The Post reports:

A select committee has been warned today that a satire and parody exception to copyright laws, if approved, could more easily allow AI companies to exploit NZ creatives’ work.

New Zealand’s creative industries have strong reservations about a new bill that will allow people the free use of copyright-protected material for social commentary – in part because the bill completely ignores AI, the main way copyright infringements happen these days.

This is a red herring. The bill doesn’t allow AI copyright infringement. It merely gives an exception for the very limited categories of parody and satire.

But the day’s main submitter against the bill, Paula Browning, executive director of WeCreate, said New Zealand should learn more from overseas examples before passing its own version. WeCreate is an alliance of 40 of the country’s major creative industries associations, representing 30,000 creatives across the screen, book publishing, music, performing arts and digital production industries.

They oppose anything which is not copyright maximalist. Just ignore them.

The Wellington Community Fund received $44 million in 1996 from the sale of Trust Bank. In the past it has funded many great initiatives such as Zealandia. But sadly today Zealandia would not get any support, as the trustees (mainly appointed by the last Government) have decided that 95% of their grants must go to Maori groups, climate action orgs or to Pacific peoples, Middle Eastern, Latin American or African groups.

There is a pattern with all these trusts that got funded by the sale of Trust Bank. They have all gone from broadly funding all worthwhile community activities, to only funding those that fit their self imposed criteria of disadvantage and exclusion. And it’s not that they are say putting 25% or even 45% of their funds towards those groups – they are doing close to 100%.

Maybe it is time to wind up the trusts, and just give the funds to every household in the region.

The Law Commission has now done a final report into hate crime law, and their recommendations are not to try and criminalise more New Zealanders. Their recommendations include:

• better processes for recording if an offence includes a hostility of hate motivation (this is already a factor in sentencing)
• Sex is included as a a group characteristic along the existing ones of race, colour, nationality, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, or disability. Was bizarre that gender but not sex was listed, so a good fix.
• New Zealand Police should publish data on reported hate crimes annually.
• Ministry of Justice should publish court data on hate crime cases annually.

So rather than include a new category of crime, which could be quite subjective, they have just focused on improving the current law which already allows hatred of a group to be an aggravating factor at sentencing. A good outcome.

  

Scott Simpson announced:

New Zealanders will have access to monthly inflation data from July 2027 as part of a major upgrade to the country’s economic statistics, Statistics Minister Scott Simpson says.

“Moving to monthly Consumers Price Index (CPI) reporting is one of the biggest improvements to New Zealand’s economic statistics in decades.

“Instead of waiting three months to understand how prices are changing, New Zealanders, businesses and decision-makers will have access to monthly updates. That means better-informed household, business and government decisions,” Mr Simpson says.

This is a small but significant change. Three months is too long to wait for inflation data. Most countries have monthly inflation updates, so good we will also.

Three bills drawn from the Ballot are:

• Crimes (Offence of Failing to Report Child Harm) Amendment Bill. This bill by National MP Andrew Bayly makes it a criminal offence to know child abuse is occurring and not report it to the Police.Maximum sentence three years. Sadly needed.
• Building (Energy Efficient Office Buildings) Amendment Bill. This bill by Labour MP Rachel Brooking mandates energy performance rating requirements for office buildings. Worth supporting to select committee as it does not regulate a minimum standard (which could cost a lot) but just requires transparency over how energy efficient a building is.
• Accident Compensation (Extended Cover for FENZ Personnel) Amendment Bill. This bill by Labour MP Kieran McAnulty basically extends ACC cover to volunteer firefighters. May have fishhooks but also worth supporting to select committee.

The Taxpayers’ Union has released a report showing who pays tax in NZ. The findings include:

• The top 20 percent pay nearly two-thirds of all personal income tax
• The top 10 percent pay 45%, which is more than the bottom 80 percent combined
• The top 1 percent pay 14%, which is more than the entire bottom half of taxpayers
• 46,939 taxpayers pay more income tax than 2.35 million people combined
• The top quintile of income earners pay 35% of GST and the bottom quintile 10%
• The top decile of income earners pay more GST than the bottom 30% of income earners
• The bottom decile pay an average 10.4% tax rate and the top decile an average 29.6% tax rate
• The top decile pays 3,814 times more tax than the bottom decile
• The top 1% of earners pay an average of $177k in tax while the bottom 50% pay an average of $2,298.

We already have a highly progressive tax system. Those who claim it isn’t are ignoring the facts.

  

The Post reports:

Prominent blogger Martyn Bradbury says he will be appearing in court on Tuesday over posts on his website The Daily Blog, adding that he is “prepared to to go prison for free speech”.

Bradbury – who is widely known as “Bomber” for his bombastic speaking style – wrote on his website that four of his blog posts had been “censored” and he was facing a possible fine or even a prison sentence of six months.

“We can’t tell you who is doing this, we can’t tell why it’s being done, we can’t tell you how it’s being done, and we can’t tell you what has been censored,” he wrote.

“I want everyone involved in this to be made public, because Free Speech issues like this are definitely in the public interest.”

The first I knew of this was when I saw a tweet about this on Sunday. Up until then I had no idea Bradbury had HDCA proceedings against him, who took them, or what they are about.

As details are suppressed, there is a limit to what one can say, but I would make the following general points.

1. The HDCA is well-intentioned but flawed legislation. There have been quite a few cases where it has been used to suppress or prevent legitimate criticism. I have had first hand experience with the HDCA as a content host where a dispute between a reader and a commenter tied me up in months of HDCA proceedings. So I think the HDCA needs to be significantly reformed.
2. People have the right to take an HDCA case, even if they are a critic of the HDCA. Just as I will take my NZ Superannuation at age 65, even though I think it should be means tested. Whether someone is justified in taking a HDCA case is dependent on the facts of the case – basically what was said, were requests made for it to be removed, what was the response etc. As details are supressed it is impossible to know how justified the HDCA case was or is.
3. As a general rule I am against name suppression of parties involved in an HDCA case. Sure there may be a good reasons to suppress the complained about material (as the point of HDCA is to have it removed, not amplified), but the public should know who is using the HDCA against whom. I have sympathy for Bradbury that he seemingly can’t reveal anything at all about the case. There may be a case for suppression of some details, but suppression of everything is rarely justified. Likewise ex parte applications should rarely (if ever) be granted by the Court without hearing from the person complained about. This is again why the HDCA needs reform.
4. If the Court makes a ruling that content is harmful, it is very very unwise to refuse to obey the Court, as that is contempt of court. If the Court makes a bad HDCA ruling, you should appeal it, not ignore it. When I was dragged into an HDCA fight between two people, I always complied promptly with the court orders, even when I strongly disagreed with them. I argued vigorously why I thought an order was too wide and harmful to me. Sometimes I won, sometimes I didn’t. You don’t get to pick and choose once an order is made.

The latest IPSOS poll is anything but good reading for National with Labour favoured to better manage 9 of the top 11 issues – including Education. The respondents are wrong on Education as there is incremental progress at present. Much more should be being done in a range of ways but it is not the same level of disaster created by Hipkins and Tinetti.

Each year I do a data process that includes every high school in NZ across a range of measures based on their leavers data. I am about to get the raw data to do that work. Some full system data is now available and I am really happy to say that there have been improvements.

Some important information is contained in the introduction to the data on Education Counts.

“The attainment of an upper secondary school qualification is linked to labour force status and income levels. Modelling done by the Ministry in 2024 of earnings at age 30 showed income premiums for those attaining a Level 2 qualification, a Level 3 qualification or for meeting the requirements for University Entrance (UE). These were around $10,000 higher for learners with a Level 2 or Level 3 qualification and $23,000 higher for learners with UE compared to those with no qualifications. The findings from the modelling were also consistent with other Ministry research showing adults with no qualifications earned almost 20% less in weekly income and around 12% less in hourly earnings than those with school qualifications.

Every year around 60,000 young people leave school and face choices about what to do next. Not being in employment, further education, or training (NEET) affects around 30% of school leavers overall in the first year after they finish school. School leavers who leave school without at least NCEA Level 2 are more likely to be in this group – almost 50% for leavers with only NCEA Level 1 and almost 70% for leavers with no qualification, compared to around one-third for leavers with NCEA Level 2.”

Overall School Leavers Results

	Peak %	2024 %	2025 %
L1 NCEA	90.2 (2017)	84.8	85.2
L2 NCEA	82.2 (2020)	76.9	77.8
L3 NCEA or Above	60.6 (2020)	56.3	59
University Entrance	43.6 (2020)	40.8	42.8

By Ethnicity (2025)

	Asian %	European %	Pasifika %	Maori %
L1 NCEA	93	86.5	82	74.3
L2 NCEA	88.4	79.5	73.5	63.3
L3 NCEA or Above	75.8	59.7	53.2	41.4
University Entrance	63.7	45.1	27.3	21.7

By Gender (2025)

	Female %	Male %
L1 NCEA	86.1	84.3
L2 NCEA	79.3	76.3
L3 NCEA or Above	63.4	54.8

By Socio-Economic Risk Factors 2025

(NB: With no obvious logic the Ministry of Education breaks the Equity Index range for schools into 7 parts with approximately the same number of students in each. To twist things a little more – the lowest EQI schools are labelled “Fewest” meaning low numbers of “at risk” students, “below average” means not too many at risk students, “above average” means quite a lot of them.)

	L3 NCEA or Above %
Fewest	85.8
Few	74.7
Below Average	65.3
Average	55.3
Above Average	53.2
Many	49.6
Most	39.2

A LONG way to go – especially re ethnicity gaps and the huge range over socio-economics – but clearly the change in trend direction is a positive.

ps: The people on Education Counts (as a part of the Ministry of Education) are outstanding and always good to deal with.

[email protected]

The Post reports:

Colin McCahon, Goldie, Don Binney: Impoverished councils around New Zealand are sitting on a $1.1 billion art goldmine, much of it unseen by public eyes.

I’m not against there being local art galleries and the like. Art is an important part of our culture. But I was staggered that the total value of art owned by councils is over $1 billion. I assumed it would be say $100 million at most.

Also the vast majority of the art is not available to the public. In Auckland the art gallery can only display 2.4% of its collection at a time.

It is worth remembering this when Councils claim they need massive rates increases to fund critical infrastructure.

The Spinoff asks:

Why is the Free Speech Union suddenly so involved in the Medical Council?

I’m pretty sure the FSU would rather have never heard of the Medical Council. But when regulatory bodies start imposing political litmus tests, where only people with approved left wing views are allowed to be doctors, lawyers, nurses etc – well then of course the FSU will get interested and involved.

  

Stuff reports:

An effigy of Foreign Minister Winston Peters was put through a mock guillotine in central Auckland on Saturday as protesters demanded Prime Minister Christopher Luxon sack him over his “go back to your own country” remarks in Parliament.

The Migrant Workers Association of Aotearoa staged what it described as “political satire and theatre” on Saturday, following Peters’ controversial remarks to Chinese-born Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Peters has condemned the protest, describing it as “not political satire” but “a call for violence”.

I recall during the Covid-19 protests, there were sometimes placards that called for Nuremberg hearings against the then PM, which were implicitly a call for executions. They led to scores and scores of stories where all political leaders were asked to condemn them etc, and numerous other stories where it was held up as a sign of extremism.

Now doing an actual mock execution is a step up from that. Also this wasn’t a couple of rogue actors. This was advertised as happening by the organisers of the protest. It was sanctioned by their leadership.

So I would expect media to be doing the following:

• Finding out if any election candidates or MPs were in the audience, and vigorously questioning them over whether their attendance was an implicit endorsement of the mock execution
• Asking party leaders if they condemn the mock execution etc
• Checking who is behind the Migrants Workers Association, their funders, their leaders and asking them all if they stand by what happened
• Asking all political parties if they will refuse to meet or attend MWA representatives due to their actions with the mock execution

This is after all the approach the media took to the Covid-19 protesters.

A guest post by Gary Benner:

I received a report on the Strategy 2022-2026 Review for the InternetNZ Board, and noted one paragraph that has me somewhat bemused, befuddled, and a little concerned.

The Board reviewed the success of the prior Strategy 2022-2026, which was named Niho Taniwha, noting significant cultural and organisational transformation has been achieved. The Board acknowledged the courageous values involved in conducting the systemic racism review and the successful transition to our new Strategy 2026-2031, the adoption of Te Korowai o Ipurangi Aotearoa, and our guiding values, Ngā Uara.

There are two Board positions coming up for election shortly, and the report further noted:

“The Board reviewed progress for the 2026 Elections and Annual General Meeting (AGM) noting that nominations for the two board member positions have opened, approved the Returning Officer, discussed the safety of board member candidates and the provisions for voting at the AGM.

I am also intrigued as to the focus on “safety of board member candidates”, something that I wonder why that would be of any concern here in New Zealand. So I did what any red-blooded IT Professional would do, and researched what our fellow nations consider strategic goals for the Internet in their country: “Internet governance at the national level involves a mix of technical coordination (e.g., infrastructure, standards), policy/regulatory frameworks (cybersecurity, data protection, content moderation), economic strategies (digital economy, innovation), and geopolitical aims (sovereignty, influence).” Common elements across a wide range of different governing styles include:

• Emerging Focus: AI governance, data flows, critical infrastructure resilience, and digital public infrastructure (especially India/Brazil).
• Cybersecurity: Universal priority, addressed via regulation (EU), partnerships/offense (US), or isolation/control (Russia/China).
• Regulation Style: EU — comprehensive ex-ante rules. US — lighter-touch with market incentives. China — top-down state directives. Others hybrid.
• Sovereignty vs. Openness: China and Russia prioritize strong state control and potential decoupling. The US and EU emphasize openness with safeguards. India and Brazil seek balanced sovereignty with rights and inclusion.

Meanwhile back in New Zealand (where “back” is the operative term) our Board seem to be caught up using the funding and status of the organisation to undertake a left-wing ideological campaign. For the uninitiated: Te Korowai o Ipurangi Aotearoa is the guiding strategy and vision for InternetNZ that embeds the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi into how they operate. It ensures their mahi (work) actively supports digital equity and partnership with Māori across the New Zealand internet ecosystem. Niho Taniwha (teeth of the taniwha) is a traditional Māori pattern—often seen in tukutuku panels—that serves as the visual framework for their strategic plan and reporting. It symbolizes strength, connection, lineage, and intergenerational learning, grounding InternetNZ’s goals in Māori culture and community impact. Are we seeing a pattern here? We need to see elected on to this Board two more people with a technology focus, without the trappings of the cultural mind virus.

The Free Press has a great read about how devastating the trial that prince Harry initiated against the media was for him.

• An 11 week trial costing 67 million pounds
• All of his 97 allegations were rejected as unfounded, relying on suspicion over proof
• He insisted his social circles never sold him out, despite text messages showing him berating his friends because “one of your mates. . . has gossiped.”
• He claimed his staff never briefed reporters, yet the court was shown palace emails with them doing exactly that.
• Harry stood up and claimed during the trial that he would not “share private information with strangers around a campfire,” referring to a story reported about his feelings for his ex-girlfriend Chelsy Davy, only for the defense to point out he had described himself doing exactly that, in vivid detail, in his memoir, Spare.
• Under oath, Harry swore to the court that he had met Charlotte Griffiths exactly once at a weekend party, before cutting contact the moment he realized she was a journalist. He dismissively branded her a “liar” and a “fantasist” for arguing otherwise, but she had proof. But Facebook messages between Harry and Griffiths were released to the public, meaning we now know in cringe-inducing detail about the “movie snuggles” that the Prince shared with the journalist. We also know he messaged her for weeks after enjoying what she describes as a “fun weekend of naughtiness.”
• The trial laid bare how, over a decade later, Harry and Meghan’s communications adviser would contact Griffiths to feed her positive stories about the exiled pair. After Griffiths splashed the positive stories on the front page of the Mail, “sources close to the Sussexes” would then brief The Daily Telegraph to say that they were “very frustrated” that the stories had ended up in the Mail.
• But whatever Harry’s motive, it’s proof that he was orchestrating at least some of the leaks he complained about

He’s lucky he wasn’t done for perjury I’d say.

  

A guest post by Owen Jennings:

Our neighbours lost their home to a fire.  There was no fire brigade in our small district. It was devastating and took a huge emotional toll as well as massive inconvenience.  It was, however, the motivation to form a volunteer brigade and obtain a used vehicle suitable for a rural locality.

It became one of 300 rural fire brigades – some community volunteer groups, some council run, some run by DOC and some forestry run.  They were by no means a homogenous group.  While there was a regulated framework they operated in, it was done in a fragmented and variable manner.  Rural brigades involve some 11,000 volunteers who are usually committed, rightly proud of their community contribution but who often feel neglected or ignored at Wellington level.

Peter Dunne, back in 2012, decided there were problems that needed fixing.  A typical interfering politician he insisted on a review and then designed a reformed organisation that tried to amalgamate the various parts of fire and emergency work. It was birthed in 2017.

It has been a failure, an abject failure.  Only a miracle means the failure hasn’t resulted in greater losses – lives, buildings, property.  

At board level the new organisation, Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) was chaired by Paul Swain.  It was clearly a ‘job for the boys’ appointment.  There was the token Māori appointment. A bean counter and the inevitable lawyer.  To say the initial board under-performed is a huge understatement.  Boards appointed since have not done any better.  The country is paying a high price for DEI and political appointments.

Management has been disastrous and at the last time they were under scrutiny looked even devious being deliberately deceptive answering questions.  It is fair to say the organisation is a horrible mess that will take a decade to retrieve and create normality.

Problems include governance and leadership failure, confused accountability, poor strategic direction, mismanagement at the top levels, delays in deploying new equipment, procurement problems, loss of senior staff because of incompetence, gross overspending, breakdown in relationships, harassment claims, poor financial control, cost overruns and a great deal more.  In fact, its hard to find an area of activity in the organisation that hasn’t been screwed over.

A ‘tip of the iceberg’ issue emerged when it was shown senior management hired a PR outfit for $90,000 to try and hide their lack of performance at just one public outing.

Of more concern is the purchase of 30 trucks in 2017 that have never done an hour’s work.  All a bit hard to believe but the 30 trucks made in the UK had to be shipped back for repairs and now nine years later still haven’t been used.

Another 30 trucks ordered in 2019 had to be returned because of cracked chassis issues.  These trucks can easily exceed $1 million each in cost.  FENZ will not give any buy price information.

Mainstream media don’t cover much of these shenanigans.  It would show up DEI appointments.

Meanwhile services in most rural areas are in poor order with old, regularly-breaking-down trucks. Training is in disarray.  Volunteerism is abused with irritating issues like slow reimbursements, difficult admin problems.  The urban/rural divide animosity persists. Paperwork and rules have increased but recognition has not.

There has only been a marginal improvement in urban fire fighting services.  Too many areas remain under-performing.

It’s a disaster story going back over ten years.  It will be interesting to find whether the current Select Committee that is nearly completed questioning FENZ hierarchy will offer an improved road ahead.  National’s Tim Costley has been doing a good job of putting heat on senior FENZ officials who have less than helpful and cooperative.  

Certainly, change is urgently needed in what is an essential and important agency,

Sky News Australia reports:

Enter the Women Unlimited Leadership Summit, featuring a cameo from the former New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern. …

VIP tickets at $4,499 – a little over the national average monthly mortgage payment to listen to a failed leader talk about a subject of which she is totally ignorant. …

The Australian Tax Office spent $10,029 on tickets, the Department of Defence and the Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security spent $13,371 each, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water spent $15,385 – and the gong for wasteful spending goes to the Australian Signals Directorate torching a whopping $28,975 to learn how to disrespect citizens and suppress their basic rights.

To be fair I’d rather Australian taxpayers fund a Jacinda love fest, than NZ taxpayers!

A guest post by a reader:

As a small island nation in an increasingly volatile global landscape, New Zealand faces two growing pressures: persistent economic headwinds and escalating geopolitical friction in the Indo-Pacific. While our default approach has been to maintain status quo diplomacy and steady trade policy, it is worth asking a bold, fundamental question: Is our current trajectory serving us, or is it time to consider radical integration?

This paper explores the case for New Zealand voluntarily seeking integration as the 51st state of the United States.

1. Unlocking Economic Scale & Prosperity

New Zealand’s economy is fundamentally constrained by scale, distance, and low productivity growth. Becoming part of the world’s largest economy would immediately transform our economic reality:

• Direct Access to Capital: Seamless integration into U.S. markets would eliminate bilateral trade friction, foreign investment barriers, and tariffs, triggering massive capital inflow into NZ infrastructure, tech, and agriculture.
• Currency and Purchasing Power: Adopting a global reserve currency would shield Kiwi households from import inflation and currency volatility, significantly boosting domestic purchasing power.
• Higher Wage Trajectories: Alignment with U.S. labor markets and corporate structures would drive wage parity upward over time, tackling the chronic “brain drain” of talent leaving for Australia and beyond.

2. Unrivaled Security in a Restless Indo-Pacific

Our defense network relies on partnerships, but our actual military footprint remains small. As tension builds across the Pacific, reliance on soft power alone presents growing risk:

• The Ultimate Security Guarantee: Formal statehood extends full U.S. constitutional defense protection, turning the South Pacific into an absolute security zone.
• Strategic Infrastructure: NZ would become a primary naval and air force hub in the Southern Hemisphere, bringing billions in U.S. defense sector investment and modernization to local bases.

3. Preserving Local Governance (The Federal Model)

The most common objection to integration is the fear of losing national identity. However, under the U.S. federal structure:

• State Sovereignty Remains Intact: Just as Hawaii or Alaska maintain distinct cultures and local laws, New Zealand would retain its own state governor, state legislature, and local laws over internal matters.
• Representation at the Highest Level: NZ would gain two seats in the U.S. Senate and proportional representation in the House of Representatives, giving Kiwis a direct vote on global policy, international treaties, and federal spending.

4. Cultural Continuity & Everyday Life

Integration does not require abandoning everyday Kiwi life. Under the U.S. federal framework, individual states retain broad authority over local customs and administrative choices:

• Road Rules & Driving Side: Road regulations are determined exclusively at the state level. New Zealand could legally retain left-hand driving and metric speed limits (km/h) without federal interference.
• Weather & Everyday Standards: Local media and broadcast networks would continue using Celsius (alongside Fahrenheit for U.S.-wide contexts), balancing local familiarity with national integration.
• Language & Education: Because the U.S. has no mandated federal official language, educational standards and official spelling conventions would adapt organically over time while preserving regional identity.

5. How Healthcare Would Work (The Policy Detail)

In the U.S. federal system, individual states have broad authority to run their own state-funded healthcare programs alongside federal ones (Medicare/Medicaid). For example, Hawaii passed its own state universal healthcare mandate back in 1974, and Massachusetts built its own state coverage model in 2006.

So New Zealand could absolutely maintain a state-funded, universal healthcare system funded by state taxes while being part of the U.S.

Conclusion: Starting the Conversation

This proposal is not about diminishing our history or identity—it is about securing our future prosperity and survival in a changing world order. Incremental policy tweaks will not solve New Zealand’s long-term economic isolation. It is time to seriously debate what full integration could offer the next generation of New Zealanders.

  

Sad to note the passing of Jim Hopkins. I had met him a few times at political retreats, and he was a hugely intelligent and entertaining guy.

Lianne Dalziel has a nice tribute that captures him well:

I often used to travel to Oamaru for the North Canterbury IHC debate. It was always a great event because of the extraordinary energy and wit that Jim brought to the occasion every single time.

He was incredible. I would watch in awe as he scribbled notes on a few pieces of paper just before taking to the stage to mesmerise the audience as he did year in year out. It seemed so effortless, and his sense of the absurd was infectious.

He was a natural talent. I also recall him taking part in celebrity debates and bringing the house down.

There are many people who will remember Jim in this role as a debater, or as a broadcaster, writer, MC, or raconteur, but this was not all by any means. His time as a councillor, first for Banks Peninsula and then for Oamaru, showed his true spirit. Behind the showman was someone with a deep passion for people and place, the essence of what makes a community.

And that was Jim: a deeply committed community advocate, who stood up for what mattered and what he believed in.

He was also a man of quite deep and philosophical political convictions, and was indeed committed to serving the community.

By Lucy Rogers

More factions in the anti-Israel movement in Aotearoa include (a) antizionist Jews and (b) communists. I think the reasons that these factions hate Israel overlap with those of leftwing postmoderns articulated in part 1 of this series: it involves hatred of “the system” and Western culture, even though Israel is not a Western country. In the case of communists in general, the reasons for this are obvious.

As for antizionist Jews, however: I suspect that this demographic are disproportionately the descendants of Holocaust survivors, and that in a proportion of survivors trauma is so extreme that it manifests in counterintuitive ways. I am thinking of for example someone like Norman Finkelstein, himself a Jewish man whose parents survived the Warsaw Ghetto, who went on to argue that the Holocaust death toll of 5-6 million Jews was grossly exaggerated by the “Holocaust grievance industry” to justify supposed Israeli atrocities.

Finkelstein is by the way a favourite amongst a faction in the anti-Israel movement in Auckland I would describe as “classical antisemites”, because given his parentage his good faith is considered to be beyond argument. I think this is flawed reasoning, because it overlooks the possible impact of generational trauma.

I suspect that survivors of the concentration camps were confronted with such a degree of evil that they and their children could not accept that the world is incapable of change. Trauma drove them to the point that they had to believe that it is possible for human beings to avoid a recurrence of the Holocaust. In turn, that drove a proportion of them into utopian movements like communism, or in a milder form hostility to “the system”, just like leftwing postmoderns. (Antizionist Jews do not identify as “white”, but I think they see sufficient cultural similarities between themselves and Europeans for the ethnicities involved to trigger off the need to pathologise everything Israel does.)

I add in passing that as a Christian, I agree with this impulse, but that our answer is different. The answer of the Christian faith is that Christ died not just to suffer the penalty for our sins but also to supernaturally transform human hearts and change us into better people through reorienting our lives towards Him. Then, in the world to come, God will rid the world of sin and evil, and everyone lives happily ever after.

Not every antizionist Jew is as extreme as Norman Finkelstein, and of course within any demographic people’s motivations are diverse. It is important not to generalise. I think intellectual arrogance is another factor influencing the more communist-inclined antizionist Jews. (Communism has rightly been described as “the disease of the intellectual”.)

I also think that people on all ends of the political spectrum (not just antizionist Jews) seek approval from their peers, and that leftwing postmoderns see having antizionist Jews on board as useful to prove that their own views on Israel couldn’t possibly be intellectually dishonest. (See for example Asher Wilson-Goldman’s appointment as a Green Party candidate.) That means there is significant social incentive for some Jewish people to express unbalanced views on Israel.

Antizionist Jews are a tragic case. There is a significant part of me which feels very deep sympathy for people who have been driven to this point after experiencing horrors that Kiwis living in the 21^st century can’t really imagine. I try not to judge, and I try to remember that intellectual honesty versus intellectual dishonesty is not a binary thing, and that people have genuine criticisms of Israel in good faith. But it is easy to say that in the abstract, when you’re not having to deal with one of these people standing in front of screaming at you, face contorted with hatred. Or when they attempt to drive you out of your job, as with Stephen Rainbow.

I have with my own eyes seen a member of an NZ-based antizionist Jewish group say on social media that she couldn’t really understand what was so bad about Stalin. I think somewhere very deep down she knows how evil he was, but she cannot accept that because it would mean abandoning her hope for a better world. I feel sad for her: I am told by people who know her that she is a lovely person.

Trauma might go some way to explaining how people get to where they’re at, but at the end of the day, we’re talking in some cases about people who are prepared to murder their political opponents. Understanding how they got there is different from it being justified. People who are so damaged that they are prepared to murder their political opponents do not come out of nowhere: the Nazi concentration camp guards will also have their own stories.

That is also not to say that all antizionist Jews are that extreme, of course: however in my view their views have arisen from something other than the honest pursuit of truth.

Radio NZ reports:

The country’s top public servant has directed the Public Service Association (PSA) to stop handing out its “change the government” campaign material in departments and agencies, saying it breaches expectations of political neutrality.

But the union said that’s an overreaction and is seeking an “urgent meeting” to make its case to the public service boss.

The PSA is effectively a branch of the Labour Party. It is now trying to turn government agencies into the same, by circulating change the government material within agencies. Worse of all, they think they have done nothing wrong.

In an email in response, PSA national secretaries Fleur Fitzsimons and Duane Leo said they disagreed that the postcards amounted to election advertising.

It’s calling to change the government and they claim it isn’t election advertising. They must think we’re morons.