Politicians--Why We Hold Them In Such Low Regard

Over-egging the Pudding

The Labour Party has announced some new initiatives about the internet.  If it is elected to government, Nanny will provide internet access to all human souls in the country.  It will become part of a government guarantee.  How do we know this?  Because Labour is promising to do the very same. 

Citizens will have their access to the internet guaranteed . . .

What will that mean?  Don't know really.  Hints are contained later in the grand policy announcement:

Accessing the internet is now an essential part of modern life. Labour will explore means of increasing public internet access –such as through libraries and Wi-Fi hotspots – to ensure all Kiwis can go online when they need to.

Wait a minute.  Exploring means of  increasing access to the internet is not a guarantee of access.
  How about the intrepid hunter or tramper up the heights of the Tararua ranges?  When one of them wants to go on the internet, will Labour guarantee that?  What about way up the Whanganui River in the isolated reaches of the Ruatiti Domain or the Bridge to Nowhere?  A government guarantee for accessing the Internet from there?  And while we are at it, how about a government guarantee for access to books?  For cell phone coverage? 

Why on earth do politicians or their PR minders constantly feel driven to over egg the pudding?  We are sick and tired of being spoken to as if we were little children about to be captivated by a fairy story. 

David Cunliffe, Labour leader goes on:

It would also guarantee freedom of expression, thought, conscience and religion, while still outlawing hate speech.

Mmmm . . . freedom of expression whilst outlawing hate speech.  Spot a contradiction there?  Who defines hate speech?  Well, we would hazard a guess that the following will constitute the operational definition: hate speech will be deemed to have occurred when some random declares that he is offended by what has been said.   That is the consistent pattern of its application overseas.  Ironically, hate speech is effectively defined as speech which other people hate.  In that context, freedom of expression has shrunk faster than open water on the Great Lakes.  It begs the question: is the Labour Party really committed to free speech, or is it ignorant of how "hate speech laws" have been applied in the United Kingdom and Australia and Europe?  It would be a gratuitous insult to suggest that David Cunliffe was ignorant, so . . .

But to these brickbats, let us add one bouquet.  Labour has declared it will act to prevent our spy agencies using internet to snoop on private conversations, without a warrant. 

Such legislation would protect people from the digital equivalent of warrantless phone tapping. While it wouldn’t override current GCSB powers, it would set a principle which would be used to replace the Government’s controversial new legislation.

Now there is something to get excited about.  It's a pity that one gem was obscured, if not smothered by hyped up bloviations of little merit or substance.