Bradford to Leave Parliament

The NZ Herald has confirmed the rumour that 57yr old Green MP Sue Bradford has announced her retirement after ten years in Parliament. She will be leaving Parliament at the end of the month. Bradford will be replaced by David Clendon who is currently at number 10 on the list. She stated in the Green Party's press release, “I’ll always be politically active and Parliament is just one vehicle for political change" - she's absolutely correct, and good on her.

She's not a very popular lady, with 87.4% of Kiwis opposed to her Anti-Smacking law which the Prime Minister continues to support. The majority of MPs are also in disagreement with the law which criminalises good parents who use reasonable force for the purpose of correcting their children - though they are unable to state this publically. And of course her own colleagues in the Green Party are sick and tired of the smacking issue and want to rebrand and move on to other issues. Refusing Bradford the position of co-leader after the announcement of Fitzsimons' retirement was quite likely a hint from the caucus that it was time for her to pack her bags.

"I’ll be going back to the grassroots”

A few quotes from Sue Bradford...

"The men that are anti this bill are sexual perverts and get a kick out of hitting children" - Stuff, NZ Herald

"Smacking has never been a criminal offence, and still isn't" - Scoop

"Parents need to accept that it is no longer legal to hit children." - Newstalk ZB

Boscawen to Stall Section59 Ammendment Bill

In a clever move, ACT's John Boscawen has stated that he will be writing to the Clerk of Parliament, requesting that the first reading of his Bill to ammend the Anti-Smacking law be postponed indefinitely. He's pretty much written off any chances of getting a Christmas card from Dear Leader this year, as Mr. Key's intention in his announcement that National would kill the bill at its first reading was that the issue would go away and that he could get on with more important things. Heck, we all want the issue to go away - but the Prime Minister needs to understand that ignoring 87.4% of Kiwis is not the best way to achieve this.

Boscawen will be speaking tonight in Christchurch - all are welcome, details here.

The Herald has the story.

Forum on the Family

Flew up to Auckland early Friday morning for the Forum on the Family. If I had paid more attention to Whale's damning criticism of Jet Star airline, I wouldn't have bothered with them, but as it was they got us to Auckland two hours late, so got to the forum at 10am, without any coffee... Met up with irrepressible fellow blogger Dave Crampton who has done a few blog posts on the forum, Matt and Madeline who are thinking about doing a blog post (now published), and David Farrar who I think would probably print his blog out and eat it before he admitted he was present at the forum ;) Anyway, here's a few comments from speakers and thoughts from the forum...

Political Panel
Ross Robertson (Labour), Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga (National), Judy Turner (United Future - list MP, not in Parliament), Gordon Copeland (Kiwi Party - list MP, not in Parliament)

All the politicians wanted to keep prayer in Parliament saying it was a time of reflection, silence - it's part of history of NZ and so important to keep it... It doesn't bother me either way.

On abstaining from voting, none of them were very keen on it - Gordon in particular, however he was the only MP to miss the third readings of the Anti-Smacking Bill and the Electoral Finance Bill. Kind of ironic however by no means the unforgivable sin.

On the best way to get in touch with an MP, they all agreed that bulk/form emails are only useful for gauging numbers in terms of support or opposition to a proposition, however made it clear that it was often very annoying. One of them stated "the Government does listen to numbers" which elicited a wave of laughter from the crowd. Gordon had a spiel about the number of supportive postcards he had received on the subject of the Therapeutic Bill (2006), and beaming told us that he had held the balance of power at one of its readings, choosing to support the bill (61-60 votes for). For crying out loud, if you're a list MP you shouldn't get up there and skite that you held the balance of power - it's a part of the reason why people are so cynical and scared of our electoral system of MMP.

John Angus, Children's Commissioner
John stated accurately that child abuse isn't a child problem, they don't cause it and aren't responsible for it - it's an adult problem. Apparently there's 100,000 incidents refered to CYFS each year (over 300 per day), but of these a relatively small (but horrific) 13,000 are found to be actual cases of abuse. Child abuse costs the country an estimated $2b yearly. John erroneously stated that 8 children die as a result of child abuse each year, however the figure is more like 18,000 when the children dying from abortion are accounted for.

Bruce Pilbrow, Families Commissioner and Director of Parents Inc
"you can complain and moan... no, you should either do nothing or get stuck in and do something"

On the Families Commission he said, six months ago I would have said can it, kick it - but it's not going to go, so let's get involved - we've got a chance and this is it - if we can't do it then no-once can, and then we should kick it. Bruce reckons more money should be funneled into third-party organisations as "they know how to turn $1 into $2, and they have something called accountability" hah, good call.

---

Opposition leader Phil Goff and Prime Minister John Key both addressed the forum, speaking for 40 minutes each but saying very little... Got to give Key some credit for tackling the Smacking issue first off, but of course his comments on the subject were as usual, unprincipled and embarrassing for any National supporters listening. He said that he wanted to make sure that Nigel Latta is comfortable that parents won't be prosecuted for smacking their child. Nigel has been appointed onto the review board for the smacking law. "Nigel voted no!"... wow John, what a concession... who cares how comfortable Nigel is, what bearing does that have on the law? Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 currently classes a corrective smack using reasonable force as a criminal offence, and whether Nigel is comfortable or not, and whether the police prosecute or not it is still bad law, and 87.4% of Kiwis hate it. Anyway, I put the following question on one small aspect of the abortion issue to Phil Goff,

"Currently young girls can have their pre-born baby aborted without their parents' knowledge or consent - what will your party do about this?"

Phil simply dodged the question and discussed the need to prevent conception so that there is no need to abort - said he doesn't want to see a law which would criminalise abortion - because he says that would mean botched up abortions would be done in back alleys. Of course this is incorrect. Prior to the passing of the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act in 1977, an average of only one woman died from complications in an illegal abortion each year.

Newly-elected president Voice for Life asked Phil if he agreed that more should be done to enable women to make a truly informed decision regarding their pregnancy. Phil concurred, but made the false and emotive claim that if an unwanted baby is allowed to be born, it will necessarily be destined to a life of misery.

---

Overall the forum was worthwhile, preeminently on account of the wonderful networking opportunities which I took advantage of. Heh, the food was a bit ponsy but Dave and I knocked back quite a few cups of good strong coffee.

Voluntary Student Union Membership on the Cards

Had my second TV interview on Monday. The first was with TV3 just prior to election '08, about Jacket-gate. TV3's reporter, Sia Aston covered the issue of voluntary student union membership today, with Roger Douglas's reform bill set to go to its first reading with Government support on Wednesday. She googled "compulsory + student + union", clicked through to my article about the corruption at VUSA, followed it through to my Facebook page and messaged me, asking for an interview.

The interview went well, however Sia took just one of my comments, focusing instead on a confused NZUSA rep, and UCSA president Steve Jukes verbosely defending the current fascist structure of student politics. While I acknowledge that many student associations and their respective execs, (my own at Canterbury included), do a great deal of work on behalf of students, it is clear that there is an unacceptable level of corruption going on, among a list of other undesirable outcomes of having compulsory unions. As I said to the reporter Lachlan,

"Look at the UCSA for example. At the recent student union elections candidates were called upont to submit a photo and a summary of what they stood for, for the student mag CANTA. One candidate didn't even submit anything but still got elected onto the exec. Or the AGM which took place shortly before the election, CANTA advertised "Free hamburgers, sausage sizzle and $5 jugs of beer" for those who attended the meeting. It was held in the casual setting of an outdoor amphitheatre, adjacent to the student pub, with a quorum of 200 students from a student membership of over 15,000. And no surprises as to what was on the agenda: a move to increase the salaries of those on the exec, with the president on well over $40,000 pa. - money taken forcefully from thousands of other students who probably didn't even know this was going on."

I will say more about the University of Canterbury Students Association in the future, but the above is a sumamry to give you an idea of why I and so many others throughout New Zealand are glad to see the VSM bill before Parliament, and to see the all-too-often anti-democratic National government pledging to support the bill to it's first reading and the select committee process.

The Abortion of a Pro-Lifer

Jim (James Lawrence) Pouillon, 63, of Owosso

On 11 September 2009, Jim was murdered as he sat outside an abortion clinic, protesting the injustice being carrried out behind its doors as he had been doing for many years. The president of the pro-life group Jim was a member of described him as, "just a nice, elderly gentleman who was disabled, used an oxygen tank and wore leg braces." The murderer shot Jim several times to kill him - a comparatively quick and painless death when compared with the slow and brutal methods of killing unborn babies he was standing up for. Jim has saved many babies' lives and many women from the harm of abortion - but finally paid the ultimate price, something he had said he was prepared to do long before. Read more.

What a legend.

Smoking Harms Unborn Babies... Really?

Was surprised to see this smoking warning from the Australian Govt. on a pack of cigarettes. The warning reads,

"Smoking during pregnancy reduces the flow of blood in the placenta and limits the oxygen and nutrients that reach the growing baby. This increases the risk of miscarriage, stillbirth, premature birth, complications during birth or the baby having a smaller brain and body."

But who cares? The Aussie Govt. sure as heck doesn't. Look at Victoria where they've removed the right of doctors to be able to choose to have nothing to do with abortions for conscience' sake, and have decriminalised abortion up to birth. Or Queensland where in 2007 alone, 19 babies over 20wks survived an abortion attempt but were left to die, refused life-saving help.

Hypocrites.

Blossom

I'm in Sydney, Aussie for two nights for the Liberty & Society Conference. Sitting in the departure lounge at Christchurch airport I pulled out the iBook G4 (thanks Lyd!) and pulled a scrap of paper out of my wallet. During the fairly stolid Local Govt. lecture that morning I had started writing a poem. Hammered it in and kept working on it. Finished it off on the train (they're double-deckers here in Sydney!) to St. Leonards which is in North Sydney. Caught a glimpse of the Opera House too, hope to get a better look at Sydney Saturday or Sunday. Anyway, here's the poem - admittedly pretty sentimental but it was just as spontaneous!

Blossom

half-past midnight; it's dark out here,
blossom petals floating through the air -
defy gravity, time and space;
the warm breeze blowing against your face

dewy grass, my jandals slippery,
holding hands, we walk very quickly.
stars come out in a cloudy sky,
the moon is shining for you and I

forever young I want to be,
walking forever; just you and me.
we need no sleep, we'll talk all night,
thinking out loud til' the sun is bright

we speak of doubt; uncertainty,
and if what's happening is meant to be
we can talk our problems away -
and everything's gonna be ok.

you've got to go, i understand,
things never happen the way we'd planned
lifting my head I see again,
blossom petals floating down like rain

Move to Amend Barbaric UK Premature Birth Law

baby Jayden, 21 weeks, 5 days

Baby Jayden was born halfway through pregnancy at 21 weeks and 5 days old. Despite the doctors' declaration that the child would be born dead with his skin peeling off, young Jayden was instead born alive, healthy - albeit extremely premature. Devestatingly for Jayden and his parents, UK law states that babies under 22 weeks are "unviable" and therefore not eligible to receive assistance if born alive. After two hours of life, and refused basic medical assistance, baby Jayden passed away. His heart-broken mother Sarah shares her story here.

Sarah has set up a Facebook group, Justice for Baby Jayden which has over 260,000 members calling for a change to the barbaric law that allowed this attrocity to take place.

The Daily Mail reports,

"When he was born, he put out his arms and legs and pushed himself over," said Miss Capewell.
"A midwife said he was breathing and had a strong heartbeat and described him as a 'little fighter.'"
"I kept asking for the doctors but the midwife said, 'They won't come and help, sweetie. Make the best of the time you have with him.'

baby Jayden's mother Sarah, 23

Are you disgusted? I am. This tragic case is ultimately no worse than the 46,000,000 other abortions which will be committed place this year. However what makes this case really stand out is that the (a) the law is terrible, and (b) the doctors were so heartless as to stand by and refuse to attempt to help the young child. Sarah makes mention of one little girl, Amillia Taylor who is perfectly healthy after being born in Florida in 2006 at 21 weeks and six days - just one day older than her poor son

I acknowledge the value in debating the morality or necessity for legalised abortion. However it is absolutely crucial that all those taking part in the debate have an objective understanding of what it is that we are talking about. Was baby Jayden to have been killed within his mother's womb, advocates for legalised abortion would not have batted an eye-lid. However when his environment changes (he is placed outside the womb), suddenly the story that he was killed by being refused essential medical attention becomes an international story. In the video below, Scott Klusendorf explains the SLED theory - well worth a watch.

hat-tip: Jill Stanek

Distinctions in Killing

Philosopher Alexander Pruss briefly discusses a question for proponents of abortion.

If you hold that abortion is not immoral because a foetus has no future-directed desires (e.g. no desire to live), would it then follow that it is not immoral to kill an adult who has no future-directed desires?

That's my simplified, summary - but here is Pruss's proposition...

According to some defenders of abortion, what makes it wrong to kill an adult but not wrong to kill a fetus is that the adult has future-directed desires while the fetus does not. But now imagine an innocent adult who has only one future-directed desire: to die. Nonetheless, it is uncontroversially wrong to kill this adult without her consent (it's wrong to kill her with her consent, but that's controversial). Thus, it is wrong to kill this adult without her consent. Why? Well, on the theory in question, it's wrong because she has future-directed desires, or, more precisely, a desire. But the desire is a desire not to be alive. It is absurd that the presence of that desire is what makes it wrong to kill her.

So what makes it wrong to kill her? I see two answers: The first is that she is being deprived of future life. And that future life is valuable even if she does not recognize it as such. The second is that the killing is a destruction of a human body.

It is important to realise that Pruss is not here comparing abortion with euthanasia, but rather with the non-consensual killing of an adult who has absolutely no desire to continue living - something generally accepted to be an immoral action.

Why I Oppose Legalising Marijuana

a marijuana/cannabis leaf

On 2 July I discussed Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei's bill to decriminalise marijuana for medicinal purposes. A couple of weeks later I posted an exclusive interview I took with a marijuana user. Today I will explain why I oppose legalising marijuana but support its decriminalisation for both medicinal and recreational use. However I will make it absolutely clear that I am opposed to and would discourage people from using marijuana for recreational purposes.

First I need to clear up my intentionally misleading title and perhaps confusing introduction to this post by drawing a distinction between decriminalisation and legalisation. As far as I can tell, there is nothing in society that the government should specifically legalise, as such an action implies that the government has the inherent authority to permit or deny a particular thing or activity. For example, what would you wish to happen if it were currently the case that the possession, trade and consumption of bread was illegal? Should the government pass a law legalising bread - or would it be better if they instead decriminalised bread - on the grounds that the state has no jurisdiction to legislate for or against it? What about your very existence: should living be legal? The government has no authority to specifically permit the continuation of the life of an individual. Such a decision can surely only be made by the individual. So in the case of marijuana, it should either be either illegal or simply not ruled upon at all. Refraining from making a ruling on something allows for individuals to make decisions unaffected by an assumed belief that the government has endorsed it by actively legalising it. It is preferable to passively permit a harmful activity (such as bungy-jumping) or substance (such as marijuana) than to actively permit it as would be the case if marijuana were legalised.

I could employ the argument that the use of marijuana is justified for the purpose of pain-relief and then follow on from this that it therefore has a legitimate use, and subsequently question the justification of a statuatory line of distinction between medicinal and recreational use. Alternatively I could take the line that marijuana is far less harmful to the body than glue-sniffing or methamphetamine for instance, and should therefore not be legislated against as these other harder drugs are. Again, I could compare the adverse effects of the recreational abuse of marijuana with the destructive effects of drunkeness, concluding that if alcohol is not legislated against then neither should marijuana be. However useful these arguments may be, this post will support decriminalisation from another angle.

The issue of whether an action or thing should be permissible or not is usually blindingly simple. If it does not adversely affect a third party against their will, then the law has no place in the matter. Although I hold that our very bodies are a gift to each of us from God, and that we should value and care for these "jars of clay", the government does not have jurisdiction to force us to be good. The question of how far this principle is to be taken is fundamental to the euthanasia/suicide debate. Should people have the right to choose how to end their own lives - and in what circumstances? But this is an issue for another post.

But what about when marijuana harms innocent bystanders such as children living in the house of a marijuana user, or neighbors upset with the odour wafting over the fence in the evening? First I must demonstrate that this question is baseless as it directs blame at the medium of the damage instead of accusing the perpetrator of the damage. If, on the subject of loud music I asked, "What about when loud music harms innocent bystanders...", it is generally accepted that it would be an incorrect response to ban music. Instead, people should be free to play music so long as it does not adversely affect others. Music played too loud is harmful to the ears and is therefore should not be imposed upon anyone without their prior consent. If certain people wish to enjoy such loud music and knowingly damage their hearing, then that is their prerogative. The government has no mandate to legislate on acceptable decibel levels for music when nobody's hearing is being damaged against their will. Our frustration and anger at loud music played at night by the neighbors should not be targeted at the music itself, but at the immature idiots who are abusing it. They are welcome to either turn down the volume, plug in headphones or drive out into the country and crank up the stereo, but it is unacceptable to harm others against their will.

The question should then be rephrased, "What about when marijuana-users harm innocent buystanders..." The subject then becomes the perpetrator of the harm rather than the medium. Marijuana use is detrimental to the human body, and it is therefore unfair to subject young children to its smoke as they do not have the ability or knowledge to know how to handle such an environment. The solution is clear: people who are unable to give consent (children), or who do not give consent to be affected by others using marijuana in their environment - must not have the same imposed upon them. Since we have already found that the problem is not the medium but the perpetrator, it is clear that either the perpetrator or the bystander must be removed from the environment. An example of this would be where marijuana users find some place else to smoke their weed so that harm to bystanders is significantly reduced or completely removed.

Lets decriminalise marijuana for both medicinal and recreational purposes and allow New Zealand to move forward into the 21st Century on this matter.

Australian Abortion Mills Born Alive Horror

Is there no justice in the World? the state of Queensland in Australia has approximately the same population as New Zealand. In 2007 alone, 19 babies are on record as being born alive as the result of botched abortions: and left to die, wrapped in cloth on the cold hard steel bench in the abortion mill.

It defies imagination and boundaries of cruelty - I can make no further comment, but below are excerpts from the article.

A growing number of induced babies are born alive following failed late-term abortions.

New Queensland Health figures show 19 babies were aborted at 20 weeks or more in 2007, but rather than dying at birth as intended, the newborns were able to breathe unaided.

The babies, some as advanced as 26 weeks, were aborted using drugs to induce labour. Once born, no medical help was offered and they died soon afterwards.

"If babies are born alive after this they are likely to die within a few minutes, although it can take up to half an hour," she said. "We can only keep them wrapped up warm. It is up to the parents whether they want to see the child."

Some were life-threatening, but they also included cleft palates and club feet.

I lol'd

Scrubone can be relied upon to dig up a good joke - here's one he posted today.

A man, who smelled like a distillery, flopped down on a subway seat next to a priest. The man’s tie was stained, his face was plastered with red lipstick, and a half-empty bottle of gin was sticking out of his torn coat pocket. He opened his newspaper and began reading.
After a few minutes the disheveled man turned to the priest and said, “Say, Father, what causes arthritis?”
“Mister, it’s caused by loose living, being with cheap wicked women, too much alcohol, and a contempt for your fellow man.”
“Well, I’ll be jiggered,” the drunk muttered, returning to his paper.
The priest, thinking about what he had said, nudged the man and apologized.
“I’m very sorry, I didn’t mean to come on so strong. How long have you had arthritis?”
“I don’t have it, Father. I was just reading that the Pope does.”