Titled, “Darkness lurks in NZs soul” Michael Laws commented recently on the a United Nations report on cannabis use, “Along with our propensity for binge drinking, anti-depressants and child abuse, Kiwis now misuse more marijuana than any other nationality.” I can add to that research from my own field - our teen pregnancy rate is the only one increasing in the developed world - our teen suicides rates, 2nd highest for boys, 3rd for girls. Not great records. Still, “I was smacked when I was a kid and it never did me any harm”.

Ok, smacking might not have done you any harm, it probably isn’t the cause of our cannabis use. It doesn’t seem to have helped though. And that’s my point. Smacking isn’t the main point. I don’t think we need to smack to be good parents. I’m possibly even prepared to accept that in certain circumstances, a smack isn’t bad. But we’re missing the point.

If we are going to turn to the bible to look for solutions, the messages I see most clearly are those of relationship - a God whose very nature is relational and whose mission “at the culmination of the ages” was for relationship restored. Steve Biddulph, a child psychologist, stated in his controversial book on daycare for under 3’s, we must choose between love and money. I am saying that promoting a philosophy of parenting that focuses on spending time with your children, listening, playing, and involving, that values parenting, that is the point.

Whatever we have - 9 million dollars, a political position, a pulpit - could we please choose a cause worth fighting for, I don’t think the right to smack is that cause.

recession-resource-pack.

This is a reasonably large file, please let me know if it doesn’t download.

“Larry,” I might say, “2000 years ago the child was included in, and a part of, everything that was going on in the family. They were always with their parent or mother. We are now in a culture where everyone is busy all the time. Time, the currency of love in the mind of a child, is our primary poverty.”

“If you have Biblical parenting concerns,” I might go on, “you would have been better to invest the 9 million pushing for two years paid parental leave - with support and education.” Sweden even makes it mandatory for the non primary care giver (often the father but not necessarily) to take 2 months of that parental leave. Allow a parent to invest their entire time in the care and raising of their child.”

We might even engage in an exegesis exercise on Proverbs’ ‘spare the rod.’ The point is, at least the actual issues would be on the table. I don’t know if this is behind any of the referendum thinking, but I would not be surprised.

SURVIVING DEMOCRACY

When I was recently in England, TV and the news media in general was dominated by the scandal over MP’s expenses. A June 3 Guardian article by Tom Clark analysed a survey of 5000 readers showing a perception that there were severe faults in the British democratic process. 45% of readers thought that “parliament [the elected representatives of the people] couldn’t control the government”; another 45% thought “the party line strangles independent thought” while 43% deplored “the sway of monied interests”. The general consensus was that an old and revered democracy is losing the ideals of democracy because of dominance by interests representing wealth and power.

I returned home to find a crisis of democracy in my own home setting. As a citizen of ‘the People’s Republic of Waiheke’, I joined most of my community in resisting the demands of the Auckland City Council that we dismantle a well-functioning locally-run waste management system in favour of a multi-national owned and operated enterprise in Auckland City. The case was a good one: the local trust-operated scheme employed local people, reduced the waste sent off the island, recycled an increasing amount of useful material, selling it at reduced costs to ratepayers, and was even turning plastic waste into building material. Users do their own kerbside recycling, reducing street-side hindrance and enabling the usage of smaller collection vehicles. An efficient, locally-driven and ecologically advanced system. It will be replaced by oversize trucks collecting large, partly-filled wheelie-bins along the fringe of narrow roads to be shipped in increasing volumes off the island and subjected to less efficient sorting at an Auckland yard, which seems to be unable to sell much of its salvaged material.

Next, came the news that the Government had severely modified the recommendations of the Auckland Governance Commission by removing, among other items, those referring to the reservation of a number of seats for Maori, including some for Mana Whenua, customary guardians of regional lands. Another action taken in defiance of the will of the public (to say nothing of Maori community submissions) as presented to the commissioners.

Is our democracy then in trouble? Indeed, what is our democracy?

Perhaps the most popular definition is that of Abraham Lincoln, delivered in his 1863 Gettysburg address: “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” The Readers Digest dictionary defines democracy as: “government by the people, exercised directly or through elected representatives”, tracing the origin of the word to its roots in the Greek word ‘demos’, the common people. Democratic government developed in Athens around the time of Pericles (495-429 BC) partly in response to the rule of a series of good and bad tyrants. It firmly centred government in the will of the public assembly. From then on, it has had its avid critics and supporters: Plato and Aristotle considered the Athenian form whimsical, slanted towards the poor and subject to demagoguery. 18th century ‘enlightenment’ philosophers like Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau moved it progressively towards the idea of universal franchise, though not without residual opposition from those who wanted more consideration given to the votes of the richer and better-educated. Latterly, Winston Churchill probably summed up the ongoing controversy attached to the efficacy of modern-day democracy: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all others that have been tried.” (Hansard 11 November 1947.)

In spite of this affirmation, democracy has increasingly fallen out of favour. Even among its enthusiastic advocates, like the United States, growing numbers feel disenfranchised by prevailing systems and stay away from polls which don’t seem to be able to represent their preference. Cynicism in some cases is related to a perceived ‘tyranny of the majority’ which excludes minorities whether ethnic/cultural (as with Maori in many local body elections) or community (as in the case of Waiheke mentioned above). In others, it arises from situations like that in Palestine/Israel, where one democracy (Hamas-ruled Gaza) is not perceived as equal to another (Likud-ruled Israel) in spite of a perceived fairness in the elections held by both. The apparent rigging of votes in the recent elections in Iran and the ‘hanging chads’ of George W. Bush’s triumph in Florida in 2001 add to the suspicion expressed in my opening comments, that many results of so-called democratic processes don’t represent the will of the common people.

Can democracy survive its own faults?
Can minority communities ‘survive’ democracy?

Transparency International is a civil society organisation leading a global fight against corruption, one method of the wealthy and powerful to overrule the will of the ‘demos’ or common people. Their attention is not only directed to African dictatorships or Asian military juntas; they have also commented on the transparency of elections, consultative processes and business operations in countries like our own which have a top-level grade regarding our freedom from corruption. Such civil society bodies make a major contribution to ensuring a level of openness that maximises the store of social capital, the pool of trust and reciprocity among citizens which enables them to participate actively in the governance of their lives. Similar non-professional civil society groupings have strengthened the capacity of the Waiheke community in the struggle against the tyranny of urban corporate interests.
In moral terms, civil society seeks justice for its members and all in society, specifically through the exercise of commutative justice: the human right to fairness in all social contracts and exchanges, in recognition of the human dignity of all. Civil society affirms the right of people to participate in decisions which affect them, thus claiming a role in the process of democracy.

Needless to say, the Church is called to be part of civil society and to initiate and support action which ensures that all people are treated with dignity and justice. In the 1980s, Pope John Paul II exhorted the Catholic Church to exercise ‘solidarity’, defined as “a firm and persevering commitment to the common good of all and each individual” as a moral counter to the dominance of “a desire for profit and thirst for power”.  He saw the latter overcoming the traditional Christian “ commitment to the good of one’s neighbour … instead of exploiting him (sic)… [serving] him instead of oppressing him for one’s own advantage.” (“Pope John Paul II “On Social Concerns” Para 38 1987).

Another moral principle guiding the activities of civil society is the principle of subsidiarity, whereby any activity which can be performed by a more decentralised entity should be. This was included as a principle in human rights law in Article 5 of the Treaty setting up the Council of Europe, seeking to ensure that all elements of society would be able to take part in their governance to avoid takeover by the rich and powerful.

As elements in civil society, our parishes and church communities could find ways to take part in action that opposes centralised decision-making to the exclusion of the will of  “demos” or common people. A recent sermon delivered to the Anglican congregation on Waiheke on the waste-management issue did just that, picking up the links between Christian belief and engagement in community issues. It gave a fine example of participation of the people, by the people and for the people.

Democracy is all the more healthy for such interventions by civil society. They reinforce the capacity of ordinary people to engage in the achievement of the common good, the fullness of life for all. They help ‘survive’ democracy, to preserve it in its best forms.

Talking Cents is a group charged by the Anglican Diocesan Council to promote
an alternative to current economic and political thought, and to encourage debate
within the church. Ministry units are encouraged to distribute these articles.
This issue is contributed by Kevin McBride, Pax Christi Aotearoa-New Zealand.

That beating your children and child abuse are wrong.
That any discipline that leaves bruises, broken bones or injury is unacceptable.
Both sides agree.

Everyone agrees that we want well rounded children who contribute meaningfully to society. We all agree that good parenting is important for raising children. No one wants children that are belligerents, stubborn, aggressive, or totally unresponsive to parents. No one wants good loving parents, who spend quality time with their kids to get a criminal record for lightly smacking their child on the bottom.

I wonder if the two sides just have different images in their heads? Does Larry have in his mind a good middle class Christian home where a reasoned smack is part of the overall loving parenting policy used in extreme situations, while Sue is picturing a lower socioeconomic home that struggles constantly with financial pressure where a parent who has too little support reacts in frustration to their kid and strikes out. If you have been involved in any child youth and family case this image will not leave you.

Those against the reform of section 59, two questions. Firstly, what are you afraid of? Are you concerned that if all parents stopped smacking their kids they will become totally unruly? That they will be aggressive in school, ignore their teachers? Lose all respect? That society will suffer? Is this your primary concern? If so, there are schools throughout the country with children who are exactly like you are afraid of. But, they are being smacked at home. Is the issue that they are not being smacked enough? Or that they are not being loved, nurtured, and given enough of their care givers time?

A second question, do you believe that smacking is a compulsory part of good parenting? Is it possible to be a good parent without smacking? If it is possible, since law change has to effect everyone, can you allow that ‘good’ parents have the recourses and skills to explore other means in order to close a loop hole for parents who are not as good as you? Can you consider the point of this law change to be about shifting the social norm on striking children? Force the consideration of what it takes to parent well – time, care, play, time for example – once as a nation we accept that we will not strike children.

This is the main reason I will vote yes. I want to shift the social norm in Aotearoa.

It is extremely important that well informed and articulate citizens turn up in large numbers at the public  meetings  with the most recent science (March Copenhagen meeting of scientists and their summary report) and economic analysis (such as the Stern Report, Sinclair Knight & Mertz report for the NZ Business Council for Sustainable Development etc) ready to  make a strong  community voice  heard.

ALSO : It is most important  that people  realize the need to register as stakeholders to avoid  government gate keeping on this issue.

Registered  stakeholders will receive an email containing further information related to the roadshow, as well as instructions to RSVP online.

The person to contact regarding registration  is Anna Carter [Anna.Carter@mfe.govt.nz]  Ph 04 439 7487

The Government press release  is  at : http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/public+consultation+2020+target+announced

The public meetings, which will feature presentations by the Government, will be held in nine centres between 6 July and 17 July: Wellington, Auckland, Christchurch, Dunedin, Queenstown, Hamilton, New Plymouth, Napier and Nelson. Dr Smith will also hold meetings with business groups in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch. Hui are being organised in association with the Climate Change Iwi Leadership Group.

I am grateful to Sean Davison for his new book “Before We Say Goodbye”. It is a very moving and sensitively written diary of the last three months he spent with his late mother, Pat, leading up to her death in 2006. Terminal illness is a situation known sooner or later to us all, whether personally or within the whanau of family and friends.

My mother died at age 90, frail, unable to communicate or do anything for herself. Although she did not contract pneumonia, our family was asked if in such a circumstance we would want the hospital to administer antibiotics, or keep her comfortable. We chose the latter. The question of euthanasia which such situations raise is a fraught one which most of us wrestle with personally. There is no easy answer, no hard-line ideological prescription.

I start from three principles :
1.    Life should start, proceed and end as naturally as possible
2.    With the aid of medicine and technology, we should take steps to maximise human wellbeing and minimise those factors that work against human wellbeing.
3.    In the spiritual domain, we should facilitate the growth of a deeper sense of oneness with one’s God (however defined), and the peace of mind and soul that comes with that.

In the case of someone in a terminal situation (which I know raises questions of definition of its own), I would define human well-being as :
4.    Minimising pain and distress
5.    Maximising the opportunity for human relationships, especially with those close to us, and promoting spiritual wellbeing.

The conclusions I draw from this with regard to those who are terminally ill are :
6.    I see it as a matter of the patient’s advance directives as to whether steps should be taken to artificially prolong life if in a terminal condition eg providing antibiotics to combat pneumonia, resuscitating someone after heart attack or stroke, or continuing with life support systems. The advance directives may be established by a Living Will or other statement of intent. For some in the medical profession, prolonging life may be seen as a question of professional pride.
7.    The medical profession should use any medical means at their disposal to relieve pain and distress, and make the patient comfortable. If in the process this shortens the person’s life, that is acceptable insofar as the intention is the relief of pain and distress. Again, I am aware that effective means of achieving this, eg by the use of morphine, are complex.
8.    I am uncomfortable with any intervention to extinguish a person’s life as a direct act by, for example, the injection or ingestion of chemicals having a lethal consequence. To me this has the feeling of an execution, and contravenes the principle of allowing life to end as naturally as possible (see 1 above).
Euthanasia -Greek eu (good) thanatos (death) – is in common usage the situation outlined in (8), whether death be by the hand of others, or by others assisting a person to take his/her own life. (See the final paragraph for a truer meaning of ‘euthanasia’). There are several considerations here to note :
9.    The period “before we say goodbye” can be rich with opportunities to deepen relationships, tie up loose ends from life, and say things we might not have the chance to otherwise say. This process is richly outlined in Sean Davison’s book. The deepening of one’s spiritual life can also be a central part of this process.
10.    The euthanasia option could put pressure on the dying person to say “End it for me now, dear : I don’t want to be a burden to you”
11.    It might also lead to situations where a family conveys a message to a dying relative (even if only implicitly) : “Come on, Mum, do the decent thing”.
12.    The euthanasia option might be extended to people who are handicapped, depressed, or in some other situation which is not terminal, even although stressful. In such situations it is preferable to help people find new meaning and purpose in living, rather than make a quick exit.
13.    The success of option 7 (making life comfortable for a dying person) is dependent on the availability of good palliative care facilities. A palliative care physician who has cared for large numbers of dying patients over many years reports never having been asked for assistance to die where effective palliative care facilities exist. But in rural areas such facilities may be slim or non-existent. This is a challenge to our health service.
14.    We need to be aware of extensions of the euthanasia option. Australian euthanasia advocate, Dr Philip Nitschke appears to favour voluntary euthanasia as a means to shorten the lives of the ailing aged as a means of reducing the fiscal burden on the nation’s health budget. Nitschke writes : “So the next time you hear a government minister trying to argue why this or that payment or welfare programme for single mothers or war veterans must be cut, counter their argument with their fiscal irresponsibility on end-of-life choices.” (Killing me Softly, p 131, 2005).

The choice is not easy. We are dealing with human life and death, pain and weakness, loving relationships that are central to our lives. On balance my view is that we need not artificially prolong life, nor terminate it by direct intervention. We should reframe our use of the word euthanasia using it not in the sense of a quick exit, but rather in its true meaning of ‘a good death’, one which values all life, seeks ways to make the ending of life as comfortable and pain-free as possible, while being enriched by the presence of family and friends, and the love of God.

Bishop Richard Randerson is the former Anglican Dean and Assistant Bishop of Auckland.

Jackie Katounas, the Prison Fellowship Restorative Justice Services Manager, describes it as: “A great insight into what people experience within the context of the Sycamore Tree programme – well worth watching and recording!” – Jackie says “It’s fabulous…..!”

Be sure to watch this screening. And can someone record it for me please? I haven’t got a telly.