I saw this in the paper and confirmed it in O’Herald. The whale is getting stuck in appropriately to this.

I’m not an internationalist. I consider the ethical and appropriate stance for a small sovereign nation to take is armed neutrality, free trade, British commericail law and property law, and swiss banking regulations.

However, some people like to sign us up to treaties…

Foreign Affairs officials are warning the Government that its hardline sentencing and non-parole policy risk damaging New Zealand’s international reputation.

They say National’s “no parole for the worst murderers” policy and the proposed “three strikes and you’re out” law could breach international obligations on torture and civil rights.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade says such breaches would affect New Zealand’s ability to influence other countries.

The ministry’s advice, obtained by the Herald under the Official Information Act, says passing the laws “would pose reputational risks to New Zealand by resulting in international criticism”.

The ministry has told the Government that no parole for the worst murderers – a National election policy – would enable “indefinite detention without the possibility of release”, and would probably violate two human rights conventions monitored by the United Nations.

Act’s “three strikes” policy, which imposes a life sentence with a minimum non-parole period of 25 years on the third “strike” offence, “may result in disproportionate sentences that could also breach the human rights obligations assumed by New Zealand (and most other countries)

via Advisers: Crime laws will hurt NZ’s image – Politics – NZ Herald News.

I’d argue that some things should be dismantled. This is an abrogation of the obligation of the crown to protect the peace — internally and externally. If that requires long sentences, so be it: short and liberal sentences were a fad from the 1960s that failed. (And I am not talking about rehabilitation here. I’m talking about keeping dangerous men (and women) off the streets until they are middle aged or older).  I consider the queen in parlaiment is the final arbiter of this, not some effete francophilic official who is in the pocket of the corrupt kleptocracies that outvote the democracies in New York.

The UN is corrupt. It should be ignored.