Posts by George Darroch
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
In the midst of this, there are real stories. Not horror stories, just stories about how things were acceptable when they might otherwise have been pretty uncomfortable.
I think that the response of a proportion of the population cannot be characterised as anything other than "why aren't those beneficiaries suffering? How dare they live decent lives?".
It isn't about the good of anyone, it isn't about what's good for society - it's the need to feel like the money coming from their pockets is saving those receiving benefits from absolute privation, but not more.
-
The International Non-Aggression and the Lawful Use of Force Bill has been drawn (HT I/S), so with any luck I'll get to say that the National and ACT Party support illegal wars soon too.
-
I should also add that I think you've described the problem very well Jake.
-
I say all this not because I secretly support slavery and worship free trade, because I don't, but because it's an incredibly complex issue that in its modern form cannot be eradicated by 19th century means (i.e. by trade sanctions and naval power), which is what makes the first sentence of the bill so problematic.
I do think that applying such a remedy to a problem like this is always going to be challenging and incomplete. International law and work by the international community is going to have much greater effect.
It is also the he number of items imported made clearly under slave labour is likely to be very small indeed. It may be that those things banned starts out very small and then expands slightly over time.
But I'd rather an imperfect and incomplete regulatory instrument that forces us to examine the conditions under which things are made, rather than turning a blind eye - as has been and will be the case now. If we don't look for it, we won't see it.
-
I'm as hooked as anyone on cheap undies made in countries I know have less than ideal, to put it mildly, labour standards. Perhaps we all support slavery more than we'd like to own, George?
Yeah, I'm a hypocrite on that matter too. Most things I wear are made in China under conditions that are most likely worse than I'd ever endorse, and while I buy fair trade on occasion, I like to wear new socks.
Perhaps it's an out (it more than likely is), but I don't think that individual acts of consumer choice are going to change the fundamentals of our system.
-
I think it's fairer to compare the records on, in the case at hand, human rights and trade based on Labour in government vs. National in government, rather than arbitrarily resetting the clock as of last November.
You're absolutely right on that, and I agree with you. You won't often find me defending the human rights record of the last Government. The 17,000 signature petition was given to a Labour Government in 2005, and they didn't change the law in the 3 years afterwards. They should have.
Still, when you have an actual bill in front of you....
If the Government were to signal this week that they are going to in response draft a bill that was acceptable to them, and then put that through the house as a Government bill, then I'd take them at their word.
-
Of course sections 5 and 6 needed further definition, either through and explanatory note or through further subsections.
But put that definition in before the first reading, and you'd be accused of an unweildy and unworkeable bill, one that can't be salvaged and needs an entire rewrite. You'd invite partisanship, rather than constructiveness. So, putting forward something that at least only contains things that everyone can agree on seems like the way to do things to me. But what would I know, I clearly don't understand.
-
I can't see what's wrong with the bill. But I guess I'm not right-wing nor a politician, so what would I know.
-
More generally, given the commonalities between National and Labour when it comes to the imperatives of free trade, overlooking human rights issues in making a pact with China, etc., I would hesitate to climb on that particular high horse.
Labour is pretty much the even of National when it comes to sacrificing human rights on the altar of free trade. But Maryan's bill wasn't grandstanding - she actually believed in it, and so, apparently, did the Labour, Green, Maori, Anderton and Dunne parties, at least enough to vote for it.
As for UNCROC, NZ is a signatory to it, and to the two optional protocols. They haven't ratified the protocol on child pornography and trafficking, but that is because NZ's way of doing things is to only ratify when all the relevant parts are enforced in domestic law (something I have issues with (and I'm not sure what isn't illegal here), but that's how things are at the moment).
-
Oh, balls. Seriously. Put up a workable and enforceable law that's actually going to do a damn thing to end slavery, and I'll grant the point
No. National refused to engage with it by taking it to select committee, and that tell us all we need to know. They weren't interested in what was workable and enforceable - debating that was too much work.
And you know, it had potential to interfere with the absolute sovereignty of free international trade... Slavery is bad, m'kay, but interfering with trade is a far worse sin.