Tuesday, September 11, 2007

No property rights thanks, we're Tories


I recently challenged National Party supporters who swear their party is principled to tell readers the top ten ways in which Labour-Lite will roll back the state and promote freedom. I received a predictably tepid response.

So what are their principles worth? Are there any they'll stand up for? Any at all?

You can now definitely rule out property rights.

Their response to Gordon Copeland, promoter of a private members bill to include property rights in the Bill of Rights, demonstrates that property rights are still of no interest whatsoever to the party that introduced the Resource Management Act: Under Don Brash National supported the bill on its first reading, but under the mealy-mouthed flip-flopper they've now told Copeland they've changed their mind. Says Copeland, whose stand on this is worthy of respect and support:
“Even Sir Geoffrey Palmer, known as the father of the New Zealand Bill of Rights, has publicly stated that the omission of private property rights from the NZBOR was a mistake.”

“Until I was advised to the contrary this morning, I had repeatedly been assured by the National Party that they would be supporting the Bill. I am therefore very disappointed that they have whimped out in this way.”

“To rub salt into the wounds, they have the audacity to continue to claim that their Party ‘strongly support property rights’. Yeah right! Where is that Tui billboard ad?”
Comfirming then that John Key is happy to lend his support to enact Sue Bradford's private member's bill to ban smacking, "would not oppose" Cindy Kiro's proposal that the state monitor all children, but is not interested in any way at all in offering to back a private member's bill asserting the importance of property rights protection.

Roll back the state? Promote freedom? Don't make me laugh.

And how many of you reading this will still lend your support to the spineless, pink, pathetic Tory bastards. If you see a National MP today then spit in their face. It's all the bastards deserve.

REF: Copeland's original bill is here. The report from the Justice and Electoral select committee is here [pdf]. No friend of property rights, Idiot/Savant summarises what he somewhat broadly calls "Copeland's attempt to establish Libertarianism by stealth," and what Copeland calls more accurately "an issue of ... central important to the functioning of western civilisation":
The bill would have inserted two clauses into the BORA - one affirming a right to own property, and the other that no-one was to be deprived of the "use or enjoyment" of their property without just compensation. While being supportive of the idea behind the bill, the committee thought that it was vague, would have a profound impact on existing legislation, and impose unknown costs on central and local government. Which was of course the point...
UPDATE: What respect is there for property rights from NZ's two leading parties? Answer: zero. The National Socialists' backdown shows they have none. And Copeland demonstrates that in refusing their support, neither does the Clark Government.
Some of the Government’s opposition to my Bill stems from the belief that it could complicate the legal interpretation of property rights in relation to the Resource Management Act 1991.” [He sure got that right]

All of this represents a fundamental repositioning of the Labour Party which should concern all New Zealanders. Their interest now is in protecting the Crown against litigation rather than protecting the private property rights of the citizens of New Zealand against the intrusion of the State.
See Copeland's statement here at Scoop: Disappointment at Govt Stance on Property Rights - Copeland.

Labels: , , , , , ,

10 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, appalling. I've grown to despise National under Key.

Thanks for all the links especially, Peter, I can get myself up to date over the coming weekend.

Mark Hubbard

9/11/2007 03:05:00 pm  
Anonymous George said...

The words 'spineless and 'without principle' are now firmly assocciated with John Key in my book.

9/11/2007 04:18:00 pm  
Blogger Elijah Lineberry said...

This is just typical of them.

I pointed out their statist tax and spend behaviour on your previous discussion on the matter and really feel their lack of principle may see Mrs Davis re-elected next year.

9/11/2007 05:26:00 pm  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

Property rights in our Bill of Rights = Essential.

9/11/2007 08:56:00 pm  
Blogger libertyscott said...

It simply proves the Nats do not deserve to govern by themselves from 2008 (well not at all, but conceding that).

Why would anyone be a member of the National Party unless you simply wanted to run other people's lives? What philosophical basis causes you choose a party that has at its core a whore like attitude to philosophy?

I know what Labour stands for - fundamentally it believes that the state is a force for good and should be driven to redistribute income and change people's behaviour through force - one way or another. It isn't ashamed of going along with this.

National's only belief is that it believes that Labour shouldn't be the government - it doesn't fundamentally challenge anything Labour believes in.

9/12/2007 01:46:00 am  
Anonymous LGM said...

Come on guys! Who really believed that the National Socialists were anything other than a gang of unprincpled statist thugs? I mean seriously. Did anyone really believe they had changed their spots?

LGM

9/12/2007 06:16:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

National has never been all that different to Labour...I think you romanticise how National was under Brash.

We all know you hate Key for a variety of reasons - well he has given you a tremendous opening here to turn your dislike into something positive - votes for your party. However, positioning yourself as a protest vote against Key (which you seem to be doing), won't cut it.

I firmly believe the good aspects of the National party (the belief in balanced budgets and sensible tax policy, free trade etc) are still there.

I also believe that John Key does not want his party to be discredited for the next quarter century by religious nuts (Copeland being one), and he continues to be very careful about who he aligns himself with.

9/12/2007 07:45:00 am  
Anonymous George said...

anonymous. What aspect of religious nuttery can you see in Copeland's amendment? Is it because he thinks it wrong to steal?

9/12/2007 09:07:00 am  
Anonymous Sus said...

Ruth: John Key doesn't need to worry about the possibility of others 'discrediting' him. He's doing it well himself.

9/12/2007 09:55:00 am  
Anonymous LGM said...

Well at least we know that under a regime of the National Socialists the camp budgets will balance. yahoo!

9/12/2007 10:00:00 am  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home