The 17th February 2000 is the 400th anniversary of the death of Giordano Bruno, burnt at the stake for believing that the Universe was infinite and that the earth orbited the sun. Rather than suppressing these heretical ideas this act only spurred others on to further developments in reason, science and knowledge that brought about profound changes. A renaissance that helped free Europe from the total religious domination that had gripped it for so long.
It is in the last century that progress has been the greatest. But it has been a century of contrasts. On the positive side we have seen vast improvements in living standards for a large portion of the world's population. The work of engineers has been the most significant - we need just look around to see their products. Washing machines and other household appliances have freed women from much of their time consuming household work. Sewerage systems continue to improve sanitation and have almost eliminated water born diseases such as cholera, giving us the greatest life saver the world has ever known, increasing life expectancy and eclipsing the work of medicine. Now most people live a relatively disease free life. Communications, railways, roads and motor vehicles, ships, air travel, electricity, cheap energy from hydro-power, coal, and oil, vast increases in productivity and the production of goods and services, and the development of trade have all contributed to increased living standards. Millions of people in Europe and the Americas, parts of Asia, and to a lesser extent Africa have benefited. The average real incomes for all countries including the Third World has increased four times.
With the increased life expectancy came an exponential increase in the world's population - a fourfold increase from 1.5 to 6 billion. Fortunately developments in agricultural science vastly increased food production and allowed us to largely meet the increase. The provision of free education and vast increases in educated people have bought about a new age of enlightenment. It was early in the twentieth century that we came to realise that our galaxy is just one among billions in a vast universe and just how insignificant the Earth is. Our science has now advanced so far that we can genetically manipulate life itself - perhaps create life to order - and we now stand on the verge of creating artificial intelligent life forms.
Indeed we now have the means to give everybody on the Earth a reasonable
living standard. For many living relatively comfortable life styles in
wealthy nations it is easy to think that all the world's problems have been
solved, or would be if only the people of some nations would display a bit
more responsibility and free themselves from the ravages of war and poverty.
But such a view is an arrogant one. It is easy for those younger than 50 to
forget that there have been two world wars - Europe was twice devastated by
these wars. That it is the USA, England, France and Russia that have supplied
most of the arms and finance that have kept wars going in the Third World and
that the trade policies of the developed nations often act to prevent some of
the world's poorer nations from improving their lot.
As our population density has increased so has the potential for disaster.
The 1931 earthquake in Napier N.Z. killed 256 due to inadequate building
standards. A similar earthquake in north-western Turkey in 1999 killed
15,000. This time the regulations, a translation of the Californian code,
were adequate. The problem was inadequate inspection and enforcement of the
code and the free market. Competing building contractors cut costs by
reducing the amount of steel or cement used. They knew that the chances of an
earthquake were small and with few or no inspections they probably would not
get caught. Human error and stupidity play a part in the accidental loss of
life that occurs. In 1979 one airline with an impeccable safety record,
suddenly, and without adequate briefing of the aircrew, sent a plane south to
Antarctica with its navigation equipment preprogrammed to fly the aircraft
directly over or into an active volcano - 257 died!
But these disasters are small compared with the actions of some politicians. The second world war resulted in 64 million deaths while the purges in Stalinist Russia and Maoist China eliminated about 50 million each. Hitler, Stalin and Mao rank among the greatest mass murderers in the worlds history. Pol Pot, Kim Il-Sung, and Ho Chi Minh, were also each responsible for the deaths of millions while numerous other dictators and despots have added to human misery with their suppression of their own people and invasions of neighbouring countries. Millions of deaths can also be attributed to the anti-life Pope John Paul II for his opposition to condoms and effective means of combating the spread of AIDS in Africa and Asia and to the peddlers of tobacco products.
So as we enter the new century and a new millennium of the common era (C.E.) we can look forward with some optimism - we do have the means of solving the world's problems - the means to continue to improve living standards and to ensure that the world's wealth is more equitably shared - to be a highly evolved and civilised people. But we also need to look at our human characteristics. The characteristics that make so many of us believe in religious and political leaders and follow them even when they are acting to cause the deaths of so many people. These are the characteristics of the wild chimpanzee's who raid and kill their neighbours. IBM
Recently an M.A. student was explaining the development of the word 'spiritual' - from the twelfth century, when in the terms of the Church of that time, it actually meant very much what many people take from it today - the opposite of the material world.
In the second half of this century, it has been moving more and more away from the meaning of a direct relationship with God (or any god), that it had garnered in the interim period. More and more it is now being understood as describing the human dimension that sets us in a very different dimension from the rest of the animal world (as far as we can know).
Therefore it seems time to qualify the word 'spiritual', since it now has a variety of claimants. Thus, 'religious spirituality' becomes a subset of the total concept, and ours would be more widely understood if we referred to it as 'secular spirituality'. I was pleased to find this view supported by Dr Donald B Ardell in The Book of Wellness, - A Secular Approach to Spirituality, Meaning and Purpose, actually in stock in our own Bookshop, (price $33.00).
'S, M & P' seem to be popping up all around the place, for example as part of the mental health section in the Form 6 Physical Education Syllabus, for which the above mentioned graduate student is trialing resource material. Many of those sixth formers will still be in searching mode. So easily they could be left feeling somehow inadequate in relation to any fundamentally-inclined and completely assured classmates. Would we not be letting down the young people, (and teachers), if we didn't do our best to proclaim loud and clearly, the validity of our 'secular spirituality'?
Perhaps this all seems too 'déjà vu' to those who remember the furore caused by the Johnson Report of the late '70s. But not only those fearful of the sex education component condemned that forward looking document. Many Rationalists and Humanists did the same, fearful that those pushing religion would successfully lay claim to the 'spiritual dimension' of education that it acknowledged. They were right to be wary, but often ended up being merely negative of the total report.
It seems that spirituality will always be with us. The Family Virtues Guide (Linda Kavelin Popov, etc) claims to be ... "a manual for applying virtues in everyday life, for supporting each other to set spiritual goals. It is a guide to the simple language of spirituality ...". Scan the FVG when you can ($24.95, any bookshop) because it contains some very sound stuff on parenting and appears realistic, (recognising teachable moments etc). "The FVG is not about family values"... which .."are culture-specific. It is about virtues which are universally valued by all faiths and cultures in the world". Good so far! Then ... "The FVG is grounded in the sacred traditions of the world's religions, yet it does not promote the practices or beliefs of any particular faith. It is designed to be helpful and accessible to all people, religious or not ..." Well, perhaps? Each virtue begins with a small inspirational quotation from the holy book of one of the world's religions", ... And so the Creator creeps in more and more, as in .."Protecting children from their challenges is running interference with the Creator." One of the 52 virtues is 'Prayerfulness' - hard to see how an agnostic child could find anything of value there! Interesting, also is the one on 'Excellence', where the 'Affirmation' reads "Today I thank God for my gifts ... I choose excellence in all things."
Perhaps like me, and some practising teachers I know, you are utterly sick of the frequently inaccurate use of that word 'excellence', relating it to all the 'fluff' language used so often these days to cover the actual lack of real integrity. (That word is not one of the 52 virtues, but to be fair, it is probably subsumed in others. The Virtues Project is probably already active in your local schools - it is in many places. Many people are looking for leadership towards some less materialistic values for our society, according to Alan Webster's New Zealand Study of Values, (Massey, 1998) and certainly would-be good parents are always seeking better understanding of their roles. These are hopeful trends and Humanists need to become aware of the opportunities, but also set backs, they can provide.
Twenty years after the Johnson Report, we should be quite clear about our reaction to the Virtues Project, supportive of its general intent for those for whom it is relevant, but very clear that basically it is written for religious parents. Despite its claimed, presumptuous inclusiveness, it really chooses to ignore those whose life stances it does not, or does not want, to understand. We still await the (New Zealand's) Quality Public Education Coalition's Values Resource for schools. And finally, the thought for the day - the future is not just something we enter, it is something we create.Jeanne van Gorkom is a Humanist marriage celebrant and Taranaki member of the Humanist Society of New Zealand.
October 1999
Good morning, you are listening to Humanist Outlook, brought to you by the Wellington Branch of the Humanist Society of New Zealand. I am Mark Vendelbosch.
Is there a god? I have asked that question in a previous programme. Recently I came across a good answer in a book by Timothy Ferris entitled "The Whole Shebang" which should be satisfying to most theists and even most non-theists.
In the final chapter Timothy Ferris asks "what about God?" And goes on to say:"The deity has been implicated in cosmology since the dawn of human history. Every monotheistic religion credits god with having created the universe. Plato, Aristotle and scores of other philosophers have declared god responsible for the natural order revealed in the regular motions of the planets and stars. Theologians assert that it is owing to god's grace that human reason can comprehend the laws of nature. God has even been invoked as a solution to the observership problem posed by the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. So it seems reasonable to ask what can cosmology, now that it is a science, tell us about god."
The answer Timothy Ferris gives to his question, what can cosmology tell us about god, is nothing. Cosmology he says presents us neither the face of god, nor the handwriting of god nor such thoughts as might occupy the mind of god. This does not mean that god does not exist, or that he did not create the universe, or universes. It means that cosmology offers us no resolution to such questions.
What alternative does he offer? Before answering that question I will digress a little to briefly examine the more common proofs of god. There are three main ones: the argument from design, the cosmological proof and the ontological proof.
The argument from design is the strongest. It states that it is impossible for this world and universe as complicated as it is to have ended up like this without the work of a divine intellect. As the clergyman William Paley famously pictured it, if one were to come across a pocket watch in the woods, one would conclude, on examining its intricate mechanism, that it had been designed by an intelligence for a purpose.
The design argument is deistic, meaning that it addresses god as a creator not as an intervener who works miracles in the universe he has created.
The design argument has been treated with respect by philosophers and others, who are repelled by the notion of a personal god who answers prayers by influencing the outcome of battles and football games, but believe that the marvellous structure of the universe requires a supernatural explanation.
However the design argument suffers from two major defects. First it is woefully anthropocentric. Design implies a purpose and god's purpose in designing the universe was assumed to be either to make us or to make things nice for both, or both. That we humans are the purpose for which the universe was created. This argument is difficult to sustain in the light of the vast abundance of stars in the universe, far more than would be needed for navigation and marking the seasons, which is the biblical reason for their existence. The philosopher Bertrand Russell had this to say about a designed universe. The believers in cosmic purpose make much out of our supposed intelligence but their writings make one doubt it. If I were granted omnipotence, he said, and millions of years to experiment in, I would not think man much to boast of as the final result of all my efforts.
The design argument has been driven from the biological arena and has sought refuge in the cosmological arena. Some thinkers expect that it will fare better there, although that seems unlikely. A unified field theory that showed that the constants of nature to have arisen from phase transitions or other chance events would erode the design argument. So too would the admittedly more speculative hypothesis that there are plenty of universes with many different sets of laws, in only some of which life may be expected to arise.
Flawed though it may be the argument from design is more robust than the cosmological or ontological proofs.
Briefly the cosmological proof is the argument that arose with Aristotle who held that the existence of motion requires an ultimate source of motion, an unmoved mover, that is god. It is the ultimate cause argument. But it moves the problem back one step, because the next question is who created the ultimate cause? The obvious response is, if the ultimate cause did not need to be created, then why did the rest of the universe need to be created.
The ontological proof dates back to the 17th century and Saint Anselm who argued that we can conceive of god as something which nothing more perfect can be conceived. From the fact that we have this concept, it follows logically that such a thing must exist. Why? Because if he did not, we would be able to conceive of something more perfect - namely a perfect being that does exist - and it is an absurdity to conceive of something more perfect than the most perfect conceivable being.
However, simply because we postulate that something exists, it doesn't mean that it does exist. As the philosopher Immanuel Kant noted, the cosmological argument pastes the tag of existing on things, then asserts that the existence of any being requires the existence of an ultimate being.
These proofs continue to exist but they no longer carry any force.
Atheists continue to draw sustenance from the cosmological findings which indicate that the universe emerged from chaos. Evidence in their support is mounting. The Harrison-Zeldovich spectrum of density fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, confirmed within observational limits by the COBE satellite, suggests that random flux originated the stars and galaxies. Furthermore Darwinian evolution depends on chance genetic mutations and survival of the fittest. If the world emerged from chaos and works by chance what role can there be for an omniscient creator?
Briefly, the argument for atheism is that there is compelling evidence for the non-creation of the universe and that atheists simply ask theists to present similarly compelling evidence for the existence of a creator god. It is not enough for creationists to argue that it is impossible to state categorically that there is no god simply because he may exist somewhere in the universe. To do this is to prove a negative which is impossible.
What are we left with? According to Timothy Ferris we would clearly be better off if we left god out of cosmology altogether. The origins of the universe and the constants of nature are a mystery and may forever remain so. But to assign god the job of doing everything we don't yet understand is to abuse the concept of god. Such thinking posits, in the lingo, a god of the gaps - a deity who is hard at work making nature do those things that we fail to understand. This description of god seems unworthy of him. Feeble indeed is the machine that requires the constant intervention of the designer to keep running.
Timothy Ferris considers more appropriate, the view that god created the universe out of an interest in spontaneous creativity - that he wanted nature to produce surprises, phenomena that he himself could not have foreseen.
He goes on to ask what would such a creative universe be like? Well, he says it would for one thing be impossible to predict in detail. And that seems to be the case with the universe we inhabit.
Further a creative universe would give rise to agencies that are themselves creative, which is to say unpredictable. There is in our universe such an agency, spectacularly successful at reversing the dreary slide of entropy and making surprising things happen. We call it life.
It would be suitable if this agency were to inquire into the workings of the universe, winnowing out the predictable from the unpredictable and inventing theories to account for the difference. And that is what intelligence does. Better still if thinking creatures were to perceive that they are all in the same boat and hence treat one another kindly and assert god is love. And so we do though not often enough.
Finally in a creative universe god would betray no trace of his presence, since to do so would rob the creative forces of their independence, to turn them from the active pursuit of answers to mere supplication of god. And so it is. God's language is silence. Whether he left or was never here concludes Timothy Ferris I do not know and don't believe we ever shall know. But one can learn to live with ambiguity - that much is requisite to the thinking spirit - and with the silence of the stars. All who genuinely seek to learn, whether atheist or believer, scientist or mystic are united in having not a faith but faith itself. For god's hand may be a human hand, if you reach out in loving kindness and god's voice, your voice, if you but speak the truth.
I rather like that explanation of the universe. It is a very satisfying definition of god and of the origin of the universe and it will please most theists and the non-theists, though not those who are determined to bow down and worship at the feet of a god. But more importantly this explanation grants man freedom and self-determination and therefore self-respect and that is most important of all.
Well I must close now, however before going, my usual announcements:Visitors are welcome at humanist society meetings, and the next one is tomorrow night, in Turnbull house at 7-30 p.m. To contact the society you can write to us at P.O. Box 3372 Wellington or phone 04 562 7172. Until the next Humanist outlook programme in 4 weeks when Jeff will most probably be before the mike, this is Mark Vendelbosch saying goodbye.Mark Vendelbosch is a Wellington member of HSNZ.
The Ministry of Justice has released a discussion paper on Same-Sex Couples and the Law and asked for public submissions. The release of this paper has been driven by the consistency 2000 project and by seemingly inconsistent court decisions.
People who wish to form long term same-sex relationships are a part of our society and many such couples have children either born into their present relationship or the result of previous relationships.
Although there appeared to be no impediment in the law to the marriage of same-sex couples and the Human Rights Act rules against discrimination on the grounds of sexuality, the Registrar of Marriages refused to register a same-sex marriage and the Appeal Court ruled: that as no same-sex marriages had previously been registered, that as there was no indication that it had been parliament's intent to allow same-sex marriages, and that as this was a fundamental change in social policy it was a matter for parliament to decide and not for the courts. However, a later High Court hearing found a lesbian partner liable for the financial maintenance of her former partner's children.
Other issues involved include:
· Property; the division of property on the dissolution of a relationship -
same-sex couples are deprived of the protection given by a marriage and will
not be recognised under the De Facto Relationships Property Bill now under
consideration
· Inheritance - both same-sex and opposite-sex de facto couples have no rights if their partner dies without a valid will
· Recognition - when a person dies several acts give recognition to opposite-sex married or de facto partners but not same-sex partners
· Adoption and Joint Parenting - same-sex and opposite-sex de facto couples may not adopt a child together. Many same-sex couples have children together and when the birth parent dies the children may be removed from the care of the other parent even when this is not in the best interest of the child. The surviving parent may then be denied access to the children.
· Assisted Human Reproduction - married and de facto opposite-sex couples may become legally recognised social parents of a child born through assisted human reproduction but for same-sex couples only a birth parent may be recognised as a parent.
· Parental Leave - only opposite-sex couples are entitled to parental leave when their partner gives birth to a child.
· Income Support - opposite-sex couples, married or defacto, face a joint income and asset test before they are entitled to various kinds of support while same sex couples are assessed individually. This can lead to both partners in a same-sex relationship receiving a benefit such as the Domestic Purposes Benefit (DPB) and consequently higher levels of income than opposite sex couples. Alternatively, one partner may be on a high salary level while their same-sex partner receives the Domestic Purposes Benefit.
· Tax - same-sex couples do not have their partners income considered when family assistance is calculated. Again this may result in them being better off than opposite sex couples.
· Legal Aid - partners are means tested when legal aid is being assessed except for same-sex couples giving them an advantage over opposite sex couples.
· Child Support - the High Court has ruled that even though a same-sex partner may not be otherwise recognised by law or as a parent they have the same obligations as other parents under the Child Support Act.
Many countries are currently moving in the direction of same sex marriages for the same reasons as New Zealand, although no other country currently allows them. New South Wales has given same-sex couples the same property rights as opposite-sex de facto couples and other rights and responsibilities.
Some European countries allow registration of a same-sex relationship rather than marriage. This registration is suggested as an alternative to marriage in the discussion paper and would give the same legal rights as marriage. This kind of thinking however is based on the religious presumption that marriage is just for the procreation of children and consequently same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry. It is definitely a form of discrimination against same-sex couples and if enacted may become institutionalised and difficult to change. Registration however does offer a fall back alternative and has the advantage that people do not have to pass eligibility criteria or tests. To reduce the discriminatory nature of registration it should also be made available to opposite sex couples.
Why is this matter importantIt is a matter of Human Rights. Same-sex relationships may be just as enduring and long lasting as heterosexual relationships. People should not be discriminated against just because they are a minority or in some aspects different from the majority of people. Allowing heterosexual couples to marry but not same-sex couples prevents same-sex couples from enjoying any benefits that the law may give to married couples. On the other hand there are at present some advantages to not having their relationship recognised. Many same-sex couples wish to marry and feel that they are being discriminated against because the law prevents them. They need support as they are only a small portion of the population and are likely to be vigorously opposed by religious bigots.
Human Rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights - This document is neutral on the
subject of same-sex marriages and it is possible that the authors may not
have considered same-sex marriages. The United Nations Human Rights Committee
has however affirmed that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
encompasses equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people. The
following article is relevant.
Article 16
1: Men and Women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality
or religion, have the right to marry and found a family. They are entitled to
equal rights as to marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the state.
The Humanist Position - Humanists are strong supporters of Human Rights and oppose discrimination against minorities. At the inaugural meeting of the IHEU it was decided to endorse the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. At the 14th IHEU World Congress in January 1999 a resolution was overwhelmingly passed (by more than 99% of those present) supporting the human rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans-gendered people. This included the following clauses:
B. IHEU calls on governments to:
4. afford same-sex partnerships the full protection of the law, equal to
marital, and other legally recognised mixed-sex partnerships, with regard to
pension, inheritance, taxation, and social security, custody and adoption,
donor insemination and other services, in which discriminatory policies and
practices currently exist.
9. a. recognising that same-sex sexuality is no disorder, nor disease, let
alone reason for forced psycho-medical treatment;
Humanist Attitudes to Marriage
Humanists consider marriage to be a matter of personal choice. They do not
consider marriage to be sacred or specifically for the raising of children -
if marriage is an institution primarily or solely for the raising of
children, as some claim, then we should refuse to allow the marriage of
people known to be infertile or beyond reproductive age.
Barbara Smoker in Humanism 1973, describes marriage as "a social contract to give partnership stability, mutual insurance, economic security, and recognition by society. Most humanists who want to start a family get married, but some prefer to trust each other without legal marriage. It has even been suggested that living together and having children without the bondage of marriage makes for a stronger bond."
A distinction can be made between a marriage ceremony that is a declaration of commitment either made in public or before a restricted audience of family and friends and the legal registration of a marriage that is an agreement by the parties to accept the legal requirements of marriage that may from time to time be prescribed by the state. Some people elect to not register their marriage because they see the stipulations of the state as inflexible and not meeting their personal requirements. For instance, older people who have spent a life time accumulating a moderate amount of property may fear that a new marriage late in life may not last and soon result in the loss of half of their property and consequent impoverishment in old age. Over the last thirty years there has been a move away from religious marriages, formerly more than 95% of all marriages, to secular marriage ceremonies that now exceed 50% of marriages. Formal and legally registered marriage has also fallen in popularity with more couples opting for informal or de facto relationships for a variety of reasons.
Humanists espouse tolerance. If same-sex marriage presents no possibility of harm to other persons and can not be considered injurious to the public good there should be no reason for preventing such marriages.
A Question of Biology
It is now recognised that homosexual behaviour comparable to that which
occurs in humans occurs in most mammals - it is not, as was once suggested, a
uniquely human phenomenon and purely a learnt behaviour. Differences in brain
structure have been determined in homosexuals - it differs from that usually
found in a person of their sex indicating some biological determination. This
does not indicate that these differences are necessarily inherited
genetically as the differences can occur during early fetal development.
People with a minority sexual orientation consider that their sexuality is
for them quite normal and not a reason for discrimination against them. They
do not wish to change or be changed.
Influence on Children
The Law Commission quotes evidence from international research. This research
indicates that having same-sex parents does not influence the sexuality of
children raised in such a family - they are neither more nor less likely to
follow the sexuality of their parents and statistically follow the same
patterns of sexuality as children of opposite-sex couples. Children of
lesbian parents are no more likely to experience psychiatric problems than
the children of single parents. Children raised by lesbian mothers were found
to have greater access to male role models than the children of single
mothers and their children are not teased any more or any more severely at
school than other children.Lesbian families were more likely to involve both
parents in daily caregiving than heterosexual parents and more likely to have
a coordinated or joint policy on discipline. There is no evidence that the
children of same-sex couples are harmed in any other way.
In the 1996 Census there were 396 families with same-sex parents, just 0.06% of the total number of families with children, while there were 168,258 single parent families, 28.3%. The indications are however that having same-sex parents may be preferable to having a sole parent.
Adoption
Questions relating to the adoption of children introduce some complex issues.
To a large extent these questions are also dealt with in another discussion
paper titled Adoption: Options for Reform released by the New Zealand Law
Commission and available from http://www.lawcom.govt.nz. This is a much more
complex paper, 186 pages long, and asks for responses to 175 questions.
Responses are required by 30th January 2000.
A general rule for adoption is that the interests of a child should be paramount. In many cases where a child is being raised by a same-sex couple and one is a birth or genetically related parent it would be in the child's best interest to have the other partner recognised as a parent by the law. This would save the child from the trauma of being removed from its home on the death of its birth or genetically related parent.
Formerly it was believed that when a child was placed for adoption a clean break should occur with neither the child nor the adopting parents knowing who the genetic parents were, or the genetic parents knowing what had become of the child. It has since been found that this causes significant problems for all parties. It is now thought that in most cases it is preferable for the mother to have continued access to the child and for the child to be adopted by relatives, such as an aunt, or where this is not possible or against the wishes of the birth mother, for an open adoption with a couple the mother knows or has met. In either case the adopting parents may be in a same-sex relationship but this may well be preferable to a closed adoption or placement with a single parent. If same-sex couples pass the same tests as other couples and are considered fit to adopt there is no reason why they should not.
The Discussion Paper
The Discussion Paper released by the Ministry of Justice is a relatively
short and easily read document, less than 20 pages long. It introduces the
issues to be considered, suggests some solutions and asks for responses to
sixteen questions. A second paper titled Same-Sex Couples and the Law -
Backgrounding the issues has also been released and provides more detailed
background information. Both are available from the Ministry of Justice or
their website at http://www.justice.govt.nz. Alternatively just ring them and
ask them to send you a copy.
New Zealand led the world with women's suffrage and other human rights. This is an opportunity for New Zealand to lead the world again. In twenty years time we may wonder why this was an issue at all and the laws were so restrictive. It is planned to discuss the discussion paper at the Humanist Summer Gathering in Wanganui in January with a view to making a Humanist submission. Individuals are welcome to make their own submissions. It is easy to make a submission. Just write a letter to the law commission and answer the 16 questions.
References and Further Reading:Ministry of Justice Same-Sex Couples and
the Law - Discussion Paper
NZ Law Commission Adoption: Options for ReformSteven Price: Opinion: Time to
rid ourselves of anti-gay laws Evening Post Dec. 21, 1999. Steven Price is a
lawyer, journalist and broadcaster and was a Fulbright Scholar from 1995-96.
sxprice@hotmail.com
Send your written comments to:
Same-Sex Couples and the Law
Public Law Group
Ministry of Justice
P O Box 180,
Wellington
The Sixteen Questions.
QUESTION 1 - What are your views about same-sex couples being able to
marry?
QUESTION 2 - If same-sex couples can't marry, what do you think about
same-sex couples being able to formalise their relationship in some other way
(eg registration)?
QUESTION 3 - How do you think registration should work?
QUESTION 4 - What are your views about opposite-sex de facto couples being
able to formalise their relationships in some other way (eg registration)?
QUESTION 5 - Do you think same-sex couples should have the same rights as
opposite-sex couples to jointly adopt children?
QUESTION 6 - In what circumstances do you think a same-sex couple ought to be
able to have joint legal parent status?
QUESTION 7 - What are your views about same-sex couples being able to be
joint parents of a child born from an assisted human reproductive procedure
that they both agree to?
QUESTION 8 - What is your opinion of a same-sex couple both having the right
to parental leave if one of them gives birth or adopts a child?
The Wellington Branch of HSNZ has received EPOCH'S Annual Report and their November newsletter. Readers may remember EPOCH is an organisation dedicated to ending physical punishment of children. It now has a network of 44 members and 15 organisations including the HSNZ. A recent questionnaire sent to Members of Parliament about repealing section 59 of the Crimes Act (which allows reasonable use of physical force to discipline children) has not resulted in much support from MPs. Government response to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child recommendation that section 59 be repealed is that the New Zealand Government does not believe section 59 is non-compliant with Article 19 of the Convention. However, the two extracts from EPOCH'S newsletter (printed below) show attitudes are changing. Efforts to educate parents on alternative methods to smacking children which have been shown to be more effective long-term in developing good behaviour patterns amongst children continue with the publication by EPOCH of a new awareness-raising resource. Their new pack You Can't Beat Kids consists of attractive fridge magnets, reward stickers, a bookmark (or small chart for the fridge) and an information sheet Children are unbeatable: ways to avoid smacking. It also contains hints about behaviour management and coping with stress. This pack is distributed free of charge to organisations who work with children and families to pass on to parents.
The two extracts from the EPOCH newsletter follow:
A Recent Court Case
In a recent court case brought under the Domestic Violence Act, a mother
brought to the Court's attention incidents where a child was disciplined by
his father with an implement causing bruising. The mother brought an
application to the Court for a Protection Order on the basis of the incidence
of violence.
Section 16B of the Guardianship Act provides that where in any proceedings the Court is satisfied that a party to the proceedings has used violence against the child, the Court shall not make an order giving the violent party custody of the child unless the court is satisfied that the child will be safe while the violent party has custody. The judge in this case was satisfied that when considering violence under section 16B, the legislature did not intend to include in 'violence' reasonable force used by way of correction, which is justified under the Crimes Act. However, the judge went on to say:
It is unfortunate that the legislature has not resolved the issue of whether corporal punishment by parents is appropriate in New Zealand. It does seem that by retaining section 59 of the Crimes Act and enacting section 16B, legislature on the one hand is gaining the support of those in the community who do not want corporal punishment, their view being satisfied by section 16B, but at the same time retains the support of those in the community who consider corporal punishment appropriate by retaining section 59.
The only way to resolve the apparent conflict between the two sections must be to exclude from the definition of 'violence' force used by a parent by way of correction, which is justified under section 59. The question then is whether the force is justified.
The judge was of the opinion that:
In the present circumstances the force used probably exceeds what is
justified in terms of the Crimes Act and must therefore be violence under
section 16B.
Child abuse death and the New Zealand Herald Survey
The tragic case of the death of a four-year-old child recently highlighted
the horror and danger of physical punishment and led many to examine the link
between attitudes about physical discipline and child abuse. However a recent
New Zealand Herald Survey (23 August 1999) showed that 75.2% of 860 people
interviewed believed that there are times when smacking is justified. The
rate was higher for Maori (82.3%) and lower for Pacific people (64.3%). Of
the people surveyed, 55.1% said that as children they were hit more severely
than with the occasional light smack.
It is encouraging that attitudes are changing in New Zealand. In a similar poll of 1000 people conducted in 1993 by the Office of the Commissioner for Children, 87.5% believed that there were certain circumstances where it was 'OK' to hit a child.
(These Extracts are from EPOCH New Zealand Occasional Newsletter No. 7 November 1999.)
As a final point I would like to say I am always astonished that striking another adult is regarded as an assault and punishable under our law yet striking a child is not an assault. Striking a child may stop an undesirable behaviour and ease a parent's stress but is a poor learning experience for setting long term patterns of non-violence if we consider that important in a child's character development and in societal behaviour.
Maureen Hoy is Secretary of the Humanist Society of New Zealand.
valid html5