was only too willing to violate New Zealanders' rights while in power. 

Philosophers also agree that rights are universal - that they must be capable of being enjoyed by every person - and that they are mutually exclusive - we must each be able to exercise our rights without impinging on others' enjoyment of their rights. The latter is illustrated by the axiom, "your right to swing your arm stops just short of my nose." It is also why there is no such thing as "the right to a roof over your head" (to quote a common shibboleth of the left in New Zealand) - if you have such a right, others must be forced to provide it. I am sure the plantation owners in antebellum America thought they had the right to the free labour of the slaves in their fields (and they certainly had the legal right) but today almost no one would agree that slave ownership is a legitimate right.

Those who promote the equity agenda say it is about the rights of the disadvantaged, but equity is the antithesis of rights precisely because it requires real rights to be sacrificed to grant these arbitrary rights to others. And it is not as if governments that promote equity really act to protect the rights of the disadvantaged. The Ardern Government here in New Zealand has made equity a central plank of all their policies and if we take housing as a prominent example, their policies have significantly worsened housing affordability with the greatest impact on those on the lowest incomes. They have responded by passing laws to further restrict the rights of property-owning New Zealanders in a classic example of how the creation of arbitrary rights by governments depends on the erosion of real rights. The right to a roof over one's head has ended up denying many more New Zealanders homes than if they had simply respected New Zealanders' property rights (i.e. the right to enjoy the product of one's life and liberty) and let the market respond to the need for more housing.

Equity is a threat to real rights precisely because it is so insidious. It sounds like it is about fairness and dignity, and the motives of many promoting it are essentially noble. But few who promote it think through the implications of trying to enforce equality of outcomes on a diverse population with different needs and aspirations, and creating an all-powerful state apparatus to allocate resources according to inherent characteristics such as race and sex. Solzhenitsyn, in The Gulag Archipelago, described how the relentless pursuit of equality of outcome inevitably leads to gulags and genocide. Let's hope the West wakes up to the implications of equity before we get there.

The Lying Hounds in the Mainstream Media

The mainstream media, particularly those here in New Zealand, seem to get worse by the day. They have abandoned any pretence of objectivity, politically impartiality and journalist integrity, and have become blatant propagandists for the governments they support and their establishment fellow-travellers. Actually, propaganda is probably too mild a term for what they churn out - that suggests a subtlety and a careful nurturing of the most favourable facts - but much of what the media publish is downright lies.

One of the very worst offenders is the New Zealand media outlet, Newshub. If you had seen the headline below on the Newshub site a couple of days ago you'd have thought that New Zealand had narrowly avoided an armed coup.

In fact, if you read all the way through the story it became apparent (despite Newshub's attempt to obscure the facts) that just one mentally unstable woman had been arrested in Auckland for protesting against the latest Covid-19 lockdown. The "19 arrested" referred to the number detained by police around the country for breaching lockdown for any reason. A conspiracy to overthrown the government? Only in the febrile imagination of the Newshub reporter.  

A later headline dropped the reference to "failed bid to overthrow Government" but still referred to a "chilling threat". However, they made the mistake of showing the woman in question wearing a colander on her head - as you can see below. A chilling threat to New Zealand democracy, indeed! Clearly, someone at Newhub was sufficiently self-aware to have pulled the ridiculous headline, but the story that remained on the website was just as much a bucket of horse manure as the first version. It quoted a University of Waikato Professor of Law warning that we need to take the threat of terrorism from the "anti-vax movement" seriously and equating anyone who might oppose compulsory vaccination with the Christchurch mosque shooter. Have these people no shame?

Karl du Fresne, the former editor of The Dominion newspaper and one of New Zealand's most respected journalists, has written that the propaganda in the New Zealand mainstream media is not surprising because the Ardern Government has created a $55 million so-called Public Interest Journalism Fund to "support New Zealand’s media to continue to produce stories that keep New Zealanders informed and engaged and support a healthy democracy" the Government likes. The money comes with blatant political strings attached, including supporting the Government's agenda on Maori separatism, countering so-called Covid-19 "misinformation" and various other propaganda conditions. Du Fresne has dubbed the taxpayer-funded propaganda programme the "Pravda Project", undoubtedly because the initiative is well on its way to achieving the aims of that Soviet journal - unalloyed support for the governing party and its doctrine.

The rest of the world has more than its share of establishment cheerleaders amongst the mainstream media - the venerable New York Times was so wrong-footed by the election of Trump in 2016 that its publisher issued a mea culpa admitting to its bias and promising to do better - and everyone knows where CNN, MSNBC and FoxNews stand politically, but few of them resort to such blatant lying as the media here.

I no longer subscribe to any mainstream media publications in New Zealand, having long since voted with my wallet on where I get my news (I subscribe to a number of international news services and online magazines) so I cannot do any more than try to ignore the excrement that they egest. But I urge anyone reading this to cancel your subscription, if you still have one. No doubt the Ardern Government's propaganda fund will keep them in their nefarious business for a while longer, but the fewer subscribers they have, the more pressure they will be under to change their ways.

UPDATE: Lindsay Mitchell notices a trend in departures from the MagicTalk radio network. With the incentive of the Ardern Government’s Pravda fund, it is hardly surprising NZ media outlets are quietly getting rid of any dissenting voices.

Elimination is futile

New Zealanders became complacent, even a little arrogant, about the country's Covid-19 status. We managed to keep the disease at bay for more than a year since our last strict lockdown in March and April 2020. We had a couple of more localised and less severe lockdowns in Auckland and a recent one in Wellington, but those were short-lived and we almost forgot that this disease could return. Even when Australia had new outbreaks, we thought the impact on New Zealand would be limited to closing the border rather than being a sign of worse to come. That was until last week when the Ardern Government abruptly announced, on the basis of a single confirmed community case in Auckland, the highest level of lockdown for the entire country. The response seems justified in hindsight with more than 100 community cases now confirmed including some in Wellington.

Most of the rest of the world accepted a long time ago that an elimination strategy was futile and that some level of transmission in the community was not only manageable but would ultimately contribute to herd immunity. New Zealand and Australia thought differently and imagined that their geography could protect them. In the short term, the strategy was successful - both countries achieved zero community transmissions for a while, but at a cost of turning our countries into hermit kingdoms, which don't allow travellers from overseas unless they go through two weeks of confinement in an hotel room.

Most Covid-19 experts believe the disease will become endemic - in other words, it will never be completely eliminated. Thinking of this disease like smallpox, which the world has eliminated, is wrong - you need to think of it like the common cold, which is a coronavirus in many of its variants, or the more deadly influenza. We accept that these diseases are endemic and we are sceptical about claims of eliminating them. So why do we delude ourselves about eliminating the very similar Covid-19?

The more reasonable argument for locking down is that we are doing it until the population achieves herd immunity through vaccination. Unfortunately, the latest news from Israel, which vaccinated most of its population before anyone else, is that infections are now increasing amongst the vaccinated. This may be because the effect of the vaccines wanes over time or due to the more virulent strains such as the "delta" variant, but whatever the reason, we have to accept that for now vaccination isn't a reliable pathway to elimination.

If we are determined to lock down every time we have an outbreak, no matter how small, and we know that the disease cannot be eliminated, that means we will be locking down intermittently for the rest of our lives. Is this really what we want?

Let us not delude ourselves - locking down is a massive and unprecedented infringement of civil liberties. We are all effectively under house arrest. Never before have governments locked down entire populations including healthy people to combat a disease - not for the Black Death, the 1918 Influenza, the polio epidemics of the early 20th Century, or for SARS (Covid-1) in 2002. And notwithstanding how our prime minister presents it, this is not a we're-all-in-this-together, voluntary exercise - the lockdowns are being enforced by the agents of the state with draconian powers and brutal tactics.

I accept that restrictions on social interaction are necessary to combat epidemics, particularly those like Covid-19 that are highly infectious and transmissible while non-symptomatic. However, like all risk mitigations, there has to be a balancing of benefits against costs and a rational consideration of the alternatives. We cannot continue to lock down for the rest of our lives. As I wrote last year when we were in lockdown, it will destroy our economy, our "social cohesion" (to use a phrase our Government seems to be very fond of) and paradoxically our health (through delays and cancellations in treatments of other illnesses), at a cost that far exceeds the that of Covid-19 infections.

Sooner or later we have to have the courage to accept that elimination of Covid-19 is futile and that we can tolerate a level of transmission without the knee-jerk reaction of national lockdowns. The only question is when we will be prepared to accept that. If the Ardern Government had been more competent in negotiating the supply of vaccines and we had been at the front of the queue as they promised rather than the worst in the OECD for vaccination rates, then we might be in a stronger position to accept the ongoing risk of exposure to Covid-19. Add to that the fact that after eighteen months we still don't have a quarantine system that can reliably keep infected people entering New Zealand from infecting the wider community, and we have to conclude that if lockdown is really the only option still available to us, then Jacinda Ardern and her ministers are to blame.

Note: As I was writing this, I saw that Rodney Hide has published on his blog a rough cost-benefit analysis of lockdowns. He concludes that lockdowns are not worth two days of lost economic activity. While I think his analysis is overly simplistic, he's probably got the ratio about right.

Afghanistan is America's Suez Crisis

Twenty years after the United States invaded Afghanistan to remove the Taliban regime that was harbouring the architects of the 9/11 attacks, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is back with more territory and with the same murderous intent to subjugate its people.

What was the point of it all? President George W. Bush's stated intention was to destroy Al-Qaeda, the terrorist organisation that launched the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, which was based in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. But it took until Barack Obama's presidency ten years later before a US special operations team eventually killed Osama Bin Laden, the leader of Al-Qaeda (whom it turned out was actually being harboured by America's supposed ally, Pakistan). But cutting off the head of Al-Qaeda meant that, like a modern day Medusa, it spawned a dozen other evil organisations in Iraq, Syria, Mali and other Islamic countries.

Today, with Kabul, the Afghan capital, and most of the rest of the country again in Taliban hands (they now hold more territory than in 2001), Western nations scrambling to evacuate their diplomats and citizens from a chaotic Kabul airport, and local allies abandoned to the dubious mercy of the country's new rulers, it is indeed hard to know what the point of it all was. It's not even as though we in the West have taught the Islamic extremists in the Taliban any lessons other than about our own perfidy. By all reports, the Taliban is already settling scores, carrying out executions and demanding child "brides" from conquered communities. Far from being chastened, the Taliban is reiterating their commitment to the fundamentalist Islamic goal of a global caliphate.

The Americans might have had some humility in setting out on their Afghanistan adventure if they had a sense of history, for that country has been the graveyard of empires including the British in the 19th Century and the Soviets in the 20th Century. But the Western experience of Afghanistan goes back much further than that - all the way to Alexander the Great, who married an Afghani princess, Roxanne, to help ensure the compliance of the region's rulers once he had conquered it. Perhaps Joe Biden should have followed Alexander's example and sought a second wife from among the daughters of the Taliban leader, Abdul Ghani Baradar. In Biden's case, a young second wife might have had the added benefit of staving off his obvious senescence, although I suspect it is too late for that.

Here in New Zealand, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern seems to have taken on board some of that American hubris and is lecturing the Taliban from afar to uphold Western standards of human rights because "the whole world will be watching." I'm sure the Taliban leaders are quaking in their boots. Meanwhile, Ardern has ordered New Zealand soldiers and a Royal New Zealand Airforce C-130 Hercules aircraft to mount a mission to Afghanistan to evacuate New Zealanders from the country. Quite how she intends this will happen when not even the Americans can evacuate their people in an orderly manner, is beyond me, but an appreciation for the reality on the ground has never been Ardern's strong point.

I don't believe the United States should have occupied Afghanistan for twenty years. There was a justification for American troops entering the country following the 9-11 attacks to track down Al-Qaeda, but that should have been a special forces mission, not a wholesale invasion of the entire country. It is not that I think the United States was morally wrong to invade - I believe, as Ayn Rand said, that although it is not a free nation’s duty to liberate other nations but it has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses. 

The problem here is that it was in no one's interests, least of all that of the United States, to spend twenty years trying to establish a liberal democracy in a place that has no cultural traditions on which to build such institutions. What is worse is that the United States ruled through a system of corrupt, cronyist, favours - as Jacob Siegel quotes on Bari Weiss's excellent Common Sense substack, "the biggest source of corruption in Afghanistan was the United States". You can't establish a moral order by immoral means. But having occupied Afghanistan and destroyed its existing institutions, however illiberal they were, America's politicians and military leaders had a minimal obligation to leave the place no worse than they found it, and they can't even claim to have done that. President Joe Biden is responsible for the lives of the Afghans who helped the Americans during their twenty-year experiment in nation-building, many of whom will now be tortured, mutilated and killed for what the Taliban sees as their traitorous and blasphemous conduct.

The fallout of the fall of Afghanistan will last for years. America has shown that once again it lacks the national vigour, moral authority and self-belief to fulfil the objectives of its military interventions. Afghanistan is already being talked about as this generation's Vietnam. I think America's Suez Crisis might be a more accurate comparison, because it was that event that signalled the decline of Britain's imperial might more than any other. I feel sorry for the Afghans who must face the extreme theocratic and misanthropic whims of their new rulers, but I also feel a bit sorry for Americans, who must be bewildered at how the greatest military power in history has once again been made to look ineffectual and irrelevant.