Chris not Christians
February 19, 2009
I’m not a Christian. I think the Biblical creation story is daft. I don’t think it should be taught in schools. But I do think that when a serious radio programme debates the issue “Should creation be taught in schools?” the station should at least find someone who thinks it should to include in the discussion.
Chris Laidlaw’s “Sunday Group” slot last weekend took up this question. Chris posed the issue as:
should creation stories be taught as part of the science curriculum or any other part of the curriculum in New Zealand schools?
Laidlaw described creationists as “those who believe in a literal six-day creation of the earth, as described in Genesis”. Nope. The essence of creationists is that they think God created the earth. Some allow a bit of literary wiggle room with the 6-day thing. But heck, let’s lump them all in the extreme basket.
Laidlaw then said creationists were “battling to have evolution removed from the curriculum and to have the creation story taught in schools”. Not so much. The more sensible ones are simply arguing that creation should be taught as a theory alongside evolution. That almost starts to sound reasonable, so we’d better not mention that.
So, how many of Laidlaw’s three guests argued for creationism to be taught in schools? Not one. All of them, it seems, agreed with Chris’s position. (At one point he asks: “Why is it so hard to persuade so many people that evolution is utterly logical?”)
He’d got guests, it seems, from a recent conference in Christchurch on biological education celebrating Charles Darwin. They were certainly qualified to talk about the issue, and said some interesting things. But it was no real debate about the issue. As I understand it, creationists have some good points about holes in the theory of evolution. We didn’t hear about that. They have some arguments to support their concept of intelligent design. We didn’t hear any sympathetic treatment about that either. They presumably have a view that what they argue is sensible and well-motivated. Laidlaw was reduced to asking his guests about the motivations of the creationists. The guests were polite, but not surprisingly thought the creationists were confused and misguided. Those guests’ views would have been much more interesting and vigorous had they been contrasted with someone speaking thoughtfully for the creationists.
Oh, and having a creationist in the discussion would also have complied with the balance standard in the broadcasting code of practice. I think this programme was in breach. No matter how the BSA twists things to avoid balance in talkback, it seems hard to escape the conclusion that the Sunday Group was a discussion of a “controversial issue of public importance”, and an obvious “significant view” was lacking. Listeners surely did think they were going to get a discussion not a venting of one-sided opinion.
The broadcaster might argue that it was merely supplying “background information” that casts light on the issue, as in this case, which involved a RNZ programme called “Outspoken” about the foreshore and seabed issue that lined up speakers from one side only. I think that case was wrongly decided – another part of the BSA’s trend toward whittling away the balance standard. But even if you think they got it right there, it’s hard to conclude that Laidlaw’s show was merely providing factual background, or historical, legal and factual context.
Topics: Broadcasting Standards Authority, Media ethics | Comments Off on Chris not Christians
Ethics inquiry into 13-year-old dad story
February 19, 2009
The UK’s Press Complaints Commission is looking into the ethics of The Sun’s story about a 13-year-old fathering a child. On what grounds, you ask? In NZ, the issue might be the child’s privacy (can a boy really consent to a story like that?) or whether the paper had “particular care and consideration for reporting on and about children and young people”. Not there. It’s whether he or his parents should have been paid for the story… that’s not allowed if the children’s welfare is involved (as it surely is here) unless publication is in the child’s interests. Interestingly, the story I’ve linked to seems to conflate the interests of the child with the public interest. Don’t know what’s going on there.
Topics: Media ethics, Press Council | Comments Off on Ethics inquiry into 13-year-old dad story
Boscawen appeal fails
February 17, 2009
The Court of Appeal has thrown out the Bill of Rights challenge to the Electoral Finance Act. That’s not to say that they thought the EFA was consistent with the BORA. Just that they wouldn’t consider the issue.
I’m not too surprised that they threw out the challenge to the Attorney-General’s decision not to report to Parliament that the bill appeared to be inconsistent with the BORA. I didn’t think that the courts would want to wade into something so closely associated with the proceedings of Parliament.
But the Court of Appeal also whiffed on the second, more interesting and important point: do the courts have power to issue declarations of inconsistency with the legislation itself? The Court of Appeal leaves the question open (but suggests the answer will be no). Why didn’t it even address the question? Because:
Our earlier conclusions make it unnecessary to deal with the issues relating to declarations of inconsistency…. because of our views on the non-justiciability of the s. 7 obligation, there is no need to make a decision on this aspect of the case…
I don’t understand this. The earlier conclusions were about the Attorney-General’s report to Parliament. They were mostly about the reasons the courts shouldn’t mess with that process. But once the Bill is law, the ballgame is different. The question of declarations of inconsistency is a separate question, and it’s not self-evident that the answer to one determines the answer to the other.
Anyway, the flavour of the judgment is that the courts will be reluctant to address “abstract” issues (ie BORA questions that don’t arise in the course of a separate dispute). They even leave to another day whether a declaration will be available as a remedy in separate-dispute cases. I’m inclined to think this is a shame.
Topics: Electoral speech, General, NZ Bill of Rights Act | Comments Off on Boscawen appeal fails
Children’s privacy marches on in ECHR
February 17, 2009
The European Court of Human Rights has gone much further than NZ’s Hosking case in protecting children’s privacy. Parents of a newborn baby snapped by a private clinic in its sterile unit successfully argued that the taking (and keeping) of the photos (even without publication) without parental consent breached the child’s right to private life. This effectively grants an image right, at least in those circumstances.
Remember that the legal framework is different in Europe, though. Their fundamental human rights document protects privacy and free speech equally. Our Bill of Rights Act doesn’t explicity mention privacy. Still, the legal trend is clearly toward greater protection, particularly for children.
Topics: NZ Bill of Rights Act, Privacy tort | Comments Off on Children’s privacy marches on in ECHR
Lundy 2
February 12, 2009
Here’s one thing the prosecutors could have said to White about the Lundy case: Lundy filled his gas tank in Wellington. The fuel warning was flashing when he got back to Palmerston North. How did Lundy manage to empty the tank in one normal-speed trip back to Palmerston North plus a bit of driving in Wellington? Wasn’t Lundy’s initial explanation that some of it might have been siphoned off a bit implausible? He didn’t pursue that theory at trial, and has never been able to explain where that petrol went.
White’s article does note that the Crown also faced a petrol problem. How does Lundy hoon up to Palmerston North and back to Wellington, then back to Palmy again the next morning on one tank? Speeding burns more fuel.
Of course, if Lundy wasn’t hooning back and forth, then three trips between PN and Wellington, plus a bit of driving in Wellington, would almost exactly empty his tank. But that would mean that he couldn’t have committed the murders around 7pm, making that miraculous return trip. He would have had to do it, say, in the middle of the night, when he could drive sensibly and no-one would notice him. And he would have arrived after the neighbour saw the light and after the computer had been switched off, so he wouldn’t have needed Joe-90-like expertise to jiggle the timing mechanism…
This was not the case presented by the Crown. But it does potentially explain away almost all the problems raised in White’s article… except the problems White identifies with the fraction of brain matter from Amber on Lundy’s clothes. Its presence there doesn’t make much sense. It seems extremely improbable that it was preserved the way it was. It seems highly unlikely that it would have got there in the first place. It doesn’t seem clear that it was necessarily brain DNA.
I admit, I haven’t seen all the evidence in the case either. I’m not sure how far some DNA on a speck of dubious provinance, some missing petrol, and some odd behaviour by Lundy get you toward “beyond reasonable doubt”. But this scenario now strikes me as more plausible than the one presented by the Crown.
Topics: General | Comments Off on Lundy 2
Lundy case is falling down?
February 11, 2009
I commend to your attention Mike White’s terrific article questioning the conviction of Mark Lundy in North & South magazine.
It seems Lundy is to be added to New Zealand’s increasingly large stack of questionable convictions.
When serious questions like this arise, I don’t think it’s enough for police and prosecutors to respond, as they often do, by saying “the jury saw all the evidence, and they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt”. If some of that evidence is open to serious challenge, the prosecutors should be answering those questions. If prosecutorial misconduct is alleged, such as a failure to turn over relevant evidence to the defence, prosecutors should be addressing that too. If a journalist uncovers compelling reasons to doubt some of the evidence that it seems the jury relied on, prosecutors should at the very least be prepared to point to other compelling evidence that indicates guilt.
To be fair to prosecutors, it’s sometimes hard to respond to criticisms of a lengthy and complicated trial process, to journalists who weren’t there for it all, don’t understand the law’s procedures and content, may well misunderstand or misquote explanations, are looking for an exciting angle, and may be little more than pawns of a lobby group.
But when a reporter does what seems to be an in-depth, balanced, careful feature, I think it’s incumbent on the authorities to explain the other side, and to front-foot any shortcomings. The public’s confidence in the justice system is rocked far more by an article like this than by almost anything else I can think of.
I’m not holding my breath. But this may give some impetus to the case (made by Justice Thorp and others) for a Criminal Appeals Review Office, as exists in Canada and the UK.
Topics: General | Comments Off on Lundy case is falling down?
Books are doomed
February 10, 2009
Yeah, I don’t much like e-books either. But here’s the thing: that doesn’t matter. Old paper-and-binding books are doomed anyway. Don’t believe me? Read this. The logic is unassailable, I think.
Topics: General | Comments Off on Books are doomed
Books banned in New Zealand
February 5, 2009
The censor’s office has posted an interesting list of the books banned or restricted here since 1965.
250 books have been banned or restricted in that period. Interestingly, nearly two-thirds of those bans/restrictions have been since the passage of the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act in 1993, and nearly a third were in the period 1996-1998.
I doubt this is an indication that we’re more censorious these days, though. No doubt the volume and offensiveness of objectionable publications is much higher in modern times. It’s hard to see the current lot banning Why He Was Born So Beautiful And Other Rugby Songs, as the Indecent Publications Tribunal did in 1968, for example. (Other curious bannings: The Kama Sutra Illustrated (1971), The Complete Marquis de Sade (1975), The Limerick Vols 1 and 2 (1977), The World’s Best Dirty Jokes (1979), The Joy of Gay Sex (1983), The Autobiography of a Flea (1987), The World of the American Pit Bull Terrier (1991), and A Guy With Tits (2001)).
The bans seem to fall loosely into three categories: making drugs (Brownie Mary’s Marijuana Cookbook and Denis Peron’s Recipe for Social Change, The Construction and Operation of Clandestine Drug Laboratories, Opium for the Masses), advice on hurting people and making weapons (Kitchen Improvised Plastic Explosives, How to Kill Vol 11, Physical Interrogation Techniques, Ragnar’s Guide to Home and Recreational Use of High Explosives, Bazooka – How to Build Your Own), and coercive sex (Raped and Tortured Schoolgirl, Raped Daughter then Mother, Bound Black Wench and – gotta love this one – A Librarian Enslaved).
Bans and restrictions in recent years tend to relate to books about drugs, weapons and criminal techniques.
Topics: Censorship | Comments Off on Books banned in New Zealand
In Jesus’ name, amen
February 5, 2009
Someone complained to the Advertising Standards Authority that a Christmas ad from Bond and Bond was offensive to Christians. The ad said:
CELEBRATE THE BIRTH OF JESUS WITH SOME NEW GEAR, IT’S WHAT HE’D WANT
Offensive to Christians? Well… maybe some. But it’s mostly spoofing the brazen commercialisation of Christmas, including by Bond and Bond. Damn my atheist heart, but I think it’s bloody funny. (The ASA quite rightly didn’t uphold the complaint).
Topics: Advertising Standards | Comments Off on In Jesus’ name, amen
“Vile racist abuse?”
February 4, 2009
Here’s Vince Siemer’s case in a microcosm. Siemer writes intemperately about Stiassny. The courts overreact to Siemer. Siemer overreacts to the courts.
In the $920,000 damages judgment, Justice Cooper accuses Siemer of directing “vile racist abuse” at Stiassny. Here’s his reasoning:
[48] [Stiassny] complained also that some of the language used by Mr Siemer had apparently been calculated to be offensive to him and caused distress. Examples that he gave included ridicule of his name. Mr Siemer had distributed stickers saying “There is an ‘ass’ in our website www.stiassny.org”. Also there had been references to his Jewish religion and to the persecution of the Jews. Thus, in his letter to the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants of 14 February 2005 Mr Siemer had written:
News Flash! Michael Stiassny tells Professional Conduct Committee that sky is yellow… again, the sky is yellow.
[49] Further, on www.stiassny.org, on the “interviews page” Mr Siemer had referred to him as a man with “exceptional sway within the small Jewish community” and had commented that “when the judiciary determines that a ruthless and powerful man’s reputation is so priceless…the Gestapo cannot be far behind…people like Adolph[sic] Hitler…”.
[50] On a page headed “the Smartest Guy in the Room”, Mr Siemer had stated:
Stiassny will likely have taken his family and ill-gotten gains to exile in Israel or Switzerland.
[51] On the welcome page, Mr Siemer had referred to Mr Stiassny in the phrase:
…what a good Jew he is (no joke).
I find this a bit mystifying. What part of the “News Flash” comment refers to Stiassny’s religion? How is the comment about the Gestapo and Hitler anything other than a criticism of the judiciary – and one that draws a sympathetic comparison between Siemer and Jews as victims? Why is the exile comment anti-Semitic?
Yep, the “what a good Jew he is” comment is yucky. But is it “vile racist abuse”? Siemer is right to regard the judge’s characterisation of his attacks as unfair, I think.
So how does Siemer respond? By saying in a letter he’s circulated that the judge “simply made it up”. But this is nonsense, too. You can see from Siemer’s own website that the quotes are accurate, and the bits the judge has abbreviated don’t change the sense of the words, or take them out of context. The problem isn’t that the judge invented them or used them unfairly, it’s that they’re not really vile racist abuse. (Siemer doesn’t discuss the “good Jew” quote).
I’d have more sympathy for Siemer if he didn’t engage in such ridiculous exaggeration. But I have to say, I’m much more troubled when the courts do it…
[Update: On the “good Jew” quote, Siemer says he was responding to this NZ Herald article, which quotes Stiassny saying “I’m Jewish. I support Israel but it would be inappropriate for me to talk about that.” Siemer says he was simply summarising this comment, accurately characterising it as Stiassny saying what a good Jew he is. I don’t have the context of Siemer’s original statement to evaluate that, but if true it very much changes the complexion of the quote.]
Topics: Defamation | Comments Off on “Vile racist abuse?”
« Previous Entries Next Entries »