Recovering criminal lawyer. Semi-libertarian. Free speech fanatic. Somewhat contrarian, often annoying. Opinions my own. 🇳🇿 🇺🇦 🇮🇱 עם ישראל חי
New Zealand
Joined January 2024
- Tweets3.1K
- Following526
- Followers634
- Likes13.7K
Douglas Brown retweeted
NZ's Department of Internal Affairs does not want Kiwis trading on Kalshi because they consider it to be gambling.
America's financial markets have depth and vigour unimaginable in NZ, and it isn't just because it's a bigger country.
It's also because NZ is often very stupid.
S&P Dow Jones Indices and Kalshi are joining forces to build the next generation of financial markets.
The Dow launched in 1896. The S&P 500 in 1957. The idea was simple: bring individual stocks together into a single benchmark, giving people a clearer view of the broader market.
Over time, products built around those benchmarks transformed investing. Index funds, ETFs, futures, and options gave investors ways to gain diversified market exposure and hedge broad market swings.
These indices became foundations of global finance. More than $20 trillion is indexed or benchmarked to the S&P 500 alone.
Today, this structure extends beyond stocks to bonds, commodities, currencies, and more.
The next step is to bring that structure to the events that shape everyone’s lives.
Through this partnership, S&P Dow Jones Indices and Kalshi will work together to create indices composed of Kalshi event contracts.
Think about what that opens up.
An index of political power. An index of supply chain risk. An index tracking AI’s impact on employment. An index of sports outcomes that affect broadcasters, advertisers, cities, and small businesses. An index of weather risks that shape harvests, energy demand, and business revenues.
Each would bundle event contracts into a single indicator, helping people understand how related risks are evolving.
Over time, products built around these indices could offer diversified exposure to those events and new ways to hedge their impact.
The events that shape our lives could become as easy to track and gain exposure to as the S&P 500.
Douglas Brown retweeted
The Lula regime is now going around seizing the passports of every major figure associated with the political party that beat him in the general election 3 weeks ago.
➡️ MINAS GERAIS | Com Flávio nos EUA, Pedro Rousseff pede apreensão do passaporte de Nikolas
metropoles.com/minas-gerais/…
Douglas Brown retweeted
BREAKING:
The Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado is now driving to Caracas after returning to the country from exile.
People are lining the streets
Just as a follow-up, these are the (rough) lawyer numbers in NZ for 2025. Notice the gender split out to 30 years PQE. But, apparently, the NZLS' two main priorities are DEI and gender (meaning women's) equality. Somehow, I think time will achieve that for them.
(And, yes, I have only used two genders in the numbers. Sue me. Also, yes, I think NZ has too many lawyers.)
The New Zealand Law Society is all in on diversity, equity, and inclusion. And I mean, all in; it is woke as. It is forcing this on everyone with a practising certificate, regardless of agreement.
The plan has goals like "build[ing] capability in areas such as bias, cultural competence, and allyship", and that "[d]iversity, equity and inclusion capability [will be] considered to be part of professional development."
This is in a profession where the most notable trend since the year 2000 is the significant and rapidly decreasing number of men in practice. But that is of no concern for the Law Society. Gender Equality, for the NZLS, means not enough women in senior positions, ignoring that legal practice can stretch over 50 or 60 years, so the numbers don't always move that quickly.
It is time to remove the regulatory function from the NZLS to an independent body. Then the NZLS can do what it wants for those who choose to remain members.
lawsociety.org.nz/profession…
The New Zealand Law Society is all in on diversity, equity, and inclusion. And I mean, all in; it is woke as. It is forcing this on everyone with a practising certificate, regardless of agreement.
The plan has goals like "build[ing] capability in areas such as bias, cultural competence, and allyship", and that "[d]iversity, equity and inclusion capability [will be] considered to be part of professional development."
This is in a profession where the most notable trend since the year 2000 is the significant and rapidly decreasing number of men in practice. But that is of no concern for the Law Society. Gender Equality, for the NZLS, means not enough women in senior positions, ignoring that legal practice can stretch over 50 or 60 years, so the numbers don't always move that quickly.
It is time to remove the regulatory function from the NZLS to an independent body. Then the NZLS can do what it wants for those who choose to remain members.
lawsociety.org.nz/profession…
Oh. What a surprise:
Ofcom said, “We have not observed any significant changes in the incidence or severity of any kind of content over the first nine months after the children’s safety duties came into force.”
order-order.com/2026/10/23/o…
Douglas Brown retweeted
Government regulation of LLMs is one of the main threats against free speech. Read my colleague @Jordicalbad's breakdown in @ConversationUS based on our latest report.
1 in 5 U.S. voters have asked an AI chatbot about politics. Governments worldwide have noticed, and they’re shaping what those chatbots can say.
@Jordicalbad breaks it down in @ConversationUS ⬇️
Douglas Brown retweeted
Hot take:
If Elon Musk had stayed in South Africa, we might never have heard of SpaceX, Tesla or Neuralink.
That tells you how much a country’s business environment matters for innovation and prosperity.
Africa is the poorest region in the world because our business environments don’t give entrepreneurs the freedom to innovate and create prosperity.
Douglas Brown retweeted
Congratulations to Dr Arna Mitchell, now on the eight-person global shortlist for the 2026 John Maddox Prize.
Last year Dr Mitchell, a clinical psychologist of Maori heritage, published a peer-reviewed article in the journal of the New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists (NZCCP) questioning the evidence behind the 2024 WERO report into systemic racism in psychology. The subtitle conveyed the message: “Don’t just tell me, show me how science and psychology are racist in New Zealand.” It became the most-read article in the journal’s history.
In June, the NZCCP Council took it down. They said keeping it up was inconsistent with the College’s values. There was no allegation of fraud, plagiarism or misconduct, and Dr Mitchell was only told after the decision had been made.
The Maddox Prize is run by the UK charity Sense about Science and named after Sir John Maddox, the long-time editor of Nature. Since 2012 it has gone to people who stand up for evidence in the face of hostility. This year’s winners will be announced at the Royal Society in London on 29 October.
The NZCCP pulled her article to protect Māori. The Maddox judges have credited her with defending sound science for “all New Zealanders, Māori and non-Māori alike.”
Will the NZCCP now put her article back up?
Douglas Brown retweeted
On Sunday, National’s justice spokesperson Paul Goldsmith promised to make it a crime to stay silent when a child is killed.
It would apply to any adult who was there when a child died, or in the lead-up to it, and doesn’t give police information. The maximum is 10 years in prison. As Police Minister Mark Mitchell put it: “They can maintain their right to silence, but we’re saying there’s going to be consequences for that.”
A right you can go to prison for using isn’t much of a right.
These cases are sickening, and you can understand the frustration when a family closes ranks. But the right to silence is one of the oldest checks on state power we have. If the state says you did something, it has to prove it without your help.
After the Kahui twins, its Justice Minister Simon Power brought in a failure-to-protect offence in 2011: up to 10 years for an adult in the house who knew a child was at risk and did nothing. It went after what people did and left the right to silence alone.
And silence isn’t always the problem. In the Baby Ru case, police say all three adults in the house have spoken to them. Parts of what they’ve said don’t match the evidence, and police say someone tried to clean up the scene before officers arrived. Lying to police to cover up a killing and destroying evidence are already crimes. Attempting to pervert the course of justice carries up to seven years.
If staying silent can cost you 10 years when a child dies, how long before a Minister wants the same rule for other suspected crimes?
Douglas Brown retweeted
This will be interesting. Australia will have to set out what reasonable steps these platforms should have taken but did not take.
When these were proposed based on an AI hallucinated study, this is not going to go down well!
For some reason, @nzlabour (and likely @NZNationalParty as well) think that they can succeed where @Ofcom have been exposed. This imperative to control is inherent in all politicians and bureaucrats, with the latter telling the former that it is the proper thing to do. It will fail.
These policies are being justified by reference to flawed research, and are predicated on the idea that ‘Big Tech’ needs the permission of Govts to operate in various localities. They don’t. If truly threatened, the tech companies simply need to pull back to the USA, and allow customers to go to them, which they will.
The govt can only then resort to geoblocking, or threats against NZers for accessing banned tech products. My guess is that will not go down well at all. Plus, VPNs make that difficult. Well, until they get banned as well…
This is not about protecting children; that is merely the initial excuse to get people used to the idea of govt regulation of social media. The UK and Australian Govts have been far more upfront about this: it is about protecting ‘citizens’ from harm. And they get to decide what that harm is. Both Labour and the National Party are going to hand that decision over to a regulator, who will be our nanny and decide what is good for us and what isn’t. What is misinformation and what isn’t. What we need protection from. As if we are children, and as if our children do not have parents.
Both major parties think this is a good idea. Both are wrong. @prestonjbyrne is showing the world that the proposed and actual internet regulators are mere paper tigers. But we should be more worried about the way our govts have decided this is what must be done, without an honest debate or setting out any actual evidence that supports their position. Because there isn’t any.
The tendency of governments to control information is as old as the hills. But that doesn't mean that we have to accept it.
"If foreign courts decide to... try and get in our way, there will be a point at which we have to accept that we won't be able to recover that money.”
Ofcom admits defeat in the 4chan case.
lbc.co.uk/article/ofcom-tech…
Douglas Brown retweeted
Turns out wealth taxes *reduce* tax revenue. Because the destruction overwhelms the money collected.
Suggesting the entire movement is about punishing people socialists don't like 🤡
Douglas Brown retweeted
The Royal Commission has a story it wants to tell, to make a recommendation that Australia accept more Internet censorship.
The gag ostensibly prevents us from telling our version of that story before the Office of the Solicitor Assisting can tell his.
xitter.cf/The_mHudson/status/211…
Douglas Brown retweeted
Media Release | 19 October 2026
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Free Speech Union: No 10-year jail term for staying silent
Freedom of expression includes the freedom not to speak, yet National proposes to impose up to ten years’ imprisonment on adults who allegedly withhold information from police in specified circumstances involving the death of a child aged 12 or under.
"There are few crimes more horrific than the murder of a child and every effort must be made to bring those responsible to justice, but forcing people to speak under threat of imprisonment is compelled speech and raises serious concerns about individual liberty and the reliability of evidence," said Free Speech Union Council member and criminal defence barrister, Samira Taghavi.
"An innocent person may struggle to provide an accurate account under pressure, while someone responsible for the offending may be encouraged to shift blame onto another person. Neither outcome serves the interests of justice.”
“Having come from a police state myself that does exact statements and confessions out of people, it is hugely concerning that National are prepared to take us into the company of such oppressive regimes.”
"Public outrage at the horror of individual cases, however understandable, must not shake politicians from defending irreducible and fundamental freedoms," said Ms Taghavi. "The rule of law exists precisely to constrain the power of the State when emotions are running high and National must explain why this extraordinary restriction is the optimal solution, instead of asking New Zealanders to simply surrender fundamental protections."
“The violence that this proposal potentially does to the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof is considerable. This proposal is also a foot in the door which would give the State the encouragement to incrementally erode the right to silence and the privilege against self-incrimination, which are enshrined in the Bill of Rights to protect us all”.
ENDS
Douglas Brown retweeted
Those who would take from us our basic freedoms will always focus first on a small subgroup of the worst of the worst - in this case those who hamper an investigation into the murder of a child - knowing full well that it means anyone who defends the principle that's under attack will be accused of supporting that subgroup and their heinous behaviour.
It's a disgraceful tactic, designed to rally the moronic torches-and-pitchforks crowd to silence dissenters.
If you want to end the right to silence in criminal cases, have the guts to say so. Don't apply it to an unpopular minority and then let mission creep do your dirty work. #nzpol
And there you have it, the Govt's Chief Victims Advisor: "Questioned on the legal implications of the proposal, Money said the Bill of Rights is important, "however, the death of a child is more important".
Think about that. Your rights are nice to have, but come second when compared to solving crime.
This tallies up with @MarkMitchellMP's statement that "You cannot put a price on safety." Apparently, that price includes our fundamental criminal due process and fair trial rights.
Since when did the @NZNationalParty think removing rights and enlarging State control was a good idea?
Think about what they are doing right now:
1. Proposing to bring in affirmative sexual consent laws, which are solely designed to increase the number of rape convictions.
2. Exploring (again) reducing our right to jury trials by raising the threshold at which you can elect trial by jury;
3. Proposing to remove the right to silence from both suspects and specified witnesses in child murder cases.
4. Bringing in an under-16 Social Media Ban, thus requiring every person in the country to identify their age to remain in the digital marketplace. For the children, of course.
And it won't stop with cases involving the murder of children. Already, "Money said the policy should go beyond children 12 and under to cases of significant child abuse and "certainly child homicide". I am sure that @PaulGoldsmithMP will think that is a very good idea.
This is an appalling policy, one that will potentially have far-reaching consequences. The leftward tilt of the National Party continues, as it further devalues the place of our rights and freedoms in society. It is incredibly disappointing.
nzherald.co.nz/nz/election-2…
No, you can't. Treating criminal gangs as if they are legitimate, even valued, parts of the community, which is exactly what the Greens and TPM are doing, is pro-criminal. The correct term for how the gangs will see Kaipara et al is 'useful idiots', and they will take full advantage of it.
Normalising gang membership, which is what these idiots are doing, is the opposite of being anti-crime. And it is disgraceful. The Mongrel Mob and Black Power, especially, have been the cause of untold suffering for Māori. They need to go.
I have represented gang members for years, so I have somewhat of an understanding of the harm they cause. TPM, especially, will have an even greater understanding, which makes their actions even more disgraceful.
And there you have it, the Govt's Chief Victims Advisor: "Questioned on the legal implications of the proposal, Money said the Bill of Rights is important, "however, the death of a child is more important".
Think about that. Your rights are nice to have, but come second when compared to solving crime.
This tallies up with @MarkMitchellMP's statement that "You cannot put a price on safety." Apparently, that price includes our fundamental criminal due process and fair trial rights.
Since when did the @NZNationalParty think removing rights and enlarging State control was a good idea?
Think about what they are doing right now:
1. Proposing to bring in affirmative sexual consent laws, which are solely designed to increase the number of rape convictions.
2. Exploring (again) reducing our right to jury trials by raising the threshold at which you can elect trial by jury;
3. Proposing to remove the right to silence from both suspects and specified witnesses in child murder cases.
4. Bringing in an under-16 Social Media Ban, thus requiring every person in the country to identify their age to remain in the digital marketplace. For the children, of course.
And it won't stop with cases involving the murder of children. Already, "Money said the policy should go beyond children 12 and under to cases of significant child abuse and "certainly child homicide". I am sure that @PaulGoldsmithMP will think that is a very good idea.
This is an appalling policy, one that will potentially have far-reaching consequences. The leftward tilt of the National Party continues, as it further devalues the place of our rights and freedoms in society. It is incredibly disappointing.
nzherald.co.nz/nz/election-2…
Douglas Brown retweeted
I was at Tamatha Paul’s talk in Christchurch on 19 March 2025. During that talk. Ms. Paul seemed to envisage a place for the gangs in Police abolition. My notes show her saying that, “Gangs can play a big role in this. Mongrel Mob have a number in one area that women can call if being assaulted, and brothers will come around and separate them, take him away for a few days.”
This was part of her reply to being asked, “A world without police looks like what?” Ms Paul said, in summary:
Take out road, put under NZTA.
More technical specialists, trained in various skills. Multi-disciplinary teams. Also probably need a tactical squad if firearms.
Job done, go home. (She really said that!)
Māori wardens.
Instead of beat patrols, have more eyes, more ethical bystander intervention.
Then came the bit about the gangs, followed by the comment that “Treating police as one size fits all is incorrect.”
(I think you can find this part in a video online, although it misses the bit about the gangs, for some reason...)
A bit later on, she said that we “can’t separate the police from their founding [in colonisation]. Gangs are an example of that, panic about youth delinquencies, Mazengarb report, the biggest example of impact of colonisation.”
The @nzgreens apparently don’t just see the gangs as examples of marginalised communities. This was their then and current Justice spokeswoman talking positively about a gang having its own system of de-escalatory practice, so that victims of domestic violence don’t report their members to the actual Police and risk prosecution of the abuser.
Oddly enough, some of the things that she said were correct; for example, the Police are not equipped to deal appropriately with mentally ill people. But Ms Paul doesn’t appear to have met a criminal who isn’t mentally ill or disabled! Her solutions, on the other hand, were usually just plain nuts.
And her positive approach to the gangs was just appalling. Which I say as a defence lawyer with enough experience of gangs to know what I am talking about.
So, I don’t buy that the Greens are merely reaching out to voters, or to marginalised communities. They see gangs as a part of the community, just like every other group, with a positive role to play in society.
It is madness. And I think that they are being duplicitous about it.
The Green Party and Marama Davidson have doubled down on the Mongrel Mob controversy.
Davidson says the gang patch ban will be reversed, calling it “unnecessary work that needs undoing.”
Davidson also says the Greens are absolutely open to funding the Mob and other gangs for programs if they prove effective, and she has confirmed she will continue engaging with gangs and visiting their gang pads.