The misinformation regarding refugees and asylum seekers is something that really irritates me. 

Seeking asylum is not illegal. It is not an illegal act, and it is not an illegal entry into our country. When the English aristocracy were fleeing the English Civil War in the 17th century — not illegal asylum seeking. There were even people seeking asylum in 511 (Council of Orleans) — newsflash: not illegal then either. In fact, fourth paragraph of that article above even explicitly states:

Though it is perfectly legal to arrive in any mode of transport to ask for asylum, according to 1951 UN Refugee Conventions we signed over 50 years ago, despite that promise, we will now imprison these most desperate people first - and ask questions later.

And what are the first two most popular comments?

I am happy there is a deterrent to illegal entry of my country. Go through legal and proper channels…

and

There is nothing unreasonable about Australia’s policy. If you arrive illegally in a country what do you expect?

… Have you not even read down to the fourth paragraph before making such a clueless and misinformed statement? What is wrong with you, srsly. Stop wasting our time with your wilful ignorance.

 And then the third most popular comment:

Why should we allow more people into this country who will probably never contribute to our society. Its all very well we have do gooders that want to let these people in but at what cost. 

NZ have enough problems looking after what weve got.

The English Civil War is probably a good example. Because, do you know who is able to become an asylum seeker? Rich people. Forging passports and identification costs money, getting plane tickets costs money, bribing people at checkpoints costs money, hiring a lawyer to present your case well costs money. — NZ isn’t a cheap country to get to from the other side of the world.

The unfortunate fact is that there are a lot of underprivileged people living under threat who will never get the chance to try to seek asylum. The unfortunate fact is that, of those who make it, educated asylum seekers do far better in their interviews than “ordinary folk”. The system is biased towards privilege.

But that’s why that commentator’s argument is even more ridiculous. Focusing on the people who do come here, most of the time they’re professionals: doctors, engineers, ex-local UN workers (yeah, who knew working for the UN could get you into shit with the government!), business people. The large majority all have university degrees.

It’s only when they’re granted asylum and NZ won’t recognise their qualifications and work experience, then NEW ZEALANDERS turn around and say that the refugees “won’t contribute” meaningfully. Zaoui was a university lecturer and political candidate — he comes to NZ and all we’d allow him to do is sell kebabs. 

And hey, will you look at that, Immigration NZ says we have a health sector and engineering shortage! (Even a shortage of university lecturers.)

I’m so sick of people not knowing what they’re talking about and still thinking we need to give their opinions weighty consideration — instead of the 2 second dismissal it deserves: You literally do not have an argument because all your facts are wrong.

style-ist-alles:

Map Paintings by Paul Morstad

manmadepowers:

wired:

Not much happens in Geraldine, a small farming community in the interior of the South Island of New Zealand, about 85 miles from Christchurch. So when Hayden MacKenzie, a fourth-generation farmer there, picked up the phone last Tuesday and got a request to participate in a secret project—one that he wouldn’t even learn about until he signed a vow of silence—he and his wife Anna figured that they’d take a shot. That evening, two men showed up at his cozy farmhouse. They bore a peculiar red device, a sphere slightly bigger than a volleyball perched on a short collar, and attached it to his roof. Then they left.

Only when the men returned the next day did they reveal what they were up to. Inside the red ball was an antenna that would give the MacKenzies Internet access. It was custom-designed to communicate with a similar antenna that would be floating by in the stratosphere, over 60,000 feet above sea level. On a solar-powered balloon.

Oh, and the men work for Google.

[MORE - EXCLUSIVE: How Google Will Use High-Flying Balloons to Deliver Internet to the Hinterlands]

Balloons delivering internet from 20 km above us — not as ludicrous as it sounds? Google explains how these untethered balloons will work:

Many projects have looked at high-altitude platforms to provide Internet access to fixed areas on the ground, but trying to stay in one place like this requires a system with major cost and complexity. So the idea we pursued was based on freeing the balloons and letting them sail freely on the winds. All we had to do was figure out how to control their path through the sky. We’ve now found a way to do that, using just wind and solar power: we can move the balloons up or down to catch the winds we want them to travel in. That solution then led us to a new problem: how to manage a fleet of balloons sailing around the world so that each balloon is in the area you want it right when you need it. We’re solving this with some complex algorithms and lots of computing power. 

(Source: Wired)

Also of interest: Germany to eliminate university fees.

Less than 10 years since their introduction, tuition fees will soon disappear from the country. Frances Mechan-Schmidt reports

The Federal Constitutional Court rescinded the ban on fees in 2005; the German Constitution had held that free education was a basic human right. Now political pressure has again brought fees down.

2econdp2iioniic:

shavemeinthemorning:

operamatic:

ukeaco:

I would just like to point out that the beginning and end of Spirited Away creep me out in the most delicious way possible. I’ve always been a fan of fairy tales, and not just the Grimm and Anderson stuff, almost all my life. Like the honestly faerie court stories.

Themes you see in those reflect strongly in this movie, and comparing them side by side just makes it that much more stark.

Often times you hear that if you get sucked into the fairy realm, you shouldn’t eat their food. It gives them power over you. More often than not, heroes finally escape the fairy realm after what they perceive to be a very short time (a night or a week)…

…only to find that seasons or years have passed.

‘Hey, it’s all dusty in here. Is this someone’s idea of a joke?’

CRAPPING SHIT I WHY HAVE I NEVER NOTICED THIS

This always freaked me out a little as a kid. Like the OP, I couldn’t help but wonder how long REALLY passed. I always pretended it was something like a week but… Judging by that moss, I can’t say for sure.

A week? Try much MUCH /MUCH/ longer. The plants are a good indicator but a better one is the statue. We’re seeing it from the same angle in each shot. Look in the first one before she enters, it’s not NEW but you can tell what it is.

Now look at the second frame. It’s so eroded it’s just a dull, flat stone.

That thing is solid stone, that must have taken up to, if not more than, a DECADE to wear down that much.

Not to mention that there are new trees next to the car. Just remember how long it actually takes for trees to grow real quick.

Evidence is suggesting they were in there for maybe around 20-30 years.

I have The Civilian saved under ‘Light-hearted Fuzzies’ on my feedly, but this post made me stop and… cringelaugh? This part in particular:

The hospitals, which would be owned, operated or sponsored by private enterprises, would dissociate themselves from the current public health system and not be required to follow the regulations that most health institutes are beholden to.

Charter hospitals would not have to produce evidence to support the treatments they provide, would not have to hire qualified doctors, surgeons or nurses, and would be largely immune from public inquiries such as official information requests.

This is a brilliant piece of political satire. For those who don’t know, The Civilian is a satirical news site that focuses mainly on New Zealand politics — like NZ’s version of The Onion, only less “Dripping Wet 7-Year-old Gets On Hotel Elevator” (my favourite) and more incompetent politicians. The charter hospitals post is based on this recent policy. 

And the point is, if we wouldn’t allow something like this for our hospitals, why risk it for our schools? Apart from individual benefits, education also lays the foundation for our future workforce — it is one of the most stupid things to cut funding for. 

Or… do we just not care, since charter schools are only affecting poor kids in poor areas?

Read More

Sam writes on the dangers of the government overriding adverse court decisions. Well worth reading.

(Also, where are the news stories from the traditional media over this? Our constitutional foundations are shaking here and what we really need is another story on Fonterra’s light proof milk bottles?)

A follow up to yesterday’s post, the abrogation of the rule of law by this government has been far too common: 

What’s a good way, you might ask, to create a policy… without running the risk of it being overturned? And the answer I assume you’d give is “make sure that the policy isn’t unlawfully discriminatory, so there is no reason for this to happen.” If so, you are an idiot. Because there’s a far, far better way to respond.

You simply tell the Human Rights Review Tribunal and the courts that they are not allowed to look at the policy and decide whether or not it is unlawfully discriminatory. 

[…]

You might need a moment to let the implications of this sink in. By passing this law, Parliament is telling the judicial branch that it is not allowed to look at a Government policy (not, note, an Act of Parliament) in order to decide whether it is in breach of another piece of legislation enacted by Parliament (the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990). In other words, the judiciary’s primary function - to declare the meaning of law and its application in particular cases - has been nullified. Furthermore, the judiciary’s role as protector of individual citizens in terms of ensuring that they are being treated in accordance with the laws of the land has been removed. While the stakes may be small in the immediate case, this is about as big a deal as it gets in terms of our constitution.

Tearing my hair out in frustration. Or, you know, writing a 3000 word opinion on this that won’t see its way off my lecturer’s desk…

And for the record: I don’t care if it’s National or Labour (hey, Seabed and Foreshore legislation), no government should get to say that the law doesn’t apply to them.