The assassination of Charlie Kirk

I disagreed with Charlie Kirk over many issues such as gun controls, Gaza and Trump. But I respected his right to express his opinions. That is the nature of free speech and tolerance of differing viewpoints in a democracy.  

Kirk made provocative and extreme statements. But he defended the rights of people, even those of his political adversaries, to express their opinions.  There is a major difference between provocative words and violent actions. I join with all others who support democratic freedoms in condemning the assassination of Charlie Kirk. My condolences to his wife, family and friends.  

I think we need to be very wary of jumping into the culture wars of far left or extreme right. They are often oversimplifcations that do little but promote divisions, tear at the fabric of society and undermine the common good. As a society we need to relearn how to debate issues, with a respect for the human dignity of the other, without resorting to violence. 

Diangelo: profit of race

 

Raluca Bejan, Assistant Professor of Social Work, Dalhousie University takes issue with diversity training businesswoman and promoter of racial division - Robin DeAngelo.  

https://theconversation.com/amp/robin-diangelos-white-fragility-ignores-the-differences-within-whiteness-143728  

Distributism Explained

 

Distributism is being touted as the next best idea as an alternative way to do economics and politics in the 21st century. But what is Distributism? This video provides a simple and quick overview of Distributist principles.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M702i7rcUBo

The problem isn't liberalism, the problem is weakness

 

Kemi Badenoch's address to the ARC 2025 defended classical liberalism against Centralised Socialism and its control-centred philosophy. 

Caritas Justice Leadership Days - an inspiring experience

I've just returned from the 2017 Caritas Justice Leadership Day in Wellington.  This year the Wellington JLD was held in Avalon, Lower Hutt.

The JLDs are a once a year opportunity for student leaders to learn more about putting faith into practice and bring to life the principles of Catholic social teaching. Today's workshop again showed the energy and hope which characterize student leaders today. It was inspiring to be part of and I wish the students well with the various follow up actions they identified today.

The next generation will face more than its fair share of challenges including Climate Change, the impacts on culture of globalization and the erosion of community.  Justice Leadership days are an investment in the leaders of the future.

More about JLDs here.

Lib Dems Do God - Book Review

A book published in the UK and edited by Jo Latham and Clare Mathys sets out the case for Christians to be Liberal Democrats. 

LibDems are Britain's third party and were part of the Coalition government during David Cameron's time as Prime Minister.

Under new leader Tim Farron the party has rediscovered its anti-establishment, reformist, Liberal roots.  The book sets out some key themes that identify a strong overlap between Christian values and those liberals.  These include:

• A deep respect for human rights and the dignity of all people;
• Freedom of religion for all;
• Respect for individual freedom;
• Equality for all - through combating poverty;
• Appropriate regulatory frameworks to ensure that markets serve the common good.
• A humanitarian approach to global issues and an internationalist approach to issues such as Climate Change, Refugees and Migration.

For people of all faith traditions "Liberal Democrats Do God" (Latham & Mathys) is well worth a read and I recommend it to anyone that has an interest in politics or broader social issues related to liberty, equality and community.

A liberal democrat view of TPPA

Ministers need to allow full public participation in TPPA review.

Free Trade

As a liberal democrat I believe that people should have the freedom to trade with one another provided that one person is not exploiting another. Similarly freedom to trade between countries is generally a good thing. It has tended to reduce the cost of living for people over the last one hundred years. For poorer countries increased trade has often been the means by which they have increased export income and increased living standards, healthcare and education. Conversely protectionist measures and import licensing are systems which have been fraught with abuse resulting in high prices for the public and big profits for a few private investors. Most New Zealanders who lived through the 1970s or 1980s can recall the high price of electrical equipment and motor vehicles. So free trade is fine where agreements are openly arrived at and no one group in society, particularly the poor and vulnerable, is made worse off.  However that does not mean that all trade agreements are good ones or that liberals should blindly support a bad trade deal just because its a trade deal.  When it comes to the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA) there are several things that concern me and which don't appear to line up with some key liberal democratic principles. 

Open government

Generally liberals support open government and transparent decision making. Secrecy and behind closed doors commercial deals are generally not a good thing. In fact we have laws to prevent private companies doing that kind of thing when it comes to setting prices.  The reason we have laws against such secret arrangements is that they tend to be at the expense of the public and to enrich private interests.  Why then, with the TPPA, is it OK for the public to be kept in the dark - but for commercial interests and government representatives to meet in secret to make deals?  Such behaviour engenders suspicion and undermines confidence in public institutions. 

Proponents of the TPPA claim that it's nothing to worry about because "all trade deals are arrived at this way". But such an argument does not stand up to scrutiny.  If our negotiating position is being shared behind closed doors with other countries representatives and with corporate interest groups then why not with the public? In a democracy citizens are entitled to be informed. It is the government's job to persuade an informed citizenry that a decision is in the public interest. Depriving the public of the information is not a satisfactory alternative. 

Serve the public interest

Liberals also believe that the government has an obligation to serve the public interest or the common good. The common good is about making all people better off. Reducing the welfare of one group so that other privileged groups gain is not acting in the common good. A trade deal that increases the price of medicines for the sick but allows large agribusiness interests to line their pockets does not serve the common good.  A trade agreement which limits the ability of a government to regulate in the public interest does not serve the common good. 

The government has developed a reputation for commercial pragmatism. One can debate whether that is well-founded or whether an unprincipled pragmatism is something to crow about. But even from such a standpoint - where ugly sacrifices are made in healthcare treatments and our regulators are handcuffed lest they upset private interests - the huge benefits for dairy that we were promised in return seem to have disappeared like a mirage in the desert. 

Labour Spokesperson, Annette King, said: "The deal falls well below expectations with only disappointing crumbs for our dairy industry and extended patents on new drugs which will cost the taxpayer millions and leave New Zealanders without life-saving drugs.... New Zealanders must be told whether the government has traded away our right to further restrict foreign ownership of housing or farm land and what agreements have been made to allow foreign corporations to sue New Zealand for regulating in the public interest.

Commentator Colin James points out that Minister Grocer's arguments about the alleged benefits also include a hefty amount of gains that would have happened anyway under existing trade arrangements. "Tim Groser attributes the greater-than-forecast gains in sales to China since 2008 to the free trade agreement (FTA) when most of them might well -- probably would -- have happened anyway, given the spike in China's demand for milk products. (If he is right, then would the fall in the past year also logically have to be attributed to the FTA?)"

Democratic decision-making

As Colin James highlights: (TPPA) "and similar regional agreements are about regulatory convergence every bit as much as, and arguably more than, about goods trade access. That is why patents and copyright were top of the United States' list and why opponents bother a lot about patents and copyright costs here and about investor-state dispute resolution issues, which do not yet have a global supervisory mechanism."  (www.colinjames.co.nz)

Since 1984 New Zealand's (and many other countries') national sovereignty has been severely eroded by global economic centralisation - or what Pope Francis has termed the "technocratic paradigm". Government Ministers now say that New Zealand's influence is so small that we should join the TPPA club because being in, with a very tiny amount of influence, is better than being out on our own. However, in a democracy governments are meant to govern in the public interest. If the current economic model does not allow them to do that then they need a new model. 

The full text of the TPPA should be published now and a lengthy and comprehensive public review of the Agreement needs to take place . Otherwise the public confidence in the Agreement will be undermined and so too will be the basis of trust between citizen and government that underpins democracy. Abolitionist and liberal activist Wendell Phillips was quoted in 1852 as saying: 

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is ever stealing from the many to the few. The manna of popular liberty must be gathered each day or it is rotten. ... Only by continued oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot; only by unintermitted agitation can a people be sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity.”