I quote a length from a speech given by
Sister Marcellin Wilson CNZM
Convent of Mercy
Wellington
Speaking to Zonta Women’s Breakfast Meeting to commemorate United Nations Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women 25th November 2007.
Have any of you read the material produced by a group calling themselves “Family Integrity “? They produced an eight page leaflet entitled “Christian Foundation on the Institution of Corporal Correction”? This was issued in 2005 in the period of intense advocacy preceding the Repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act when the authority of the parents was deemed by some groups to be under threat.
Within this one document there are sixteen instances where the Bible is quoted. Here is their introductory paragraph. Listen for the heavy weight given to Bible quotations here.
Would you first like to take time to remember a moment which is precious to you because of your relationship with a child, son, daughter or grandchild? Hold this image in your mind while you listen to this reading:
“Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of correction will drive it far from him” Proverbs 22; 15 \This is a foundational statement about the nature of the child. Jeremiah. 17; 9 expands on this;” The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked” All humans have this sinful nature which is the result of our fall in Adam & Eve. Gen 3; 1-24. Children are NOT blank tapes who learn evil from elders, an idea championed by John Locke in the 1600s. Evil is not picked up from the environment, as behaviorists such as B.F. Skinner would advise; it is already in their hearts and in our adult hearts even still) from conception. Children are NOT little bundles of innocence; they are little bundles of depravity. See Psalm. 51; 5) and can develop into unrestrained agents of evil unless trained and disciplined. Selfishness, violence, lying, cheating, stealing and other such manifestations of rebellion are just the child unpacking some of this sinful foolishness from the vast store in his heart”
“Smacking may be a 10-15minute process. Go to a private room, collect the smacking rod.” p.8 “If the child is angry after the smack (slamming doors, pouting etc) you have not smacked hard enough”
Does what we have just heard bring us any closer to an understanding of how a selective, a literal and non contextualized interpretation of scripture can be loaded to authorize oppressive ‘family values’?
How can any Christian group accept literally these four Old Testament
descriptions of children and ignore their founder’s teachings about children?
Family Integrity publication by Craig Smith 2005. “What does then Bible say about….p.3, 7 & 8.
END QUOTE
This is the group that wants the repeal of section 59 overturned so that they can beat their kids hard enough to get the sin and evil out of them and beat them unitl they have their spirit defeated and no longer protest. It sickens me that this rubbish defames the name of Jesus and gioves licence to o violence in his name.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Smacking attitudes survey misleading
Discussion on Radio New Zealand National’s “Afternoons’ programme yesterday seemed to epitomize the ignorance surrounding the repeal of s59 and the citizen’s initiated referendum. I’d like to highlight two points. One is that the first question in the CIR and the NZR survey question were mischievous and bare no relationship to the Repeal of Section 59. The second relates to the misconception that the repeal of section 59 is about the introducing new legislation rather than repealing old legislation.
The first question of the Larry Baldwick’s Citizens Initiated Referendum reads: Should a smack as a part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?
The survey question from Research New Zealand reported yesterday was of a similar ilk.
Do you believe that parents should be allowed to smack their children or are you against any physical force being used on a child?
If this was the actually wording of the question as quoted by Emanuel Kalafatelis on “Afternoons” it was a clumsy and ambiguous question in fact a double barrelled question with assumption built in which is totally unprofessional.
How can ‘Clear cut’ results be drawn from unclear questions?
The first part of the survey question and the CIR question are unhelpful because it is possible to say yes to both questions while still supporting the bill. Parents are not criminalised for light smacking or gently physically reprimanding their children.
It is highly plausible to believe that a good majority of New Zealanders believe that such light disciplinary action is justifiable in some circumstances but that at the same time the law should not give an escape clause that allows people to get off with serious abuse at the whim of some jury who is guided to misread the law as it was. (Thanks Irene Gardiner for making this clear)
The repeal of section 59 was not about parent’s rights but about children’s rights. Children now have the same right under the law to protection from assault that have some time been afforded animals.
I’d like to see Research New Zealand survey public opinion on some other questions around this. For example:
· Should parents be able to get off a charge of abusing these kids by a legal loop hole allowing reasonable force?
· Should children be given more or less rights than dogs and horses?
· Should parents be allowed to punch their kids?
· Should we do everything in our power to reduce violence in society including where necessary repealing legislation that specifically allows for domestic violence.
· Should we reintroduce legislation to allow husbands to physically discipline their wives?
I wonder what the stat for those questions would look like.
And my second point
Peter Elliot said a “Good intention got turned into a law” and that this should not have happened - parliament has “evoked the law” to achieve social outcomes and that is the wrong way to go about it.
The opposite is true; the point is that a ‘good intention’ of the Victorian era was enshrined in law which was being abused in the court system to allow child abusers to get off by invoking section 59. This was a case of removing such bad law rather than imposing new law.
The first question of the Larry Baldwick’s Citizens Initiated Referendum reads: Should a smack as a part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?
The survey question from Research New Zealand reported yesterday was of a similar ilk.
Do you believe that parents should be allowed to smack their children or are you against any physical force being used on a child?
If this was the actually wording of the question as quoted by Emanuel Kalafatelis on “Afternoons” it was a clumsy and ambiguous question in fact a double barrelled question with assumption built in which is totally unprofessional.
How can ‘Clear cut’ results be drawn from unclear questions?
The first part of the survey question and the CIR question are unhelpful because it is possible to say yes to both questions while still supporting the bill. Parents are not criminalised for light smacking or gently physically reprimanding their children.
It is highly plausible to believe that a good majority of New Zealanders believe that such light disciplinary action is justifiable in some circumstances but that at the same time the law should not give an escape clause that allows people to get off with serious abuse at the whim of some jury who is guided to misread the law as it was. (Thanks Irene Gardiner for making this clear)
The repeal of section 59 was not about parent’s rights but about children’s rights. Children now have the same right under the law to protection from assault that have some time been afforded animals.
I’d like to see Research New Zealand survey public opinion on some other questions around this. For example:
· Should parents be able to get off a charge of abusing these kids by a legal loop hole allowing reasonable force?
· Should children be given more or less rights than dogs and horses?
· Should parents be allowed to punch their kids?
· Should we do everything in our power to reduce violence in society including where necessary repealing legislation that specifically allows for domestic violence.
· Should we reintroduce legislation to allow husbands to physically discipline their wives?
I wonder what the stat for those questions would look like.
And my second point
Peter Elliot said a “Good intention got turned into a law” and that this should not have happened - parliament has “evoked the law” to achieve social outcomes and that is the wrong way to go about it.
The opposite is true; the point is that a ‘good intention’ of the Victorian era was enshrined in law which was being abused in the court system to allow child abusers to get off by invoking section 59. This was a case of removing such bad law rather than imposing new law.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
The truth please Mr Key
What are National Leader John Key's real intentions regarding affordable housing should he become PM (God-forbid) . He has been caught out telling porkies about the housing development at Hobsonville in his electorate (Mind you there is some confusion as to where John Key actually lives he's got houses all over the place and can't remember them all himself.) The governement has proposed that a third the sections in this estate are reserved for affordable housing.
John Key was adamant in his opposition just a few months back when he said; on Radion NZ
He later added "National are committed to cancelling it, once we get back into Government."
Yet yesterday on Radio NZ he said
Tell me how am I supposed to read this you may make your selection from the follwoing list
a. Key told Porkies last June as was politically expedient
b. Key told Porkies yesterday as was politically expedient
c. Key doesn't know what he said back in June because he and his party have no consistent policy framework or philosphy to guide such positions save, feathering the nest of his cronies
d. Key has become a soft Torrie and will soon be seeking nomination for the Labour Party
e. Who the hell knows
Key is at least right now in agreeing with the proposal to build affordable housing, let's get on with let's keep the private sector munnygrubas at arms distance or the affordable housing will either be second rate or psuedo-affordable.
John Key was adamant in his opposition just a few months back when he said; on Radion NZ
"You’re talking about very expensive land. I mean I would describe it as
economic vandalism frankly to be doing what Housing New Zealand are
proposing."
He later added "National are committed to cancelling it, once we get back into Government."
Yet yesterday on Radio NZ he said
"...if you look at Government land well Hobsonville is in my electorate,
they've identified that as a place where affordable housing could be built. I
agree with them..."
Tell me how am I supposed to read this you may make your selection from the follwoing list
a. Key told Porkies last June as was politically expedient
b. Key told Porkies yesterday as was politically expedient
c. Key doesn't know what he said back in June because he and his party have no consistent policy framework or philosphy to guide such positions save, feathering the nest of his cronies
d. Key has become a soft Torrie and will soon be seeking nomination for the Labour Party
e. Who the hell knows
Key is at least right now in agreeing with the proposal to build affordable housing, let's get on with let's keep the private sector munnygrubas at arms distance or the affordable housing will either be second rate or psuedo-affordable.
Truth can never be told so as to be understood, and not be believ'd.
William Blake
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Gnat Strainers
It seems that the Gnat Strainers are a peeved with the PM for 'stealing' 'their' policy. Two suprises really 1. I didn't know the Gnats had any policy of their own and 2. Isn't it the pot calling the kettle black. Any so called policy (and little detail has been released) that the Gnats tends to talk about is Labour-like and Labour-lite.
Paul Bennet (A Gnat) wrote
"The Prime Minister, in her opening speech to Parliament, proclaimed that Labour suddenly intended to 'develop a stronger relationship between government and NGOs'. "She went on to say Labour's 'new funding model will see essential services with which we have multi-year programmes…funded for the full cost of delivering the agreed service'. "Helen Clark also talked about reducing duplication and compliance costs for NGOs. "Shame on you, Prime Minister. Those commitments form the basis of National's Community Groups policy unveiled by John Key in May last year. "
This government at least has a track record for working with NGOs and is trying to delivery the best possible outcomes. National have a record of cutting government spending thrusting social service onto the NGOs and not putting up sufficient funding for their overburdened services.
As a leader of a church which oversees three significant government funded NGOs I know whose track record I trust. I say strain out the Gnats but don't forget the Camels (See my first post if you miss the analogy)
Paul Bennet (A Gnat) wrote
"The Prime Minister, in her opening speech to Parliament, proclaimed that Labour suddenly intended to 'develop a stronger relationship between government and NGOs'. "She went on to say Labour's 'new funding model will see essential services with which we have multi-year programmes…funded for the full cost of delivering the agreed service'. "Helen Clark also talked about reducing duplication and compliance costs for NGOs. "Shame on you, Prime Minister. Those commitments form the basis of National's Community Groups policy unveiled by John Key in May last year. "
This government at least has a track record for working with NGOs and is trying to delivery the best possible outcomes. National have a record of cutting government spending thrusting social service onto the NGOs and not putting up sufficient funding for their overburdened services.
As a leader of a church which oversees three significant government funded NGOs I know whose track record I trust. I say strain out the Gnats but don't forget the Camels (See my first post if you miss the analogy)
Salvation Army: State of the Nation
Congratulations to Alan Johnson and Major Campbell Roberts for their recent report on the state of the Nation. They are clearly on the right track in terms of asking the questions about social outcomes rather than just economic ones. I like the basic assumption that underlying this teams report which are questions of morality. I’m glad to see a Christian leader identifying social issues as issues of morality (rather than the usual sexual behaviour issues). In particular he asks “what priority have we given to families and to the poor?” The report focuses on five areas
1. the position of our children,
2. crime and the punishment of criminals,
3. the working lives of New Zealanders,
4. social hazards
5. housing.
In reading a report like this I wonder first of all whether it has been peer reviewed. Statistics can be so misleading and this can be the case even with the best of intentions if care is not taken for example to ensure that apples are compared with apples. Government departments often change the way they report things and comparing for example CYF referrals from 5 years ago to today may not give a true picture of increased social need. It may indicate more thorough reporting, or an increased response to an already existing but unmet need. I wonder whether such a misreading of the data has lead to unfair conclusions such as “ This trend for increasing levels of child abuse and neglect is reflected in the increasing numbers of children in CYFS care.” The two factors are not necessarily related as this statement supposes.
My curiosity was aroused by the comments about teenage pregnancy. Firstly there seems to be some moral issue presumed with young women 16-19 falling pregnant. What is the problem? Are these young women too immature to be good mothers? Women of this age especially with the support of capable Grandparents often make great mothers. Perhaps the problem is that they are assumed not be married – well that’s another issue. Or perhaps we are assuming that these young mums have missed out on other opportunities (education and career) by falling pregnant – maybe so but we are in danger of undervaluing motherhood something I’m sure Major Roberts wouldn’t want to do.
The comments around early childhood education facilities raises a real concern about equality of access. I’d like to see some more analysis of this as I’m sure that other issue are relevant here. For example the working and parenting / grand-parenting patterns of Pacifica peoples. Is it a matter of not enough centres or is it a matter of public perception of the value of ECE?
The pass rates for NCEA points to some real positive outcomes including a closing of the academic achievement gap between rich and poor communities. There is obviously more to do, the question is more of the same or something different. I suspect that if things are improving under the current system its best to go for more of the same, with adjustments being made (such as the new curriculum) when indicated by good research.
I’m disappointed with the heading for the Crime and Punishment section. I think it would be far better to look at crime and restoration. The punitive justice system is failing us, all the evidence points to that. The report is right to point out “The consequences of this more punitive stance in our criminal justice are however far more apparent and can be seen in recent increases in the nation’s prison population and in our rate of imprisonment.” We must ask “What are we doing not just to prevent crime but to prevent the formation of criminals in society and in jails?” A 36% increase in our prison population over the last five years is alarming and feels very American! A big factor here is the numbers in remand brought about by a slow and over worked judicial system.
The report does show small decreases in reported crime although an increase in violent crime. Is the increase in violent crime an increase in reporting as ‘domestic violence' is more socially unacceptable? Some may argue that the decrease in ‘dishonesty offences’ may be due to a lack of faith in the system to do anything about minor offences; this can be countered by the increased number of cases solved and brought to prosecution by the police.
It will be interesting to watch the data change on social risks (drinking, drugs and gambling) as the S A continue to write annual reports. There was little of interest in this year’s report, not much in the way on conclusions.
The report shows good improvement in work force rates with just modest growth in real wages. GDP has increase 17% over 5 year with real wages increasing 5%. I think the report missed a real opportunity here to talk about the effect of low wages and the inequality and disparities between for example share holders and labourers of the same companies. The reports points to the difficulties of living on a benefit, but acknowledges that fewer people are living on a benefit now and that the number of children’s living on the benefit has dropped significantly, but there is still a long way to go.
The data on housing affordability offers no surprise and no solutions either. Many people are feeling the pinch here. Partly is an issue of globalisation and opening our housing market to international speculators and partly the increase in property prices is due to the kiwi investors fixation with property investments; which actually offers low returns in terms of rental and therefore is a market of speculation. One flow on affect is the poor quality of rental stock and the low level of maintenance carried out by landlords who cannot get the rental returns relative to their investment and or interest payments.
It will be interesting to watch the developments in the housing market with gurus predicting an ongoing slump in prices, and the government proposing building more affordable housing.
Overall the report is worth a read. 8/10 for identifying the issues. 5/10 for analysis of interpretation of the data.
I’d like to see a government response to report, but they may prefer that it drifted quietly into oblivion.
1. the position of our children,
2. crime and the punishment of criminals,
3. the working lives of New Zealanders,
4. social hazards
5. housing.
In reading a report like this I wonder first of all whether it has been peer reviewed. Statistics can be so misleading and this can be the case even with the best of intentions if care is not taken for example to ensure that apples are compared with apples. Government departments often change the way they report things and comparing for example CYF referrals from 5 years ago to today may not give a true picture of increased social need. It may indicate more thorough reporting, or an increased response to an already existing but unmet need. I wonder whether such a misreading of the data has lead to unfair conclusions such as “ This trend for increasing levels of child abuse and neglect is reflected in the increasing numbers of children in CYFS care.” The two factors are not necessarily related as this statement supposes.
My curiosity was aroused by the comments about teenage pregnancy. Firstly there seems to be some moral issue presumed with young women 16-19 falling pregnant. What is the problem? Are these young women too immature to be good mothers? Women of this age especially with the support of capable Grandparents often make great mothers. Perhaps the problem is that they are assumed not be married – well that’s another issue. Or perhaps we are assuming that these young mums have missed out on other opportunities (education and career) by falling pregnant – maybe so but we are in danger of undervaluing motherhood something I’m sure Major Roberts wouldn’t want to do.
The comments around early childhood education facilities raises a real concern about equality of access. I’d like to see some more analysis of this as I’m sure that other issue are relevant here. For example the working and parenting / grand-parenting patterns of Pacifica peoples. Is it a matter of not enough centres or is it a matter of public perception of the value of ECE?
The pass rates for NCEA points to some real positive outcomes including a closing of the academic achievement gap between rich and poor communities. There is obviously more to do, the question is more of the same or something different. I suspect that if things are improving under the current system its best to go for more of the same, with adjustments being made (such as the new curriculum) when indicated by good research.
I’m disappointed with the heading for the Crime and Punishment section. I think it would be far better to look at crime and restoration. The punitive justice system is failing us, all the evidence points to that. The report is right to point out “The consequences of this more punitive stance in our criminal justice are however far more apparent and can be seen in recent increases in the nation’s prison population and in our rate of imprisonment.” We must ask “What are we doing not just to prevent crime but to prevent the formation of criminals in society and in jails?” A 36% increase in our prison population over the last five years is alarming and feels very American! A big factor here is the numbers in remand brought about by a slow and over worked judicial system.
The report does show small decreases in reported crime although an increase in violent crime. Is the increase in violent crime an increase in reporting as ‘domestic violence' is more socially unacceptable? Some may argue that the decrease in ‘dishonesty offences’ may be due to a lack of faith in the system to do anything about minor offences; this can be countered by the increased number of cases solved and brought to prosecution by the police.
It will be interesting to watch the data change on social risks (drinking, drugs and gambling) as the S A continue to write annual reports. There was little of interest in this year’s report, not much in the way on conclusions.
The report shows good improvement in work force rates with just modest growth in real wages. GDP has increase 17% over 5 year with real wages increasing 5%. I think the report missed a real opportunity here to talk about the effect of low wages and the inequality and disparities between for example share holders and labourers of the same companies. The reports points to the difficulties of living on a benefit, but acknowledges that fewer people are living on a benefit now and that the number of children’s living on the benefit has dropped significantly, but there is still a long way to go.
The data on housing affordability offers no surprise and no solutions either. Many people are feeling the pinch here. Partly is an issue of globalisation and opening our housing market to international speculators and partly the increase in property prices is due to the kiwi investors fixation with property investments; which actually offers low returns in terms of rental and therefore is a market of speculation. One flow on affect is the poor quality of rental stock and the low level of maintenance carried out by landlords who cannot get the rental returns relative to their investment and or interest payments.
It will be interesting to watch the developments in the housing market with gurus predicting an ongoing slump in prices, and the government proposing building more affordable housing.
Overall the report is worth a read. 8/10 for identifying the issues. 5/10 for analysis of interpretation of the data.
I’d like to see a government response to report, but they may prefer that it drifted quietly into oblivion.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Deep Discernment
How does John Key an atheist get off with praying at the Te Tii Marae? This is another sign of his political pragmatism (to put it in its best light) and absolute hypocrisy (to be real about it). In one foul swoop he denigrades Marae protocol and the Christian faith. Of course there is a tradition for doing such for politcal expediency but surely this should help those Christian i love with key to see what he really is about! I wrote to my FOCaL (Forum of the Christian Left) egroup in response to some discusion about whether Christian should vote based on a politican's policy and ability to delver or on their stated beliefs...
Political decison making in a democracy requires deep discernment. Lables are often misleading, especailly the "Christian" label. You've noted well that many 'christian' politicians have espoused and implemented very unethical policy. While we can and should decide to support politicals leaders wit stronmg personal credentials; it may be more imprtant at times to support the politician that can within the party system that they are in deliver the outcomes that we are looking for on behalf of the poor and disadvantages. Politics is the art of compromise, I suppose, and while we may have high ideals at times we have to be prepared to compromise on some of our ideals in order to make gains in others. And when confronted with possibility of John Key gaining power and the thought of loosing so much ground, the stakes are even higher. I'm sure the Kingdom of God is bigger than the church and when we see politicans and parties and potentail coalitionsthat have a vision that resembles the KoG (Esp Luke 4:14-17) and the credentials to deliver on their promises I'm sure we are justified in giving them our (sometimes qualified) support.I'm intrigued (but not suprised) that many people within the social democratic stream of politics are motivated by Christian faith or at least have had their poltical theory nurtured by their previously held religous belief and or Christain upbringing. I recently meet a number of young labour people, some still at high school, passionate about their crusade for a better world. Some of them told me stories about their parent's faith and how it shaped their world view and aspirations. What causes me some grief is the fact that many of these people see no relevance for christian faith at all. It doesn't fit into their world view, some of them have been burned by the church and or seen their parents burned by the church. At the same time I also meet some labour people with very mature and vital Christian faith. I long that the church would do a better job at nurturing people who think outside the box. From my perspective the gospel of Jesus is very consistent with the social democratic cause, as has been said before I'm sure, "The Labour Party is Christianity without God." A little exagerated I'm sure - the church isn't that good and well I think the LP has a lot to learn from other left leaningparties especially the greens.
Political decison making in a democracy requires deep discernment. Lables are often misleading, especailly the "Christian" label. You've noted well that many 'christian' politicians have espoused and implemented very unethical policy. While we can and should decide to support politicals leaders wit stronmg personal credentials; it may be more imprtant at times to support the politician that can within the party system that they are in deliver the outcomes that we are looking for on behalf of the poor and disadvantages. Politics is the art of compromise, I suppose, and while we may have high ideals at times we have to be prepared to compromise on some of our ideals in order to make gains in others. And when confronted with possibility of John Key gaining power and the thought of loosing so much ground, the stakes are even higher. I'm sure the Kingdom of God is bigger than the church and when we see politicans and parties and potentail coalitionsthat have a vision that resembles the KoG (Esp Luke 4:14-17) and the credentials to deliver on their promises I'm sure we are justified in giving them our (sometimes qualified) support.I'm intrigued (but not suprised) that many people within the social democratic stream of politics are motivated by Christian faith or at least have had their poltical theory nurtured by their previously held religous belief and or Christain upbringing. I recently meet a number of young labour people, some still at high school, passionate about their crusade for a better world. Some of them told me stories about their parent's faith and how it shaped their world view and aspirations. What causes me some grief is the fact that many of these people see no relevance for christian faith at all. It doesn't fit into their world view, some of them have been burned by the church and or seen their parents burned by the church. At the same time I also meet some labour people with very mature and vital Christian faith. I long that the church would do a better job at nurturing people who think outside the box. From my perspective the gospel of Jesus is very consistent with the social democratic cause, as has been said before I'm sure, "The Labour Party is Christianity without God." A little exagerated I'm sure - the church isn't that good and well I think the LP has a lot to learn from other left leaningparties especially the greens.
Rich and the poor
That’s Rich
The Tories just don’t get it do they? Making assumptions about low income people without ever having known what it is like to choose between school shoes and school lunches. In last nights “The Star” Katherine Rich writes how Kiwis are feeling the pinch due to recent inflation pressures. Naturally this is all the fault of Labour’s policies and in particular Dr Cullen’s over taxation and poor fiscal management.
Yes the economy is screwed up at the moment but that’s got more to do with Bush’s over spend on war and the sub-prime mortgage crisis in the US. We are just a small boat in the big sea of international economy and when the US makes big waves the we along with most other countries can do bugger all about apart from battening down the hatches and manning the bilge pumps. In spite of international pressure the NZ economy is doing very well, perhaps the best in 50 years or more. What’s more the poor are benefitting.
I don’t count myself as at the bottom of the heap poor but I am on a relatively low income with 3 kids and the working for families tax relief tops up my take home pay by nearly 50%. That’s more than $250 a week. That’s a huge ‘tax cut’ over the last 2-3 years and has made a great deal of difference to our stress levels at home and given us a lot more choice about the way we live. It means we can live off one income and that our kids have at least one parent around after school every day.
Sure petrol's gone up, - that’s a global reality we need to get used to. As for us we walk a lot more – no problem.
Dairy prices have gone up - again a global pricing problem –we could persuade Fonterra to reduce prices on the domestic market (Yeah Right) Besides a reduction in dairy products is not a bad thing for the old ticker anyway.
What’s National answer to “Labours gain and kiwis pain” Well you know Cut taxes and Cut spending.
Tax cuts will make stuff all difference to lower income families what little they get in the pocket will be absorbed by the inflationary pressure of the tax rise. I’m sure wealthy Tories will do well out of a National tax cut as usual.
But what do they expect to cut spending on? And how will that affect the poor?
Market rentals for state houses?
Health?
Education?
Infrastructure?
Perhaps they plan to borrow from overseas to line the pockets of Key’s cronies. I hope these remain rhetorical questions I shudder at the thought of a return to the past with a national led government.
It’s another case of Camels and Gnats. The Nats are getting their knickers in a knot (Or trying to persuade us that we should) over relatively minor hiccups in the cost of living. The nats are straining gnats, yet missing the camel, that kiwi families on low incomes are significantly better off since labour came to power, more kids have risen above the poverty line have better access to health, better resourced schools and better futures.
God, please don’t let us throw it away!
The Tories just don’t get it do they? Making assumptions about low income people without ever having known what it is like to choose between school shoes and school lunches. In last nights “The Star” Katherine Rich writes how Kiwis are feeling the pinch due to recent inflation pressures. Naturally this is all the fault of Labour’s policies and in particular Dr Cullen’s over taxation and poor fiscal management.
Yes the economy is screwed up at the moment but that’s got more to do with Bush’s over spend on war and the sub-prime mortgage crisis in the US. We are just a small boat in the big sea of international economy and when the US makes big waves the we along with most other countries can do bugger all about apart from battening down the hatches and manning the bilge pumps. In spite of international pressure the NZ economy is doing very well, perhaps the best in 50 years or more. What’s more the poor are benefitting.
I don’t count myself as at the bottom of the heap poor but I am on a relatively low income with 3 kids and the working for families tax relief tops up my take home pay by nearly 50%. That’s more than $250 a week. That’s a huge ‘tax cut’ over the last 2-3 years and has made a great deal of difference to our stress levels at home and given us a lot more choice about the way we live. It means we can live off one income and that our kids have at least one parent around after school every day.
Sure petrol's gone up, - that’s a global reality we need to get used to. As for us we walk a lot more – no problem.
Dairy prices have gone up - again a global pricing problem –we could persuade Fonterra to reduce prices on the domestic market (Yeah Right) Besides a reduction in dairy products is not a bad thing for the old ticker anyway.
What’s National answer to “Labours gain and kiwis pain” Well you know Cut taxes and Cut spending.
Tax cuts will make stuff all difference to lower income families what little they get in the pocket will be absorbed by the inflationary pressure of the tax rise. I’m sure wealthy Tories will do well out of a National tax cut as usual.
But what do they expect to cut spending on? And how will that affect the poor?
Market rentals for state houses?
Health?
Education?
Infrastructure?
Perhaps they plan to borrow from overseas to line the pockets of Key’s cronies. I hope these remain rhetorical questions I shudder at the thought of a return to the past with a national led government.
It’s another case of Camels and Gnats. The Nats are getting their knickers in a knot (Or trying to persuade us that we should) over relatively minor hiccups in the cost of living. The nats are straining gnats, yet missing the camel, that kiwi families on low incomes are significantly better off since labour came to power, more kids have risen above the poverty line have better access to health, better resourced schools and better futures.
God, please don’t let us throw it away!
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Of Gnats and Camels
Jesus once castigated the ruling elite for getting their knickers in a knot about the finer details of the law, insignificant stuff like the minutae of taxation law. You lot a careful to give 10% of your herbs but you forget the weightier matters of the law
Justice,
mercy,
faithfulness
Justice,
mercy,
faithfulness
and then he called them blind guides
"YOU STRAIN OUT A GNAT AND SWALLOW A CAMEL"
"YOU STRAIN OUT A GNAT AND SWALLOW A CAMEL"
How often through the centuries have Jesus words been relevant in application to the religious and political leaders of society.
Dealing with the 'naughty' things that other people do is a useful way of drawing attention away from the systematic evil that you are involved with.
I start this blog with the hope of drawing attention to camels, perhaps in modern parlance 'the elephant in the room' that people would rather ignore, but the weightier matters of the law; Justice, mercy and faithfulness can't be ignored by any follower of Jesus.
Over the last few years much of the polical debate in NZ has been around things that I think are gnats not altogether insignifcant but often distracting public attention from the pressing issues of a world facing economic, envirnmental, religious, and territorial crises wherein teh stakes are enormously high.
It disturbs me greatly that so much "Christian" energy has been put into things like defending the rights of parents to discipline (read 'punch' for that is what the repeal of Section 59 was all about) their children. We demand the right to beat our kids while millions of people around the world want the right to feed their kids, educate them, raise them in a safe environment with future and hope.
It's time we had a debate in this country about morality, what is it really? And the church should lead the way - though I have my doubts. Is morality more about we do in the bedroom or the boardroom? Is a rightesous nation one that crimalises sodomy or one that stands up against the bullies of the world and says no to nukes, no to war, no to whaling, no to poverty, no to the money sharks demanding their pound of flesh from poor third world nations that are crippled with unjust debt burdens.
There'll be lots of stuff to blog about and I hope one or two people might actually read this stuff and enter into a discussion with a comment or two.
As you may have guesed from my Blog name I'm a Christian lefty a social democrat who believes that the social justice imperatives of the gospel must find expresion in social policy. You may choose to disagree and I affirm your right to do so. But if you want to enter the debate please do so respectfully and I'll follow suit
cheers Micah 68
Its not those parts of the bible that I don't understand that bother me, its those parts that I do Mark Twain
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)