Just the facts, Ma'am

Maggie Barry, MP, should be pleased at the misinformation shared on TV1's Breakfast Club this morning. The participants had really taken a leaf out of her book.
Otago university has just announced that 68% of NZers are in favour of some form of "euthanasia" (NOT my word!) and only 15% are opposed to it, but all the panel could do was mumble about it probably being a good idea to have the discussion.
I guess that's a start. But it had better be more informed discussion than either Barry or her stooges on TV1 have done so far.

Good news and bad

A couple of weeks away with Family Time from Ashburton, Wellington, Palmerston North, Tauranga and we came home to some demanding deadlines and a couple of bits of interesting news.
The first item was that an interview that I did some weeks ago become part of an open public challenge to Maggie Barry concerning her bias on the Justice Committee. I missed it on Stuff but our local paper while we were away gave a very full report - including Maggie's infamous invitation for me to "have a cup of tea" instead of listening to serious questions on my submission to the Committee in June. Other instances of her bias against submitters in favour of the Bill in various venues were reported including a moment I saw in which Maggie left the table to make herself a cup of tea while a submitter (in favour!) was presenting to her.
However, the Chairman's full reply was also published, claiming that all his members put aside their personal opinions when hearing submitters and no action is proposed. So the matter is going to go no further. But Maggie has heard what people think about her attitude.
The other bit of news was that the Presbyterian Assembly voted against supporting the End of Life Choice Bill. This should be no surprise since conservative theological thinking and Presbyterianism go pretty much hand in hand these days. The Methodist Church Conference appears to have not even debated the matter in the midst of what one friend described as a "shambles" of cultural celebrations. If the Methodists had voted, I'd have put my money on another vote Against. The fire of social justice burns faintly in Methodism these days, so perhaps it was a good thing that there was no vote.
The debate must go on. But it is going to need a lot more commitment from the general public before our Parliamentarians finalise their personal views and vote next year.

A Moral Example?

As one who for most of his working life was heavily involved in church administration of one kind and another, I feel for our sister Church Leaders who are receiving devastating publicity all around the world for past behaviour among some of their agents. With their leaders, I regret that such actions were often covered over by the religious hierarchy. Only a very authoritative regime could survive the public odium currently in the air. Many another less organised religious community has fallen over for much less public disfavour or ridicule. It must be galling to have to swallow so much humble pie at once.

Given these difficulties for the Roman Catholic community, how is it that their leaders in this country can feel they have the moral authority to project their theological and ethical views on the whole of society in another area of human behaviour?

• It is an open secret that Catholic parishioners were instructed by the Bishops to write to both the recent Parliamentary Committees hearing submissions on End of Life issues.
• It is also known that the bishops also urged their people not to admit to being Catholic because the Church's image in the community is not too hot (Now there's a funny thing....).
• And it is on the public record that the current Justice Committee received around 27,000 submissions that were not much more than a name and an address and a sentence such as "I am not in favour of the End of Life Choice Bill". 

As if this attempt to manipulate the Hearings process is not enough, statistically ignorant people like MP Maggie Barry can reiterate in public again and again that this expression of opinion - devoid of any argument - means that 85% of people in New Zealand are "against the proposed Law."

How can they make such a claim? Will Parliament go along with this astonishing analysis? I'm no statistical whiz but I know that you cannot draw conclusions about the wishes of any population from a self-selected group who may have an axe to grind and want to lay their views on everyone else.

The fact is that the population has spoken. Every professionally conducted poll in this country for decades has produced a majority of respondents in favour of some form of Medical Aid in Dying. The latest was around 76% in favour.

The proposed Bill is not perfect but it is a cautious step forward. Anyone who wants to express doubts about it should read the wording before commenting. And Parliament should get on with doing the best it can for the majority. All we ask for is the one thing conservative churchmen and others are at great pains to deny us: CHOICE.

Shades of "Turkey" O'Connor

I wasn't able to attend but I admired the motivation behind those who called a recent meeting to discuss the End-of-Life Choice issues. Their advertised intention was to have a balanced, dispassionate, calm discussion of the subject. What a great place to start, I thought.
However, a first-person report that came to me about the event was that the Hon Maggie Barry was leading speaker one side of the debate. She might have been a good selection as she is a member of the Justice Select Committee which has to study the David Seymour Bill for Parliament. But I am told that she used words like "killed" and "murder" in the context of the discussion. Evidently she made it abundantly clear that she, like "Turkey" O'Connor who chaired the previous Committee*, has not only made up her mind on the issue but is resolved to do battle with it in ways that, in a civilised society, should surely be called into question. My informant said the event was not a debate at all but was simply "The Maggie Barry Show".
On a Select Committee of Parliament we hope for people who have open minds and have the willingness to explore all sides of the issue without descending to manipulation of the terms and derogatory verbal abuse. I hope the Committee includes many who will reject these latter techniques for their arguments on this particular committee.
I hear that the Catholic constituency has again orchestrated a flood of submissions along the lines of their own distinctive theology and doctrine. Again, no doubt. they have been told not to mention the fact that they are Catholic; quite rightly, they fear that a maturing society may not wish to be dictated to by an ancient faith. Indeed, a lot of other churches - including my own - have failed to declare on the matter or just kicked for touch. But the principle of compassion may yet find a place in the hearts of those who make this decision for us.
Here's a funny thing; didn't Jesus talk a lot about compassion?

* Dedicated readers of my blog may recall that one of my respondents observed that asking O'Connor to chair a Committee on End of Life Choice was like asking a Turkey to convene a meeting on the future of Thanksgiving.