The guilty verdict of convicted murderer Clayton Weatherson today came as good news. However, some people, including the father of the victim Sophie Elliot, are now saying that the defence should not have been allowed to use the defence of provocation. In fact, they are saying that there should exist no such defence in law. They are wrong.
As I type this, friends of mine in the United States are celebrating Independence Day. I think the idea of independence day is a great thing, and I think the fact of America’s independence is better still. However, at the risk of offending some of those friends (although I’m hopeful that I won’t), I do want to say a thing or two about the patriotic fervour that the 4th of July often arouses.
There are (at least) two things that go by the name of “patriotism.” One of them is fine, the other is not.
Kenneth Gentry
I like a lot of Kenneth Gentry’s work on preterism and on the book of Revelation, its dating and the way that it refers to first century events in a way that some people miss.
I didn’t know he had said anything about the doctrine of eternal punishment, and the annihilationist viewpoint in particular, until tonight. I’ll never know exactly what he has to say, except that he thinks annihilationism is bad. Apparently he once gave a one hour lecture on the subject and you can listen to it for nine bucks. He’s pretty sure that he did a good job, because the lecture is called “Annihilationism Annihilated.” Here’s the description:
In this two hour lecture given at Christ College, Gentry sets out the annihilationist objections to eternal hell, then analyzes the annihilationist argument exposing its superficial nature.
Given that, as far as I know (and yes this could just be my ignorance at work), the man has no reputation as an expert on the subject (and I say that as someone who makes a habit of trying to stay on top of “who’s who” in the field), I am somewhat surprised to see this – for sale at least – and I was surprised to see it called “Important critique of the resurging annihilationist view.” I had never even heard of the critique until now. I think it’s a tactical mistake, but one that works in my favour, both because of the way the confidence is presented in a form that closely resembles flippancy, and also because it is very obviously marketed to those who share Dr Gentry’s view. Annihilationism would be helped if all of its critics worked this way: preaching over-confident sermons to the choir.
No serious, fair assessment of annihilationism will yield the conclusion that the arguments in its favour are “superficial.” And unlike Dr Gentry, I have self consciously titled and marketed (for free) my materials on the subject in a way that is genuine about not merely impressing those who share my view, but reaching out and explaining the reasons for that view to those who are hostile to it.
So here’s a reminder to those who haven’t encountered it before: For not a single penny, you can listen to my three part series on the doctrine of eternal punishment where I outline and defend the claim that annihilationism is biblical and then one by one address the arguments against annihilationism in an effort to show that those who use them have engaged in either fallacious reasoning or poor hermeneutics of Scripture.
Also over in the Theology Articles at my site, you can check out my published response to the work of Robert Peterson, the most vocal evangelical opponent of annihilationism. You can see his reply to that article, and my follow up, where I explain why his response is ineffective.
Whether or not it’s an “important” critique is something that you can decide that for yourself, but it won’t cost you a bean.
Glenn Peoples
When we can, we should support food production and supply that has as little impact on the environment as possible. But does this always mean favouring local made food over imported food?
In that bastion of interventionism and state-molded markets, the UK, there has been much talk about the environmental unfriendliness of imported food. This is because, so the argument goes, food that has to be transported longer distances requires more greenhouse gasses to be emitted in getting it to its final destination due to additional transportation energy that is consumed in the process. As everyone knows, CO2 is the devil and global warming is about to kill us all, so importing food is a bad idea for the planet. Right? And so the answer is put artificial pressure on the market by introducing what is effectively a tariff – an imported food tax to discourage people from buying better or more affordable in the interests of buying domestic products.
I’m not even going to touch the global warming/climate change issue here or even the issue of tariffs in general, I’m just bringing this subject up at all because of a piece I saw today in a fish and chip shop’s copy of the University of Otago magazine. Fish and chip shops being what they are, it’s not a recent issue – October 2007. The story is by Dr Niven Winchester (pictured) of the University’s Department of Economics.
Obviously with a fairly geographically isolated country like New Zealand, which depends as heavily as it does on exports, the prospect of other countries making it harder for our products to be sold there is a troubling one for our economy. But what if this tough talk on imports just amounted to economic redneckery (I claim ownership of that word) dressed up as genuine scientific concern, riding a wave of environmental hysteria?
What Dr Winchester points out is as follows:
Researchers at Lincoln University have … found that, having accounted for CO2 emissions from production and transportation, New Zealand lamb and dairy products supplied to UK supermarkets generate, respectively, around one fourth and one half of the CO2 generated by the supply of UK alternatives.
As it turns out, if food was carbon taxed, imported food from New Zealand would still be cheaper, and a move to restrict imports and towards food produced int he UK, CO2 emissions would increase and not decrease. Oh dear, our UK greenie friends. Maybe free trade is your friend after all…
Glenn Peoples
Last year our Labour Government was responsible for the passing of the Electoral Finance Act, a new set of laws regulating political advertising. The act has always been a bone of contention since its introduction, and it has been recently slammed by an Auckland law professor as an attack on freedom of speech. Professor Bill Hodge says that Michael Cullen, Deputy Prime Minister has failed to protect our right to free expression.
So what’s wrong with this law? A few things, actually. Here’s a simple list of regulations that the law involves.
If you want people to Adopt a set of beliefs, you can promote them, right? Sure, you can put up posters, pay for billboards, buy advertising on TV and radio, and so on. How much can you spend? As much as you like! It’s your money, and you’re using it to do no more than express yourself and promote your beliefs (or sports club. or whatever, you get the idea).
The Electoral Finance Act changes all that. As a citizen you can’t do that when it comes to trying to influence the opinions of potential voters. You’re not allowed to use your own resources at your own discretion to try to encourage people to vote (or not vote) a particular way. If you happen to be a millionaire businessman who’s sick and tired of the interventionist approach of Labour, not sure which party you want to support, not a member of any party, you are forbidden by law from spending, say, $200,000 on a campaign to encourage people not to vote for them. You may not do that, never mind the fact that it’s your money.
What happens if you do these things, and what time period do they cover? well, the election is on the 8th of November, and these restrictions (and others, as I’ll mention in a moment) apply from January 1. Mai Chen explains:
The Regulated Period has Started
The “regulated period” for the Electoral Finance Act 2007 (Act) began on 1 January of this year and will end with the close of polling day. During this period, the provisions of the Act regulate a variety of activities the costs of which may be deemed under the Act to be “election expenses”. This is the cause of some anxiety amongst clients who, by reason of their financial support for political parties or their engagement in questions of public policy, fear they may be required to comply with the complex provisions of the Act. Advising such clients is not easy given the vague wording in some key provisions, and the interrelationship between provisions scattered throughout the Act. Moreover, penalties of imprisonment for up to two years and/or fines of up to $40,000 for wilful breaches (“corrupt practices”) or up to $10,000 for any other breaches (“illegal practices”) are likely to have a chilling effect for clients with a low appetite for risk and no wish to become a test case.
For laws with such stiff penalties, it’s particularly troubling that the law community is complaining about how difficult to interpret the law actually is.
Oh, another thing – If you’re just Joe average who wants to spend $50 on a newspaper advertisement or a bit more on some pamphlets, you’ve got to make sure you list your name and address on any such advertising. That’s right, if you want to put a political message out there, you’re required by law (I draw your attention again to the penalties listed above) to let the whole country know where to find you. And bear in mind, according to the Act this doesn’t just apply to telling people to vote or not vote for a specified part or candidate. here’s what it says: It includes encouraging people to vote for specific parties,
… or for a type of party or for one or more candidates or for a type of candidate that is described or indicated by reference to views, positions, or policies that are or are not held, taken or pursued, whether or not the name of the party or the candidate is stated.
Let that sink in. If you try to encourage people to vote or not for a general type of party or candidate, even if you offer no indication of which party or candidate would be the best, you can’t spend as much money as you like, and you have to tell everyone where you live.
As M and M noted, Bob McCoskrie found out just how much of an interest people who don’t share your political views take in these personal details that one is forced to publicise. This is a recent(ish) photo of his front lawn:
Decorated by strangers in the night with – get this – 1,000 (plastic) knives, with a threatening note taped to his front door – just in case there was doubt about why the knives had been put there.
It’s a rather convenient way to find out where your political opponents live. Just require them by law to tell you!
A few episodes ago in my podcast I made a reference to the fact that Helen Clarke’s Labour Government was seriously talking about the possibility of allowing accused people to be re-tried for the same offense. I used it as an example of how extremely totalitarian the views of our Prime Minister really are. I would never have thought – at the time – that such a sinister move would ever find wide support. I noted an extraordinary outlandish point of view, and moved on.
Today I confess to being somewhat gobsmacked. As my friend Madeleine over at M and M has noted, this is now a reality in New Zealand. Somehow the label “Communist Re-trial” didn’t appeal, so it has been called the “Criminal Procedure Bill.” And it’s not just the Left that supported it. It gained enough support in parliament to be passed last night.
As Madeleine explains, given the normal practice of one accusation, one trial:
So we are left having to accept that once a court has heard a case, weighed the evidence and ruled, that’s that. Allowing the state to keep having a go because despite the court’s assessment, the state “know” this person is guilty (or worse because of trial by media, the public “know”) is to give the state far too much power and to give society far too much uncertainty in the justice system. Whilst it may succeed in increasing the chances of nailing the guilty it equally runs the risk of allowing the state to run trial after trial after trial with its vast resources against the innocent.
Labour undid hundreds of years of jurisprudence on human rights formulated by far greater legal and ethical minds than any of them possess in one sitting last night. Just remember that next time you decide that someone guilty got off after listening to the 8 second soundbite on the news or reading the 600 word article in the Herald; if a judge and 12 of your peers who heard all of the evidence, got to see the body-language and hear the tone of voice of the witnesses ruled the other way, maybe they were in a better position to assess the case. If the police failed to build their case then tough. If anything, knowing they can have a second crack will encourage them proceed with a lower standard of evidence.
Well said.
The Bill, which will become law soon, also allows a guilty verdict to be reached by only 11 of the 12-person jury.
Seig Helen.
A while back I posted on the fact that the median income earning household in New Zealand literally cannot afford the median priced house.
Well, it gets better. In today’s newspaper (Otago Daily Times) we read that NZ homes have now become literally the least affordable in the entire world, based on NZ incomes.
The findings come from a survey of the world’s six most expensive housing markets.
Demographia, the international survey business run by Hugh Pavletich, of Christchurch, and Wendell Cox, of the United States, released its fourth annual report showing New Zealand had slipped drastically on an international scale.
The United States, Australia, Britain, Ireland, Canada and New Zealand were studied and the results revealed house hunters here are in the most hopeless position, earning so little, yet facing astronomical property prices.
Wages are so low and house prices are so excessive that it takes 18 years and six months of a household’s entire annual income to afford a home before food and living expenses, Demographia found.
That’s 18 years and six months of not eating or having electricity, telephone or running water, pouring every single cent of income into paying for a house. How does that compare with the other five most expensive countries? Like this (these figures are from the front page of the print edition): If you are looking for houses in affordable price then do visit AquaLib .
New Zealand: 18 years, 6 months
Australia: 17 years, 9 months
Britain: 14 years, 1 month
Ireland: 9 years, 6 months
USA: 8 years, 3 months (This is where we plan on moving to)
Canada: 7 years, 9 months
We can’t wait to get out.
So let’s say you decide to get qualified. All the way to the top – you decide you’re going to get a PhD. Why stop halfway? That’s a very long time as a student, during which you won’t have a proper income to save up for a house. But hey, with a PhD your income will be well above average, which will compensate for the time lost, right? Wrong – because during that time, house prices double, even triple in some cases. When you get your prized degree, it occurs to you that there are only six Universities in the whole country (well, six real ones, and a handful of training colleges of various kinds), and the chances of you landing a job at one of them with your new degree in hand are virtually nil. So let’s forget the compensation of a higher income in NZ because of your degree.
So let’s see, now you’ve spent many years getting a degree in New Zealand that won’t get you a higher income in New Zealand because the taxpayer funded mafia control and own the education racket (no competition there!), the same mafia which, coincidentally implemented very hefty regulation that deliberately and severely restricted the availability and hugely increased the cost of land for urban housing meaning that once you got your degree, not only was it worthless in regard to your income, but now you’ve not a snowball’s chance in hell of ever buying a home in this country. Simply click for more info about real estate agent in mooloolaba.
Oh, you think I’m exaggerating? Nope. It’s official. New Zealanders, as a rule, can’t afford to own a home.
According to the Fairfax Media home loan affordability index:
It now takes 80.0% of one median income to pay the mortgage on a median priced house purchased in September, down from August’s 80.6%. This index reached a high of 80.9% in June 2007.
No, that is not a typo. Eighty percent. Oh, and it gets better. “With house prices still high, the median income for a typical buyer is not high enough to buy a median priced house, even with a 20% deposit.” TWENTY percent. So if somehow you’d robbed a bank while you were getting those degrees and stashed away a twenty percent deposit, you still couldn’t do it.
[sarcasm]State control of education and property development. Gotta love it. It’s just so good for our future.[/sarcasm]
One guess whether or not PhD grads will be staying in New Zealand for long.
If you’re not a Calvinist, fine. If you think it’s not true or unbiblical, fine. I think you’re probably wrong, but fine. Even if you don’t believe it, and you haven’t really looked into the issue, fine. But what’s not fine is to substitute pointless and biased comparisons for intelligent reflection. Take this for example. Here’s a sample:
Pursuant to research I am doing for a project I was reading the Koran & found a striking similarity between Islam & Calvinism in the area of predestination and fatalism. The two theological systems have an almost identical view of God [emphasis added], which is clearly at odds with the Arminian & Judaic views. Muslims believe nothing happens unless God wills it — including sinful choices by humans (a mirror image of Calvin’s POV).
Obviously Calvinism is a system couched in Christianity & of course Islam is not. However, I find the similarities striking & noteworthy. I’m interested to hear the Calvinist perspective on this similarity.
For now – never mind the claim that Calvinism differs with Judaism (in particular, the Old Testament of the Christian Bible) on the issue of sovereignty. He’s wrong, but let’s ignore that for now. What the heck is the point of noting a similarity between Islam and Calvinism (assuming for now that there is one). Is it so that Christians will say “oooo, Calvinism is like Islam, that’s bad. Calvinism is bad”? The bias and transparently selective nature of this kind of pointless activity makes it intellectually worthless in my opinion. Here’s a beautiful example: You’ve all heard or read advocates of Open Theism say that other views – especially [spooky voice]Calvinism[/spooky voice] are just too influenced by “pagan Greek” philosophy, right? But those same people just don’t care that the same syngergism and openness is duplicated in the pagan Greek and Roman myths.
Never mind the fact that Mormonism and the Jehovah’s witnesses, along with plenty of non-Christian religions, are synergistic like Arminianism.
Hey, don’t debate – associate!
I’m back, and it is shortly after the turn of the clocks into New Year’s Day, 2007. Happy New Year!
Saddam Hussein = dead. I wanted to wait a day after his death before blogging on this, to see some of the reactions. As expected, they vary considerably. Here is a selection of comments from prominent individuals on the sentence.
The one that irks me the most is this, from Cardinal Renato Martino, Pope Benedict XVI’s top prelate for justice issues:
Saddam’s execution punishes “a crime with another crime. … The death penalty is not a natural death. And no one can give death, not even the state.”
So execution is a crime? I wonder if Cardinal Martino is aware of the role played by Cardinals in the Inquisition. Is he saying that his Church engaged in crimes?
But this for a Cardinal, is appalling. He knows that the Bible unequivocally institutes the death penalty for murder. He knows that the state is referred to as God’s agent, excercising wrath on His behalf. To what, or whom, does he think he is appealing?
Saddam’s death was horrible I’m sure. Death is. And he deserved it. Cardinal Martino, are you telling me that the office of the Holy Inquisition is justified in having a person executed for heresy, but Saddam ought not to have been executed for mass murder?
Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén