Right Reason

My opinions on politics are, no doubt, subject to change. But this is whee I am just now in my thoughts on the state of our voters. It is not pretty.

Read More

Are you the straight shooter that I’m looking for?

I’m looking for someone to join the Beretta team – a team currently consisting of one. You’ll become an author here at Say Hello to my Little Friend, you’ll be an occasional co-host on the SHTMLF podcast too. You’ll have at least a Master’s degree in theology or philosophy, or be working towards one, and basically I have to like your style and you can’t be someone who thinks all the material at this site is crazy. I don’t ask much, do I?

Here’s another thing: I’m not part of any EEO agreement, so I can say this: I’d actually prefer a female to come on board (but that’s not an ironclad rule). Basically I think a woman would make a great addition to the podcast show, and I don’t want to encourage the outlook that conservative and serious theology or philosophy are men’s territory. If you’d be interested in being involved, or you know someone who you think would be great for this, let me know!

Oh, and I promise: You’ll get paid twice the amount I do.

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 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 int he 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!

This came to my attention today, and it’s worth a read.

It’s some commentary by Paul Jaminet over at the BrothersJudd blog on a review of Jeremy Waldron’s book, God, Locke and Equality, which is probably my favourite book on John Locke and political philosophy.

Interestingly, the review that Jaminet is commenting on, originally by Victor Nuovo, makes the comment:

Since contemporary liberal theory, at least in its dominant Rawlsian version, excludes Christian theism, along with all sorts of comprehensive moral outlooks, religious or secular, from political discussion, [Waldron’s campaign for the contemporary political relevance of Locke’s theism] must show that this exclusion is self-defeating.

It’s rewarding to see people saying that this is what’s required to be done, since this was one of the chief contentions in my recent PhD thesis.

http://www.tsgnet.com/pres.php?id=46832&altf=Hmfoo&altl=Qfpqmft Now there’s a real option for American voters. 🙂

I found Ben Witherington’s comments here on a recent find interesting.

The find is an incantation bowl, used in cultic practices. It bears the inscription: “DIA CHRSTOU O GOISTAIS.” The find may date as early as the mid-first century, and appears to atest to the fame of Christ spreading to magicians who sought to draw on this new power for their own ends. This actually occurs in the New Testament, for example, in the famous case of “Simon the sorcerer” in Acts chapter 8.

Recall that not all that long ago, I posted my review of a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath. One of the points I made is as follows: Hitchens says that religion dissolves our duty to uphold the truth. Now as I said at the time, as a Christian the duty to uphold the truth makes perfect sense to me, and of course it’s a duty I take seriously. I raised the question, additionally, of why the truth about religion ought to matter to someone who is not a Christian but is an atheist. I noted the straw man attack on religious people as people who don’t care about truth, and then I said:

The second issue is perhaps the more interesting one, and it is one that, unfortunately, McGrath never picks up in his reply. What obligation, according to Hitchens, do we really have to “live and witness in truth?” What is the basis of this obligation? For example, if there were a peaceful religion that was false yet gave its members great happiness and hope until the day they die, is there anything wrong in believing in it, and is there any actual moral duty to persuade people to give it up? Hitchens certainly offers no clear reason for thinking that truth at all costs is a greater good than peace and happiness for the greatest number of people on earth

That seemed like a pretty clear point, right? Well, apparently not. here’s what a nameless “reluctant atheist” had to say:

[T]he debate is utterly superfluous, because whether or not religion is a “poison” or not, it has no bearing on any kind of claim religion has to truth: the debate is a red herring.

This is because – contrary to the claims (pdf) of Glenn Peoples – the truth does matter. Time and again, Peoples claims that it doesn’t matter what individuals believe in. But Dawkins is right to point out in the God Delusion that it insults us – indeed, degrades us – as human beings to believe in things merely for the purposes of comfort. We can do better than that.

Oh dear. it’s almost as though the author of those comments had set out to make the opposite point, given how obviously untrue his comments here are. Notice how many times he quotes me making this outlandish claim: Exactly zero times.

At the risk of boosting this person’s exposure, I’ve brought this up here, and I’ve also contacted the author of that blog and requested a retraction so that nobody can say I’m making these comments in secret. Let’s set the clock ticking and see how much this fellow cares about truth after all. This is day one, and counting.