exclusive nonsesnse

What I don't get about the the Exclusive Brethren's exemption to labour laws is this:

If you run a business in New Zealand, it's safe to assume that you're going to have contact with people who you disagree with politically and religiously. Some of your employees and contractors will hold different beliefs, the employees of your suppliers are bound to be of different faiths - especially if you source raw materials offshore (i.e. China) - AND they're going to change as people leave. Customers in particular - regardless of whether you are a wholesaler or retailer - are going to be varied to a very strong degree.

So it's fine for the Church to insist that it's members not associate with outsiders, that they lobby (to outsiders) for laws allow for them to be treated above the law, but if they need to make money, all that doesn't matter. Preventing your followers from accessing modern civilisation while engaging in capitalist behaviour for the benefit of the Church is on par with with the plight of North Korea's citizens and the indulgences of Kim Jong-il.

I don't believe that the EB's pleas to get Union officials off their workplaces is about remaining separated from others. Sue Bradford quoted someone from the EB in her speech in favour of the law (Hat tip: RB):

Separation is maintained from all groups, unions or associations of a business, shareholding, property, political, pleasure, social, medical, or superannuational (sic) nature. We have found in Jesus a satisfaction nothing in this passing world can compare with. Additionally, we are also governed by the scriptures as to employing or being employed. There is special concern to maintain inviolate the direct employer to employee relationship.

Which is to say: our employee's aren't allowed to join unions, which of course would be illegal even for the EB. But for employees of small and medium businesses, it's extremely difficult to join a union. Mostly because unions don't have the resource to bargain collective agreements for a handfull of employees - compare Progressive stores (one company, unions are involved) to Foodstuffs stores (many owner operated companies, little union involvement) .

The EB isn't an organisation that has the betterment of it's members at it's core (see RB again), it's an organisation devoted to power, money and control of it's members. They're not in the politics game to protect their right to practice their religion. They're in it to advance their cult.

Section 24 of the ERA needs to be repealed - not becuase Labour wants to hit back at the EB - but because no group should be exempt from the law because of their beleifs.

marfat et prieur

Today the Supreme Court rejected a vexatious leave to appeal an Appeal Court decision bought by Alain Marfat and Dominique Prieur to prevent TVNZ from screening footage they recorded of the pair pleading guilty to the manslaughter of Fernando Pereira. The Supreme Court in delivering its verdict was very unimpressed in the appeal, summarising that

We have not been satisfied that this is a proper case to be heard by this Court, directed as it is to a discretionary decision which has already been reviewed and confirmed by the Court of Appeal. The decision below turned upon a balancing exercise that involved the application of settled criteria to the particular facts. This is a very unusual case, which, an appeal on the merits having been heard and determined by the Court of Appeal, no longer raises any question of general or public importance. We are satisfied that we would not be assisted on the question of leave by having an oral hearing. We are also far from persuaded that the Courts below have erred in their assessment, let alone that it is arguable that they were plainly wrong.

Which is the correct decision. That someone who has pleaded guilty to manslaughter (and being responsible for the attempted murder of 11 others, not to mention terrorism) can claim any rights to privacy is idiocy. I'd accept their augment if they were innocent - but to commit an act of espionage against a country whose only crime was to allow freedom of expression of its citizens and visitors is reprehensible. The pair - while possibly being only accessories to the crime - served only 2 years out of a 17 year sentence thanks to a UN negotiated release.

They got off light.

The least they can do is stop complaining. Ultimately Marfat or Prieur were not responsible for the decision to attack the Rainbow Warrior, but their Government. Their ludicrous action formed part of our history, and that is the most important reason why we should see those tapes.

The Supreme Court was right in dismissing the leave to appeal, which I feel is an example of the robustness of the newly formed institution. It's fantastic that their cases and decisions are available for anyone who cares to look. To have the Privy Council decide cases of national importance for New Zealand is silly today. I'm glad that they're getting a new building, and pleased that the plans are to create an impressive building to serve as the symbol of the institution as in other countries.

now with even more smut

This has to be the most bizarre month in NZ politics this century. Corruption, corrosion, the Brash affair, Peter Davis possibly kissing another man, Exclusive Brethren and screeds and screeds of nasty comments posted to blogs. It's enough to turn you off politics altogether.

Tonight on Campbell Live, private investigator Wayne Idour reversed his previous assertion that he hadn't been hired by the EB to poke around the Labour party. By proxy, he had - his interview with John Campbell corrected his error. Which wasn't much of a surprise - that the EB are a devious sect with little scruples in trying to sway elections they don't even vote in isn't shocking news to the public.

The interview did have two very interesting revelations though. First, that the EB member who ultimately hired Idour was responsible for leaking information on David Benson-Pope and David Parker. Moreover Idour and other private investigators he was working with have gathered dirt - possibly even evidence of illegal activity - on senior members of the Labour party including Michael Cullen and Helen Clark, in addition to 'information' about Peter Davis.

Secondly, Idour claimed that a "representative or supporter of the Labour Party" (Campbell's words) had instigated a PI to dig dirt on Don Brash and John Key - including rifling through Brash's trash.

I wish I had reason to disbelieve Idour, but it seems unlikely. *sigh* The PM has denied this, of course, but judging from what she said to Russel Brown at the Silver Scrolls on Wednesday I'm not so sure:

I said hello to her as she left.
"Interesting week in politics," I said.
"There's more to come," she said.
I don't doubt it.

Neither do I.

So it's going to get worse before it gets better. If it ever gets better. Nobody has lost their job yet - either from pushing scandal or being the scandal, but I suspect that's what it'll take before it winds up.

Keith Ng has a brilliant interview with Rodney Hide and Russel Norman around the issue. Worth a look.