Acceptance should not be taken for granted

If I came up to you (as a complete stranger) in the street and said, “Unless you change from what you believe in to what I believe in, you will be burned to death,” you would be understandably disturbed in some way, maybe even frightened.

The Crimes Act at Part 11, section 306, states clearly at “ (1) Everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who – (a) threatens to kill or do grievous bodily harm to any person...”

Very recently an Australian rugby player, whom I do not know, announced publically that unless I and others like me stop being who we are, we shall burn in Hell.  His justification being the Bible says so.

The Bible describes a range of things we shouldn’t do. In the case of this person, there are other things he does that the Bible frowns upon or prohibits. So that makes him a bigot, hypocrite, charlatan, and something of a four-flusher.

Nowhere in Jesus’ New Testament teachings is homosexuality even mentioned, let alone branded sinful. Rather, Jesus is presented as a champion of the downtrodden and an untiring advocate for human dignity and unconditional acceptance of all people. Many of the ancient biblical dictates have yielded to modern common sense.

The organisation the rugby player works for have decided to do nothing of any consequence by way of penalising his threats because he is integral to their team winning. So what does that say about their moral code? Well clearly they have no code probably because they don’t have a backbone to hold it upright. Winning is more important than sanctioning one of their team for announcing to a whole portion of the population that they are going to die in a horrible way if they don’t stop being their authentic self.

Soon after, in a remarkably powerful contrast, NZ Rugby released an advert emphasising inclusiveness and diversity.

This made them the first national sporting organisation in New Zealand to receive Rainbow Tick certification. This certification is an independent assessment designed to make an organisation a safe, welcoming and inclusive place for people of diverse gender identity and sexual orientation.

Of course it comes as no surprise social media lit up, firstly with those condemning the threats, but then came those who shared the views with their own version of venom and hate.

So the law may provide for an equal and fair society, but the appearance of such a society is really only a wafer thin veneer. Despite the best efforts of that veneer or protective covering, hiding below its surface is a reality which, when given the opportunity, rips violently through.

It gives us a glimpse of something quite different, showing and warning all those who may be different, not to be lulled into a false sense of security and acceptance. It seems that for some, it is deemed acceptable that we should be threatened publically with death, with impunity.

[First published on Tuesday 08 May 2018 in the Franklin County News]

Let's Market Our Beef Story Well

There is a breed loyalty for discerning meat eaters…the value of the artificial beef is in the ability to feed masses.

In 2013 the big food news was the great reveal and test taste of a burger made of lab raised cultured beef. It looked like beef and tasted like beef yet there was a deluge of comment finding it ‘unnatural’.

The reasoning behind our preference for unadulterated food is quite patchy. Most of our diet has been cultivated and processed. Where is the cut-off point between natural and unnatural? When the psychologist Paul Rozin researched the prevalent preference for natural foods in 5 European countries and the US, the two essential qualities of natural were ‘no human processing’ and ‘no additives’.

Late last year I was at the Melbourne Royal Show with a team of young New Zealand cattle, fleece and sheep judges. I had the privilege of attending a forum where the future of beef was being discussed. Panellists included a person involved in the manufacture of ‘artificial’ meat, another from a company that provided a high end market service linking people directly through the internet with the farm source of their meat, and another who represented beef breeds. I asked him if, given both the focus on production and the development of artificial meat, there was a place for breeds any longer.


He argued there was. There was a breed loyalty for discerning meat eaters and also a premium market for the real thing. The guy talking about artificial meat agreed. He said that the value of the artificial beef was in the ability to feed masses. I have written before that to keep pace with population growth, ‘the world’s farmers will need to produce at least 60% more food than they currently do, if all the mouths are to be fed adequately.’


He in fact reinforced the view that the high end protein meat market would only grow.


More recently, attending an A&P Show in the South Island, I was invited to be a guest judge of their Paddock to Plate competition. The competition involves farmers entering a beef animal which is judged in the paddock then is processed and the carcass is judged ‘on the hook’. Finally a sample of meat is taken from the 6 finalists, for the winner to be determined by a taste test. I had received advice on how to do this from an expert and there were two other judges whose business it was to buy beef on the hoof that would translate into prime export product. There was a large number of farmers who had entered, and their families watching us.

I am relieved to say my marking correlated pretty well with that of the judges. And there was a delicious distinction between each of the 6 steaks we sampled.

New Zealand is a small country and certainly very good at boutique production which is in demand in premium markets which our beef producers have demonstrated. Farmers should explore opportunities to collaborate with other farmers and meat companies to create a coalition around new products, either through unique breeds, unique genetics, or regional relationships.

Let’s market our story well and learn from the failure of the wool industry. When synthetic fibres were introduced to the market we stopped telling our story of the attributes of this great natural fibre, and sheep farms turned into dairy farms.


This was first published in the Franklin County News, p5, April 10th 2018 


 

Good Citizens make for Good Governance

There is a basic logic that democracy will benefit when more citizens participate. Nations with overall higher political participation also have better performing government.

Auckland Council has produced a draft 10-year Budget and Auckland Plan to 2050. During the month of March, we, the good citizens of Auckland, have the opportunity to have our say on Auckland’s future. The first Auckland Plan in 2012 included detailed objectives and targets, however things have changed a lot in our large city and this means that the 2012 plan needs to change if it is to provide direction and context for decision making. The draft 2050 Plan shows how Auckland is expected to grow and change of the next 30 years. We also have a lot of catching up to do in the areas of infrastructure and the environment which may necessitate targeted rates in addition to our normal rates.

We take democracy for granted but with it comes rights, privileges and responsibility. At first glance I could image it would be easy to argue these three terms are mutually exclusive. If we think about these words in the context of voting, a foundation of democracy, what is a privilege cannot be a right since rights are enjoyed by everyone, while a privilege is reserved for a select group. Likewise, it is impossible for us to take on the burden of citizen responsibility if we don’t have the right to vote in the first place. In a study conducted in the USA in 2006, most participants saw voting as a responsibility or as a privilege, more than a right.

Another hallmark of democracy is participation, and voting is an act of participation. Many observers lament the decline in voter turnout and view this trend as detrimental to the democratic process. In his book, ‘The Participation Gap’, Robert Putman examines evidence from the International Social Survey Programme which measured citizen participation in established democracies in 2004 and 2014. Whilst voter turnout is a worrying trend, the number and variety of ways that people can use to influence political outcomes have increased.

The expansion of resources and ways to participate makes it much easier for us to get involved in our democracy. Direct contact with political leaders has also increased. A good example of this is how members of our Franklin Local Board have set up stands at events such as A&P Shows and been there in person to discuss what is going on in the Franklin Community, and get your opinions. There is a basic logic that democracy will benefit when more citizens participate. Does government, local or national, function better if the public is more involved?

The Intelligence Unit of the Economist magazine measures the quality of governance (EUI Index). Nations with overall higher political participation also have better performing government. Nations that score highly on the EUI Index, such as Norway, New Zealand, Canada and Denmark, also have pretty high levels of citizen participation. Conversely, the four lowest levels of participation occur in the nations that are below average in the functioning of government. This supports the general logic that an attentive and involved public ensure the government is more responsive and effective. “Simply put” says Putman, “good citizens make for good democratic governance.”


The Auckland Council want to hear what you think about the draft plan so they can improve and finalise it. I urge you to be a good citizen and make your contribution to help ensure good democratic governance of our city of Auckland and local community of Franklin. You can have your say on our future by participating in the public consultation programme through the ‘Have Your Say Events’ and by providing feedback at akhaveyoursay.nz by 28^th March.

 

First published in the Franklin County News Tuesday 1^st March 2018

Impact of Child Poverty Damaging

Child poverty rates in New Zealand are above the average of other developed countries. 290,000 children – around 27% of Kiwi kids – are currently living in income poverty and it’s costing us dearly.

UNICEF defines child poverty as children being deprived of the material, spiritual and emotional resources needed to survive, develop and thrive. This leaves them unable to enjoy their rights, achieve their full potential or participate as full and equal members of society.

Each day, around 15% of children leave for school without having eaten breakfast. Around 20,000 children a year, mostly from low income families, will be admitted to hospital for respiratory illnesses and serious skin infections caused by poor housing and overcrowding.

Living in poverty can mean homelessness, not having access to healthy food, going to school hungry, or coming home to a cold damp house to sleep in a shared bed. It can mean missing out on activities like learning a musical instrument or playing sport, or even having a birthday party.

The effects of living in poverty, year after year, on children are cumulative.

For example young children growing up in poverty are more likely to have lower school achievement and impaired health and development. A child from a low income household has a 1.4 times higher risk of dying than a child from a wealthy household.

Poverty damages. It damages childhood, it damages life chances, and it damages us all in society.

As much as $10billion of public money is required every year to deal with the negative consequences of child poverty and around three quarters of that is avoidable.

Parents who are struggling to provide the basic necessities are often unable to spend much quality time with their children, leading to low self-esteem & lifelong difficulties forming strong relationships with others. It will have a negative impact on children’s emotional health.

47% of the children living below the poverty line, live in two parent families, with a range of educational qualifications. A post school qualification or degree does not protect families from being poor.

In spite of a rise in incomes, poverty has remained persistent, mostly due to increased housing costs eating into more of the family budget. A family earning $35,000 per year, paying rent of $404 a week, has $21,008 per year to pay for everything else life requires. If they are lucky they may get additional support from the accommodation supplement, although an income of $35,000 is over the limit for the accommodation or childcare supplement.

Since the 1980’s New Zealand’s income inequality has grown more than any other OECD nation. In 2016 New Zealanders voted (in the Mood of the Nation Poll) inequality and poverty as the most important National issues.

So maybe we should heed the words of Gabriela Mistral - a Chilean poet, diplomat, educator, humanist and Nobel Prize winner – “Many things we need can wait. The child cannot. Now is the time their bones are being formed; their blood is being made; their mind is being developed. To them we cannot say tomorrow. Their name is today.”



Impact of Child Poverty Damaging
First published in the Franklin County News, page 9, on 1 March 2018 

The Trolling Disease

Trolling is a relatively new term used to describe online behaviour that is disruptive, offensive and hurtful toward other internet users.


Almost half the population of the planet now has access to the internet, with about one in three of those people regularly active on social media.
Unfortunately social media has spawned a new disease, often with devastating consequences – trolling.


Trolling is a relatively new term used to describe online behaviour that is disruptive, offensive and hurtful toward other internet users. Trolls intend to provoke a reaction from others that allows for an escalation in their abusive behaviour. The extent to which they participate in negative behaviour can range from annoyance to extreme cruelty, such as posting abusive messages on memorial pages.

Are trolls ordinary people living ordinary lives until they are online? And why do some people behave in a more aggressive, disrespectful and hurtful way online than in a face-to-face interaction? So what makes a troll tick?

Trolls must have an audience to witness their antics – and this aspect appears to play a major part in the pleasure they experience. Trolls use a baiting tactic to find victims who will provide them with the most entertainment. People who take the bait are then considered fair game by the trolls.

Trolling has been explained by a psychological concept called the “online disinhibition effect”.

Sometimes people share very personal things about themselves. They reveal secret

emotions, fears, wishes. They show unusual acts of kindness and generosity, sometimes going out of their way to help others. This is benign disinhibition.

On the other hand we witness rude language, harsh criticisms, anger, hatred, even threats.  This is toxic disinhibition.

Whether benign, toxic, or a mixture of both, what causes this online disinhibition?

 With the exception of webcams, people on many social platforms are invisible to one

another, there is no eye  contact. The gaze of a person’s eyes has been shown to inhibit negative behaviour. Eye contact increases self-awareness, empathy and the awareness of other people’s reactions to what is being discussed.

The cover of anonymity allows the troll to treat the internet as their personal playground, throwing provocative comments into forums like stun grenades into a crowd.

A 2014 study found that people with higher levels of sadism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism were more likely to engage in online trolling behaviour. Of all personality measures, sadism showed the most robust associations with trolling and, importantly, the relationship was specific to trolling behaviour. Therefore cyber-trolling appears to be an Internet manifestation of everyday sadism. Such individuals are likely to enjoy inflicting psychological pain and distress on others.

What motivates individuals to engage in trolling behaviours? The rewarding feelings and social pleasure derived from creating social discord, through selfish or self-serving behaviours and interactions, and knowing that others are annoyed by it. The more negative social impact the troll has, the more their behaviour is reinforced. If behaviour is rewarding, an individual is more likely to do it.

Happily, this discovery suggests an easy way to deal with trolls: ignore them, rather than giving them the satisfaction of an angry reaction. If they don’t receive that negative social reward, then their motivation to engage in this behaviour will likely diminish.

So it appears that the classic internet adage really does hold true: don’t feed the trolls. Deny them the pleasure of an angry reaction, and they’ll probably leave you alone.

Trolling is different from Cyber-bullying, but that is another story.

This BLOG was first published in the Franklin County News on Tuesday 30 January 2018