Referendum and Default

No one is asking me, but I would vote “No” in the referendum, if I were Greek. The conditions being imposed by the European government are unreasonable. The latest IMF report confirms this. The European government requirements are driven more by their fears of their own voters than concern for the Greek people.

The Greeks would be better to default completely, than to surrender to the Europeans once more. There might be some short term pain, but the long term future would be much better without the albatross of debt hanging round their necks.

A full default would bring the collapse of the Greek banks. Fortunately, most depositors have already got their money out of their banks. As much as €50 billion in Euro notes and coins could be hidden under Greek mattresses and much more may be off-shore banks. Many businesses have borrowed Euros from Greek banks and moved the money to European banks, or into US dollars or sterling. They intend to make a profit when a new devalued drachma is introduced.

If the banks fail, and are liquidated by the state, the remaining domestic depositors would become senior creditors of the banks with first claim over their remaining assets. They European creditors would be left with nothing.

If Greece defaulted on all its debts, lenders would soon return. Greece would be seen as a good credit risk, because debt levels would be very low. Loan money would soon be flowing again, but it would be possible to keep it under control.

Greece should probably withdraw from the EU and get free of its shackles. Greek companies would still be able to export to the west, but it would be much easier to trade with the Middle East and Eastern Europe, where the demand for their products is likely to be much greater.

Section 59 and Smacking

Section 59 of our Crimes Act demonstrates the futility of human law making. It was a compromise put together by our previous and current prime minister (both recognised as excellent political leaders). I am really impressed with they way they could put four contradictory clauses together one after the other and call it a good solution.

Section 59 states:

1. Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of -

   • preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
   • preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
   • preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or
     disruptive behaviour; or
   • performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

2. Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.

3. Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).

4. To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.

Subsection 1 hints that force can be used when a child is misbehaving. Subsection 2 says that force cannot be used for correction. Subsection 3 says that the second takes precedence over the first. Brilliant!! So what does subsection 1 mean.

The politicians then crowned their achievement by adding an instruction to the police in the middle of a section of the Crimes Act which is setting our possible legal defences. The problem is that police practices are governed by the Police Act 1958 and not the Crimes Act.

Section 59 is a wonderful demonstration of the power of democratic compromise. If we had a few more laws like this, Christians might wake up an realise that democracy is a sham and start thinking about a better way.

Referendum

Last month a citizen-initiated referendum was held in New Zealand. The demand for the referendum rose out of change to the Crimes Act a year earlier. The amendment to section 59, limits the ability of parents to smack their children. The opposition to this law change was led by Christians. They collected over a 300,000 signatures on a petition to initiate the referendum. The topic of the referendum was as follows.

Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"

Voter turnout was 56.09%. 87.4 percent of valid votes opposed the statement. Despite this decisive signal from voters, the government is refusing to change the law. They claim that the law is working fine.

I did not vote in this referendum, and will not vote in any other. In my view, referendums are a humanist technique. The underlying principle is that if enough people vote for something, then it is morally correct. That is totally wrong. The majority is often wrong. The first referendum gave Israel a golden calf. Another famous referendum led to Jesus being crucified. Referendums do not have a great record from a Christian perspective, so I am not sure why Christians advocate referendums.

The irony is that although Christians scored a win with this referendum, they have actually undermined the Christian influence in New Zealand by legitimising a humanist method. They have gained operational victory, at the cost of a strategic defeat.

Christian leaders have not thought this through. They are now urging the government to listen to the "voice of the people" and change the law. That is a dangerous thing to be asking. In a few years time, the referendum might be about "banning the proclamation of the Christian gospel". Imagine what would happen, if the majority voted in favour of the referendum. If Christian leaders were consistent, they would have to urge the government to listen to the "voice of the people" and impose a ban on Christian preaching activities.