Category Archives: JFK

Good reasons why I’m not voting to keep the flag


My late father was a good keen outdoorsman. He loved sailing and hiking but back in the early ’70s we lived in the Midlands in the heart of England, a long way from bodies of water bigger than puddles and mountain peaks worth climbing.

Also my father worked in the British motor industry and in the early ’70s he could see that the industry was starting to tank. So he and my mother decided that the family would emigrate to somewhere with bigger wilderness and better job prospects. IIRC, the options were the U.S, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand. Fortunately, my mother vetoed the U.S., otherwise we might have ended up in Detroit. We emigrated to New Zealand in 1975 and settled in Wellington.

I’m glad that we did. I still have a bond with the mother country but I’m a Kiwi now. I spent my childhood in England but grew up in Godzone. When I became an adult I also became a NZ citizen. So to cut a long story short, what I’m getting around to saying is that because of my background I’m personally rather fond of the current NZ flag. It consists of the Union Jack which represents the land of my birth and the Southern Cross which represents my adopted homeland. But I’m not voting to keep it. Why not?

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not voting to change to the John Key tea towel design either. I’m not voting in the second flag referendum and I didn’t vote in the first. Why not?

Firstly, because my vote won’t make a difference. The current flag is winning in all the recent opinion polls by a clear margin. Twice as many people are against change as are for it. I’m calling the result of the second flag referendum now. No change.


Secondly, because no one can change my flag. I don’t have a flag! I don’t want a flag, but if did I could have any flag I wanted and stick it on a pole and fly it. Many Kiwis already fly the unofficial New Zealand flag, the silver fern. Good on them. Go the All Blacks! No worries.


Thirdly, because the entire debate is pure political distraction and engaging in it is exactly what Key wants. As Martyn Bradbury concludes

We have 99 problems in NZ – a fucking flag isn’t one of them.

Voting only encourages these arseholes.


Fourthly, because the entire flag referendum process is a needless waste of money which would be better spent elsewhere and I refuse to sanction it by voting. Flag this irrelevant debate and spend $26m on hungry kids. Is what the government would have better done instead.

Fifthly, because a state-initiated binding referendum is a slap in the face to the hundreds of thousands of Kiwis who’ve signed petitions to get non-binding citizens-initiated referendums on things that actually matter, such as reducing the number of MPs in Parliament, not reducing the number of firefighters in the New Zealand fire service, not being criminalised for smacking their children, and so on. All to no avail.


Sixthly, because I’m the founder and co-leader of Not A Party and it is incumbent on me to set a good example. 🙂


Seventhly, because how the gang that runs New Zealand chooses to brand the monopoly on violence it claims and maintains over the country’s territorial area is none of my business.


Eighthly, because when all is said and done it’s just a coloured rectangular piece of cloth and so not worth fighting over.


David Bain should receive compensation


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.

Screaming for Vengeance (Part 1)

[Being as how today is the 20th anniversary of the Bain murders … here’s an unfinished post I started writing last year. Now published as Part 1. Part 2 will be on the evolutionary psychology of blood feuds.]


I’m irked. In particular, I’m irked by people on Facebook screaming for vengeance. Screaming for vengeance against David Bain, Ariel Castro, Kim Dotcom … to name a few. I don’t get irked easily. But my irk threshold is exceeded when the screams for vengeance drown out the calls for justice. This post is about vengeance and justice.

David Bain mostly got what he deserved. But then there was a travesty and no more justice was served. I figure Bain’s got a clear run between now and Judgement Day. (I also figure that now is a good time to post a pic of Bain cavorting with some silly bint on a beach in Rarotonga. What is it with women and murderous psychopaths?) Folks over at the Facebook group I belong to had better get used to this. Folks mostly have. And Justice For Robin Bain is something still worth fighting for.

Ariel Castro got sentenced to … plus 1000 years. Well, that was never going to happen, was it? Castro’s body rots as we speak. I figure it’s playing catch-up with his soul. (In the U.S., wishful thinking is thinking that a 1000 year sentence is a 1000 year sentence. In NZ, it’s thinking that life means life. Let’s not forget that one of the most important reasons for putting people in prison, if not the most important, is to keep the rest of us safe from psychos.)

Check out this Facebook comment.

Dotcom is a thieving liar who will soon be deported to USA for his piracy, and hopefully thrown in jail for 100 years. The only people that support him are people that think that stealing an artists life’s work is OK

100 years in jail for running a file sharing service? Takes screaming for vengeance to a new level. And then the rest of it. Personally, I don’t believe in IP. But my co-blogger Tim and Mark over at Life Behind the IRon Drape do. They’re staunch Dotcom supporters and I’m quite sure that they don’t “think that stealing an artists life’s work is OK.” Facebook. Where pap is always on tap.

I’ve never been the vengeful type. I came to libertarianism from the left, so I have liberal sentiments. For example, I’m more Howard League for Penal Reform than I am Sensible Sentencing Trust. Jesus made it abundantly clear that Christians are supposed to visit and look after those in prison. As opposed to simply locking them up and throwing away the key. (I have a Christian friend whose choice of penpals is inmates on death row. How awesome is that?!) And the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews reminds us

Continue to remember those in prison as if you were together with them in prison, and those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering. (NIV)

God has always been the vengeful type. And he’s really big on justice. God is a just God. But, whereas God delegates the task of doing justice to us (well, to Reed mainly)

He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? (ESV)

he reserves for Himself the right to avenge. The key verse is found in the Old Testament and quoted twice in the New Testament. God says,

It is mine to avenge; I will repay. In due time their foot will slip; their day of disaster is near and their doom rushes upon them (NIV)

So that’s the Biblical perspective on vengeance and justice. Justice is a Christian virtue. (And one of four cardinal virtues in Roman Catholicism.) Whereas revenge is an unchristian vice. Vengeance is justice without mercy. And you really don’t want to be on the receiving end of that, do you? So

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. (KJV)

Revenge has temporal as well as eternal consequences. This is noted in the Book of Proverbs.

The merciful man doeth good to his own soul: but he that is cruel [unmerciful or vengeful] troubleth his own flesh. (KJV)

But the Bible doesn’t really do, er, justice to the full, horrible extent of revenge’s temporal toll on those consumed by its lusts. Ladies and gentlemen, please give a big round of applause to … (drum roll …) evolutionary psychology!

[Hat tip: Whale Oil]

Who’s defaming who?


Joe Karam: I was attacked

David Bain supporter Joe Karam experienced “the worst four years of his life” as his reputation was “laid siege to” by the authors of the Justice For Robin Bain website, Karam’s lawyer says.

Karam is suing Kent Parker and Vic Purkiss in the High Court in Auckland for their branding of him as “a liar, fraudster, crook and scoundrel” in the wake of Bain’s retrial for the 1994 murder of his family.

Bain, supported by Karam, was found not guilty.

Karam’s lawyer, Michael Reed, QC, told Justice Patricia Courtney that Parker, a website developer from Havelock North, controlled the Counterspin website where statements defamatory of Karam had appeared.

Purkiss, who has not turned up today to defend the court action, was responsible for defamatory comments on social media, Reed said.

Reed said the media had picked up on the men’s campaign and made matters worse by “giving their soapbox an air of legitimacy”.

“Without question it has been the worst four years of Mr Karam’s life.”

Worst four years of Joe Karam’s life? I don’t believe it.

Reed said what was “masquerading as Justice For Robin Bain was nothing but spite for Joe Karam”.

It was a “most egregious, spiteful and vindictive campaign of defamation against [Karam]” to which Parker and Purkiss “cannot mount any tenable defence”.

I’m a member of the Facebook group(s) Justice For Robin Bain.

I’m not a member out of spite for Joe Karam. I’m a member because I seek Justice For Robin Bain.

I resent Reed’s comments. Who’s defaming who?

Reed said the defendants claimed Karam’s support of Bain was “purely cynical, his interest pecuniary”.

They likened Karam to the Nazis and North Korea, and labelled him “a tyrant, a pimp and someone who aided and abetted a murderer”.

Karam’s been running a trial by media that has found Robin Bain guilty of the Bain murders. But Robin Bain has never stood trial. There isn’t any evidence that he committed the murders. He is not guilty.

In view of this, it’s no wonder that people would speculate as to Karam’s motives in aiding and abetting David Bain. Karam needs to harden up.

Purely cynical, his interest pecuniary? One shouldn’t speculate as to people’s motives. But Karam is also no stranger to such speculation. He presents hearsay as fact when it comes to Robin Bain’s supposed motive. Covering up his incest with his daughter Laniet? Could be. It could also be that David Bain’s motive was covering up incest with his sister Laniet. But it’s all hearsay.

My own view is that Karam has been fooled by a homicidal psychopath.

The forensic evidence points overwhelmingly to David’s guilt.

Joe Karam did it


Heads up, peeps. Ears out. There’s a defamation trial happening in Auckland today.

Joe Karam’s defamation case against two Justice for Robin Bain members, heads to the High Court in Auckland today.

Kent Parker and Victor Purkiss are defending themselves.

Joe Karam says he has been seriously defamed by the pair.

Kent Parker says today will be a pretrial hearing, the trial proper starts tomorrow.

“We’re being sued by Joe Karam for comments that we’ve made on a Facebook page and on a website, in relation to the Bain case and his participation in it.”

I don’t recall the comments made. I’m looking forward to hearing what they were and whether or not they are considered defamatory.

NZ Police: Brutalising the Old


(I’m not sure how to embed videos from TVNZ. But click anywhere on the above image to visit the ONE News website and the video will play automatically.)

Last time I posted about the NZ Police they were brutalising the sick. Now (it is alleged) they’re brutalising the old. A 64 year old woman was put in a headlock and her arms forced behind her back when she tried to pick up the phone. Her own phone, in her own home. She sustained severe bruising to her arms and face.

“We’re terrified of the police,” said one woman at a community meeting in the Paparoa Town Hall. And with good reason, it seems.

Once upon a time, police officers were among the most respected members of the community. That’s no longer so. Today, many otherwise law abiding people as well as actual criminals see them as “the filth”. Indisputably, there is corruption in the NZ Police. Who knows how much? I like to think that police corruption in New Zealand consists of “isolated pockets”. But I worry that police corruption is endemic. Regardless, the loss of respect for the police is something the police have brought upon themselves.

The War on Drugs™ plays a huge role in this. The incident reported in the video above is all over a few cannabis plants! Prohibition is unjust and those who enforce our drug laws commit injustices in doing so.

I’m optimistic that New Zealand will legalise cannabis soon. One day the War on Drugs™ will effectively be over. But when it’s all over, will the reputation of the NZ Police recover? The NZ Police support cannabis prohibition. Cannabis prohibition makes arresting people easy. Whether they’re being investigated for a real crime, or not. And they get to go for helicopter rides at the taxpayers’s expense. Will the police become better people when they have to put in real work to establish grounds to arrest and convict people for committing real crimes? Will the police attract a different class of recruit when the job perks no longer include free drugs and free helicopter rides? I’m pessimistic.

Heads up, peeps. I’m starting to have doubts about libertarianism itself. 😎

A few years ago, the Libertarianz Party merchandised some apparel with the slogan, “There’s No Government Like No Government.” And underneath, in smaller letters, “Unless it’s Very, Very Small.” The idea being that the proper role of government is limited to running a police force, a judiciary and an army. But should the government be involved even in these? I’m finding it hard to ignore the mounting evidence that our police force is corrupt and/or incompetent. And I already know that our justice system is severely compromised. Violent criminals get treated like victims, and lying murdering psychopaths walk free, thanks to show trials manipulated by a cynical MSM and obsessional narcissistic former All Blacks.

And, while I’ve yet to hear a bad word about the men and women of the New Zealand Defence Force (and I hope I don’t), I’m starting to wonder—should I abandon the label “Christian libertarian” in favour of “anarcho-monarchist”?