All posts by Richard

Jihad on Drugs™

A Drug-Free World by 2008? We Can Do It!

2 Comments

cov-gass

pino_arlacchi

Today Eternal Vigilance is honoured to feature a guest post by Pino Arlacchi, Executive Director of the United Nations International Drug Control Programme (UNDCP).

The world is at a crossroads in the fight against drugs. We can stay put—or we can, as the American poet Robert Frost said, “take the road less travelled”. It is time for a step forward along the path of international cooperation, writes our guest blogger. It is his belief and ours that the future is now. The price of a Drug-Free World is Eternal Vigilance!

Towards a Drug-Free World by 2008 – We Can Do It

Sometimes large events mark the end of social movements. Other times they signal a beginning. The Special Session of the General Assembly on Countering the World Drug Problem is a point in between. It is a kind of light house – or a beacon – in the world’s fight to eliminate the abuse and production of illegal drugs. It is a guiding step.

When the nations of the world come together in New York in June, it is important to pause and think about how far we have come in controlling and understanding illegal drugs since the first international conference on the issue almost 90 years ago.

Delegates from a handful of countries met in Shanghai, China in 1909 to discuss an outbreak in the use of opium, but they had no authority to sign an agreement. Now, nearly 90 years later, in New York, Heads of State and Government from many countries will be in attendance. The 185 Members of the United Nations will examine a wide variety of subjects directly related to controlling illegal drugs and hopefully adopt the most innovative strategies to decrease their supply and demand.

Together, they will decide upon adopting a series of action plans, including: stemming the flow of stimulants and their precursors; judicial cooperation; countering money laundering; and cooperation on eradication and alternative development. It will be a time for Governments to look back on the successes of the past and look forward to future goals.

However, the power of positive thinking must play a role. If the international community can come away from the meetings in New York with a sense that this was the turning point – the place where the world went forward with a renewed sense of energy in the fight to control illegal drugs – then we will have accomplished a great deal. It is not the end of a process; it is the next step ahead.

There are naysayers who believe a global fight against illegal drugs is unwinnable. I say emphatically they are wrong. Our slogan for the Special Session is “A Drug Free World – We Can Do It!” The United Nations and the International Drug Control Programme (UNDCP) will help lead the way.

More than 21 million people around the world use cocaine and heroin, over 30 million abuse amphetamine-type stimulants, and an estimated 140 million uses cannabis. Up until now, the world has done its best to combat the drug control problem at the national and regional levels, and the frontlines remain at the grass-roots level. But it’s clear that something more must be done.

The time is now to take the challenge to the next stage. The adoption of UNDCP’s concept of a global strategy is pivotal if we are to meet the challenges of eliminating or significantly reducing the use and production of illegal drugs by 2008.

For the first time, we have concrete requirements based on lessons learned at the local, national and regional levels. They are factored into our vision: a unique global system to monitor illicit cultivation and prevent the “balloon effect” (this would make sure drugs eradicated from one area would not reappear in another nearby), a participatory approach involving local communities, and a balance between law enforcement, alternative development and demand reduction. Each is critical to our ultimate success.

The international community is committed to the elimination of all illegal drugs. However, the drug control landscape has changed dramatically in recent years. The ground rules of the past no longer exist and that’s why, now more than ever, we need to learn from each other. Countries which used to have problems with the production of illegal drugs today have to face the dilemmas of abuse. Other countries which used to only deal with demand for drugs now must cope with the problems of illicit cultivation.

Supply and demand are two equal sides of the drug menace. Demand reduction is a flail partner in our strategy UNDCP’s country-level projects are almost evenly divided between demand, supply and law enforcement.

Delegates to the Special Session will have the chance to adopt the Declaration on the Guiding Principles of Drug Demand Reduction. It would be a dynamic step, establishing for the first time a common denominator of measures. The standards that have been set for drug-producing countries for years would now be mirrored in places where there is a demand for illegal drugs. We must look into the future and set realistic goals, both as individual nations and for the world.

President Bill Clinton has set a target for 50 per cent demand reduction in the United States during the next ten years. Many political leaders at the highest level are planning to come to New York in June. The leaders who gather there and make similar pledges will have the eyes of the world upon them, and their words will carry an even greater significance. However, there are times when words get lost in the translation to actions. How then do we know that the international community is moving in the fight direction?

UNDCP supports the call for the establishment or strengthening of regional mechanisms to share experiences and results of national strategies. We will continue to take an active role in supporting the work of these regional mechanisms, ensuring thereby a comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness of drug control policies.

The fight must be taken to the next stage – the global level. We must adopt a universal plan of action. The perfect place to show our commitment to the international fight against illegal drugs is at the Special Session of the General Assembly.

Dumbfounded Dipshits, Hypocrites, Jesus FTW!, John, Marketing is Everything

Trolling the Pharisees (like a boss)

2 Comments

jai6b

When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

The Pharisees challenged him, “Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid.”

Jesus answered, “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true. I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.”

Then they asked him, “Where is your father?”

“You do not know me or my Father,” Jesus replied. “If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” He spoke these words while teaching in the temple courts near the place where the offerings were put. Yet no one seized him, because his hour had not yet come.

Once more Jesus said to them, “I am going away, and you will look for me, and you will die in your sin. Where I go, you cannot come.”

This made the Jews ask, “Will he kill himself? Is that why he says, ‘Where I go, you cannot come’?”

But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.”

“Who are you?” they asked.

“Just what I have been telling you from the beginning,” Jesus replied. “I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is trustworthy, and what I have heard from him I tell the world.”

They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father. So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.” Even as he spoke, many believed in him. (NIV)

Does Jesus contradict himself?

Very well, then, he contradicts himself. (He has loaves and fishes, he feeds multitudes.)

Cannibal Corpse, Luke, Mark II, Psalms, Voluntary Euthanasia

Make them suffer

15 Comments

make_them_suffer

Blogger and voluntary euthanasia campaigner Mark Hubbard’s latest post is mercifully brief, just like a painful death from a terminal illness should be.

Letter to Editor: Euthanasia Does Not Devalue Lives of Disabled

According to Ken Joblin, Press 12 March, voluntary euthanasia quote, ‘makes people with disabilities feel less valued’. The arrogance of that remark is breath-taking: no person can judge another’s unhappiness. To say an individual must die in agony against their will because a total stranger might feel ‘devalued’ is non-sequitur, offensive and selfish; and this applies even if that stranger is living in similar circumstances of pain they yet find acceptable. The apt word in voluntary euthanasia is ‘voluntary’: it’s only for those who want that option, as many do. Every argument against voluntary euthanasia is the busy-body argument an individual must be left no volition over their own life. Adults self-manage health issues throughout their lives: managing one’s death is merely the end of that grown-up process. The disabled rightly tell the able-bodied to see issues from their point of view: well I’m afraid the opinion voluntary euthanasia devalues the life of a disabled person is as blind as Mr Joblin is partially sighted. No disrespect Mr Joblin, but please remove your opinion from those who have died or are dying in circumstances, sometimes appalling, against their wishes; just over last 12 months to put names to this issue: Rosie Mott, Faye Clark, lawyer Lecretia Searles – who still argues superbly for her right to that option as she manages life with brain tumours – Clare Richards and the list continues to grow, as long as we have no civilised euthanasia law.

Let’s be clear. It’s wrong to torture people to death. And

To say an individual must die in agony against their will

is to condone torturing people to death. And those who oppose assisted suicide in the sort of cases where it is typically requested are really no different from would-be torturers. It really is that simple.

Of course, you may say that I ride roughshod over the distinction between actively bringing something about and passively allowing something to happen. That I ignore the distinction between killing and merely letting die. That I fail to differentiate between causing suffering and allowing suffering simply by failing to prevent it when one could.

It’s an important distinction, to be sure. In the Parable of the Good Samaritan, should we lump the priest and the Levite in with the robbers? Or, morally speaking, do they stand apart as somehow less deserving of our condemnation?

But no. The distinction here is between actively bringing something about and actively preventing those who would otherwise prevent something from happening from doing so. (Think of an embellished parable in which the Samaritan is impeded and threatened by bureaucrats when he goes to the aid of the man attacked by robbers.)

Current NZ law makes it a criminal offence to assist suicide under any circumstances.

Aiding and abetting suicide
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who—
(a) incites, counsels, or procures any person to commit suicide, if that person commits or attempts to commit suicide in consequence thereof; or
(b) aids or abets any person in the commission of suicide.

A prison term not exceeding 14 years? Bit harsh, just for complying with a loved one’s wishes to help hasten the end to their terminal suffering. (Could be worse though. Consider the case of Aldous Huxley. On his deathbed, he asked to be given LSD. His wife obligingly injected him with LSD. She could have faced life imprisonment for that!)

Make them suffer? Hell no! That’s just the name of the Cannibal Corpse song below, and the implicit maxim of sadists, psychopaths and assorted Parliamentarians. (Also clickbait.) If it’s not abundantly clear by now, I’m with Mark Hubbard on this one. In principle, I support legislative changes to legalise voluntary euthanasia. My lingering concern is with the form such legislative change might take. If the Psychoactive Substances Act is Parliament’s idea of drug law reform, then we could be in trouble. I don’t want my legal end-of-life choices limited to bureaucrat-approved modes of dying!

Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the Lord delivers him out of them all. (ESV)

See also the Parable of the Flood.

Kingdom of Heaven, Krig, Marketing is Everything, Matthew, Salvation

Salvation is by works (Part 2)

10 Comments

Just_do_it_jesus

These verses close the Sermon on the Mount in Chapter 7 of the Gospel of Matthew.

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

“Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.” (NIV)

Jesus again makes it abundantly clear that salvation is by works.

Just do it.

JFK, Psycho Killer, Qu'est-ce que c'est?

David Bain should receive compensation

3 Comments

david_bain_and_fiancee_liz_davies_relax_at_their_h_50cda10a73

Former All Black Joe Karam’s ongoing battle for compensation has taken a fresh turn.

New Bain inquiry will cost $400k

A new inquiry into David Bain’s bid for compensation will cost a further $400,000, Justice Minister Amy Adams says.

Ms Adams today announced that the Government had decided to hold a fresh inquiry into Mr Bain’s application.
She said Cabinet did not have the information it needed to reasonably reach a decision.

David Bain spent 13 years in prison after being found guilty of murdering his mother, father and three siblings in 1994 but was found not guilty at a retrial in 2009.

In a report released in late 2012, former Canadian Supreme Court judge Ian Binnie concluded that Mr Bain was innocent and suggested he should receive compensation.

However, the then-Justice Minister Judith Collins then sought a peer review of that report, carried out by Robert Fisher QC, which criticised the findings as legally flawed.

The Justice Minister Amy Adams talking to reporters about fresh inquiry into Bain compensation at Parliament.

Ms Adams said, despite the further delay and cost, a new inquiry was the best approach to progress Mr Bain’s claim on a proper and robust basis.

Here at Eternal Vigilance we’re about evenly divided on who we think committed the Bain murders. I’ve got both feet firmly planted in the camp that thinks that David Bain did it and that Robin Bain is innocent.

So you may be surprised to learn that I think that David Bain should receive compensation for having spent 13 years in jail after the jury at the retrial in 2009 overturned the guilty verdict delivered by the jury at the original trial in 1995. After all, the government is under no legal obligation to pay David Bain a cent, and he certainly deserves nothing.

Here are points 3 and 4 from the Executive Summary of the Memorandum for Cabinet.

3. There is no legal obligation to make payments for wrongful conviction and imprisonment. It is a matter solely for Cabinet’s discretion.

4. As Mr Bain’s application falls outside the Cabinet guidelines governing compensation claims for wrongful conviction and imprisonment, he must prove two things. First, that he is innocent on the balance of probabilities and secondly, that there are extraordinary circumstances such that it is in the interests of justice for the claim to be considered.

Never mind David Bain! Why aren’t we all up in arms about point 3. If *you* were innocent, wrongly convicted and then spent a lengthy term in jail for a crime you never committed … wouldn’t you rightfully deserve and rightfully expect monetary compensation? I think you would.

What’s worse is that, whereas the jury at the retrial couldn’t find Bain guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he now has to prove his innocence on the balance of probabilities which is a much higher standard, which is worse because it gives a semblance of justice being served. But do we have two separate justice systems in this country, or one? If a jury finds that someone was wrongfully imprisoned for 13 years, why shouldn’t they automatically be eligible for compensation? Why should they have to jump through further hoops when the justice system has already reached a verdict of wrongful imprisonment? For such is what a not guilty verdict at a retrial amounts to.

It is a cornerstone of our justice system that a defendant is innocent until found guilty. The verdict of the original trial was annulled and Bain was found not guilty at the retrial, meaning he is legally innocent. If he’s legally innocent he should legally receive due compensation. It’s as simple as that.

I predict that Bain won’t receive compensation, since he’ll be unable to prove that he’s innocent on the balance of probabilities. There was no physical evidence implicating anyone other than David, and the overwhelming balance of probabilities is in favour of his guilt.

But those who want justice for Robin Bain (and that includes me) must ask themselves what’s more important. Natural justice for David Bain or the integrity of our justice system? We urgently need a law change so that compensation is automatic after a retrial delivers a not guilty verdict. As a plus we’ll never have to tolerate the charade of the next David Bain smirking at us from the pages of the MSM over and over again ad nauseam.

Jihad on Drugs™, National Party, Prohibition

Prohibitionists are violent

Leave a comment

prime_minister_john_key_and_national_mp_mike_sabin__Master_1882475742

Prohibition is violence and prohibitionists are violent.

National MP Mike Sabin in police assault inquiry

Police have been investigating an assault complaint against government MP Mike Sabin.

The investigation is related to events in Northland, but detectives working on the case are based in Waitemata, north Auckland.

The investigation was moved south from Whangarei because Sabin was a police officer based there until 2006.

The officer in charge, Detective Inspector Kevin Hooper, refused to confirm Sabin was the subject of an investigation.

The above was reported last year. Only two days ago Prime Minister John Key said he was comfortable with Mr Sabin holding the role of chairman of the law and order select committee. But today Sabin announced his resignation from Parliament, effective immediately. (This will trigger a by-election.)

I agree with blogger Cameron Slater that it’s good riddance to bad rubbish.

Whale Oil predicted the coming Northland by-election

The story itself, which National have sat on for weeks, is almost too horrible for words, and there is little doubt that there will be a by-election in Northland.

but stops short of predicting a change of leadership of the National Party.

When full details of what has transpired are revealed then there are going to be some serious questions asked of the leadership.

I expect that the “almost too horrible for words” assault allegations are well founded, but I convict Mike Sabin of being a violent prohibitionist by arguing from first principles and his prohibitionist track record.

donald-t-regan-public-servant-quote-we-do-many-things-at-the-federal

Mike Sabin wants to lock me (and my friends) in cages for no good reason.

Larken Rose, author of the libertarian classic The Most Dangerous Superstition, makes the case against Sabin and his ilk.

[T]hough “lawmakers” are at the very top of the authoritarian hierarchy, even they do not accept personal responsibility for what “government” does. Even they speak as if “the law” is something other than the commands they issue. For example, it is very unlikely that any politician would feel justified hiring armed thugs to invade his neighbor’s home, and drag his neighbor away and put him in a cage, for the supposed sin of smoking marijuana. Yet many politicians have advocated exactly that, via anti-drug “legislation.” They seem to feel no shame or guilt regarding the fact that their “legislation” has resulted in millions of non-violent people being forcibly taken from their friends and families and made to live in cages for years on end – sometimes for the rest of their lives. When they speak of the acts of violence which they are directly responsible for – and “narcotics laws” are only one example – “legislators” use terms such as “the law of the land,” as if they themselves are mere spectators and “the land” or “the country” or “the people” were the ones who made such violence occur.

What the government does is lock non-violent drug users in cages and Sabin was personally responsible for locking non-violent drug users in cages during his time in government.

RostrumMagazineAd_10132010