Coverage of Gaza has discussed the slide into violence since the ceasefire ended. Why is no-one asking why the ceasefire was allowed to lapse? Could Hamas’ decision to let the ceasefire end be because the citizens of Gaza were still living under a cruel blockade, with no signs of political progress in sight?
What does it even mean to be neutral in this conflict, to call for both sides to end the violence? Which decisions by which people would make this happen in Israel and in Gaza? What would be the relative political costs for these decisionmakers? Is there truly equivalence in this call for neutrality?
Does Hamas truly exercise military-style authority over all the rocket-firers in Gaza? What are the lines of control in the organisation? To what extent can either diplomacy with or attacks on Hamas affect the number of rockets fired into Israel? Clearly there is some relationship – but how close is it?
Coverage of Gaza, and the Israeli state, talks enthusiastically about Hamas. But what does that even mean? Is it the leaders of Hamas? The military leadership? The military wing? Everyone in a Hamas military uniform? Everyone who voted for Hamas? Everyone in Gaza?
Further to the above, a fundamental rationale for the Israeli offensive is that Hamas wants to exterminate Israel, to drive it into the sea, and is not rational in its desire for this goal. This claim is extremely common in the popular discourse, particularly in letters to the editor and comments to online news stories. If it is true, then it ultimately justifies any atrocity against Hamas. Why is this extremely common thread of argument absent from official comment, reporting and analysis? What does it mean to say that Hamas wants to exterminate Israel? If this is the rationale behind much international support for Israel, surely it is urgent that this claim is tested rather than left to stand unexamined?
Category: Everything Political
Rob Gilchrist: Disrespect that man
On April 21 I was gleeful at the work of activist Rob Gilchrist, who outmaneuvered local buffoon and spy-for-hire Gavin Clark. The quickwitted noble activist taking down one of the enemies of democracy! Wicked!
Then, today…
Oh.
Mr Gilchrist just got crossed off my ‘person of the year’ nominee list, it seems.
There’s heaps more to say about this, not least the obvious stuff about why the police feel they need to send informers into ordinary citizens action groups. But I still have a bad case of thesis, so this will have to do from now.
(Also, and yet again: nice work Nicky Hager.)
Monbiot on Marshall on Climate Change
In his fascinating book Carbon Detox, George Marshall argues that people are not persuaded by information(15). Our views are formed by the views of the people with whom we mix. Of the narratives that might penetrate these circles, we are more likely to listen to those which offer us some reward. A story which tells us that the world is cooking and that we’ll have to make sacrifices for the sake of future generations is less likely to be accepted than the more rewarding idea that climate change is a conspiracy hatched by scheming governments and venal scientists, and that strong, independent-minded people should unite to defend their freedoms.
He proposes that instead of arguing for sacrifice, environmentalists should show where the rewards might lie: that understanding what the science is saying and planning accordingly is the smart thing to do, which will protect your interests more effectively than flinging abuse at scientists. We should emphasise the old-fashioned virtues of uniting in the face of a crisis, of resourcefulness and community action. Projects like the transition towns network and proposals for a green new deal tell a story which people are more willing to hear.
George Monbiot column: “A beardful of bunkum”
Meanwhile, the Don’t Be A Rodney campaign has ended. A bunch of letters got sent. My feeling is they did have an effect, in that John key has clearly given a quiet steer to committee chair Peter Dunne to slap down Rodney’s nonsense. Ultimately, though, we have to wait and see how it goes down.
I sent a letter
Don’t be a Rodney!
That conversation last week went somewhere:
Don’t be a Rodney, John Key!*
I’m a believer in the power of paper. This is a campaign to get people writing letters to John Key, telling him to put Rodney’s barmy climate denialism in its place, and get NZ up to speed on its climate change obligations. Write a letter. Bureaucracies run on paper; governments are bureaucracies; therefore paper works.
Thanks to the circle of advisers and geniuses and busy bees who helped pull it together – you know who you are.
Anyway. That’s what I did last night! So if you’re a Kiwi, make with the clicky and see why you should write a letter.
* also available in Facebook
Participating in democracy
Democracy ensures that there are levers waiting to be pushed, but we have to get off our backsides and do the pushing ourselves. In this post I’m soliciting suggestions about where we can find the most useful levers. (Overseas readers are encouraged to contribute – how things work in your neck of the woods might suggest something useful about ours.)
In an earlier post on the ominous climate change policy signals out of the new government, Karen commented: Can we submit something? Start a petition? Idiot/ Morgue?
idiot replied: I expect the inquiry will be open to public submissions, and it might be worth drafting one. That’s good – but I want to take these ideas a bit further.
What can be done to steer John Key and his National government away from the harmful climate change denial of their ACT partners?
* start a petition and submit it to the new government
* make a submission to the inquiry, when it happens
* write a letter to Prime Minister-elect John Key or to other National MPs
? write a letter to the newspaper (:P)
? call your local MP and express your concern
? write a letter to a Ministry (which one?)
I am a total believer in the value of letters from members of the public.
Which are the best ideas in here in terms of delivering change? What am I missing?
In particular, it is worth noting that there is a very clear business incentive to pursue the Emissions Trading Scheme, as pointed out by Gareth at Hot Topic:
“The uncertainty created by the shelving of the current emissions trading scheme legislation is already having a significant impact on the New Zealand economy,” he writes, then details several examples. This should give us even more levers to push. We know that business leaders have the ear of National and ACT – can we put pressure on them with letters, for instance? Who would be worth writing to?
“Family First” On Another Planet
I posted last year about the so-called “anti-smacking bill” that removed the defence of reasonable force for those accused of assaulting their children. It passed, but proved to be a subject of great media controversy and is widely tipped as being the moment that the Labour government passed its use-by date.
The Children’s Commissioner (I love that we have a Children’s Commissioner) has just released a report, One year on: Public attitudes and New Zealand’s child discipline law (pdf, 190K). It found general support for the new law:
…participants were asked about their support for the new law… Those who were aware of the law change (n = 681) were asked to use a 0 to 10 scale (where 10 means ‘strongly support’) to rate how much they support or oppose the law change. A majority (43 percent) said they firmly support it (7-10 on the scale), scale), while 28 percent were firmly opposed (0-3 on the scale)
Of course, silly lobby group Family First were quick off the block with their response, which leads with this wackiness:
there is an 80% opposition to the anti-smacking law…
This is pretty much a straight denial of reality. FF asserts that this research is consistent with 80% opposition to the law change, when it plainly is not. On FF’s topsy-turvy planet, up is down, black is white, and 30% opposition is 80% opposition.
Of course, the NZPA exercised the proper function of journalists, and ran FF’s nonsense alongside the Children’s Commission study results for “balance”, because clearly Bob McCoskrie’s ravings are equivalent to an independent study published with full methodology and results.
In summary: go away Bob McCoskrie; and, thanks, media!
New Govt Down On Climate Change
John Key’s new National govt hasn’t even been sworn in and already the signs are bad for one of the most crucial policy areas. In the agreement with pseudo-Libertarians ACT Key and co. have agreed to put climate change responses on the table. For over a decade climate change legislation has been painfully ground out in the face of massive opposition from the Nats and ACT, and now that the Emissions Trading Scheme is finally in place they have committed to stalling it and reviewing it.
The ETS isn’t perfect, of course, but we can’t afford to start the process of building new climate change regulation from scratch. We need to get moving on this – not just for the sake of the environment, but as the world readies itself for post-Kyoto economics we’ll get seriously stung if we’re left behind. It’s the ideology tail wagging the pragmatic dog, here.
Most frustrating thing: ACT has put forward in its proposed select committee terms of reference that the scientific basis of climate change will itself be reviewed. Unsurprising from a party in the thrall of crank science and climate change denial, but it appeals to the same tendencies lurking beneath the surface throughout the National party. The idea of a select committee in the halls of government giving a platform for the shouting madmen of the NZ Climate “Science” Coalition fills me with dismay.
This could all go very badly for New Zealand.
With Great Power
Not good for the Greens
[The election bombardment will end soon, I promise…]
I was disappointed with the showing made by the Greens at this election. Given the general environmental crisis and the promise of support for Labour, leftie voters who were disillusioned with Labour should have had a natural home with the Greens. The departure of sadly controversial Green MP Nandor Tanczos would have dispelled some fears; the Green party has stood up for itself over the last three years, retaining independence from government but still able to enact smart legislation, and showing through the waste management bill and the “anti-smacking” bill (among others) that it could work broadly across the house. Add to this what everyone agrees was a wonderful campaign, and you have a political party that didn’t put a foot wrong.
And with all this, it still didn’t make it to 7%. Disaffected voters clearly wanted Labour out of government, so the Greens didn’t benefit from their desertion of Labour. The “anti-smacking” bill, rightly identified as the turning point for the nation’s support of Labour, cast a shadow over the Green party as well (and National, who had also supported the bill, somehow waltzed free without being tainted). The general resistance to “nanny state” (how I hate that term) caught the Greens as well, with their advocacy for a low-footprint lifestyle.
Is 7% as high as it’s ever going to get? Will the Green party always be this small? Co-leader and chief asset Jeanette will likely be gone next election, and what then? No other party is even close to taking the environmental crisis seriously. Heck, ACT have 5 MPs in government coalition and they’re led by someone who thinks climate change is a scam.
Perhaps this is it, then. I don’t know what they can do differently.
Green % vote at the last four elections:
2008: 6.43%
2005: 5.30%
2002: 7%
1999: 5.16%