In an age where the gap between rich and poor in New Zealand is steadily widening, the government has a duty to not just implement new technology that will benefit the rich, but even to target it primarily at those who are so often left out of our thinking. We hear a lot about India’s rapid economic progress, but much less about the fact that there are millions of youth in India who just can’t find a job

Brazil has the goal of giving every school-age child a personal wi-fi lap-top, and to this end has entered into a contract with a major computer firm to manufacture a computer that is a distinctive colour and size and will not be sold commercially. This whole commitment is solely aimed at poor children.

At the moment anyone can access the internet in public libraries. This at least gives the possibility of being part of the IT age to those willing to make the effort to go to the library. However we now hear even this is threatened by new legislation which could take a public library to court if someone (unknown) was downloading material for which they did not have the appropriate licence. Another example of how so many things, unwittingly, are slanted to benefit the well-off, who do not need to go to public libraries for internet access. How ironic if the effect of UFB was to remove what little internet access they presently have, from our New Zealand poor.

Perhaps the hardest lot is those whose businesses have been destroyed in the central city area, and who have no prospect of re-opening them in the short or even medium term future. What are they to do? Will they have to move away from Christchurch? Where will they go?

Because modern technology is so good, we easily forget that the forces of nature are enormous and can destroy huge areas of the earth in a few seconds.

At times we hear the question asked: “Where was God during the earthquake?”  “If there is a God, how can these things happen?”

Catastrophic as these events are, worse would be to inhabit an earth that was not governed by natural laws, but by the whim and will of a God, no matter how beneficent. Would such a God prevent car accidents, helicopters from crashing, people being run over or hit by lightning? As soon as we write these things, we start to see the impossibility of a God who prevents sickness, death and the consequences of normal living.

God acts in a different dimension – He acts on people, on their hearts, He guides you and me so that we are prompted to do what is right, to live as we should and feel sorrow when we fail. As He showed compassion for us, during his whole life, so He asks that we do the same for others. People with no religious faith do all these things – how much more should those who have faith in God, be in the front ranks of those whose lives obviously have an inner meaning.

So it was almost with a sense of unbelief this week that we read of three different people who had had their lives seriously upset, and who were asking for compassion for the offenders.

One was the mother of a four year old killed by an out-of-control car, while walking along the footpath.  The second was the father of the woman shot and killed after being mistaken for a deer. The third was a woman severely impaired for life by a collision with a car whose driver had fallen asleep and crossed the centre line.

In all three cases, the survivors asked for leniency and understanding for those responsible, instead of the revenge that has almost become commonplace. These days society seems to encourage people to ask for maximum punishments as a matter of course.  We forget that what has been done can never be undone. For many, the worst punishment will always be the lifelong memory of the wrong done to an innocent person.

We live in an era where the importance of the “whanau,” the community, is largely ignored. People are taught to put themselves first. Children are not encouraged to seek careers that will, in the first place, benefit other people. They  are not taught that their own happiness will, in large measure, come from the concern they show for others. The shadow face of love is forgiveness – the two go hand in hand in a truly integrated person.

So, it was wonderful to see, in the same week, three people asking that mercy and forgiveness be shown to those who had harmed them. Surely there is more chance this will achieve a change for the better than automatic punishment. That’s what Christianity is about – in the face of wrongdoing, not words, but change. Example.

“As I have done to you, so you do to one another.” Lord, we pray for those who have been wronged, those who have inflicted the wrong, and for ourselves, that we may practise a truly Christian way of life. May we follow the example of those, who this week, have shown us the Way.

These, and other similar initiatives are well intentioned, but do not get to the root of the problem. When a country calls for the government to implement legislation that should be part of the upbringing and way of living of ordinary families, we know that that society is in trouble.

When a nation has to resort to legislation to control its youth, we are entering into a hopeless situation, analagous to the efforts to bring Afganistan and Iraq into line by force exerted by people who have no understanding or sympathy for the indigenous culture, but are hell-bent in imposing their myopic panaceas no matter what the culture. One size fits all.

Our society is crying out for support for family values and family efforts to censor youth behaviour, instead of criticizing and penalizing parents who attempt to regulate the conduct of their children. Currently, the government penalizes parents who attempt to enforce standards, by giving their children the impression that they may not only limit the sanctions their parents impose, but that the government will support them in this destructive behaviour. It is an open invitation to destroy civil society. Children do not see the full picture, their opinions are not of equal value as those of their parents.

It is in the nature of young people to seek limits, and to push these limits as far as possible. It is the responsibility of parents to see that there are limits, not the limits which young people think are reasonable, but the limits which parents, with their experience of life, know are necessary in order to preserve society, to prevent unequal opinion being granted equal weight.

The proposal to raise the age at which alcohol can be bought is a necessary step in inculcating values in our youth. However, it has value only as part of a whole raft of changes, all of which must be aimed at supporting and strengthening the rights of parents to instill moral and spiritual values in their children. The problem of excess in the consumption of alcohol is not a stand-alone problem. It is part of the whole culture of excess, part of the consumer society, part of the culture of teaching our young that care of one’s possessions, care of one’s life, care of one’s health, care of one’s neighbour is all part of the same mentality, a mentality which puts the dignity of the human person in the centre of one’s values.

If all these things are supported and strengthened, then limiting the availability of alcohol is a good idea. Otherwise it is a waste of time.

As a gesture to mobilize public opinion it is surely a failure. Most people regard willfully damaging public property as wrong – we teach respect towards others’ property. The fact that one disagrees with others on such a complex question as that of war does not justify damaging their property.

As far as wanting “public accountability” goes, surely it is absurd to expect that a Government will disclose details of it’s undercover surveillance branch. We can’t have it both ways – if we want our government to be responsible for our protection from external aggression, we must acknowledge it’s right to set up agencies whose activities are not open to scrutiny by all. This is not to say that the agency has carte blanche – it’s activities must be reported in sufficient detail to a responsible overseeing body set up by the Minister of Defense.

The idea that being an anti-war activist entitles one to damage public property in the name of morality, without any obvious connection between what is being damaged and the motive behind the damaging will simply not stand up.

This week’s reflections

• NZ Protestors saving overseas lives (News item)
• Solidarity with my brothers whom I’ve never met
• Infantile protest, serious consequences
• Give them “VC’s” not punishment

Meanwhile, lots of what should be on the news media goes unreported, because it’s too much effort to research and write about, and it’s not going to immediately get audience attention. Even though, two minutes later, the item that got audience attention will just disappear into the general fog of our over-informed minds and memories, sinking without trace.

Whereas many items that never make it to the news to be commented on, could have a lasting effect on our way of looking at life, and, over time, transform us for the better. No-one is going to pretend that the above item transforms the reader in any way at all. It’s just yet more sleaze.

This same New Zealand preoccupation with sexual matters was very evident earlier this year when there was another media feeding frenzy over whether an Asian lady had sent Dr. Worth thirty five or thirty six inappropriate emails, and whether or not they had gone to a hotel together, for purposes in reality unknown by all the writers, who did not let this little detail deter them in any way from making lurid assumptions. Again, we had it on TV, on the radio – endlessly – and in the newspapers.

Reading, watching or listening to this stuff does none of us any good. It  weakens the moral fibre of our youth, who have the right to be exposed to good-quality news and journalism. We should not kid ourselves that other countries have such deplorable journalistic standards.  Countries such as Brazil, to which we tend to feel superior, have news journalism relatively free of what really is little more than commentary on sleaze.