The nationwide rally against the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is today. Details here.
I don’t know much about the TPPA. It’s a free trade agreement—and free trade, of course, is a good thing—but it’s more than just a free trade agreement. How much more than just a free trade agreement? Apart from John Key’s National government, no one knows.
Why won’t the government release the full text of the agreement?
Labour MPs recognise there are potential risks as well as potential benefits in the TPPA, but we do not know what is in the text. That’s why the Government must release the text before it is signed, so Kiwis have a chance to decide for themselves what is in our people’s interests.
And so that each individual Kiwi has a chance to decide for him/herself what is in his/her individual interest. (Never mind our people’s bogus collectivism.)
It has been said that gay marriage is a non-issue being used to distract from larger issues (i.e., the Mon$atan Protection Act).
NOTE: From now on, I am referring to the Monsanto Corporation as “Mon$atan” (thank you, @OrganicLiveFood on Twitter).
There is some truth to this. But here’s the thing. Gay marriage is an important issue—not so much in and of itself, so much as it is important to assert that we will live and let live, in order that we may unite to deal with institutions like Mon$atan and its ilk, and so that we can continue to win over the liberals to the importance of gun rights, etc.
They are using this issue to divide us.
We need to use this issue to unite ourselves.
“Live and let live!” must become a categorical political axiom if we are going to unite to take down Mon$atan and the gun snatchers.
Among my former college classmates whom I still follow on Facebook, the most adamant opponent of Mon$atan is a guy who happens to be gay. I want to make sure that I am not alienated from this person over something as trivial as gay marriage.
Straight people: gay people are not violating your first amendment rights by getting married. And Gay people: if a heterosexual thinks that gay marriage is against his religion, he’s allowed to express that which is his religious/ethical belief; so long as he isn’t actively trying to persecute you for yours.
Live and let live.
On those issues which we can unite behind, we will win.
If they successfully divide us, then we will lose.
I’m not going to tell you what your politics should be concerning Genetic Engineering and Border Control… what I am going to tell you is that politically the two topics are identical.
Should a person be able to import snakes if they want them? An importer could easily let the snakes escape and lose control of them. This would have a huge impact on others that do not consent to the importing of snakes.
In the same way, because GE is self replicating and transferable, Genetically engineered organisms could easily escape from controlled environments into the wild. This would have an impact on people who do not consent to GE.
To be consistent you have to be for unregulated borders and unregulated GE or; for regulated borders and regulated GE.
If you are for one and against the other then you have contradictory political views.
A virus with the potential to kill up to half the world’s population has been made in a lab. Now academics and bio-terrorism experts are arguing over whether to publish the recipe, and whether the research should have been done in the first place.
Have we reached the limits of free speech? Discuss.