Totalitarian instinct alive and well in New Zealand

Last weekend the New Zealand Deputy Prime Minister made some extraordinary comments at a press conference in announcing the ruling National Party's election policy on drugs. Paula Bennett, announcing a crackdown on criminal gangs manufacturing and dealing in illegal narcotics, said that the National Government, if re-elected, would give police the power to search the cars and houses of the most serious criminal gang members at any time, at the police's discretion. Bennett acknowledged that this would breach the human rights of the individuals concerned but justified the measure on the grounds that serious criminals "have fewer human rights than others". Prime Minister Bill English said he agreed with the proposal stating, "it's good that we don't have a written constitution it's enabled the country to deal with all sorts of issues in a practical effective way."

It is clear from these comments that neither English or Bennett understand the concept of human rights. They would do well to read Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which says, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." If they don't like that authority they could go to an older source, the United States Declaration of Independence, which states, "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." Any other authoritative source says the same thing - rights are inherent, universal and equal in effect for all human beings. They are not entitlements to be granted or removed by governments at their discretion.

English and Bennett also fail to understand the purpose of a constitution, which is to constrain the government. Constitutions exist, often representing a long history of noble rebellion, because of the totalitarian instinct of all governments, just the sort of totalitarian instinct English and Bennett are now showing. The fact that New Zealand, like Britain, has a constitution based on inheritance and common law rather than a single written document, does not justify disregarding the rights it protects. The documents our constitution is based on, such as the Magna Carta Libertatum (Great Charter of Liberties - to give it its full and more appropriate name) and the English Bill of Rights, make it clear that all New Zealanders are entitled to due process under the law - exactly what Bennett and English seem only too ready to deny some of their citizens.

In my last post I wrote that despite this government's track record of enacting legislation that reduced the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders, I thought they were still the least bad choice in this month's election. I realise now that I was completely wrong. English and Bennett have shown their true colours and any government of which they are a part represents a serious threat to the freedom and democracy in this country. English has since tried to back-peddle on Bennett's comments about human rights, but this wasn't a mere mistake of language - the intent and rationale of what both of them said was clear and they were probably the most chilling words I have ever heard from New Zealand politicians.

Reaction to San Bernadino Shooting is Revealing

The reaction to the mass shooting in San Bernadino, California, last week was almost as horrifying as the killing spree itself. I learned about the incident as was I was talking to a senior civil servant I have been working with recently and he immediately muttered something about, "right-wing gun nuts." This guy was, like most senior civil servants, an avowed leftie and it was obviously wishful thinking on his behalf because even at that stage the facts indicated that this was no run-of-the-mill (if one could use that expression in this context) mass killing. It was known there were at least three heavily armed offenders dressed in body armour and driving a large SUV, facts that suggested it was an organised, military-style attack. I responded by betting him it was Islamic terrorism and it gives me no pleasure to have been proven right in the days since the attack.

The comments of this civil servant were echoed throughout the left-wing media here and in the United States and the anti-gun lobby, including President Obama, jumped in with calls for stricter gun laws. Of course, calling for a ban on gun ownership in response to a case like this is about as pathetic as calling for aircraft to be banned in the wake of 9/11. Yesterday Obama changed tack and made a speech in which he conceded this attack really was terrorism.

The response of left-wing commentators and politicians to this incident says a lot about their moral ambivalence. In the leftist view, a mass killing by a right-wing nut job is bad, but a similar incident by a Muslim in the name of his faith is not so bad. We see this double standard all the time - it is bad for Israeli soliders to respond to rocket attacks on their cities by targeting Hamas strongholds in Gaza but okay for Obama to order drone strikes on civilian targets in Waziristan. In their view it is not the act itself or the degree of innocence of the victims that makes mass killing moral or immoral - it is the political views of the perpetrators.

We should not be surprised by this moral ambivalence because that is at the heart of the collectivist philosophy. The rights of the individual are subservient to the will of the majority and therefore the idea of any absolute human rights is alien to them. Even the right to life is relative - leftist lives are worthy, but right-wing nut jobs do not deserve to live.

FATCA legislation and agreement is a breach of NZ sovereignty and rights

You may have concluded from my postings that I'm somewhat libertarian in my views and you'd be correct - most of my posts are rants about the ever-increasing encroachment by governments on individual rights - however, I recognise that the vast majority of government policies have the intention (however misguided that intention may be) of improving the lives of the citizens and residents the government represents. I part ways with my philosophical opponents in the means, not the ends. But the New Zealand Government is currently in the process of enacting legislation that has no benefit for New Zealanders, that is a breach of our sovereign rights as a nation, and that breaches our Human Rights Act and Privacy Act, solely because it has been demanded by a foreign government. I am talking about New Zealand's acquiescence to the United States Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, known as FATCA.

The usually staid law firm of Minter Ellison describes this Act as "a striking example of what could be called American fiscal imperialism." In short, it is attempting to turn all foreign financial institutions into tax collectors and snoops for the US Government by forcing them to hand over information about anyone considered to be a "US taxpayer." This is not, as you might think, just people who live and work in the United States.  The US is one of only two countries (the other is that bastion of liberty and human rights, Ivory Coast) that think it is their sovereign right to extract tax not only from those who live and work in the country but anyone who lives outside the country who they might deem to be a US citizen. Let me give you an example of who the US considers to be US citizen.

My friend, a New Zealander born and bred, married a US woman and together they have a newborn baby who was born in New Zealand. Unsurprisingly, the wife, who holds both NZ and US citizenship, is considered by the US Internal Revenue Service to be a valid target for the FATCA regime. She not only has to pay tax in New Zealand, where she now lives, she has to file a US tax return and pay taxes there as well (although she gets to deduct some, but not all, of the taxes she pays on her NZ income). But here's the kicker - the IRS also considers the baby to be a US taxpayer, irrespective of whether the baby ever sets foot in the United States. My friend's child will be subject to intrusive surveillance by the IRS for the rest of her life and her bankers will be forced to hand over information to the IRS about her, against her will and contrary to her rights under other NZ laws, and all this will be abetted by the New Zealand Government that, as the writer of this blog points out, considers her to be a "US taxpayer habitually resident in New Zealand."

This is, frankly, a disgraceful capitulation by the New Zealand Government to bullying by a foreign power. It is the financial equivalent of 'renditions', that euphemistically-named US Government practice of snatching citizens of other countries off the streets of foreign cities in order to have them tortured and imprisoned.

It is high time the rest of the world stood up to these thuggish policies of the US Government. New Zealand has stood up to the United States before over issues such as visits of nuclear-armed warships and, in my view, this is a more fundamental issue of sovereignty than that. We need to stand united with other countries and tell the United States we will not comply with their unilateral policies and we need to take whatever retaliatory measures are necessary to force them to back down.  If enough countries stand against the US on this, they, like all bullies, will back down.