Troubled waters on foreshore and seabed ahead

One issue that will come up soon is the Maori Party’s private members bill to repeal the Forshore and Seabed Act. If National votes for the Bill, along with the Maori Party, Greens, and Act, who are expected to vote for the repeal, it will have the numbers to go to select comittee (asuming Copeland votes with National). Andrey Young has a good editorial about National’s choices in the NZ Herald. There are significent advantages to National in voting the bill to select comittee, such as a defeat for Labour on such a big issue will be embarassing for Labour, giving the appearance of it having lost control of the House, it will remind Maori swing voters of the issue and take support away from Labour and give it to the Maori Party , and it will significently improve relations between National and the Maori Party, something important for National given its lack of potential coalition partners. It will also prevent labour gaining Maori votes by having the Maori party look like a failure. there are some big downsides to National suporting it, as it will look like National is taking the scab of a healing wound and bringing up the issue for political gain, and a vote to give Maori control of the forshore and seabed will be seen as a betrayl by those who voted National to support the “one law for all” policy. there is also the arguement that National should keep the forshore and seabed card until after the election, if national needs to play it to get a coalition with the Maori Party, instead of now, when both parties are in opposition. Voting for the Bill could be seen as the option with the most gain, but most risk involved, whereas voting against, which National will probably do, is the safer choice.

UPDATE (17 July):  If I were a National MP, I would advocate the middle ground of abstention, which carries all the advantages of  voting against it does, plus it will help improve relations between National and the Maori Party more than voting against it will. It looks like National have decided otherwise.

Death to Islamofascism

In Salient, Lindsay Perigo, has written a opinon piece about Islamic fundamentalism, which he labbels “Islamofascism”. Perigo doesn’t mince his words, describing the Islamic Fundamentalist iodeology of hate for what it is, describing them as:
squalid savages, these bigoted barbarians, these hysterical humanity-haters, these tawdry terrorists, these god-ridden grotesques, these ignoble ignoramuses, these genocidal jihadists”. Although the rheotic of Perigo may be harsh, it quite accurately describes a ideology of hate which glorifies violence and advocates genocide for what it is. And my and perigos rheotic is far more moderate than the people were describing, who carry placards denouncing the Danish cartoons saying “behead those who insult Islam” and “the hell with freedom”. Whats more distirbing than the placards is their willingness to practise what they preach, by bombing ordinary western civilians and flying planes into buildings.The article provides a response to this ideology of hate: Human beings worthy of the title must rise up worldwide and shout in irreversable unison: “Enough of this primoridal primitivism! We who are civilised are revolted by it and shall rebuff it at every turn1” Muslaims must discover rationality and decency; westerners must rediscover them, and as a matter of urgency, speak up for them!.