I recall in my own marae (*meeting house) , less than 20 years ago, female elders defending a male elder who had sexually abused a visiting school child, as being a practise that was culturally acceptable in traditional times.  We all knew that was nonsense, but no one had the guts to face the issue head on.  Those days are now well and truly gone.

I wept tears at the programme – but they were tears of joy.  From this day on, no one will ever be able to say that Maori are failing to take responsibility for their own behaviour.

One of the stand out characters in the programme was Trish Hunt, a parenting educator from Greymouth, – a provincial town on the wild west coast of the South Island.  I know Trish, and she does not fit the stereotype of a parenting educator.  She recruits her clients from the bars and taverns of the Coast, and swears like a trouper.  But she has succeeded in turning a whole lot of loggers, labourers and miscreants into loving Dads.  On the programme she explains to her Dads about the developing brain of a three year old – “it’s all about relationships and connections”.  Off camera she puts it this way – “You gotta smile at the little f……ers” As Trish explains it, the brain responds to warmth, affection and love.  Where children do not receive a positive upbringing, the brain fails to develop properly, and the children grow up mistrustful, angry, unloving and abusive.

But it was the next bit that interested me.  She explains that It is possible to remedy that early damage with adults, through positive reinforcement, love and care.   It takes longer, but with constant support and affirmation it can happen.   That confirmed for me everything I knew about adult criminals.  So many times I have witnessed suspicious, angry and violent men change through experiencing the love of their partners, of their children and of their community.  For some the process has taken more than a decade – but it can happen.

It’s a lesson that our prisons are forgetting.  The emphasis these days is not about managing relationships and promoting warm, nurturing ‘connections’ but managing risk.  Let me give you a couple of examples.

For the last three years, 18 prisoners from a 60 bed prison unit went out daily into the community under officer supervision, and worked.  They mowed lawns for pensioners and beneficiaries, chopped their firewood, and cleaned up their gardens.  Local churches and community centres were painted and tidied, school and marae premises restored.  But the benefit was not all one way.  The redemptive  and restorative nature of the work meant that prisoners felt they were giving back – but more importantly, the recipients responded with gratitude and pleasure.  A kind word, a plate of scones for morning tea, and (with official permission) the opportunity to chat with the elderly and disabled about their lives, their grandchildren, their hopes and fears.  For some prisoners, it was the first time they had felt accepted and loved by their community.  Relationships were formed – the neural connections were contributing to the slow process of transformation.  Let’s face it, around 80% of prisoners have suffered sexual or physical abuse as a child.

But all that has changed.  The Department of Corrections, in an attempt to achieve a nil escape rate, developed an actuarial tool to assess whether prisoners working outside the wire, were an escape risk.  If you were young, had convictions for violence or sexual offences, you scored highly on the scale.  The result?  Only three of the 18 prisoners are now eligible to work in the community.   No one who knows them believes they would ever escape; after they had been out  for three years without incident.  The Unit Manager is furious, but if he ignores the result, and one of them does decide to jump the fence, his job is on the line.

Risk assessments of this kind are fraught.  Recent research shows that even with an accurate instrument, weighing up the probability that an individual will inflict harm requires the practitioner to apply clinical and actuarial approaches, and integrate static and dynamic information. This is a complex and inexact task, and very few have the right level of skill to do it.  Research has also found that prison and probation officers override actuarial information that indicates a low risk of harm rather than a high one.  They are also likely to overstate  sexual offenders’ risk of harm and reduce non-sexual offenders’ risk on the basis of only flimsy dynamic evidence, and counter to actuarial pointers.  It’s not science, but it removes from the officer, responsibility for making a decision based on their relationship with the person, and their assessment of him.

But wait, there’s more.  The Department of Corrections has developed a second actuarial tool, which is used on violent offenders released from prison on parole.  It takes about ten minutes, and will tell the probation officer whether the parolee  is at lesser or greater risk of offending than at the time of their previous visit.   Probation officers get about 15 minutes a week with each parolee, and are expected to spend that time filling out the questionnaire.

A senior psychologist from the department recently explained how the tool worked at the Judicial Training Institute, – in the presence of about 16 Judges.  One of them asked, “What do the probies think of the tool”.  The psychologist replied, “Some of them don’t like it.  But I say to them, “What else are you going to do with your ten minutes?”

There was an uncomfortable silence.  The Judge seated next to me gave me a nudge, and whispered “Like have a relationship?”.

Well, I have since established that the parolees don’t think much of it either.  An informal survey at a local pub made that very clear.  As one said, “I wanted to talk to him about problems I was having at home with my missus, and all he wants me to do is fill out a ‘f……g’ form.”  I aksed him how he responded.  “I tell him all sorts of rubbish, and watch his eyes pop out”.

It’s all about relationships and connections.  You gotta smile at the little f…..ers’.

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: September 27, 2009

Every once in a while I feel despair over the fate of the planet. If you’ve been following climate science, you know what I mean: the sense that we’re hurtling toward catastrophe but nobody wants to hear about it or do anything to avert it. (Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times)

Paul Krugman
And here’s the thing: I’m not engaging in hyperbole. These days, dire warnings aren’t the delusional raving of cranks. They’re what come out of the most widely respected climate models, devised by the leading researchers. The prognosis for the planet has gotten much, much worse in just the last few years.
What’s driving this new pessimism? Partly it’s the fact that some predicted changes, like a decline in Arctic Sea ice, are happening much faster than expected. Partly it’s growing evidence that feedback loops amplifying the effects of man-made greenhouse gas emissions are stronger than previously realized. For example, it has long been understood that global warming will cause the tundra to thaw, releasing carbon dioxide, which will cause even more warming, but new research shows far more carbon locked in the permafrost than previously thought, which means a much bigger feedback effect.

The result of all this is that climate scientists have, en masse, become Cassandras — gifted with the ability to prophesy future disasters, but cursed with the inability to get anyone to believe them.
And we’re not just talking about disasters in the distant future, either. The really big rise in global temperature probably won’t take place until the second half of this century, but there will be plenty of damage long before then.

For example, one 2007 paper in the journal Science is titled “Model Projections of an Imminent Transition to a More Arid Climate in Southwestern North America” — yes, “imminent” — and reports “a broad consensus among climate models” that a permanent drought, bringing Dust Bowl-type conditions, “will become the new climatology of the American Southwest within a time frame of years to decades.”
So if you live in, say, Los Angeles, and liked those pictures of red skies and choking dust in Sydney, Australia, last week, no need to travel. They’ll be coming your way in the not-too-distant future.

Now, at this point I have to make the obligatory disclaimer that no individual weather event can be attributed to global warming. The point, however, is that climate change will make events like that Australian dust storm much more common.

In a rational world, then, the looming climate disaster would be our dominant political and policy concern. But it manifestly isn’t. Why not? Part of the answer is that it’s hard to keep peoples’ attention focused. Weather fluctuates — New Yorkers may recall the heat wave that pushed the thermometer above 90 in April — and even at a global level, this is enough to cause substantial year-to-year wobbles in average temperature. As a result, any year with record heat is normally followed by a number of cooler years: According to Britain’s Met Office, 1998 was the hottest year so far, although NASA — which arguably has better data — says it was 2005. And it’s all too easy to reach the false conclusion that the danger is past.
But the larger reason we’re ignoring climate change is that Al Gore was right: This truth is just too inconvenient. Responding to climate change with the vigor that the threat deserves would not, contrary to legend, be devastating for the economy as a whole. But it would shuffle the economic deck, hurting some powerful vested interests even as it created new economic opportunities. And the industries of the past have armies of lobbyists in place right now; the industries of the future don’t.
Nor is it just a matter of vested interests. It’s also a matter of vested ideas. For three decades the dominant political ideology in America has extolled private enterprise and denigrated government, but climate change is a problem that can only be addressed through government action. And rather than concede the limits of their philosophy, many on the right have chosen to deny that the problem exists.

So here we are, with the greatest challenge facing mankind on the back burner, at best, as a policy issue. I’m not, by the way, saying that the Obama administration was wrong to push health care first. It was necessary to show voters a tangible achievement before next November. But climate change legislation had better be next.

And as I pointed out in my last column, we can afford to do this. Even as climate modelers have been reaching consensus on the view that the threat is worse than we realized, economic modelers have been reaching consensus on the view that the costs of emission control are lower than many feared.
So the time for action is now. O.K., strictly speaking it’s long past. But better late than never.

While we may be forgiven in the antipodes for focusing on our latest Budget, the event was noticeable for the lack of engagement with arguably our greatest challenge: oil. Indeed, other than the Greens, our Parliament, local government, media and sadly the public seem blind to the slow train coming.

Our world is ticking towards midnight at the petrol pump, and no-one seems to notice. Aotearoa NZ has the fifth lowest price for petrol in the OECD and seems to have no answers other than to retreat at pace from any environmental policies that might upset truckers, SUV drivers, and boy racers.

 A barrel of oil has now hit US$135. Previous IEA estimates that by 2030 the world could be producing 116B barrels of oil a day have been downgraded to less than 100B. World demand today is 87B barrels a day and climbing. Current output is not meeting even that demand, and Saudi Arabia, when asked by Dubya to raise output said they couldn’t see why they should and wouldn’t be raising it again for a while.

I pick here and now that a really large cut is coming your way very soon. It’s just not going to be the tax one you were after.

So let’s keep our eye on the real issues this year at our election. If we do not balance our transport demands with courage in environmental policy, food and commodity prices will continue to rise exponentially, and we can kiss goodbye to any progress that we have made on poverty. Alternatively, it might be time to build fences with razor wire in anticipation of the day people in our cities and towns can’t afford to buy food.   

Peter Williams on National Radio this morning raised concerns about upholding the rule of law, in particular that the Dominion Post’s actions are contempt of court in light of the fact that the Solicitor General’s decision means most of this evidence is inadmissable. Certainly, we must be concerned about the ramifications of allowing the “public to judge” through the media lens, despite Ron Marks apparent enthusiasm for the idea.

However, here we are, and here is the affadavit. So what does it mean for the self-interested (again according to Ron Mark) critics of the police raids and the attempted use of the Terrorism Suppression Act?

Very few of the criticisms that I have read or have made myself fall over in the light of this affadavit.

At the outset, all have stated that if there are charges to be laid, the Crimes Act and the Firearms Act are sufficient pieces of legislation within which to make a prosecution. This is proving to be the case, as in depositions the court has agreed there are charges to answer. The extension of the powers towards a security state that is being sought today cannot be argued on the basis that there are holes in the law through which evil people are escaping prosecution.

All critics have stated that the raids were heavy-handed. Again this stands, as it is increasingly clear from the evidence today that the police were not searching for mysterious figures hidden in the Urewera, but specific individuals well-known to them, no doubt with home addresses, phone numbers, favourite cafes, and all the rest. So we are left scratching our head as to why a whole town and then unrelated individuals’ houses needed to be held hostage by the police – to ensure nobody tried to escape on horseback into the wild blue yonder, perhaps? I suggest it is still a case of testosterone and budgets gone wild in the total institution that is our nation’s violent arm of the state.

All critics have said that the insinuation that political activism is terrorist activity is mud that’ll stick, and an insidious use of the media, parliament and the police. The grab-bag of activists charged still suggests this, and the affadavit goes no way towards proving some violent revolutionary plot across activist groups. Indeed, even the selective reading we have been allowed through the filter of police and then media analysis suggests there was some unease within those involved and a range of views about aims and strategies. People were clearly speaking out against violence here, not just condoning it.

So were there more than empty words in the Urewera. I’m inclined to believe so. I shook my head this morning when I read the Dominion Post, and thought, in relation to those suspects in the affadavit, “you dumb a__es”.

But this is not to be taken as an argument for greater police powers, more intelligence, broader powers to gather communications. The powers of the police are sufficient, our intelligence agencies are as incompetent and conspiracy driven as always, and we don’t need more impositions on our lives. So perhaps the empty words are those ringing out from Wellington, and continue to require us to challenge and critique.

At a time when the parliament and executive have been so loose with labelling political activism as terrorism, when NZ First has again attempted to get parliament to wipe te Tiriti o Waitangi from the record, and the violent arm of the state has brutalised Ngai Tuhoe (again), Jones’ comments are questions of maturity and insight.

Put simply, she asks if Pakeha are willing to build a relationship with Maori yet. She suggests up until now:

“Pakeha have largely refused a relationship of positive, real, engagement, being busy instead with forms of colonisation, and with “being entertained” by, and “doing good things” for, Maori.”

This question is so pertinent because, frankly, as a descendent of te Pirirakau, Ngati Rangiwewehi and Ngati Hinerangi, I am one of a lot of pissed off tangata whenua. I don’t trust the police, the executive, and most of the parliament. I don’t want a bar of the New Zealand that Pakeha are creating for themselves. And as a result of the last month’s events, I’ve rapidly become more sympathetic to those who may have advocated violent struggle. I’ve even caught myself beginning to think in the excluding language that I used as a 19 year old: “those” Pakeha supported by “their” state with “their” kupapa, pet Maori in parliament.

I’d rather have some faith restored that we are building a social contract that seeks a just relationship based in te Tiriti and honours our collective role in building Aotearoa. So the question remains to one and all: are you ready yet?

Books, DVDs, websites

Same file as .doc and .pdf

Word File           PDF

http://www.carbonzero.co.nz/calculators/calculators_school.asp - the carbon calculator - try the school option.  HT Cathedral Parnell have started using this. Enter ‘HT Cathedral Parnell’ into the name field if you want to see a comparison.  We used twice the number of families on the parish roled to estimate our number of ’students’.  We have only been counting clergy and staff mileage, so far.

Environmental sites from other churches – much insightful comment in all these sites:

http://casi.org.nz/issues/environment/index.htm 

www.cofe.anglican.org

www.catholicearthcareoz.net/

www.ecocongregation.org.uk/

and many other resources on this Wiki under ‘Climate Change’

Sommerville argues for a reconciliation of science, faith and morality as recognised forms of imagination, that is, as movements generated out of our intellectual and spiritual capacity to create and think. She argues for reconciling them today as contributors to our ethical imagination.

This was like streaming light into my Sunday. I am going out to find the book. At least take the time to listen to the lecture. The rest of the series continues next Sunday 2 September. Not to be missed.