number 60

The Third Place

2005-09-07T18:58:00.000+12:00

The Grey Power Pre-Election strategy report describes the Prime Minister as "bossy, arrogant, too-big-for-her-pants Helen Clark"- a view that is of course their right. That said, things start to become unstuck however when its unclear who exactly is behind the message being pushed. Grey Power are described as having "more than 90,000 active members" and is "a leading support organisation for many of the 750,000 retired New Zealanders." Most importantly, it has said that "it will not endorse any candidate or party." This of course contrasts starkly with the until-recently unknown role of the Exclusive Brethren beavering away behind the scenes of the National Party's campaign. Of course, there's nothing to show that National had a hand in the dissemination of the now-infamous leaflets, yet it is those leaflets that leave one wondering where the line should be drawn on third party advertising.

As it stands, the rules - courtesy of a press release from the Chief Electoral Office - simply require that the advertisements carry the "true name and [street] address" of the person who directed their publication. So what that means is that if anybody wished to distribute a leaflet or buy billboard or print media space to push their views on a particular issue or party, they're free to do so (provided of course that they can front up with the money to pay for it in the first place). Obviously, for most individuals the costs involved with such an undertaking would be well beyond their budget. However, for organisations - who are themselves better placed to spread and absorb the overall costs - the question is more one of when and not if. Therein lies the problem.

When the rules are considered in this context, their inherent shortcomings are all too exposed. While it is common practice for some of the more traditional political and quasi-political groups to include their name or logo within the advertisement, for other groups the practice is observed more in the breach than the compliance. Yet, voters should be able to know which group or groups are responsible for any given advertisement; armed with this information, they are able to view the advertisement in its complete context including with any added skepticism that context may bring. For example, the full-page print advertisements calling on the country to "Wake Up" were supposedly by a group of "concerned citizens". What they didn't say was that those citizens just happened to all be members of the Exclusive Brethren Church. While the Church and its members are of course full entitled to their views and to express their views, the public are equally entitled to know of the all too-common connection between those citizens. Similarly, in the case of the anti-Green Party leaflets that were recently distributed, knowing that the driving (and financing) force behind them was again the Exclusive Brethren considerably changes the context in which most people would view the message being pushed.

What those leaflets also showed was just how easily the loose rules in this area can be circumvented, if not overtly flouted. Whether the Mr J. Hawkins, of 3 Brent Place, Christchurch actually exists has yet to be established and, in all likelihood, will probably never be established conclusively. This apparent anonymity seems to be simply a means of paying little more than lip service to the law, allowing the advertisements to be published almost unchecked. Again, the issue is one of context and applies irrespective of who the actual advertiser is. New Zealanders would undoubtedly demand to know if there was a potential for profit through vested interests, but the determinator for disclosure should be more than just pecuniary interest. Other interests are equally as important and so the requirements for revelation should apply irrespective.

Consequently, it is clear that a new minimum standard for compliance is required. All third party advertisements should be made to display the name and logo of the organisation which authorised their publication. In the unlikely event that a single citizen or small group of citizens were the authorisers, then their names, addresses and occupations should all be required. Furthermore, a mandatory requirement for registration with the Chief Electoral Office should be introduced in all cases. This would allow the office to offer voluntary advice on the compliance (or lack thereof) with electoral law, as well as providing the office with a chance to check on the bona fides of the person or organisations purporting to be behind the publication of the advertisements - preventing anymore Mr Nobody's from passing themselves off as actual people. Finally, in order to determine who the provider of the actual impetus behind the advertisement is, the only question that needs to be asked is: who is paying for it?" By doing this, it is likely that anonymous slur campaigns can be avoided and any advertisements viewed in their complete context.

Third party advertisements can carry considerable influence and are a very powerful tool. Exempt from the standard spending cap that apply to party and candidate advertisements, and subject only to a weak authorisation clause, theirs is a power that can be wielded almost unabated. It is for this reason, and in the light of recent events, that the rules and restrictions on such advertising are in urgent need of serious scrutiny and tougher controls. Without such measures in place, it is almost impossible for the public to know the true purpose behind any of these advertisements - the message behind the message will always remain a mystery and complete story will not be told. Put simply, the public have a right to know - everything.

Left off the Invitation List

2005-08-14T12:53:00.000+12:00

The decision of Justice Ron Young on Thursday should not have been entirely unexpected - after all the arbitrariness of TV3's decision was fairly obvious. As was pointed out in that judgment, the difference in percentage terms between the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth placed parties was less than the margin of error - that in itself should have been sufficient to signal a need for caution. Add to that the fact that both Anderton and Dunne currently hold and, barring any seismic shift unforeseen by the political soothsayers, will continue to hold electorate seats (and probably nothing short of the death of either candidate is likely to change that). Yet in spite of this (or perhaps because of it) TV3 and the media in general have reverted to some sort of rabid state in their response to the decision. Taking on the Chicken Little mantle, the Herald's editorial predicted dire things for the freedom of the media in New Zealand as a result of Justice Ron Young's decision and its perceived precedential value. The reality is however, considerably different.

Firstly, a decision argued and reached in the space of 24 hours is one which could fairly be described as being somewhat limited, besides which, one decision does not a precedent set. Yet the media invariably insist on having things both ways - that is, their way every time. Of course everyone else should have to act fairly and the courts should supervise this - just not when it comes to their own editorial decisions. The bottom line is, like it or not, the media (particularly the television media) perform a public function at election time by promoting political issue through things like leaders' debates. As a result, they're required to act fairly (that is, not arbitrarily) in doing so. Of course, having said that, TV3 is still a private company and can, if it so chooses, remain comfortably aloof from the public arena by simply not doing things like, well hosting leaders' debates. While that may not do much for their ratings (or their advertising revenue for that matter) it is, nevertheless, a simple solution.

As far as Destiny's pipe dream of similar action against TVNZ is concerned, I don't rate their chances particularly highly. While it does seem that TVNZ is acting somewhat inconsistently (or at least that their reasoning is somewhat inconsistent) in flip-flopping between inviting two or three candidates, the fact remains that Destiny's candidate (like their party) does not have nearly the same strength of claim that Anderton and Dunne had. The one poll I managed to find for the Waiariki electorate showed the Maori Party and Labour candidates on 31% and 55% respectively and the "others" on 2%. Accepting that there seems to be some considerable degrees of fluctuation and inconsistency in some of the Maori electorate polls (for a whole variety of reasons). I think it's safe to say that they're not that inaccurate! What this means for Destiny is that any court action would be doomed to fail. While it is possible that the court would find TVNZ had acted inconsistently the outcome would remain unchanged (one of the lesser known aspects of judicial review) simply because the Destiny cannot show a credible claim to be included.

Finally a quick question - if Destiny Church and Destiny Party are essentially joined at the hip (by virtue of an attachment called Brian Tamaki) should Destiny Church advertising therefore be considered Destiny Party advertising (or at least third party advertising in support of Destiny Party)?

When So Little Says So Much

2005-07-23T14:52:00.000+12:00

Yes I know who the two "high profile former sports stars / television personalities" are. I've heard that The Footy Show described them as "former league players" and I've even received the incredibly ingenious e-mailed image that's doing the rounds. So am I going to dish up the dirt - answer no. The fact is that the two individuals in question have name suppression - admittedly even before they've been charged with anything. The are of course good reasons for both of these things. In my industry (criminal law) we like to say that the quickest way to get your name published is to ask for name suppression - you instantly attract attention to yourself as well as the ire of the media. The cold hard reality is that most of us are nobodies and, unless your charged with possession of kiddy porn or something equally as insidious - you'll just remain another name on the lengthy list. That said, in this case had the devious duo been named, they would be sure to be front page news - the stuff headlines are made of. Unfortunately, prominence is hard to play down - scandal and celebrity make for a succulent mix. While a major event can push even page three prominence out of most people's attention - the chances of something significant enough doing that are obviously slim.

So anyway, the two sports celebrities haven't been charged yet - so why name suppression? Well it seems that they are going to be charged - it's a matter of when not if - but the police are taking a firm but friendly approach to this. Basically, because the two are currently overseas, they're not going to be charged until they return. However, there's nothing to stop them being charged now (from the sounds of things), which would lead in turn to them being arrested overseas at the request of the New Zealand police, and held in custody there until they could be extradited - a long, slow and painful process. This way, the Kiwi taxpayer isn't picking up the tab for airfares for two people who can more than afford to pay their own way.

The problem from my perspective is that, as a lawyer I shouldn't go around circumventing suppression orders - even if they don't apply to me or I think I can get away with it for some other reason. All I can really say is be patient, pay close attention to what the media are reporting and soon you will know (if you haven't already figured it out). It'll all be revealed in time anyway.

On an unrelated note, the threat of terrorism (from a cocooned Kiwi perspective) seems less alarming than the threat of anti-terror legislation. Allowing people to be detained without trial for up to three months is a swift start down the slippery slope from democracy to dictatorship. Defeating terrorism is about winning hearts and minds - of all people. Locking someone's brother, son, sister, daughter, father or mother up for three months is not going to do that anytime soon. Of course, if they just happen to be innocent - all a nasty coincidence / misunderstanding don't you know any compensation for their sufferings is likely to be a long way off. Admittedly, my attitude on this probably contrasts starkly with my attitude towards the shooting of a suspected suicide bomber last night (NZ time). According to BBC News, London police chased the man into a tube carriage, basically pounced on him and shot him five times. As you might expect he is now very dead - which is what happens when someone shoots you five times with an automatic pistol at point blank range. It turns out that he did not in fact have any explosives on him but he was wearing a thick winter-style coat (in the middle of summer) and had attempted to run from the police. In the current climate it is unsurprising that they chose to "shoot first ask questions later". Without knowing for sure that he was unarmed, the police evidently elected to "neutralise" the threat posed by the suspect. The alternative is unthinkable yet the chances of it happening were no doubt incredibly high.

I might post something controversial myself sometime soon. It's just a matter of wording it right to avoid defamation as well as double-checking the law to make sure my understanding is right. Watch this space...

The aptly -named "Token"

2005-07-17T16:09:00.000+12:00

The cartoon series, Southpark features a character aptly-named "Token Black" who's the elementary school's only black student (hence the name). In one episode, Cartman (the fat kid) throws a rock at Token in response to some schoolyard squabble and promptly gets arrested for committing a hate crime. The rock was always a rock, but the ethnicity of Token made all the difference.

Here in New Zealand, some stupid teenage decides to go out one night and spraypaint some graffiti on buildings. The paint was always paint, the graffiti was always graffiti but the particular words used, and the buildings vanadalised - in this case, mosques, made all the difference. Even then, the matter would likely have ended with charges of "unlawfully in an enclosed yard" and "willful damage" had it not been for the timing - the day after the London bombings. Timing is everything it seems - in the law as well as in the theatre. Now he's waiting to hear whether the Attorney-General will grant permission to the police to lay an additional charge of "inciting racial hatred".

Of course had his actions been part of a protest, or even on a web site he could invoke a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 as a shield - freedom of expression being an important value in a democratic society. After all, if it's good enough to protect the National Front, why not some bored teenager? Admittedly, such a defence is not completely out of the question - although it does seem somewhat far-fetched. "It's like this your Honour - my client wanted to protest against what he perceived to be the militant nature of the Islamic faith and its manifestation in the minds and actions of those who committed the atrocious acts in London. He wasn't just out to commit mindless damage for kicks..."

Then again, why should it matter if that was in fact his intention (mindless damage for fun)? Yes there will be those who will think unpleasant thoughts about Muslims but those people no doubt did so before the bombings and have continued to do so afterwards. Spraying "RIP London" on the side of a mosque is certainly not going to change any reasonable persons perspective in a hurry. If anything, it's more likely to engender sympathy amongst your average Kiwis than anything else - after all nobody likes graffiti!

So then what's the purpose of the police in seeking to lay the charge? The main reason is simply as a deterrent to other, like-minded individuals. That said, it's hardly the heaviest book to throw at a defendant, given that the maximum penalty is only 3 months imprisonment or a $7000 fine. While the maximum fine for that offence is larger than those for the other possible offences , the level of reparation sought for the damage is probably likely to be larger than any fine imposed (presuming of course, that the individual in question has the ability to pay a fine in the first place). Therefore, it comes down to deterrence; but whether it will have any actual effect is another question.

In then end, the plan's of the police may well backfire on them. By charging him with inciting racial disharmony they are, in effect drawing more attention to the issue that there needs to be. In doing so, they are giving the miscreant the very attention he probably sought in the first place. It may even make him a living legend amongst members of his scene. The best approach, in my view, would be to treat him and the London bombers alike; that is, no differently from anyone else who chooses to commit similar crimes. Their aim is to divide through fear, intimidation, persecution and isolation. By setting them and their crimes apart from others, we are actually imitating their own actions - divide and rule. Whereas what we need to be doing is starving them of the attention they so desperately seek. Their crimes are committed against the community as a whole, our response should therefore be a community response - a united front.

Hate crime legislation will always be problematic because it involves policing thoughts and the nature of an offence can be changed by what was or wasn't supposedly going through someone's head at the time. Thus, like Cartman's rock throwing, if the attack had been on the Catholic Church across Vermont Street from the Ponsonby mosque, what was committed would not have been a hate crime - context is everything!

Bridging the Public / Private Divide

2005-07-13T22:14:00.000+12:00

The publicisation (as in the opposite of privatisation) of Auckland Central Remand Prison (aka ACRP - the big cream-coloured block next to Mt Eden Prison) leaves me with mixed feelings. On the one had I'm morally opposed to private prisons - the idea of people making profits from prisons repulses me. Yet at the same time, the fact that it was well run is simply indisputable. As the Managing director of GEO New Zealand Ltd noted in the Herald his company had delivered far more than was required under the contract to run the prison and set a benchmark for performance. In fact the mark set has yet to be reached by any of the other prisons in the Auckland region. Admittedly money may be part of the problem - as one Corrections Officer I raised this with wryly noted "if you pay peanuts..." That said, all public sector corrections officers receive the same levels of remuneration - yet the quality delivered varies from institution to institution.

Mt Eden (aka "The Rock") is a basket case. The "check-in" area for visits is ridiculously cramped, the staff are surly (on good days), and the atmosphere reminiscent of a medieval dungeon! Needless to say, suicide and other forms of self harm are a major problem. On the other side of the bridge, Auckland Prison at Paremoremo (East division) is somewhat better (although it would be difficult to be worse). Arranging visits (and the visiting system generally) is easier although there is still a serious lack of communication between different parts of the place. While its World War II military base appearance does allow for certain creature comforts such as natural light - this, along with fresh air, is still in limited supply. On the upside, the inside is actually warmer than outside! Finally, Auckland Prison at Paremoremo (West division) tops the list of also rans. Here inmates can actually see (and, dare I say it, feel) grass and other aspects of nature. Indeed, the outdoors generally is something that they can sample (unlike their eastern counterparts). That said, the place still resembles the land the time forgot.

I'm not under any illusions about inmates belonging behind bars - any more than most inmates themselves are. Yet there is something to be said for a society which treats its inmates like what they are - human beings. Yes it would be easy to lock them in some coal hole somewhere and forget about them but it would be nice to think that we've actually moved beyond what was popular in the 19th century. ACRP had the lowest suicide rate of any prison in New Zealand - zero. Hopefully, the Corrections Department won't make a mess in the nice "new" prison they've just been given.

A final thought: the term "penitentiary" is derived from the way prisons were once run. Inmates would be kept in solitary confinement - often with hoods over their heads to block out any visual or aural stimuli. The idea was to make them think about their "sins. In fact, most of them simply went insane. Sometimes I wonder how far we've actually come?

Work in Progress

2005-06-22T17:11:00.000+12:00

After an all too long hiatus from blogging am looking to brush off the cobwebs and get rid of that mothbally smell.

An all new number60 coming soon...

UniVARsity - Whaddarya?

2005-02-05T22:05:00.000+13:00

The news that Unitec is suing the government for $3.5 million in damages signaled a significant turning point in their "long march" towards university status. Although it's been clear for a while now that the past permissiveness towards aspirational tertiary institutions were long gone, Unitec's persistence with their campaign and the latest ugly turn show that, as far as Unitec's concerned, the past is anything but forgotten. The halcyon days of technical institutes "graduating" to university status (brief though they were) reached their zenith with the conferral of the great "U" upon the then-Auckland Institute of Technology. With the susbstitution of a single letter their dreams were fulfilled and the hopes of Unitec (as the leader of the wait-list for this oh so exclusive club) raised. However, those hopes were soon to be short-lived as a change of government brought about a distinct cooling towards the idea of vertical mobility in the social strata of tertiary education. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority "stonewalled" their application in 2000, leaving them in a no-mans-land between the polytechnics and the universities.

The problem, according to Unitec, lies in the government's "very traditional" view of what a university is; a view which they say is "seriously out of touch" with international developments. Of course, this fighting talk is a reaction to the government's failed attempt to place a moratorium on the number of universities by way of special legislation (which could have been called the Education (Unitec Will Never Be a University) Amendment Bill). Ultimately, the government failed to muster the numbers and the sky still remains the limit. But what many people are asking (even the Herald in their self-asserting, bluff if you don't know, sort of way) is what is this really about - or, to put it another way, what's in a name? Simple - dollars, dineeros, moolah, shiny stuff, our mutual friend, the green light, etc... By achieving (or more correctly, being granted) accreditation as a university, Unitec can increase the numbers of international students it attracts, the quality of staff it attracts, and with them, more external research funding from private sources. Oh, and its students get to say they go to university - image and appearances are very important (just ask the Universal College of Learning - formerly known as Taranaki Polytechnic!).

Part of the issue is of course, the question of what is a university? Traditionally, the role of a university has been focused around scholarship and higher learning - commercialism is a beast of the modern era. However, in the pursuit of the almighty dollar the traditions and touchstones of old have fallen (or rather, been deliberately discarded) by the wayside. These days, as parodied by Bob Jones in his novel Degrees for Everyone, it's about getting bums on seats; so the focus shifts to what sells. In particular, it's about what sells overseas in the global tertiary education market. Unitec, unsurprisingly, is after a greater share of that market and no doubt feels that it would be able to more competitive with university status. How much of a difference this would actually make - I doubt there are too many overseas students yearning to study interior design in New Zealand. While I have heard of at least one overseas student undertaking an automotive engineering course. I suspect his decision to study here more more based on social reasons rather than academic ones.

In the end though, even if Unitec does meet the waffly legislative criteria for university status, the question that has to be asked is do we need (yet) another university? One might equally ask where does it all end - will all techs (that can) eventually want to become uni's? Maybe the best answer is that techs should stay as they are, doing what they do. There's obviously a domestic market for non-university tertiary education - not everyone wants to do a PhD in floristry - that could be left the loser in this battle for betterment. The idea of a "university of technology" is an interesting one but probably doomed to create confusion. The American community college concept has some appeal however. As it stands - AUT aside - NZ's universities could teach more than they do without debasing the university concept. At the same time though, they teach very little that they shouldn't. If Bob Jones' premonition is to stay fully fiction then this is the way that things should be.

Southeast on Bakalakadaka Street

2005-01-21T19:40:00.000+13:00

Was it just me or did George W Bush's inauguration address bear an eerie similarity to the song Freedom Isn't Free from the film Team America - World Police? It was almost as if he'd hired Trey Parker to write it for him before someone else tidied it up a bit (you know putting in some big words, taking out the expletives, that sort of thing). Consider the following extract from the speech:

From all of you, I have asked patience in the hard task of securing America, which you have granted in good measure. Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill and would be dishonorable to abandon. Yet because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom.

Touching - as Trey Parker put it in the lyrics to Freedom Isn't Free -

Freedom isn't free
No, there's a hefty fuckin' fee
And if you don't throw in your buck 'o five
Who will?

Maybe George is trying to appeal to the wet-behind-the-ears liberals who voted for the other guy? Of course, speaking of which, it's amazing just what money can buy - much of the inauguration was paid for by private donors (mostly corporations giving as much as US$250,000 each). Kind of like the election really... It's amazing what money can buy - parties, power, politicians, inaugurations, even states!

Meanwhile, Bush's pick for Attorney-General, Alberto Gonzales, is perhaps wondering if he should read Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People again. He's having a rough ride through the confirmation process as a result of some memos that he wrote / requested while White House Counsel. Simply put, the prevailing view expressed in the memos was:

It's not okay to torture detainees
It is okay to inflict serious harm on detainees as long as this doesn't amount to torture
The Geneva Convention doesn't apply to detainees
Even if it does apply, it's obsolete and not really all that important anyway.

In fairness, I don't know how Gonzales thinks, nor do I know what kind of person he is (whether he gives stray cats to homeless children, etc). But what comes through clearly for me in "memo-gate" is this. Instead of providing independent and objective advice, Gonzales was simply telling Bush what Bush wanted to hear. While that no doubt kept George W happy, it doesn't say much for the strength of Gonzales' character. Often it's a lawyer's unpleasant job to deliver advice the client doesn't want to hear. But just because a client doesn't want to hear it, doesn't mean that they don't have to hear it. Admittedly, there's no strict ethical duty to do this, except the duty to keep the client fully and accurately informed. However, any lawyer worth their salt needs to be more than just a "yes-man" (or woman). Anyone can be hired to agree with every word you say - or to repeat every word for that matter (just like in Brewster's Millions). While this may keep some clients happy it's not really doing them any favours in the long run - in fact, it's probably likely to do them more harm than good (as in the case of Gonzales & Bush).

Whether or not Gonzales will be different as Attorney-General remains to be seen. He did point out that the AG represents the people and not the president, but whether Gonzales will prefer pleasing his political master over his public ones remains to be seen.

Brave New Year

2005-01-03T17:40:00.000+13:00

So this is 2005 and what have you done, another year over and a new one just begun (apologies to Mr J Lennon). For my part, the answer is very little - other than travel a bit. What I want to do however, is make my blogging more regular - trading length for frequency. Something like once a week (or more) compared to the once a year of 2004. Time will tell how successful the implementation of this resolution will be.

Anyway, a New Years Eve editorial in The Press caught my attention. The editorial discussed the appointment of Speaker (and soon to be High Commissioner to the UK) Jonathan Hunt to the Order of New Zealand. Pointing out that with this appointment the Order has now reached its stipulated maximum of 20 (living) members, the editor wondered whether Hunt's work was in fact worthy of NZ's highest honour. Also pointed out was the prevalence of ex-politicians in the ranks of the order (some perhaps more deservingly than others).

The question isn't so much whether Hunt is "deserving" of recognition but rather form that the recognition should take. Past Speaker's commonly received knighthoods, and the equivalent would have been more appropriate for Hunt. With the ranks of the Order now closed to new appointments (until the next death) other, more worthy appointees will have to wait for their recognition. Perhaps the solution would be a rule preventing politicians from receiving high honours for their parliamentary work until ten years after their departure from Parliament - similar to the 12-year rule in the UK on statues of former PM's in the House of Commons. In some ways, such a rule would also provide an acid test - if the intended recipient is still remembered then they're worthy of recognition!

The Man Who Wasn't There

2004-12-06T22:36:00.000+13:00

This Thursday, Ahmed Zaoui learns his fate for the foreseeable future - namely, whether or not his application for bail will be granted. According to Deborah Manning, Zaoui's solicitor, the Crown appear to have almost conceded defeat before the hearing even begins - offering up no new material to advance their arguments in opposition to his bail. It seems that they've decided not to take the Supreme Court up on their suggestion of calling Helen Clark (as Minister for the SIS) to give evidence!

On Saturday I attended the rally marking Zaoui's second anniversary of detention outside the Mt Eden Prison / Auckland Central Remand Prison site. Immediately noticeable were the eclectic mix of groups showing their support - from the Green Party, to Fathers for Justice, to the Maori Party, to the Howard League for Penal Reform, to some local anarchists! Also immediately noticeable was the fact that Corrections officers had blockaded the road leading to the prisons and were standing guard complete with menacing stares directed at anyone who dared approach.

As the rally progressed, and the supporters admittedly became more vociferous (my preferred chant being "free Zaoui - jail Dail [Jones - NZ First MP]") something seemed to spook the Corrections officers as suddenly about a dozen began pouring out of the evil archway of Mt Eden Prison and out the solid steel gate, heading towards where the protestors (and their 4-man police minder team) was. Judging by radio calls I overheard at the time, it seems that they though that the crowd of peace-loving citizens were about to extend their presence towards the prison - or at least cross onto the private prison road. Now here's the interesting thing - Corrections officers (also known as prison guards or, to those they guard, screws) are, unsurprisingly, employed by the government.; and Ahmed Zaoui, as everyone knows, is being held in Auckland Central Remand Prison (that is, he's on remand - he hasn't been convicted of anything) - that's the big cream coloured monolith next door to old Mt Eden Prison.

Now here's where it gets interesting. Presuming the protestors weren't about to storm the prison (women and children first?) where was the issue. The police present seemed to have a handle on things - no doubt having planned their operation for the day in advance - and even if the protestors were to advance down the road to Mt Eden the nice traffic control barrier would have stopped them outside the main office - well away from the solid / mesh steel gates sporting razor wire the greet visitors and residents to either facility. Were they concerned about an internal riot from the rabble rousing? Doubtful, ACRP doesn't have windows that open, and Mt Eden is like a tomb - isolated from the outside world (a few small windows face Boston Road). The raised voices of the great unwashed were hardly likely to penetrate through to the inmates inside. Evidently the Corrections staff, unused to dealing with people they can't beat or pepper spray without fear of reprisal were unsure of how to react to the sudden presence of so many - unlike the police, I doubt their training extends to crowd control - and so simply overreacted. Finally one point of note - ACRP is a (the only) private prison - managed and staffed entirely by private contractors. Given that that was were Zaoui was (and is, until maybe Thursday - touch wood) , why were Corrections staff out in force and who's paying for their time? Okay so they had a prison to guard too, but there prison is about 200m further down the road - can't the folks at ACRP be trusted to look after themselves or the supposed threats to national security within their walls? Or did someone want to intimidate, or maybe merely keep an eye on the protestors? One final question - was this the normal number of Corrections staff or were more brought in to be brought out (or did staffing numbers inside fall) - and, most importantly, who paid for this little show of force in guarding the man who wasn't there.

The Supremes

2004-11-26T16:26:00.000+13:00

So Zaoui can apply for bail and maybe there really is a Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown. While some have considered this a surprising decision, I'm not so sure. After Justice Hammond's thinly veiled attack on Zaoui's ongoing detention in his Court of Appeal judgment, the Supreme Court taking the next step was always on the cards. This was not - despite what the Herald claims - about the Court flexing its political muscle, it was simply about justice and applying the law. Of course expecting most media outlets to digest 35-odd pages of judicial reasoning is a bit much really.

I don't plan to go into too much depth in commentating on the decision - NoRightTurn and Russell Brown have already contributed much intelligent thought to the ongoing dialogue. The decisiion is however, indicative of the approach that courts internationall have taken in response to questions of human rights versus national security. Just as the US Supreme Court did in the Gitmo case, our Supreme Court is not prepared to accept the mysterious phrase "national security" as a blanket defence to any human rights issues. Of course this hasn't always been the case - as the wartime detention cases from 1940's Britain show - but is now a predominant feature of interational jurisprudence. Simply put, courts aren't prepared to allow their respective governments to take a carte blanche approach to issues of national security. The courts are now prepared to (and in fact do) intervene to prevent unnecessary violations of human rights. So in Zaoui it's perhpas not surprising that the court decided he could apply for bail.

The fact that they also decided to hear the application themselves is unusual but not really surprising. As the Chief Justice pointed out, the man's been in custody for almot two years so the sooner his bail application can be heard the better. Which brings me on to the real reason for why the Supreme Court decided to hear the application themselves (unlike their US counterparts who were content to kick the matter back down to the lower courts to deal with). Basically, the court realised that the High Court would take time to hear the application (even with an urgent fixture) and, given the government's track record in this litigation, whoever lost would appeal to the Court of Appeal (and again it'd take time to get a fixture and a decision). The loser there would then appeal to the Supreme Court and everything would be back where it started! So the Supreme Court simply decided to cut the crap and deal with it themselves (obviously they have considerably more dates available) - one time only offer, all cards on the table, winner takes all. More fun than duelling pistols at dawn if you ask me!

So Thursday 9 December is the day - law geeks everywhere mark your calendars....

The Whole World's Watching

2004-11-01T23:02:00.000+13:00

With mere days to go, the US Presidential race is all but guaranteed to be the tightest in living memory (if not in history) - and, based on the nightmare experiences of 2000 - that's saying something! The electorate split (polling agency Zogby has them dead even as at 30/10/04) mirrors the general divisiveness that seems to be generated by George W. Bush (maybe that's what the mysterious bulge is for) who is almost certain to write his place into the history books as the most divisive president ever. Let's face it, Bill Clinton (a) had "sexual relations" in the Oval Office; (b) lied about it - depending on your definition of "lie" admittedly; and (c) was subjected to an impeachment trial as a result; and yet is still remembered with a fondness and admiration that George W can only dream of.

Complicating things further, is the uniquely American electoral system (and you thought STV was bad). Besides the conspiracy theories surrounding touch screen voting, and the general incompetence which seems to pervade the administration in some areas, the Electoral College system means that (this year especially) the result can still be indeterminate even after the last ballot has been cast and counted, and the election officials are tucked up tight in their beds.

The Electoral College is something that I never really understood last time - but then, who outside (and indeed, inside) America really did. In fairness, the last time (by which I mean before 2000) the Electoral College vote differed from the popular vote the year began with the digits 18... This year, history looks set to repeat itself with all eyes on the collegial electors. One state, even one vote could be sufficient to swing the balance. Then there's the other super scary scenario that had its ugly head reared late last week. That scenario can be summed up in a single word - draw. To win the race for president, a candidate needs to capture 270 electoral votes. Now normally this hasn't proved a problem, but with as many 9 votes (or maybe more) tied up in races states slated as dead heats by the pollsters, a 269-269 split is perfectly possible. If this eventuates, the outcome then falls to the US House of Representatives (aka Congress) and the senate to decide - and that's where things really get complicated because a number of those races are also too close to call and, as with the main event, the smallest of margins may very likely make the difference.

Just so you don't think that I've forgotten about the litigiousness the pervades America in general, and has becomes byword for it in election years, I'll share a few thoughts on that too. Here in New Zealand, vote counting is actually quite a simple exercise (in general elections at least). There's just one simple rule to follow - is the voter's intention clear? It doesn't matter if you put a cross instead of a tick with your electoral office-issue orange vivid, just as long as the intention is clear. Also in New Zealand, it doesn't matter where in the country you are on election day - you can be in Bluff and still cast a special vote for your Far North electorate, safe in the knowledge that you've done your dirty democratic business and the vote will be counted. Of course, it's never that simple in the US. There, everything it seems is done on a county by county basis. Individual counties within a state decide on how they want to run the elections and, until recently, wouldn't (for the most part) let you vote if you didn't live there. Of course, it's never that simple even with new legislation designed to make it simple. The result - Findlaw.com - renowned for it's litigation documents section - now has a special page devoted to election-related litigation - "Lawsuits, investigations, and proceedings regarding ballot issues arising in so-called battleground states"

The Diebold touchscreen voting terminals are another controversy in themselves and far to complex to be afforded adequate discussion here. Scoop has been tracking the issue for a while now - since July 2003, well before things really started to get interesting - and has some excellent op-ed pieces. The appropriately-named Diebold Variations also weighs in on the issues in pictorial format with an amusing array of spoof propaganda posters "promoting" the now-infamous company.

On an aside, I note that FindLaw's election coverage section includes an "election lawyer" search feature. All I can say is good like finding one, both parties have planes packed with flying squads of litigators on stand by in a state of constant readiness to be dispatched at a moment's notice to the nearest trouble spot to well, create more trouble! According to the FindLaw / AP Voter's Guide to Legal Issues, Democrats plan to have about 10,000 lawyers at the ready on Election Day, while Republicans estimate they will have 8,500. Outside groups also plan to deploy lawyers; a coalition of progressive groups says it will have 6,000 lawyers on hand.

I don't want to get into the personalities and the pros / cons of the candidates, but just going by image alone - a purely superficial approach - the Democrats really should have chosen Edwards and Kerry the other way around. Edwards comes across as young an full of vitality (oh so important in a nation which bases its electoral predictions on sporting results), while Kerry comes across as stiff and somewhat aloof - not the sort of guy you'd invite round for a barbecue as one poll found. Perhaps its fortunate for Helen Clark that we don't directly elect our leaders. Not too many people could see themselves entertaining Aunty Helen over steinlager and sausages! Still, the same could be said for Don Brash!

Come November 4, the world will turn to watch, and wait to see what will unfold. How the races run is now anybody's guess (and probably anybody could do as decent a job as the pollsters). We have come to expect a divisive contest, and the divisiveness will not end once the race is run,rather it will more likely than not continue to dog the victor throughout their term in office and will continue to haunt the runners in the next race in for years time.

Atticus

2004-10-24T01:43:00.000+13:00

In To Kill a Mocking Bird, Atticus Finch uses the now legendary line: "You never really know a man until you stand in his shoes and walk around in them". The truism contained in that single musing cannot be overstated. Earlier this week, I found myself advocating on behalf of a brothel. Now obviously I'm a lawyer and I don't share (or even necessarily like) my clients' views or actions, I just represent them - the cab rank rule and all that. However, having once been an advocate against the Prostitution Reform Act 2004 I know find myself staunchly becoming a convert to its cause.

As everyone's aware, prostitution is commonly called the world's oldest profession, and brothel keeping / proprietorship would have to rate somewhere close behind (if not right along side). Formerly known as "massage parlours" brothels have been in our communities since around the time those communities began. The tiny township of Russell in the Bay of Islands used to boast a row of brothels and pubs along its main street back in the 1800's - nowadays brothels are more discreet, although in some cases, only just!

As Tim Barnett MP (the architect of the Act) has stressed, it's about harm minimisation and not about trying to put the genie back into the bottle. The genie is well and truly out of the brothel and has no intention of going back inside (if it was ever in there in the first place). Rather than trying to confine brothels to inner-city sidestreets and deserted industrial zones - as the Auckland City Council has purported to do - the better approach would be to loosen location controls on brothels (except in relation to the distance between brothels) but toughen up the tenor of appearance rules. So for example, a brothel could locate in Remuera shopping centre (despite Banksie's past protestations) provided its presence was discreet (e.g. not at ground level) and its appearance innocuous. That way, even the most easily offended couldn't complain. Yes, the could say that they don't want to have to shop where there's a brothel but if there are no actual effects on them (i.e. visual pollution / harassment) then what have they got to complain about? They only actually know that there's a brothel there because of the notification requirements for licensing! Still, at least Auckland hasn't tried to ban water-based brothels (unlike the Queenstown Lakes District Council) - although there'd be little point because as long as the actual business of the brothel (i.e. sex) occurred outside of Auckland's limits, they'd be powerless to do anything about it! Even home based brothels are caught by the Auckland bylaw - although how the council would actually go about proving the existence of a brothel is another question! A bit of commonsense is required in all cases - there can be no harm to the ignorant (to put it another way - what they don't know can't hurt them)!

Casualties and causalities

2004-10-09T19:08:00.000+13:00

An American presidential candiate once famously remarked "The people have spoken - the bastards"! I have a feeling that John Banks, now former Mayor of Auckland may well share this sentiment. As he himself put it, commenting on a poll that placed him behind the now Mayor-elect Dick Hubbard - "It's not a vote for him, it's a vote against me". In footage eerily reminiscent of Christine Fletcher's defeat in 2001, Banksie was fighting back tears as he conceded defeat to a roomful of reporters at the Auckland Town Hall - even in defeat he's still fixated on appearances - nowhere else but the Town Hall would do, even for a defeat speech - even when the Citizens & Ratepayers Now campaign "party" is just across Aotea Square at the Playhouse pub. Contrast this with Dick Hubbard's rather cramped equivalent in the study at his home - very "man of the people". Maybe in the end that's what it came down to - John Banks has never been a "man of the people" despite his all-too frequent references to his less-than-glamorous roots (incidentally, one has to wonder why, if he's so determined to distinguish himself from them, he's keeps brining them up). Over all, he fails to connect by coming across as insenstive and domineering - something which may, in the end, have ultimately contributed to his downfall

Similarly, Aaron Bhatnagar came across as arrogant and, at times, downright offensive. When I was Chairman of the Auckland City Youth Council, I came close to a public spat with the guy after he put out a press release labeling ACYC "an anachronism". Yes, there were membership problems (not of our own making I might add) but I would have (and did) expect more support from a politician who actually gets paid and fed for what he does given that members of ACYC receive neither! Still, ACYC continues today (albeit without me), Bhatnagar however, does not. Again, the people have spoken (me included unsuprisingly). Bhatnagar does at least seem to have taken it fairly well, if his blog is anything to go by, saying "it would be ungracious not to congratulate the successful candidates - of all flavours". Bhatnagar also points out the change in his blog title, which now reads "Aaron Bhatnagar Auckland Political Activist". John Banks' campaign website on the other hand, seems to have fallen off of the Internet altogether! Maybe Brian Nicholle was too busy paying other bills (or his lawyer)...

What is however still available on the Internet are PDF's (or as Banksie would say, "PSD's") of the now-infamous NBR article. Where can one find these - why on Mr Bhatnagar's public file sharing server, in a folder marked "Hubbard". This may well undermine Brian Nicholle's claim that he acted alone - is Aaron the mysterious "3rd gunman" in all of this?

Just before leaving the political scene altogether, I note the campaign being run in Australia's Federal Elections by the enslaveNZ party whose am is of course to enslave NZ'ers! Nothing like a bit of fun in your average dry electoral campaign (even a close one like Australia's)! How much support (in terms of votes) the party will actually get is another question, but voting over there is mandatory...

Osama under the bed

2004-10-05T17:40:00.000+13:00

In between wailing about prisoners getting compo, the SST's front page yesterday blared alarming warnings of lax security at our airports and how their reporters (acting in the public interest of course) had managed to smuggle box cutters on board aircraft. It wasn't until you read the story that you found that the flights in question were to places like new Plymouth and Invercargill and the planes in question were the kind I like to unaffectionately refer to as "puddle jumpers". Can't say I'm worried, I don't think Invercargill or the 'Naki are high on Osama's hit list. I mean let's be sensible here shall we - does the SST really expect us to believe the a group like Jemaah Islamiah (the "have bombs will travel" brigade) are going to try and highjack a flight to Invercargill. What are they going to do - leap out (being careful not to bump their heads on the ceiling of course) and scream "THIS IS A HIJACK - TAKE ME TO HOKITIKA!" A bit of common sense on the menu wouldn't go astray IMHO.

It's a bit like Ahmed Zaoui really - blue ribbon talkback hosts bleat about how long he's been here and how much it's costing, while blaming everyone but the government when they're the ones at fault. First of all they enacted a piece of legislation that's best described as utterly useless (and that's putting it mildly), then they can't get a halfway decent review process going without arising it up, and then when it is pointed out to them by a court just how useless the Act is, and how arsed up their review process is, they promptly go and appeal. No word yet on whether they'll appeal the latest Court of Appeal decision, if not that just leaves the TV interview appeal going to the Supreme Court. There's a very good chance that the supreme Court will refuse the government leave - after all, TV interview applications aren't exactly matters of "general or public importance", to quote the criteria in s 13 of the Supreme Court Act. It would of course be ironic if Margaret Wilson's appeal (and yes, it is hers - as Attorney-General she made the decision to appeal) gets rejected by the very Court she created!

Overall I think lot less bleating and a bit more self reflection is required. The prisoner compo issue is a good example of this need. I heard a speaker say recently that "prisoners are sent to prison as punishment and not for punishment" while adding that it's unfortunate that the only redress available is compensation as opposed to say, time off of their sentences. Bottom line though - if you don't want to pay prisoners compo, don't run the prisons like Abu Ghraib! Phil Goff's proposed legislation won't change this - victims will be able to sue (courtesy of taxpayer funding) but only after the prisoner's released. Even then, given how long it can take for a civil claim to be heard at the High Court, the now ex-prisoner will have plenty of time to spend his dosh. So much for rehabilitation upon (and after) release! One final question though - civil legal aid normally requires the legally aided person to pay back the money given them by legal aid out of any damages they are awarded - will this also apply to those suing ex-prisoners?

Breaking the Banks

2004-09-29T11:12:00.000+12:00

So Brian Nicholle decided to 'fess up and tell all to his boss Banksie. This after dodging the question on Morning Report and in his comments to the Herald. So we know that Mr Nicholle is now scanning the sits vacant columns but where does this leave his lord and master?

Well a quick check of the Local Electoral Act puts Banksie in the clear as far as the unauthorised distribution of the NBR flyers is concerned. That's because a candidate isn't responsible for an act committed by an agent and done without their consent. Of course that still leaves Mr Nicholle liable to be convicted and fined up $1000.

More interesting is the overspending issue - which won't be known until after the election. Intentionally exceeding the limit ($70,000 incl GST) will net you a fine of up to $10,000 or 2 years imprisonment. However, the Act also says that a candidate can be liable to (although only for a fine of up to $5000) unless "the candidate or other person proves that he or she took all reasonable steps to ensure that the electoral expenses did not exceed the prescribed maximum amount." So Banksie's campaign management practices could come under scrutiny. If, for example, he never asked questions or kept an eye on what or how much was being spent and just gave Nicholle a free hand on the chequebook then there could be some problems for His Worship. This means that the fun of the circus may not be over yet!

Meanwhile over on Pitcairn - an issue with which I am not unfamiliar - the defence have requested that the Chief Justice step aside on the grounds of bias over a meeting he had with Baroness Scotland - the UK Minister for Overseas Territories. What happened at the meeting is known only to those who attended but the bottom line is that it looks bad and that's the key to a bias challenge - as the Inspector General of the SIS discovered in Zaoui v Grieg. Really though what the Pitcairn trials may come down to is the difference between what the law actually is as opposed to what some people think it should be. One of the problems though is that it's like a roller coaster - you can't get off and it can't stop until the end. If the Chief Justice does decide to step aside it'll be interesting to see what happens to the trials and to him - I wonder if he has to stay there, doing nothing, for eight weeks?

Catch-22

2004-09-08T10:13:00.000+12:00

Prison overcrowding seems to be the topic of the day with multiple media outlets and bloggers weighing in on the subject. As Russell Brown points out - that's what happens when you embark on a "get tough on crime pissing contest". Remand beds (for those inmates who are awaiting trial, in the middle of a trial, or awaiting sentence) in particular are filling up around the country and even when beds do open up, it doesn't help much if they're not in the right place. For example, an inmate awaiting trial at Manukau District Court can't be sent to Rimutaka Prison near Upper Hutt because everything related to their case (including the lawyers) is in Auckland and, unless the Corrections Department wants to re-create Con Air, the logistics of transportation and communication are almost insurmountable. So, as a result, the same inmate is kept in the holding cells at Manukau District Court which were designed to accomodate prisoners for a couple of hours, not a couple of days! Others find themselves enduring an extended stay in the police cells which were also never intended to provide accomodation for anything like the length of stays that are currently occurring.

Ironically, this issue follows closely behind the awarding of compensation to several inmates for the breaches of their human rights that were committed as a result of their time in the infamous Behavioural Management Unit at Paremoremo prison. Despite Phil Goff's railings against the injustice (as he perceives it) of the payments, the reality is that prisoners do actually have rights (aside from those necessarily removed as part of their incarceration) and do actually deserve to be compensated - as does any other New Zealander - if those rights are breached. The purpose of damages is to recognise the wrongs that have been committed and to compensate those adversely affected. So what about the victims? Well the wrongs committed against them have already been recognised (as part of the criminal justice process) and those responsible (i.e. the inmates) are being punished for what they did. The bottom line here is that inamtes are human beings too and have the right to be treated with respect and dignity that this inherent identity demands.

Despite the decision and damages, the government still doesn't seem to have learned from the error of their ways - as the current prison population crisis shows. Perhaps this is beacuse they're still in denial - certainly Phil Goff seems to be, given his reference to the "alleged wrongs" committed! Despite what he may think, there's nothing alleged about the wrongs , they happened and the court found that they happened - it's called a verdict Phil! The reality is that if the overcrowding continues, then it's more than likely that more litigation will result from the same abuses that characterised the BMR regime - things like an absence of natural light, adequate ventiliation, proper hygiene facilities etc. In addition to this, police and court cells don't allow for segregation of inmates - something that's almost a necessity in some cases (e.g. those giving evidence against their co-accused, those charged with certain unsavoury offences). In fact, from what I hear, an application is already in process by a certain QC to prevent the continued holding of prisoners in the Manukau District Court cells. This will no doubt create a headache for the courts - they can't really allow the dentention in the cells to continue (grossly inadequate as it is) but at the same time, there's nowhere else to put them! So how the courts reconcile this catch-22 will be interesting. Watch this space!

Home and Away

2004-09-07T17:53:00.000+12:00

Having just returned from a short spell away in the South Island it's perhaps not surprising that I'm reflecting on what I like about Auckland and about other places. Of course, blogging provides a convenient outlet for my travel experiences - the good, the bad, and the ugly. In some ways that's part of the power of blogging - it allows ordinary people (i.e. not travel writers or media columnists) to relate their experiences to an audience of potentially vast proportions; much larger than could ever have been possible before.

So, having said that, here are the places which I'd like to single out for special mention - both the famously brilliant and the infamously awful.

Number one on my list has to be the Leviathan Hotel in Dunedin. Having paid all of $20 for a bed in a backpackers' dorm, upon checking in I found myself unexpectedly upgraded to a backpackers' double room (2 single beds) at no extra cost and I never had a roommate for the two nights I was there. Add to this super-friendly service (even for budget backpackers like me) and it made for a place I'd recommend to anyone!

Number two is a nice Dunedin cafe called Brioso (situated in the Octagon). I found this place accidentally when searching for somewhere to have breakfast after my first choice, the marginally more expensive and significantly less classy Tip Top, had a half-hour wait on any cooked food! While this was due to the rugby (Otago v Southland) I was their loss and Brioso's gain. Again, like the Leviathan, a place I'd recommend anytime (especially the all-day breakfast).

Thirdly, a special mention goes to the City of Dunedin itself. From it's tour bus drivers, to its info centre staff to the locals generally - always helpful, and always friendly

Leading the "must try harder" is Intercity Busses / Newmans coachlines. Changing busses halfway between Dunedin and Christchurch was an hassle, but being informed by a somewhat grumpy driver that I couldn't leave my bag on either bus while I went to get some food was just a pain in the arse.

Similarly annoying was the Off the Rail cafe in Timaru where my bus stopped for dinner. Clearly almost incapacitated by the sudden influx of passengers from two busses, any substantial cooked food was not an option - waiting time (both for ordering and receiving the food) would have taken up most (if not all) of the allocated half hour. Additionally, several staff were overheard telling patrons (in what I thought was a bit of a rude way) not to eat food from other places. Okay, I can understand that they want to protect their profits, but given the waiting time and the chilly climes that characterise South Canterbury at this time of year, a bit of consideration could have been expected. I'd eat there again - but only as a second choice.

Finally, the nasty green "needs improvement" stamp goes to the Qantas domestic terminal at Auckland International Airport. The lack of seating, and complete absence of any comfortable seating at all made waiting there a distinctly uncomfortable experience. For what makes an airport good (or not) see Donna McSherry's sleepinginairports.net - Qantas domestic could learn a lot from Ms McSherry.

Anyway, traveling is all good and besides making me appreciate my home city all the more, it also makes me want to see more of this beautiful country that I'm so incredibly fortunate to live in. Thinking about doing the West Coast at New Year's - something a bit different for an Aucklander but then that's all part of the adventure.

So it's back to the office for me tomorrow, catching up on all that I can't leave behind. Still, nothing like a half-decent holiday to recharge the batteries. It'll be interesting to see what happens with the Auckland City mayoral race, and with the whole Civil Union issue. Something more on the latter may be coming out soon...

Story telling

2004-08-31T17:29:00.000+12:00

Yesterday's story about the rape of a 14-year old special needs schoolgirl not being reported to her parents continues to attract attention. Bill English is at least intelligent enough to recognise that the cause of the non-disclosure was the school's policy. United-Future's Judy Turner is not however as perceptive, levelling the blame at "the law" in general - another classic example of a hasty and underinformed press release.A later press release by her colleague, Murray Smith, lays the blame at the feet of the Privacy Act and threatens a private members' Bill to "rectify this ridiculous and hugely damaging situation". Problem is, the Privcay Act was never raised. As Russell Brown correctly points out, it was a discretionary decision by the counsellor involved, poorly made though it may have been!

Another story capturing the media's attention is current recruiting difficulties faced by the armed forces. NZ First MP Ron Mark attributes this to the low pay received for members of the armed forces. While Mark's stance is hardly knew (given that he is himself ex-army) it's still good to know that they've got a champion in Parliament. Unlike our firefighters who get paid a measely $14 an hour to run into burning buildings, rescue people from horrific car smashes, free stuck children, and decontaminate chemical scenes; all while working 10 - 14 hour shifts! It's about time someone stood up for them and asked why they don't get paid more. It's not all that long since the National government tried to decimate their ranks - until the first Citizens Initiated Referendum that is. I have to confess that I was personally ignorant of this issue until a police officer I know made me aware of it, through a passing mention. Let's face it, there are a lot of professions who are worth every cent they're paid - police officers, firefighters, nurses (as anyone who's spent 8 hours in an emergency room with a loved on will tell you) etc. But more often than not, it's only when they start threatening drastic action (usually in the form of strikes) that Jill and Joe (or Jane) Public sits up and begins to take notice. This blog probably isn't going to change that but at the same time, it's about time somebody said something!

Anyway, expect some good shots of the protest action in New York to appear in the media tomorrow - protestors, artistic signs, witty catchphrases and Michael Moore and Jessey Jackson taking the lead. Imagine the fun they'll have when old George W swings by - anybody else think that Houston would have been a better choice for the Republican Party Convention? Already doing the rounds it seems are "Regime Change" playing cards - essentially a satirical take on the Iraq deck devised by the Pentagon. Hmmm... wouldn't mind some of those myself!

Silver Lining

2004-08-30T18:53:00.000+12:00

Continuing on the Olympic theme, I came across an "alternative" medal table produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and based on population per medal. I suspect that part of the impetus behind it was the fact that it puts Australia on top, but having said that it also places New Zealand 3rd (even allowing for the mistakes in population size and medal total).

Moving on to a completly unrelated topic, this story in the Sunday Star Times caught my attention. According to the SST an unnamed school decided against telling the parents of a 14-year old student with "learning disabilities" that she was raped, based on a counsellor's ethical decision. I tend to be wary of the sensationalist style of reporting that the SST seems to have adopted in recent months but nevertheless, the article raises some questions.

The law starts with the general position that if you are under 20, but are intelligent enough to understand the procedures, consequences and risks of treatment, you may give your own consent to treatment. But when there's children involved, and a crime may have been committed the question of a duty to report raises its head. Obviously its unrealistic to place a duty on ordinary folk, but when a person holds a position of responsibility (such as a counsellor) then surely such a duty should come with the responsiblities of their position. Understandably the role of clinician, counsellor or carer involves more than a bit of a balancing act at times. People in these roles want their patients to open up to them (hence the importance of protecting confidentiality) but this can't be outweighed by the patient's best interests - in other words, if it's going to help them (or their treatment) then it's acceptable. Similarly, if disclosure is in the public interest (e.g. reporting a crime / preventing future crime) , then this should also be a green light.

The problem lies with the NZ Association of Counsellor's Code of Ethics, and its confidentiality clauses, which require a high threshold to be met (namely "serious danger") before disclosure is permitted. Compare this with the NZ Medical Association's code which refers to the "patient's best interests" or an "overriding public good". Reporting rape is obviously important, as is ensuring a rape victim receives prompt medical treatment. But telling a 14-year old's parents isn't? A school which condones that course of action (again, speaking generally here) propably needs to rethink its role in relation to its pupils. While the school's reponsible for their welfare at school this should really only include preventing them from being harmed while at school and dealing with it if it happens. However, with many schools now featuring social workers, and counsellors in addition to the usual matrons; school-life is a lot more complicated than it was before. A bit of common sense is all that's really needed here - schools aren't the legal guardians of their students and shouldn't try to usurp this role from those that are with a "we know best" philosophy. If a crime's been committed - report it; if a student's been hurt - tell their parents. It's really not that difficult.

Anyway, George Bush is now saying that John Kerry was "more heroic" for going to Vietnam: "He was in harm's way and I wasn't" ...at the risk of stating the obvious! It seems that Geroge W is now saying this so that both campaigns can move on from the whole Vietnam service issue. He does however say "Had my unit been called up, I would have gone" - but wasn't that the whole point of serving in the Texas Air National Guard and not the 1st Infantry?

First Appearance

2004-08-29T14:21:00.000+12:00

One of the problems with taking up blogging (besides what to call it) is of course identity - should I publish in my own name, and take all the credit? Or should I use a pseudonym and use the anonymity to take cheap shots at those who probably deserve it? In the end, it seems that ego won the day, with revenge being relegated to the silver medal position.

So on with the show... I just took the Dante's Inferno Test - based on Dante's Divine Comedy. After answering a series of questions...

Including:
- Have you wished bad things upon your fellow countrymen?
- Do you intentionally cause harm to others, or to animals?
- Have you been in any physical fights in recent years?
- Could you picture yourself assassinating someone or ordering an assassination on someone if it meant that you would become very rich and powerful?

and (true / false)
- People are poor because they deserve to be, and should be given no help.
- It's okay to punch someone if they "have it coming."
- Some people just deserve to die.

...it seems that I have in fact escaped eternal damnation and made it safely to Purgatory - "a place where the dew of repentance washes off the stain of sin and girds the spirit with humility" Nice!

Being a wet-behind-the-ears liberal (otherwise known as a commie pinko) as well as a lawyer, doing these sort of tests becomes a bit over-complicated. Just about on every second question, my legal mind kicks in and goes "well that depends what you mean by..."!

Anyway, the Olympics wind up first thing Monday morning, and it'll be back to regular TV again. Of course, in Athens the Paralympics are set to follow almost straight on from the regular Olympics, starting on 17 September. In fact two wheelchair racing events have already taken place during the regular Olympic competition on 22 August. Unfortunately, for the athletes involved, no one noticed! That's the bitter reality of paralympic competition - aside from a Paul Holmes special, and a few passing mentions by news sources; the competition is mostly missed by the media. In fact, it'd probably be fair to say that the level of coverage is likely to be comparable to that given to syncronised swimming, despite Kiwi paralympians collecting 6 golds in Sydney. Okay so paralympians don't have the profile of the able-bodied counterparts but if any thing, their journey to Athens as been considerably harder. Obviously, TVNZ are never going to give equal coverage to both the Olympics and Paralympics - but what about keeping Holmes off for another couple of weeks, shortening the news to half an hour and dedicating an hour of prime-time nightly viewing to Paralympic coverage? Sadly, I'm not hopeful - it's more likely than not that the Paralympics will be obscured by the shadow of the main Olympics and relegated to a few passing mentions on the six o'clock news along with a Paul Holmes special to be screened at a later date. But then again, maybe there's hope yet - maybe Paul Holmes will give up his weeknight slot for another two weeks so that New Zealand's paralympians can at least get some halfway decent coverage of their efforts... and maybe there really is a great pumpkin Charlie Brown.