Maria McMillan
  • Home
  • The Ski Flier
  • Tree Space
  • The Rope Walk
  • Interviews
  • Sporadic Blog
  • Writing bio
  • Home
  • The Ski Flier
  • Tree Space
  • The Rope Walk
  • Interviews
  • Sporadic Blog
  • Writing bio

Whose freedom?

26/3/2015

4 Comments

 
I started writing a response to some of the comments on Giovanni Tiso's blog post Suffer the little children about the reluctance of Auckland Libraries to remove a book, that as it has been pointed out to them, instructs people not only to beat their children, but also how to beat them and with which implements.

My response started going on a bit and was in numbered sections with multiple parts, distinct personalities, and too many semicolons so I thought I better do my own post.

ONE
First, an anonymous librarian (anonymous because Auckland Library employees aren't allowed to comment officially on the issue) says the book probably arrived in the regional library by way of people being interested in research. 

"By research I don’t mean academic research – I mean people volunteering for community groups, for internet think pieces, for blogs, writers of non-academic books, journalists etc. This is where I suspect the initial request for purchase came from, and where the current 19 requests on the book come from. I doubt any of these people are looking for parenting advice or will find the arguments in the book compelling. "

Given the book was in 1994, up to its 22nd printing, it seems to be a bit naive to suggest that some Aucklanders might not be among those who have obviously found the arguments compelling.

Additionally, the idea that the book is sitting in the collection as an item of interest in terms of research and not as a parenting guide would bear more weight if the library catalogue entry tagged the book with child abuse rather than under parenting.

Go to this Auckland Libraries site and type child train into the search box and it will be the first result returned. You can clearly see the item's tags Religious aspects, Amish, Family relationships, Parenting, Child rearing, Parent and child, Amish. Nothing which implies this is anything but a legitimate parenting manual. While the book may not be kept on the open shelves, as Anonymous suggests, it sits openly in Auckland Library's catalogue complete with the detailed description of the book as written by the publisher. Click through to the book's full catalogue entry and you can see the Author's notes and sketches and if you so desire "Learn more about them [the authors] and sign up for the No Greater Joy bi-monthly magazine at NoGreaterJoy.org ." Good grief.

Moving on.

TWO;
Dylan Horrocks comments:

"...
however much I reject the positions such books might take, I would be disturbed if the library refused to acquire a book on what are essentially moral grounds. Libraries did precisely that for many years, and the result was the suppression - above all - of minority voices, dissidents, feminists, queer writers, etc. "

I do argue that Auckland Libraries shouldn't hold this book - or if they do it needs to be tagged with child abuse, human rights violations, nasty thuggish ideas about beating up children and Childcare by Psychopaths and certainly not with Parenting . I know Dylan's with me on reclassifying it.

But my argument is based on the fact that it is an explicit manual on how to violate human rights. It is not the same argument used to suppress dissidents, queer writers, minority voices unless they too are producing manuals on how to violate fundamental human rights.


They're different arguments coming from different places. And it's okay, this is complicated stuff. We're allowed to be nuanced. We're allowed to say some stuff is okay and some stuff isn't.

As my friend Fraser said on Twitter
“But where do we draw the line?” How about somewhere this side if the child abuse manual?


Which brings me to THREE....

...which is more of a question really. What if this was a step by step manual on how to rape a child? Would
the rather wussy defence of the book by Auckland Library representative Louise LaHatte, that libraries are committed to the principle of "freedom of access to information",  that they
acknowledged the book was "divisive", and they wouldn't
"suppress or remove material on the grounds that it gives offence" stand?

Or is it, as I suspect, that beating a child is a more palatable and socially acceptable violation of a child's human rights than rape. And that should an instruction manual on how to rape a child inadvertantly make it to the library shelves then Auckland Libraries would quietly and rightly remove it knowing that words like divisive, access to information and offence simply weren't appropriate.

FOUR
I'm not convinced the language of rights is appropriate here at all. No-one is getting arrested or shot for reading the how to beat up your child book. It's probably getting preached in various toxic churches without repercussion. You can do all manner of searches on the internet and I imagine get detailed information and support from others who also want to maim their children. The right to information and speech is not under threat here.

A member of  Auckland's population has made a stand and said it's inappropriate for a publicly funded institution to hold a book that instructs readers hurting some other members of Auckland's population. New Zealand is a party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child which isn't down with hurting children. Auckland City Council must be bound by the Convention's Articles, so I reckon that's a fair point. 

FIVE

Okay, I'm all in favour of using a human rights framework as a starting place for policy but Auckland Library's call for freedom of access to information, and others' concern that 'banning' this book is a violation of freedom of rights plays several shonky moves.

It presumes that the right to freedom of information and freedom of speech should be realised even if it means the inability for others to realise their own freedoms.

It favours those who are already engaged in the process of informing and speaking, over those who aren't. In this case the rights for Michael and Debi Pearl, authors of To train up a child, to speak and certain Auckland Library user patrons to be informed take precedence over the rights of children simply because they're there and they showed up and they're tall.

It reduces the discussions of freedoms to a single issue of right and wrong, zooming closer and closer, until everything except this particular perceived violation of a right is blurry and forgettable and unimportant. Context is important.

SIX
In our society, where the realisation of human rights is uneven, defending the rights of the already powerful is not enough. 

We need to be intelligent, and expansive and proactive about rights. We must ask Whose freedoms are we thinking about? Who else's freedoms should we be thinking about? Does this freedom impact other people's freedoms? Is this cry for freedom actually a flag flying call to defend the status quo?

If our attention is drawn to the rights of child beaters, we must think also about the rights of the children they would have us beat.

4 Comments

Water meters still don't reduce consumption

15/3/2014

1 Comment

 
In 2009, Joe Buchanan wrote the following report that was published by Right to Water, a New Zealand group working to support the human right to water. I'm publishing it again because it's pretty much fallen off the web, and because Kapiti mayor Ross Church is claiming that introducing volumetric charging will reduce consumption by 25%. I suspect he's rehashing these statistics which, as Joe's paper shows, don't stand up to even a cursory examination.

The impact of metering on water use: a brief look at the statistics
Joe Buchanan
Wellington: Right to Water, November 2009.

Context
Throughout New Zealand, meters are being mooted as a tool for conserving water or reducing water use. Nationally, the Turnbull Group, Water NZ and the Institute of Professional Engineers (IPENZ) are promoting meters and volumetric charging on these grounds. Many local councils are also considering or implementing metering. Advocates of meters often cite impressive sounding figures about how much water meters can save. And many people, while concerned with the social impact of metering, especially on large families and those on low incomes, now believe the conservation benefits are worth it. Right to Water looked closely at the statistics to see if the evidence stacks up.  

Summary
 We found statistics were being cherry-picked, inflated and massaged to support pro-metering arguments. The most common errors in statistics purporting to show that water meters result in reduced demand were:
 
  • Comparing actual residential use in metered areas with gross water use (including commercial and leakage) in non-metered systems, divided by the permanent population of the region. This will always show lower usage in metered systems, even if actual residential use is the same.
  • Attributing all reductions in water use to the introduction of meters. Per capita water use has been decreasing in many parts of the country over the last decade or so, in both metered and non-metered systems.
  • Cherry-picking statistics that are favourable to the pro-meter argument. This is especially common in references to international studies, which show a wide range of impacts from meters, including zero reduction in demand. These studies often acknowledge low confidence in the figures and that findings are not transferable.

Some examples:

 ONE
“Water meters can result in a 15% reduction in water use” e.g. TV3 news report October 25 2009  

This figure appeared in the book “Water: Use Less -Save More: 100 Water-Saving Tips for the Home” (The Chelsea Green Guides) by Jon Clift and Amanda Cuthbert (2007).

When contacted the author acknowledged that the figure was “picked up... from the various UK water companies who cite this figure.”

This figure appears to have no real basis. It appears to be an amalgam from various studies or PR but is neither indicative or predictive for the New Zealand situation.

TWO
“Studies have shown that the introduction of water meters results in a reduction of water use.” Beacon Pathways report (1)

The report cites two international studies as evidence for water savings from meters (2). Both studies however, are equivocal. They each cite mainly US and UK studies that show anything from 0–50% reduction in consumption following water meters.


Both studies acknowledge: 
  • a drop off in savings after an initial period that savings might reflect other conservation  programs (such as public education)
  • low confidence in the figures
  • most savings are from reductions in outdoor use and are most effective where there is a large disparity in summer and winter use
The highest saving cited in these studies is from the Solomon Islands in the 1960s.

In general these studies show savings from water meters are made where summer use greatly exceeds winter use (for example parts of the USA where summer demand can be five to six times winter demand) or where pricing makes water use prohibitive (e.g. third / majority world countries). Neither situation applies to Wellington. 


THREE

“In Nelson… [when water meters were] introduced several years ago, peak summer demand reduced by 37 per cent” Murray Gibb (Water New Zealand) Dominion Post October 19 2009 (3)
 
The 37% was not a reduction in total peak period water use, as suggested. This dramatic figure was attained by first subtracting “typical” winter use from total use, then calculating the reduction in the remainder which was termed
“discretionary” use.
 
The actual reduction in water use between the peak periods used was 17%, and this includes any reductions in commercial use and reductions in leakage. 
 
It also includes reductions arising from education campaigns and simple year-to-year variation (over the same period water use decreased in areas that did not install meters). 
 
Using the same methodology Wellington’s peak water use decreased by 23% between the 2007/8 and 2008/9 summers.   There is no basis for claiming that reduced water demand in Nelson resulted from the introduction of water meters.

FOUR


“Meters can result in a 40% reduction in consumption when compared to non-metered systems” IPENZ report (4)  from Beacon Pathway paper. (5)

This claim is accompanied by an impressive graph that claims to show several unmetered Council areas that use far more water than unmetered regions. 
 
The figures are cherry picked and misleading. In this graph, and the table in the Beacon Pathways report on which it is based, the per capita usage shown for non-metered areas is total use, including system leakage and commercial use, apportioned across the number of residents. Conversely, in metered areas, the Right to Water figures shown are average amounts used by households alone. This comparison is either deliberately misleading or disingenuous. 
 
The figure shown for Manukau is around 190 litres per person per day. Gross use in Manukau is above 300 litres per person per day when commercial use and leakage is included (6), putting use into the range shown for unmetered areas. Similarly the figure shown for Tauranga is just over 200 litres per person per day, whereas gross use since metering is around 335 litres per person per day (6).
 
The lowest figure shown is for Nelson, about 160 litres per person per day. When the figure is recalculated using gross water use/permanent population to make it comparable to the figures shown for non-metered areas, Nelson usage rises to around 500 litres per person per day (7). This is higher than figures shown for some non-metered areas.
 
Some areas use more water for various reasons: horticultural use, climate, soil types, types of housing etc. Queenstown showed the highest per capita use  in these statistics, but the Queenstown Lakes Council estimate nearly 50% of the volume supplied is lost by system leakage, and that high use arises from commercial use (commercial use in Queenstown is not metered, aside from three hotels) and a large visitor population which is difficult to account for (8).
 
The figure for Kapiti (650 litres per person/day) is not the actual water use, it is a Council target. Water use across the Kapiti region varies, with very high use in Greater Otaki, which the Kapiti Coast District Council acknowledges includes large volumes used by commercial horticulture and lost due to leakage from ageing pipes (9).

It is particularly surprising that IPENZ, a professional organisation who one would expect to understand statistics, should promote these figures. Calculating per capita usage by including commercial and leakage does not reflect residential usage.   
                                               

References
1
 Best practice water efficiency policy and regulations (WA7060/3); A report prepared for Beacon Pathway Limited, May 2008
2
 A & N Technical Services, Inc. 2000. BMP Costs & Savings Study: A guide to the data and methods for cost-effectiveness analysis of urban water conservation Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Inman, D. and Jeffrey, P., 2006.
Urban Water Journal
, Vol. 3, No. 4, p. 127
–
143
3
 The 37% figure was from the Nelson City Council Water Supply Asset Management Plan 2009
–
2012).
4
IPENZ: Water: New Zealand’s valuable resource (undated).
 
5
 The figures appear to be from Lawton & Birchfield, Beacon Pathway Ltd 2008. Making New Zealand policy water conservation friendly. SB08 conference paper (Table 1).
 
6
 Blakemore, R. & Burton, S. 2007. An assessment of peak daily demand in Tauranga city and implications for water supply management.
7
 Statistics provided by Nelson City Council.
 
8
 Queenstown Water Demand Management Plan, Queenstown Lakes District Council, December 2008
 
9
 Kapiti Coast District Council 2002. Water Matters: Kapiti Coast District Sustainable Water Management Strategy.

1 Comment

Oh, you wonderful liberal darlings

17/2/2014

12 Comments

 
NB on the date. This was originally posted in the early hours of 15/2/14 but the post went down, so I've reposted.

Dear lovers of music, dear worshippers of freedom of speech, dear fellow freedom fighters, dear attackers of the appalling censorship of Odd Future, today is a wonderful day.

It's so heartening, so great you've spoken out in such vast and articulate numbers about Odd Future. I had no idea New Zealand was filled to the brim with champions of free speech.


You'll of course be horrified to learn that the banning of Odd Future is just the tip of the iceberg. Yup, if you think stopping these poor 'anti-establishment', grammy-nominated, critically-acclaimed, chart-topping artists from coming into the country(1) - probably winning them a hefty compensation package and a few thousand more fans - is a travesty, wait until you hear this.

Seriously.

Last year about 11(4)  New Zealand women were censored. They weren't banned from playing some concert 12,000 kilometres from their home town. No. They were censored globally and permanently. Not a single country opened their borders to them, and not a single council let them play in their concert hall. They were denied their freedom of speech and their freedom of movement. The year before last the same thing happened to another 11, and the year before that, about the same. This year, maybe another 11. 

Because every year, on average, 11 women are censored by their male partners or ex-partners who decide it's a good idea to shut these women up for good. They kill them (2). They probably kill them because they talked too much and said stuff that the establishment (these boyfriends or partners or ex-partners or the fathers of their children) didn't like. Or maybe they killed them because the women had said they didn't want to be in a relationship with them any more. Whatever, the men didn't like what the women were saying so they censored them. They stopped them from talking to anyone, ever again.

For every women irrevocably censored each year, there are hundreds more who are censored through rape, assault and fear. Who don't talk because it might cost them their lives, or their kids' lives.


And
guess what? Some of those dead forever-censored women may have been or might be extraordinary musicians.
They may have been astonishing rap artists, or DJs or poets. They might have sung like goddesses and danced like the devil. Or maybe not. Maybe they were just women going about their lives. Doing their best. Being nice, being horrid. It doesn't really matter. What what they weren't was an elite bunch of globe-trotting musicians who write and perform lyrics like I
fuck bitches with no permission… Rape a pregnant bitch and tell my friends I had a threesome/Starve her 'til I carve her then I shove her in the Rover/Where I cut her like a barber.

What they don't have is a vitriolic and possibly entirely new fan base foaming at the mouth at the violation of human rights afforded by denying a few people entry to our country. One country, once. They don't have a bunch of liberal men getting all romantic about disagreeing with what they say but defending to the death the right for them to say But keep your motherfuckin' daughter's mouth shushed boy and every girl I deal and fuck/it's always against her will.

It would be tempting to think some men feel it is a lot
, you know, more radical and open-minded and muso-hip to defend a man's right to say he kills women for fun, than it is to defend the women's right to be alive. But no, I know I must have that wrong.

Yup, awesome job on the freedom fighting today guys. Man, those really successful, wealthy, profoundly popular artists who are saying the same old hackneyed women-hating shite, really need your back.

And
I'm totes looking forward to you proving that
you're not just a bunch of needy blokes who are shocked to the gills with the idea that maybe you won't get to go to a gig you want to go to, or that your mates might want to go to. Or maybe your mates' mates (3). I am utterly convinced you're not just having a little freedom speech tantrum because you're so astounded things aren't going your way this once.

I can see with the fire in your belly, you'll be launching incredible freedom campaigns that will stop the irretractable censorship of around 11
women a year in this country. And stop the daily and widespread violation of women's freedom of speech and movement by men. Police won't be called out to a domestic violence incident every six minutes. Thousands of protection orders won't need to be issued each year.

A
nd the Women's Refuge volunteers who are used to answering some 60,000 calls a year will instead be waiting around getting bored. Maybe they'll surf YouTube, find some blistering new artist, and get to listen to the whole track, start to finish, without some tragic interruption.

Maria


(1) On
admittedly spurious grounds of possibly causing riots (update 17/2/13 as information has emerged it's looking less spurous to me - not just an incident when a policeman hurt his arm but a far more serious incident in Australia but that's another story ( or post?)
(2) This and other stats come from  http://www.nzfvc.org.nz/data-summaries/family-violence-deaths and http://www.areyouok.org.nz/files/statistics/ItsnotOK_recent_family_violence_stats.pdf. It's quite hard to get the exact statistic I was trying to extract but I think from both these sources the 13 a year for partner and ex-partner male to female murder is not far off. Gendered analysis of violence fell out of flavour for several years in New Zealand so getting a good understanding of what was going on has been difficult. My number crunching wise friends may be able to be more specific (see note 4, I updated this from 13 to 11)
(3) Edited on16/2/13 from "...music you might want to listen to" etc, as I realised "gig" better reflects the situation with Odd Future that I am referencing. Anyone, of course, can listen to OF, they just weren't able to listen to them at one particular concert.
 (4) Edited on 17/2/13 from 13 to 11. One of my wise number crunching friends did indeed say the official stats would make the figure closer to 11. My initial reasoning can be seen in (2)

12 Comments

    Categories

    All
    Adventure
    Coronavirus
    Daughters
    Human Rights
    Questions
    Reading
    Really Annoying Things
    South Island
    The Times Table
    Violence Against Women
    Water
    Writing

    Archives

    March 2023
    September 2021
    August 2021
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    June 2018
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    June 2016
    May 2016
    February 2016
    October 2015
    September 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    March 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    September 2013
    July 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    December 2012

    Picture
    Picture

    RSS Feed

    (C) Copyright 2012, Mrs Loolupants, All Rights Reserved.
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.