International Speaker Announced For ACT's 2025 Rally In Auckland
'ACT's annual rally always features a thought-provoking keynote to elevate the standard of public debate in New Zealand,' says ACT Leader David Seymour.
'Dr Lindsay fits that tradition perfectly. He is the author of the bestseller Cynical Theories and one of the world's leading lights in the fight against identity politics, conformity and oppression. His message about reclaiming liberalism in an age of extremes could not be more timely.'
'Last year, Paul Henry's address at ACT's rally was viewed more than 250,000 times by Kiwis who wished they'd attended in person. This year, I predict it will be even more important not to miss out.'
Notes:
Dr Lindsay is an American author, mathematician, and leading advocate for free speech and intellectual freedom. He is the founder of New Discourses, a platform dedicated to defending reason, open debate, and the principles of liberal democracy.
His bestselling book Cynical Theories has become a global phenomenon, exposing how radical ideologies undermine free societies. Dr Lindsay's message resonates with everyone concerned about the rise of identity politics, censorship, and authoritarian thinking.
He has spoken before the US Congress, universities, and grassroots movements around the world. At a time when free expression is under threat, Dr Lindsay delivers a clear and urgent message: we must stand up for liberty, open inquiry, and common sense.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
Trump in element but summit unlikely to end war
"I love deadlines," Douglas Adams, author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy , said. "I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." United States President Donald Trump sets deadlines for more complicated reasons that purport to be tactical, but he too is addicted to the whooshing sound they make when he breaks them. His latest display of disdain for the deadlines he sets himself began in mid-July, when he gave Russia a 50-day deadline to agree to a ceasefire in its war against Ukraine. A week later, in an apparent fit of temper over President Vladimir Putin's relentless nightly attacks on Ukrainian cities, Trump moved the deadline up by a month, to August 8. Russia's penalty for missing that deadline was allegedly going to be American "secondary tariffs" against other countries that continue to buy Russian oil, notably China, India and Turkey. "I used trade for a lot of things, but it's great for settling wars," Trump boasted — only to discover, not for the first time, that his intended targets were able to push back. Trump declared, again before the actual deadline rolled around, that India's new tariff would be 50%, not 25%, if it did not stop buying heavily discounted Russian oil. Prime Minister Narendra Modi immediately declared that he was ready to "pay a huge price" rather than let the US dictate India's trade policies — and Trump did not even try it on with China or Turkey. So with no leverage in Moscow, his deadline for a Russian ceasefire passed unmentioned. Instead, he sent his favourite emissary, real estate developer Steve Witkoff, to make a new offer: a one-on-one meeting between Trump and Putin in which the two men would make a deal without the Ukrainians, the European Nato countries, or anybody else present. Putin jumped at the chance, as it will be his first face-to-face meeting with a US president since 2021. (He was being boycotted because of his invasion of Ukraine, but this is presumably one of Russia's rewards for agreeing to a "summit".) However, what Trump hopes to get out of it is less obvious. Although Trump is very much in thrall to Vladimir Putin, who he mistakenly believes to be his personal friend, he knows that a full Russian conquest of Ukraine would not look good on his record. His real goal is to win the Nobel Peace Prize in order to end the shame of having seen Barack Obama get one first. For that, he needs a longer-lasting "peace". This need not be a permanent peace settlement that includes an independent Ukraine. Trump really believes in "America First", and Ukraine's long-term fate is of no interest to him. But he must persuade Putin to accept only a partial victory now (and maybe final conquest later) in order to portray himself to the Norwegian Nobel committee as a plausible peacemaker. This explanation sounds so stupid and ridiculous that people have difficulty in taking it seriously, but it does explain why Trump has tried so hard to bully first one side (Ukraine), then the other side (Russia), and now back to Ukraine, into signing that kind of nothing-settled ceasefire. If you still question that analysis, consider the fact that Trump regularly indulges in extended public rants about the sheer injustice of Obama getting a Nobel Peace Prize and leaving him still without one. So when Putin dangles the prospect of a one-on-one summit before Witkoff, of course Trump is tempted, even if it would impose a disadvantageous ceasefire on Ukraine. However, there will probably not be a complete sell-out of Ukraine in Alaska, for two reasons. The first is that Putin, rightly or wrongly, is convinced that he is now winning the war by sheer weight of numbers, and that it is only a matter of time until Ukraine collapses. In that case, why would he now trim his maximal aspirations for the sake of a ceasefire? Those aspirations include Russian sovereignty over Crimea and the four south-eastern regions of Ukraine (including the yet unconquered parts), and permanent neutrality and a much-reduced army for Ukraine. In the long run, Putin aspires to "reunite" all of Ukraine with Russia under one pretext or another, but a decisive military victory might make it possible now. The other reason to assume that the Alaskan summit is unlikely to end the war is the fact that if Trump does completely sell out Ukraine, the Ukrainians will go on fighting anyway. They would be fighting at a worse disadvantage and facing a bigger likelihood of eventual conquest, but they know that wars can have unpredictable outcomes until the next-to-last moment. And whatever happens, Trump will go on setting deadlines and then missing them. Just like he did in the real estate business. • Gwynne Dyer is an independent London journalist.
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
Will axing petrol tax be a game-changer?
Scrapping petrol tax may, or many not, be transformative, Angela Curl and Caroline Shaw write. The way we get around is unfair, and unhealthy. Some people travel a lot, creating disproportionate harms on people and the planet, such as pollution, injury risk and physical inactivity. Others cannot afford to travel enough, missing out on things that are important, such as catching up with loved ones or healthcare appointments, or end up having to forego expenditure on other important things, such as food. Replacing fuel excise duty (or petrol tax) with electronic road user charges for all vehicles — as announced by Transport Minister Chris Bishop last week — offers an opportunity to transform the way we fund and pay for our transport system in a way that works for people and the planet by reflecting the true costs imposed when we use the roads. Bishop said "it isn't fair to have Kiwis who drive less and can't afford a fuel-efficient car paying more than people who can afford one and drive more often." On the whole, we agree. We know that those households with the lowest income drive far less (about 100km a week less) but also have to spend a much greater proportion of their income on getting around (16% of income compared with 9% for higher-income households). Those on lower incomes are also far less likely to be able to afford an electric vehicle with cheaper running costs, instead paying the relatively more expensive petrol tax. However, Bishop's proposal represents a narrow view of the harms, or wider costs, of driving to society. It is largely based on the assumption all vehicles should contribute "fairly" (based on weight and distance travelled) towards road maintenance, operations and improvements. But a pricing structure that also accounts for the costs to our health system of injuries, pollution and physical inactivity caused by the transport system, might also include differential charging for different types of vehicles. For example, we know that SUVs cause more severe injuries to those outside of the vehicle, and while EVs reduce tailpipe emissions, they still contribute to congestion and injury risk. The proposal does suggest that weight, as well as distance travelled, will be factored into pricing; however, it should also consider the damage that heavier and larger vehicles do to people and the environment. A change in the way we are charged for using the roads offers a real opportunity to design a progressive charge that alleviates costs pressures for those already struggling to pay for the driving they need to do, while reducing levels of driving overall. One way to achieve this would be through increasing the rate per km, above a certain amount of kilometres driven. Given the costs involved in running and operating the scheme, and that this needs to be revenue-generating for government, it seems unlikely there will be a reduction in the cost of travel in real terms for everyone. However, if the government is committed to fairness, it needs to ensure costs do not escalate for those who can least afford it and who have few alternatives. The proposed changes to road user charges are most likely to be successful and acceptable if they are accompanied by investment in public transport, walking and cycling and alongside strategic urban planning that supports local access to the things we all need such as shops, schools and sports grounds. The most straightforward way to ensure that charging for using the roads does not force people into situations where they have to forego other essentials is to ensure that it is easy and safe to get around in other ways, or that we do not need to travel as much. For both fairness and health and wellbeing we need to continue to improve travel options other than driving. Bishop presented this as a new way to fund our roads, but we should be taking a more holistic view — this is an opportunity to think about how we fund our transport system. Using revenue raised to reduce the need to drive can make charging for driving more acceptable. Bishop said: "This is a once-in-a-generation change. It's the right thing to do, it's the fair thing to do, and it will future-proof how we fund our roads for decades to come." This policy has the potential to be truly transformative and be part of creating a transport system (not just roads) that is fairer, and healthier for everyone. It can be done. The question is, will it? — Newsroom • Dr Angela Curl is a senior lecturer in the University of Otago department of population health, Christchurch; Caroline Shaw is a lecturer and researcher in the department of public health, University of Otago, Wellington.
NZ Herald
12 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Trump says crime in Washington DC is out of control. Here's what the data shows
Local and federal data, though, paint a contrasting picture. DC police have made about 900 juvenile arrests this year - almost 20% fewer than during the same time frame last year. About 200 of those charges are for violent crimes, and at least four dozen are for carjacking. This northern summer, DC officials have also implemented stricter curfew laws for teens in response to concerns about large brawls - recorded in videos that spread on social media - breaking out in communities across the city. Violent crime in DC has been on the decline since 2023, when a generational spike in killings rendered the nation's capital one of America's deadliest cities, plunging communities into grief and igniting a local political crisis that escalated to Congress. The decrease since then is part of a nationwide drop over the past two years that in 2024 brought homicide rates to their lowest level in decades. This year, homicides are down more than 30% in data that the Washington Post collected from more than 100 police departments in large US cities. Reports of burglaries and robberies also dipped by double-digit percentages. Discussing crime today, Trump pointed to other cities that he said 'are bad, very bad', appearing to suggest the federal government could take action in places beyond Washington. Jeanine Pirro, US Attorney for Washington, DC, holds a news conference. Photo / Tom Brenner, for The Washington Post 'You look at Chicago, how bad it is. You look at Los Angeles, how bad it is. We have other cities that are very bad. New York has a problem. 'And then you have, of course, Baltimore and Oakland,' Trump added, calling them 'so far gone'. Every city Trump mentioned by name has seen homicide and violent crimes decline this year. Not captured in statistics, though, is the grief, pain, and shattered sense of safety that follow each crime. A few hours before 19-year-old software engineer and Elon Musk protege Edward Coristine was beaten, a man suffered a non-fatal gunshot wound. Later that day, a 27-year-old man would be fatally shot blocks from the Capitol. The following night, a 38-year-old Northwest Washington resident was killed in gunfire in Columbia Heights. None of these crimes made national headlines. But the image Trump shared of Coristine continues to ricochet online. Last week, the President described crime in DC as 'out of control', with young 'thugs' and 'gang members' who are 'randomly attacking, mugging, maiming, and shooting innocent Citizens'. DC Mayor Muriel Bowser (Democrat) refuted that image on Monday, noting the recent drops in crime while adding that the city could use the federal government's help with other law enforcement priorities, such as adding more prosecutors and judges in the city. 'If the priority is to show force in an American city, we know he can do that here,' Bowser, who had been silent since the President initially threatened to take over the city, said of Trump in an interview on MSNBC. 'But it won't be because there's a spike in crime.' FBI arrest data collected by the Washington Post shows juvenile arrests nationwide have largely been dropping since the 1990s. In 2024, the rate was about 439 arrests per 100,000 juveniles, down 7% from 2023 and five times lower than in 1997. Juvenile arrests are down in DC this year, but the trend doesn't hold everywhere. In Baltimore, police made 1377 juvenile arrests in 2024, a 47.4% increase from the previous year, according to FBI data. In New York City, juvenile arrests were up 10.9% in 2024 compared with 2023 and are continuing to rise. New York police made more than 5200 arrests from January through June this year, up almost 10% from the same period the year before. And Chicago is seeing an even sharper rise, but the juvenile arrest count there remains less than half of the 2019 figure. US Attorney Jeanine Pirro, the Trump-appointed prosecutor who handles most of DC's adult crime, said the nation's capital shields violent youngsters from consequence. She joined the President in advocating that more teenagers, including those as young as 14, be funnelled into the adult justice system. In DC, suspects as young as 15 can be charged as adults. 'Young people are coddled, and they don't need to be coddled anymore,' Pirro said last week at a news conference. 'They need to be held accountable.' A sign in response to the city's summer curfew on youths. Photo / Eric Lee, for The Washington Post Eduardo Ferrer, policy director of Georgetown Law's Juvenile Justice Initiative, said it was important to keep in mind that the vast majority of DC's teenagers are doing the right things. And for that minority of young people who commit serious violent crimes, the solution should not be charging them as adults, Ferrer said. He pointed to an influential Centres for Disease Control study from 2007 that found youths charged as adults were 34% more likely to be rearrested than those who went through the juvenile justice system. 'The evidence shows that this is a policy that may sound tough on crime but actually undermines public safety,' Ferrer said. Since early July, an 11pm citywide curfew has been in effect for those aged 17 and younger. It runs until the end of the month. Local leaders also implemented stricter curfew laws for teens in response to concerns about large brawls, including at the Southwest Waterfront and in the U Street corridor in Northwest Washington. The city has had four 'juvenile curfew zones' this summer - locations with more restrictive rules from 8 to 11pm. The night Coristine was attacked, a curfew zone was in place in parts of Southwest and Northeast Washington. There have been no reported violations of those curfews, according to DC police. Hours after Coristine was attacked, residents in a nearby block were awakened by shouting on their usually quiet, tree-lined street. One person described seeing a rowdy crowd of youngsters, some in masks. Later, they saw a young man, beaten and bloodied. When DC police arrived, 'all parties had fled the scene and the officers had nothing found', according to a department spokesperson. When asked whether there were other incidents in the area in the predawn hours, the spokesperson said 'there were unfounded reports of suspicious groups; however, officers did not locate any such groups'. The weekend's incident unnerved residents, even before the nearby attack of Coristine captured the President's and the nation's attention. 'This is a safe city, but overhearing and witnessing gang threats and then watching the camera footage of the thuggery is disturbing,' said one resident. The crowd of teens, he said, were roaming the street and appeared to be checking for unlocked cars and things to steal. 'The language Trump uses to describe DC is wrongbut clearly there is something bad going on that needs to stop.'
