Just Focus » legislation

Posts Tagged ‘legislation’

Section 59 in simple terms

Monday, May 29th, 2006

Heather Yang

What is Section 59?
Section 59 is part of a law (Crimes Act 1961) in Aotearoa New Zealand that states “Every parent or person in place of a parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards a child if that force is reasonable in the circumstances.”

Why has it come to attention now?
Cases where this law has been abused have been spotlighted by heightened media attention. Negligent parents have used Section 59 to get them out of assault charges.

A “ban on smacking”?
Mainstream media has often presented this issue in a wrong light. Sensationalistic headlines such as “BAN ON SMACKING” create bias. The public are led to believe that good parents who discipline their children will be prosecuted, removing the focus from the issue of child abuse. Although section 59 would ultimately ban smacking, it will also mean that parents who beat their children will be held responsible.

What’s wrong with it?
With section 59 in place, parents and guardians are legally able to beat their children. Because of the end of the statement “ reasonable in the circumstances”, it is open to judgement what force is reasonable. A judge recently found it reasonable for a father to beat his eight year old with a piece of wood 30cm by 2 cm eight times which left bruises. A 12 year-old girl was hit by a piece of hosepipe by her father. This was also deemed reasonable. These cases are not rare, as many cases go unreported.

This goes against the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (which came into force in 1990). It states in article 37 that “No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Section 59 allows the parent to degrade’ the child by being allowed to use force, thus legitimatises assault on children.

Why do Children need protection from their parents?
Children are usually smaller, weaker and more vulnerable than an adult. The Declaration of the Rights of the Child states, “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”,

Protecting the little guys
It is safe to say that most four year olds would be much smaller and weaker than their parents. Therefore, they are less likely to be able to defend themselves against physical violence. If two identical fighters were to fight each other, then it would be a fair fight. If you shrunk one fighter, removed their strength and then made them fight the original fighter, it would be obvious that the smaller fighter has a significant disadvantage. The repeal of Section 59 would mean simply that the fighting should not start to begin with, and if it did, then the law should protect the little guy.

A little smack helps the child learn discipline, doesn’t it?
Wrong, studies have shown that physical punishment can leave lifelong emotional scars that can disrupt learning, emotional development and an ability to relate to others socially. A better way of disciplining children is to reason with them about why what they have done wrong is bad. This develops a child’s sense of logic and also communication skills, which can be used later on in life.

The story around the globe
Internationally, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Austria, have changed their laws to ban smacking. The repeal of similar laws in Scotland and Great Britain have gained support from the majority of people and are now under scrutiny by the Government. It is time for New Zealand to catch up with the world and join the global fight to end child abuse.

What can I do?

TAKE ACTION!

Write a letter to Green MP Sue Bradford showing your support for the repeal of section 59

LEARN MORE

Read more of the Bill to change this law on the Save the Children NZ site:
For an easy-to-read summary of the Rights of the Child

References:

Look under ‘Criminal Acquittals’ for case references, and also “Criminal Convict” on the Barnados site

Cindy Kiro talks about Section 59 in general

Québec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms

Human Rights Commission; the convention on the rights of a child

Corporal punishment in the Nordic countries.

Article on Canadian psychologist Dr Joan Durrant, authority on Children’s rights in Sweden

Jim Hopper’s study on Child Abuse worldwide

Photo by Holly Greening.

Tags: Aotearoa New Zealand, children, human rights, legislation, violence, youth
Posted in Articles, Culture & Society, Human Rights & Social Justice, Politics | No Comments »

War on liberties

Thursday, March 23rd, 2006

Eva Lawrence, Just Focus Coordinator

The world, since September 11 is a different place. The media permanently talks about the latest terrorist threat’ and we have a whole new vocabulary: war on terrorism’ and WMD. There is a lot of fear, and in this state of fear we are quietly allowing our freedoms to slip away.

We are being scared with potential terrorist threats and this is being used as justification to strip us of some of our most precious and hard won rights including our freedom of expression, movement and association. Historically tyrants have always stamped out free speech before anything else. These are part of our human rights that are sanctioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and our so integral to our way of life we often take them for granted.

However changes to laws worldwide are threatening our rights. The changes have tended to be gradual and quiet, presumably so we do not notice or become quickly alarmed. They are happening now.

Liberties under threat overseas
In December 2005 a 25 year old woman in the UK was convicted for reading out the names of the 97 British soldiers killed in Iraq, under the new Serious Organised Crime and Police Act. In another case in the UK last September, An 80 year old WWII veteran was arrested, under the Terrorism Act, for wearing a T-shirt that said that Bush and Blair should be tried for war crimes (Pilger). Both these examples impinge on our freedom of opinion and expression.

The US Patriot Act has allowed for the arrest and imprisonment of suspected terrorists’. They have been denied access to US legal process; most still held without charge or trial in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. A recent United Nations report has also found that prisoners have been tortured. Where is their right to be free of arbitrary arrest and exile?

What about here in Aotearoa?
According to human rights lawyer Rodney Harrison, despite the fact that the threat of terrorist’ attack is virtually non existent in Aotearoa New Zealand, a number of laws (eg. The Citizenship and Travel Documents Bill ) have been created and altered in the name of security and the war on terror’ that have reduced our freedoms. Also, with the exception of the Terrorism Suppression Act, they have no sunset clause’ which means the restrictions to our freedoms are not until the supposed threat’ has past, but permanently.

Ahmed Zaoui, an Algerian was imprisoned on the justification that he was a security threat but there was no expression of what he actually was accused of doing, as it was called classified security information’. Still now, he is under curfew in his home and awaiting the review of the security risk certificate issued against him.

What is a terrorist threat?
The word terrorist’ conjures up images of crazed fanatics killing indiscriminately. However there is no one terrorist’ group and the term is often used by those in power to describe those that they oppose. We need to understand what each of the separate groups is about and why they take the actions that they do. To understand the causes does not mean that you think the actions are acceptable or justified.

Also, think about how some of the actions of political leaders and media impacts on the risk of terror attacks. Creating a climate of intolerance and hyper-fear around religious difference or systems of government can exacerbate or create a threat where there was little or none to begin with.

It is understandable to have laws in place to be able to monitor and intercept possible threats to people. However, many of the definitions of threat are so vague that they could be used to justify interfering with people or groups, with no intent for violent acts, from expressing their opinion or taking part in groups.

For example, in February, British police cited the Prevention of Terrorism Act when they arrested and interrogated three actors from of a recent film based on the true story of three men imprisoned and finally released from Guantanamo Bay. The actors and the three men the story was based on were arresting when returning from the Berlin Film Festival where the film was screened. They were questioned about their travel, who they had met with and the political convictions of the film’s director. The actors had no specific political connections and seemed to only be singled out due to their Asian ethnicity.

Protect Your Rights
While it is important to feel safe from danger, what ever that may be, it is also equally important for people’s civil and political rights to be protected. We don’t need to give up our freedoms to do this. In the words of the United Nations Secretary General: “Our responses to terrorism as well as our efforts to thwart it and prevent it should uphold the human rights that terrorists aim to destroy. Human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law are essential tools in the effort to combat terrorism — not privileges to be sacrificed at a time of tension.”

It is our responsibility to know our rights and continue to exercise them. As Madonna once said: Express Yourself!

Some of the Articles in the Declaration of Human Rights

Article 9: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.”

Article 19: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

Article 20: “Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.”

Article 5: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”

Article 12 “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence…”

Article 13 “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country’

Article 14 “Everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution”

TAKE ACTION!

Read the media critically, don’t buy into the fear
Understand your rights and use them

LEARN MORE

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Amnesty International

Sources:
UK police arrest stars of award-winning film “The Road to Guantanamo” under the Prevention of Terrorism Act

This article was originally published in Jet magazine in the Focus column.

Tags: Aotearoa New Zealand, government, human rights, legislation, Media, Politics, prision, racism, religion, terrorism, torture, United Nations
Posted in Articles, Human Rights & Social Justice, Media, Politics | No Comments »

Oxfam’s campaign for fair trade

Thursday, September 22nd, 2005

Nicole Mathewson

What do Chris Martin (Coldplay), Thom Yorke (Radiohead), Antonio Banderas and Alanis Morrisette have in common with a sack of corn? Oxfam’s Make Trade Fair campaign. Corn is one of the exports being dumped on celebrities’ heads to draw attention to the unfair trade practices of rich countries.

What’s It All About?
The campaign by Oxfam International and it’s twelve associate agencies calls on governments, institutions and multinational companies to change their rules so trade can become part of the solution to poverty, not part of the problem.

Farmers in developing countries could work themselves out of poverty by selling their products to wealthy countries at a reasonable price.

So what’s stopping them?
The appalling unfairness of the current world trade system.

Legislation regarding trade follows the idea that one size fits all. Unfortunately many farmers in developing countries are smallholders - struggling to earn a living with unstable ecological conditions, high transport costs and little government support. They also have to compete with subsidised farmers from places like the U.S. and the European Union dumping surplus crops in their countries.

So Why Are Celebrities Involved?
The point of using celebrities in the campaign is to attract people’s attention, says Oxfam New Zealand’s advocacy and campaigns manager Shuna Lennon. “[It's] like a giant billboard. If Chris Martin says look at this’ you’re more likely to than if I said it.”

In the photo shoot Chris Martin is covered in rice, representing the surplus dumping on poor countries by the United States. The U.S. government pays it’s farmers $1billion a year to over-produce rice and dump the surplus at extremely low prices in poor countries. One fifth of the population of Haiti has been driven out of business and into poverty as a result.

Ms Lennon says the United States hasn’t stopped unfair trade, but is under enormous pressure to make a change for the better. So we’re just keeping the pressure on and hoping there will be a breakthrough, she said.

Oxfam’s next big protest will be targeting the World Trade Organisation (WTO) meeting in Hong Kong in December. Oxfam would like to see the WTO deliver a pro-development plan as an outcome of the meeting. This would ensure wealthy countries stop export dumping and remove barriers to trade to allow developing countries to decide their own trade policies that will work for them.

According to Oxfam, New Zealand has a potentially important role, as Kiwi, Tim Grosser, is the Chair of the WTO agriculture negotiations. However, our influence may not be good for poorer countries, as the New Zealand government’s view has typically been in favour of the one-size fits all trade liberalisation

TAKE ACTION!

Those interested in making a difference can help in a variety of ways, firstly by signing the Big Noise petition . There are seven million signatures already and they’re hoping to reach ten million by December, Ms Lennon said.

Fair trade items, such as coffee, chocolate and tea, are available in New Zealand at Trade Aid outlets and participating supermarkets. You can help the fight by buying fair trade products and asking retailers to stock them, this will show them the demand is there.

You can also check out Oxfam New Zealand and sign up for their e-newsletter to receive updates on Oxfam’s campaigns.

LEARN MORE

Oxfam New Zealand
Make Trade Fair
Trade Aid

Tags: Activism, agriculture, fair trade, international law, legislation, Oxfam, poverty
Posted in Activism, Articles, Economics & Trade, Human Rights & Social Justice, Media, Take Action | No Comments »

The treaty of Waitangi and Māori-Pākehā relations in Aotearoa New Zealand

Tuesday, August 9th, 2005

Nicole Matthewson, age 17, offers her opinion on race relations in New Zealand and National party Don Brash’s controversial Orewa Speech

Race relations have been in need of improvement throughout the history of our country. Since Europeans first began to colonise New Zealand, links between Māori and Pākehā have often been the topic of national debate. National party leader Dr Don Brash asked voters in Feb 2004 — What sort of nation do we want to build’? What we want to build is a society that is fused as one while respecting the unique cultures that it comprises of; a nation with equal responsibilities, rights and opportunities for all. Before we can reach that unity however, we need to explore how we can improve our race relations.

The Treaty of Waitangi
The first step in solving predicaments between Māori and Pākehā is to work out why they have occurred in the first place. One reason for conflict is the Treaty of Waitangi. Two main versions of the Treaty were created in 1840 — a Māori version and an English version (there were a number of Māori versions created all with slight variations). When translated accurately the versions show obvious differences. This creates confusion and conflict to this very day. Confusion reigns over what rights people of both cultures actually have, as both versions are deemed legal in the eyes of the law. However, under International law it is the treaty in the language of the indigenous people that takes precedence (this is called “contra preferentem”).

The Treaty of Waitangi Act of 1975 officially recognised the Treaty in law. The Waitangi Tribunal was set up to investigate Māori grievances, but some people believe this has created tension in New Zealand. Others believe the root cause of conflict was the fact it took so long before anything was done to try solve the complaints. Yet as the government’s Treaty of Waitangi website (www.treatyofwaitangi.govt.nz) says, “In a small society with many links between Māori and Pākehā, the Treaty debate inevitably reverberates through the entire community.”

RESPECT!
While it is possible to live harmoniously in a land where two or more cultures are present, conflict does arise when certain ideas or values clash. Recognising that mistakes have taken place in the past is vital. Identifying mistakes and injustices, and showing remorse, would hopefully begin to close rifts between Māori and Pākehā. It is important to remedy those errors in the best way possible, to help both parties heal their wounds and move on. Historian Michael King said in an article from The Press, A Vision for New Zealand, “the position we must grow towards, if we are to achieve social harmony and national stability, is one of a mutuality of respect between the two major cultures”. Respect for each other’s culture is a must if we are to fix past mistakes and light the way for a brighter future together.

Fixing mistakes that have already occurred is important, but preventing problems that might come about in the future is another issue that should be looked at. We need to prevent mix-ups like the Treaty of Waitangi from happening in later years. If we can do that, our nation will be a peaceful one. Dr Brash said earlier this year that he believes we should create equal rights for all in New Zealand - no special treatment for any one particular race. Things such as scholarships for Māori and Pacific Island students only are the kind of thing Dr Brash meant by “special treatment”. If we want to improve relations in our country then shouldn’t we all be equal?

People will always strive for a peaceful, amicable land. No one wants a nation divided, fighting among each other. We all need to work together to improve our relationships. Not just the relationship between Māori and Pākehā, but between all cultures residing in New Zealand as well. Together we stand, divided we fall.

LEARN MORE

The Treaty of Waitangi Government Website
A vision for New Zealand, by Michael King, The Press (article)
Don Brash’s Orewa speech transcription 2004 (PDF, 148KB)
Perspectives from Mana Māori
Mason Durie’s response to Don Brash’s Speech
Kim Hill interviews Michael King on Race Relations
Māori Independence site
All things Māori
The Encyclopedia of New Zealand
Race Relations Day site

EXPRESS YOUR OPINION!

What is your opinion of this article?
Does treating people equally create equality?
If the Treaty of Waitangi is one cause of cultural conflict in New Zealand, what are some others?

This illustration was first published in Tearaway magazine and is reprinted here with their permission

Illustrator: Gavin Mouldey

Tags: colonisation, cultures, indigenous rights, international law, legislation, Maori
Posted in Articles, Culture & Society, Human Rights & Social Justice, Indigenous Issues, Politics, Take Action | No Comments »

A global system gone mad

Tuesday, August 9th, 2005

Cameron Walker

Globalisation’, free trade’, neo-liberalism’ (call it what you will - the economic policies supported by global institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank ) have been protested about and opposed by tens of millions of people around the globe. Why are so many people so angry? In the Western World, before 9/11, coverage of violent anti-globalisation protests’ often splattered the news in the mainstream media. 9/11, according to the mainstreammedia signalled the death of the movement. However, such feelings have not died and, in fact, in many developing nations they have become more intense.

The historical background of the World Bank and IMF
The World Bank and IMF were set up at the end of the Second World War to provide loans to help rebuild nations shattered by the conflict. In the 1970s and 1980s the two institutions had a change of policy. Nations who wanted loans or financial assistance would have to follow structural adjustment programs. In other words developing nations would have to make changes to their laws and economic policies as prescribed by the World Bank and IMF.

The effects of Structural Adjustment Programs
Often structural adjustment programmes make conditions even worse for the poorest citizens of developing nations, while the well off and multinational corporations reap the rewards. Typically, structural adjustment programs consist of slashing public education and healthcare spending, cutting welfare to the poor, opening markets to penetration by multinational corporations and privatising public assets, such as water utilities and railways.

An example of Structural Adjustment Programs’ negative impacts: Bolivia.
A classic example of structural adjustment occurred in 1999 in Bolivia, the poorest nation in South America. The city of Cochabamba was pressured to privatise its public water company by the World Bank. It was sold to Aguas del Tunari, part of International Water Limited, a British based company part owned by the American engineering giant Bechtel and the Spanish company Abengoa.

Within weeks of taking over the city’s public water company Bechtel hiked up rates by as much as 200%, far beyond what the city’s poor could afford to pay.’ (1)

Many poor families now paid higher water bills than those paid by residents of the wealthy suburbs of Washington DC, home to many World Bank officials.

To further compound the problems of the poor, the government banned collecting rain water without a permit. For many families it was a choice between spending money on food to eat, or having water to drink. This spurred a huge peoples’ movement to return water to public hands. After unprecedented street protests, in which police fired on the crowds killing a 17 year old boy and wounding scores of others, the city returned water to public ownership.

However, the story did not end there. Bechtel, citing unfair loss of profits, launched a US $25 million (New Zealand $35.4 million) lawsuit against Bolivia. Thankfully, after bearing the brunt of an international campaign, Bechtel dropped the lawsuit in December 2004. Unfortunately, the Spanish company Abengoa is still pursuing legal action against Bolivia, despite international calls for it to drop it.

G8 Debt Relief - with strings attached
In June 2005, the nations of the G8 declared that the most highly indebted nations in the World will have their debts to the World Bank and IMF cleared. This sounds nice, but to qualify for debt relief poor nations must practice good governance’ meaning the nations must “boost private-sector development” and eliminate “impediments to private investment, both domestic and foreign”. Quite simply this means that to qualify for debt relief, poor nations must continue to put in place Structural Adjustment Programmes (like those forced on Bolivia) which are fundamentally damaging to their nation’s citizens, but good for multinational corporations from the World’s richest nations in the G8.

Speak out against the injustice
As a young activist and writer in New Zealand, I believe it is important for young people to become informed and speak out against the grave injustices that are occurring as a result of the so called globalisation’ process. The New Zealand government is an enthusiastic supporter, at an international level, of the so called free market’ policies supported by the World Bank and IMF. As the citizens of Bolivia have demonstrated though, people power can overcome this madness!

Reference:
1) Shultz Jim The Second Water War in Bolivia’

LEARN MORE

The Democracy Center, The Democracy Center works globally to advance human rights through a unique combination of investigation and reporting, training citizens in the art of public advocacy, and organizing international citizen campaigns, it’s founder and Executive Director Jim Shultz lives in Cochabamba and was fundamental in breaking the story of the city’s water war to the outside World

TAKE ACTION!

Read some alternative news!
Zmag has many independent articles on Globalisation

Tags: banks, Bolivia, conflict, corporations, governance, legislation, Media, privatisation, water, youth activism
Posted in Activism, Articles, Economics & Trade, Human Rights & Social Justice, Politics, Take Action | No Comments »

Music and Censorship

Sunday, May 29th, 2005

Jenah Shaw

Music is everywhere. On that radio over there, on TV, in that car driving past… so imagine if the only song you could hear from any of these was something everyone agreed was safe’ enough. Something without swear words or any references to violence or sex — like Hi 5. Shudder.

Welcome to a world of music censorship, a subject that can get a lot of people very, very angry. Music is expression. Ideas, beliefs, and opinions are all set to a catchy tune.

Banning music, then, is banning expression and freedom of speech, and censoring lyrics is saying: I liked your first line — I really did - but I’ve changed the rest. It just wasn’t doing it for me, and that reference to holding hands? A bit too racy for teenage audiences I’m afraid’.

So in a perfect world there would be no censorship. You could play, write and listen to whatever you want. Everyone is so over the controversy of Eminem, after all.

When is it justified?
In some cases, music censorship does have justification. Several reggae stars have been dropped from UK’s MOBO Awards because of their anti-gay lyrics, and the potential violent backlash it could’ve had.

Even more disturbing is the possible influences that white supremacist rock n’ roll (thankfully, a very small genre) may have — one distributor’s website featured an ad for a computer game called Ethnic Cleansing (violence for the whole family!). Hardly among the top 10 ways for making the world a better place.

Violent music breeds violent behaviour. Or maybe it works the other way around — certain types of music attract certain types of people, and censorship really wouldn’t make that much of a difference.

One thing is for certain: music has a huge impact on our lives. If it is necessary for some albums or songs to be banned, the lines between what makes it hate speech or justifies it as political expression are easily blurred.

In 2004, for example, when the Dixie Chicks announced they were ashamed that George Bush came from Texas, radio stations stopped playing their songs until they apologised. A slap on the hand for being unpatriotic or an obvious curbing of freedom of speech?

With a society so reliant on Internet culture, perhaps censorship will become ineffective anyway — what the shop won’t let you buy, you can download online and save yourself some cash.

So, music censorship: either a necessary part of our society or an obstruction to freedom of speech. You decide.
This article was written as part of Global Focus a collaborative project of Tearaway Magazine and the Global Education Centre. It was first published in Tearaway magazine and is reprinted here with their permission

Illustrator: Toby Morris

Tags: discrimination, internet, legislation, Media, music, racism, youth perspective
Posted in Articles, Culture & Society, Human Rights & Social Justice, Media | No Comments »

Wars as an act of…

Thursday, October 9th, 2003

Throughout the ages, people have waged violent wars to control the resources, lands and ideas of others. But colonisation comes in many forms and is not limited only to dictatorships or other oppressive regimes.

Over the last fifty years some Western nations have been guilty of overthrowing legitimate governments, assassinating world leaders, establishing economic blockades, supporting terror regimes and financing terror organisations.

For what reasons? The power struggle with the former Soviet Union (itself doing many of these things); control of foreign natural resources; and the acquisition of new markets with favourable conditions for home companies.

The cost? Countries and economies in ruins, millions dead or missing, many more injured, tortured or forced to flee their homes.

For some, war is a profitable business
Research and production of guns, mines, tanks, airplanes and other instruments of death is an $800 billion industry.

Those with an interest in making money apply constant pressure for softer gun control laws, increases in military spending, and positive representation in the media.

Governments looking to make a quick dollar have sold arms to already unstable regions, providing the final spark for conflict.

In 1998 the United Kingdom sold weapons to 30 of the 40 governments with the worst human rights records in the world
In Sudan, an AK-47 assault rifle can be traded for a chicken or a sack of grain
The USA has a military budget as large as the next top 10 countries combined

The ownership of media is becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of multi-national corporations.
If media is owned and controlled by big businesses, it has to protect their interests. For this reason, coverage of war is often distorted, misrepresented and over-simplified.

Global media is owned by fewer and fewer companies. In 1982 there were 50 global media companies and now there are less than ten.
Major military defence companies own CBS and NBC, two of the largest US television networks.
One company, INL, owns most of New Zealand’s newspapers

This article was written as part of Global Focus a collaborative project of Tearaway Magazine and the Global Education Centre. It was first published in Tearaway magazine and is reprinted here with their permission

Tags: colonisation, legislation, Media, military, war, weapons
Posted in Articles, Economics & Trade, Human Rights & Social Justice, Media, Peace and Conflict | No Comments »