National's corrupt quack schools

National seems to have chosen charter schools as their hill to die on. Their supposed reason for this is that they're "better" than state schools. They're certainly better-funded, because National chose to fund their pet project at several times the usual level in an effort to ensure success. But as for educational quality, it's a different story:

A former student of a Villa Education Trust private school claims creationism was taught as a preferred theory of how the world began in science classes he attended.

The student from Mt Hobson Middle School said Darwinism was taught as an unproven theory and students were shown a video purporting to show science had found proof of God's existence.

His impression was the school backed the concept of creationism “100 percent”.

I think that speaks for itself about the "quality" of these "schools". As for why National funded this quackery, there's this:

The science teacher was Rachel O’Connor, sister of National Party leader Simon Bridges and wife of National MP Simon O’Connor.

So we have millions of dollars of public money wasted to promote the personal quackery of National MPs and ensure jobs for their families. That's not what New Zealanders expect from their government. The sooner these quack schools are shut down, the better.

New Fisk

We will soon find out what 'unity' really means for the Palestinians
Can Christians stay in the Middle East now that they are being persecuted for their ancient religion?
Clare Hollingworth: Our last interview with the woman who broke WW2

Uses for the OIA: Uncovering the Bible in schools

David Hines has a remarkable OIA project on religious education in state primary schools. Over the past year he has requested information from every state primary school in New Zealand - over 1800 of them - seeking information on whether they run religious education classes (and if so what), when they run them etc. While 260 schools have simply (and unlawfully) refused to answer, its a tremendous dataset. And the core finding is that

[the] survey has identified 578 schools which have religious instruction classes, run in school hours, outside the NZ Curriculum. I believe there are about 260 more still to be identified.

Its unclear at this stage whether "school hours" includes temporary closures under s78 of the Education Act 1964. If it does not - that is, if these schools are running their religious instruction classes in actual school hours, not lunchtimes or when the school is "temporarily closed" for Christians but not atheists, then that would be unlawful.

Hines also has a review of three main syllabuses on offer.

Meanwhile, there's the other implicit finding: over 1000 of 1800 schools - over half the total - were "reluctant" to answer the OIA request and had to be persuaded to do so by the Ombudsman. 260 are still defying the Ombudsman. The level of contempt for the law by school administrators is appalling. And we trust these people to educate our future citizens?

Not a Christian country

The 2013 Census data tables are out - which leads to my five (now seven, due to an earthquake) yearly post on religious demographics. The headline data:



[Data from table 28 here. For consistency with past practice, "object to state" has been excluded when calculating percentages]

That's right: Christians are no longer a majority in this country. In absolute number terms its even more stark - they've dropped by almost 200,000 in the last seven years, with traditional denominations such as Anglicans and Presbyterians seeing drops of 18% as their aging members die off. And we've seen that change in our society. 27 years ago, when Parliament decriminalised homosexuality, New Zealand was more than 74% Christian (1991 census figure), and MPs faced a sustained campaign of hate. By 2005, when they passed Civil Unions, it was down to fringe nutters like Destiny Church, and their "Nuremberg March" met with widespread condemnation. And this year, when they passed marriage equality, opposition was muted and it passed by a wide margin. And on that level alone, the decline of Christianity has made us a better country.

An appalling decision

The Human Rights Review Tribunal has ruled in the case of Gay and Lesbian Clergy Anti-Discrimination Society Inc v Bishop of Auckland [PDF]. The case was about Geno Sisneros, who had been refused permission to become an Anglican Priest because he was gay (or because he was in a de facto relationship rather than single or married). On the face of it, the decision should have been open and shut: sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination. It is illegal for a qualifying body - e.g. one conferring a qualification to become a priest - to refuse to confer a qualification "by reason of any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination". While there is an exemption to protect religious independence, it applies only where the discrimination is on the grounds of sex or religious belief. The discrimination was not on those grounds. Therefore it was illegal.

The HRRT thought differently, effectively ignoring the clear meaning of the law and reading in wide latitude to discriminate for religious reasons. If they can cloak it under the guise of religion, its OK. So, churches can now discriminate against the disabled, and on the basis of race, simply by saying that hate is a religious tradition.

In the process, they seem to have stepped away from the substantive interpretation of discrimination adopted by the Courts, under which discrimination is assessed on the basis of its effects, not intent (so an action is discriminatory if it materially disadvantages someone on the basis of a prohibited ground, regardless of whether it is driven by prejudice or not). But it gets worse: this sort of construction - discrimination is illegal unless for a specified reason - is universal in the Human Rights Act. And there are other religious exemptions, which now apparently apply more widely. So under the HRRT's interpretation, churches can now refuse to employ gay people, and religious schools can expel gay students (or ones with children).

I'm hoping that there will be an appeal, because this is simply untenable. This isn't the Middle Ages. Religious groups must obey the law like everybody else. And that includes the Human Rights Act and its principles of non-discrimination.

Against integrating Brethren schools

The Exclusive Brethren (of Hollow Men fame) want to integrate their private school system to scam more money. Unlike other integrated schools, this will not lead to taxpayers funding religious education - Brethren schools are entirely secular, because they don't trust anyone to properly espouse their beliefs. But as this 2010 article on the schools makes clear, they deliver a substandard education. Brethren schools do not deliver an education aimed at broadening the horizons of their students or encouraging them to achieve to the fullest extent of their capabilities. Hell, they do not even deliver an education in the narrower sense of giving students the baseline skills they need to operate in the modern world. The brethren regard that world - our world - as being inherently corrupt, so they deliberately stunt and cripple the minds of their students so that they will not be able to look beyond the narrow bounds of the Brethren's C19th worldview.

We would not fund a school whose idea of "education" was to crush their students' limbs to prevent them from using them. And we should not fund one which does the same to their minds. If the Brethren want to cripple their children in this way, then they can do it without taxpayer assistance.

Government funded quack

Scientology is a quack cult, invented by a third-rate science-fiction author as a tax-dodge. So why is our government paying for their quack to be spread in schools?

A controversial Church of Scientology drug-awareness programme has received government funding to spread its unorthodox views through schools and community groups.

In the past six months, drug-free ambassadors linked to the church have circulated 130,000 drug education booklets around New Zealand, paid for in part by the Department of Internal Affairs' Community Organisations Grant Scheme.

The ambassadors claim at least 18 community groups – including their "partners" the Maori Wardens – plus at least seven high schools, endorse and use the materials.

Advice offered in the pamphlets is based on research by Scientology's controversial founder, LRon Hubbard, who did not believe in medical drugs or psychiatry but instead in purging oneself of painful experiences to gain immortality.

Ross Bell, executive director of the New Zealand Drug Foundation, warned that the group's information was flawed pseudo-science and could prove harmful to youth.

This material has been discredited time and time again, and it is used as a recruitment process. The programs they endorse have killed people, and were shut down in Quebec as a risk to health. This is not something our government should be funding.

It will be interesting to see whether Internal Affairs did any assessment before handing over the cash. If not, then someone needs to lose their job.

What charter schools really mean

Giving taxpayers' money to Christian quacks to teach creationism:

Plans for a school to teach creationism as well as evolution have raised doubts over how the Ministry of Education will ensure children are properly educated under the Government's charter schools framework.

The Manukau Charitable Christian Trust is one of a number of faith-based groups planning to be, as the Government now calls them, a partnership school.

It plans to team up with Manukau Christian School and teach the In God's World philosophy, marked against the Cambridge curriculum.

The philosophy, used at other Christian schools, encourages every subject to be taught so students discover how God made the world, and upholds and governs it.

Science and culture modules are taught to equip students to recognise what the In God's World document calls the wonder of God's creation, and that God is the God of history.

This isn't education - its indoctrination. And thanks to National, we'll be paying for it.

Catholic homophobia hits a new low

The Ugandan Parliament is currently debating a bill which would allow the death penalty for homosexuality.

The Catholic Church normally opposes the death penalty. But not, apparently, when the victims are gay:

In the rest of the world, the Catholic Church has always maintained that they are not against homosexuals, just homosexual acts, and that they are for human rights. Of course, the Church once supported the move by the Mussolini government to inter gays on concentration camps and kill as many as possible. So, it is not surprising that the Church, while saying one thing in, say, the United States is saying something else in, say, Uganda.

There, at the Uganda Joint Christian Council, Catholic Archbishop Cyprian Kizito Lwanga was joined by Anglican Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi and Orthodox Metropolitan Jonah Lwanga in backing the “Kill The Gays” bill.

The Catholic Church has marked itself as a deeply bigoted and homophobic organisation over the years, but this really is a new low, even for them.

Is the Pope guilty of crimes against humanity?

Over the past two decades, there has been a growing awareness of child sex abuse committed by Catholic priests, and of coverups by the Catholic hierarchy designed to protect the reputation of their institution. These are serious crimes. The coverups constitute an international conspiracy, and arguably a policy of tolerance of such crimes (particularly in light of the way some abusers were moved, allowing them to abuse again and again, or sheltered by the Vatican and protected from extradition to face justice in the countries where they had abused). But is it a crime against humanity?

That's the contention of the US-based Centre for Constitutional Rights, who is trying to take the Pope and other Vatican officials to the International Criminal Court:

The submission, lodged at The Hague on Tuesday, accuses the four men not only of failing to prevent or punish perpetrators of rape and sexual violence but also of engaging in the "systematic and widespread" practice of concealing sexual crimes around the world.

It includes individual cases of abuse where letters and documents between Vatican officials and others show a refusal to co-operate with law enforcement agencies seeking to pursue suspects, according to the Centre for Constitutional Rights (CCR), a US-based organisation that represents the claimants.

[...]

According to the document filed by CCR, the pope, as head of the Catholic church, is ultimately responsible for the sexual abuse of children by priests and for the cover-ups of that abuse. The group argues that he and others have "direct and superior responsibility" for the crimes of those ranked below them, similar to a military chain of command.

Its a compelling argument. Rape and sexual violence are defined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as crimes against humanity if "committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack". A "widespread or systematic attack" means either "government policy... [or] a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority". A state which allowed its officials to rape and abuse children, then covered up for them, sheltered them, and generally took every step possible to prevent them being held accountable for those crimes would undoubtedly be considered to have tolerated or condoned those offences and to have committed such an attack. The Catholic Church, which is also a government, and used its government powers in the course of that coverup, should be held to the same standard.

Unfortunately, jurisdictional issues mean that the case will likely never be heard. The Vatican, like the US, is not a party to the ICC, and so a case can only be brought with the consent of the UN Security Council. Which isn't very likely. Once again, that hole in international law is allowing criminals to escape justice.

Destiny, "discrimination", and greed

Earlier in the week, Destiny Church (most famous for organising the "Nuremberg rally" against the Civil Union Act in 2004) complained about being "discriminated against" due to not receiving more government funding. Today, the Herald reveals the true problem: they didn't meet the criteria, because they couldn't find other agencies to partner with to deliver services. And the reason they couldn't find other agencies to partner with? Because no-one wants to work with bigots.

Cry me a river. This isn't "discrimination", its just desserts. It is also, I should add, those other agencies ensuring that their service delivery complies with the Human Rights Act - something that simply can't be guaranteed if Destiny is involved.

Meanwhile, the Herald also has the truth on why Destiny is dissatisfied with merely receiving $860,000 of taxpayer's money: because they didn't make enough money:

He said Destiny's Community Max scheme, in which young people developed good work habits and assisted older and younger members of the community, was about to finish.

While the $850,000 his organisation received for its Community Max programmes was a lot of money, he said, all but about $10,000 went on wages, ACC and KiwiSaver payments for those on the schemes.

His organisation had spent about $6000 more in running costs.

"We made $4000."

Again, my heart bleeds. The government tender process is supposed to secure the best value for money, which, if the government are doing their job right, means low profits for providers. If you think you're going to get rich by providing social services under contract, then you're probably the sort of fool who thinks that you can secure the blessings of the invisible sky faerie by giving all your money to Brian Tamaki.

As with everything about Destiny, this is about greed. They're not sucking enough out of their churchmembers to provide motorbikes and bling and luxury cruises for everyone at the top, so they're trying to suck money out of taxpayers instead. Fortunately, the public servants who assess tenders aren't credulous fools. Unfortunately, Destiny is hoping that Ministers are, and that by sucking up to them, they can bypass the usual process. After all, it worked for Parents Inc and PEDA...

The Kiwi Party: racist as well as bigoted

The Kiwi Party is a small Christian Party, one of the fragments of United Future. As expected, they're bigots, opposed to same-sex marriage and to homosexuality. But that's not the only hatred they espouse. Here's what they have to say in the "media" section of their party principles:

The media play a vital role in a democracy informing citizens, facilitating public debate, and providing a forum in which differing voices can be heard. This important role carries with it responsibilities: to make a balanced and equitable selection of the facts of any matter to put before the public; to present information in an impartial fashion; and to ensure that every effort has been made to establish accuracy in reportage. Since the media has the power to shape social norms of conduct it has the responsibility to make a balanced selection of the facts of any matter to put before the public. It must therefore maintain high standards and make responsible, impartial and accurate choices when considering the content of programming and publications, especially in relation to sexuality, language, alcohol, drug use, violence, and inter-racial relationships. Government must ensure there are appropriate independent authorities with sufficient power to enforce these standards.

(Emphasis added)

That's right: the Kiwi Party think inter-racial relationships are bad and shouldn't be on TV, lest it promote and normalise the idea that skin colour doesn't matter and that such relationships are acceptable. And they think this is so important that its in their party constitution.

The Kiwi Party is a racist party. There's just no other way to interpret it. Fortunately, with only 0.54 percent of the vote (fewer votes than the joke campaign of a pair of second-rate TV comedians), they're unlikely to be inflicting their concern with racial purity on the rest of us. But it really does make you wonder about the ethics of the 12,000 people who voted for them.

[Hat-tip: FrogBlog]

Lying for god

Last month conservative Christian lobby group Family First launched an "issues survey", asking the public such heartwarming questions as

New Zealand should protect marriage as being one man – one woman.

and

New Zealand should change the law to acknowledge the humanity / personhood of the unborn child from conception and protect that unborn children throughout the entire duration of pregnancy.

The survey was widely publicised by liberals, who swarmed it, with numerous people commenting that they'd never answered "strongly disagree" so many times in their lives. But when the results [PDF] were released over the weekend, they showed no such disagreement, instead showing overwhelming strong agreement with every view Family First is pushing with only a few percent - or none at all - disagreeing.

This is just a little bit fishy. And as Imperator Fish points out, the level of disagreement shown is so low that it would require only a couple of dozen people to disprove. That many people have expressed disbelief already.

So, what's going on? Did Family First simply make the "results" up? Or did they simply chuck any response which obviously didn't conform to their peculiar worldview? Either way its not a particularly honest approach from a supposed ethical watchdog - and it is being treated with the contempt it deserves.

Subsidised discrimination

According to a report in the Herald, the Exclusive Brethren have set up their own KiwiSaver scheme. That's not particularly interesting, but what caught my attention is that the scheme will only be offered to members of the cult:

In its prospectus, released just before Christmas, the BCF scheme made it clear that membership would be - no surprises here - exclusive: sorry Richard, this one's for the bros only.

This is, of course, illegal. Religious belief is a prohibited form of discrimination, and no institution is allowed to discriminate on those grounds in the provision of goods and services. While there are some exceptions for insurance and retirement benefits, these apply exclusively to sex, disability and age, not to religion (something irrelevant to any actuarial decision). And while there is an exception for religion, it applies only to employment, not to the provision of services (it allows religious schools to hire religious staff). There is no generalised exception for religion, allowing them to discriminate against non-members or on the basis of their faith. If you provide services in the marketplace, then you must provide them to all comers, regardless of their religious beliefs.

The Brethren are collecting government subsidies to engage in this discriminatory behaviour (in fact, that's the point - using KiwiSaver subsidies as a line of easy credit to boost their businesses). That should not be permitted. Taxpayer's money should not be used to subsidise discrimination.

More Catholic misogyny

Are you a woman facing a dangerous pregnancy which could result in your death? According to the Catholic Church, you should just die:

The head of the Catholic church in Phoenix has stripped Arizona's largest hospital of its Catholic affiliation after he ruled that a decision to save the life of a mother by terminating her 11-week pregnancy was morally wrong.

Bishop Thomas Olmsted announced yesterday that St Joseph's hospital can no longer be considered to be Catholic. The ruling breaks a relationship that stretches back to the hospital's founding by Catholic nuns 115 years ago.

He has also excommunicated the member of the hospital's ethics committee that permitted the abortion to go ahead.

Save a woman's life, get excommunicated. It's a parody of morality, utterly deranged. But then, that's what you get when you make an imaginary heaven more important than earth.

More New Fisk

Exodus. The changing map of the Middle East

The Exclusive Brethren violate the Human Rights Act

The Herald this morning has a piece on the Exclusive Brethren's network of private schools, and the oppressive demands it makes of its teachers. The article reveals an intellectually oppressive regime, where children's minds are stunted and students are actively discouraged from going to university (something Will de Cleene calls "female circumcision of their intellect"). That's bad enough, but the article goes on:

A copy of an employment agreement obtained by this newspaper lists some remarkable requirements: teachers must disclose their "personal circumstances", forgo union membership and agree that evolution is a falsehood.

[...]

The one supporter said she felt more support than at any other state school she had worked at.

The rest had different views particularly about the employment agreement clause requiring staff to "fully disclose his/her personal and domestic circumstances".

"If you refused or were too different you would never get the job," said one former teacher.

She said Exclusive Brethren members monitored staff to ensure they were no immoral activities.

"There were late-night visits. They would turn up at your house, uninvited, at around 9 or 9.30pm. They weren't trying to befriend you; they don't do that. They were just checking up on you. The clear intent is to catch you off-guard, to see your living conditions: are you living in sin outside marriage, are you getting a divorce, do you have a boyfriend, or - heaven forbid - have a woman partner. You feel like you are being spied on."

(Emphasis added)

For some reason, the Independent Schools Education Association said that this was legal. It's not. While private religious schools are allowed to discriminate on the basis of religious or ethical belief, they are not permitted to discriminate on the basis of family status, marital status, or sexual orientation. That is illegal. The fact that it is being permitted is bad enough - but its worse, because these discriminatory institutions are being funded by $2.6 million a year of taxpayers money. Your tax dollars are helping the Brethren impose their bigoted views on their employees, contrary to law.

This can not be tolerated. The Brethren must be told that their educational institutions must comply fully with the Human Rights Act. If they refuse, they should be defunded. Taxpayer's money should not be used to pay for unlawful discrimination. It is that simple.

Update: And they're violating the Employment Relations Act as well. Section 8 of the Act makes it clear that a contract can not require an employee not to join a union; sections 9 and 104 prohibit discrimination against members of unions (by, for example, refusing to employ them). While the Brethren have an exemption regarding unions, this only applies to their right to access workplaces - not to the right of employees to join or be represented by them. The Brethren's behaviour regarding employment and unions is illegal and discriminatory.

Again, we should not be permitting this, and we certainly shouldn't be funding it. Who wants to put up a member's bill to remove their exemption?

Simply barbaric

Saudi Arabia has the death penalty. That's barbaric enough, but this week they're really plumbing the depths: they're going to execute a television psychic for "sorcery":

Ali Sabat was the host of a popular Lebanese TV show in which he predicted the future and gave advice.

He was arrested by religious police on sorcery charges while on a pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia in 2008.

His lawyer, May el-Khansa, says she has been told Mr Sabat is due to be executed this week.

It would be ridiculous if someone wasn't about to lose their head over it. But I guess if you're superstitious enough to believe in the invisible sky-fairy, you're superstitious enough to believe that woo-woo psychic powers are real.

New Fisk

An explosion in the sky – and Beirut's worst fears came true
The never-ending exodus of Christians from the Middle East

Of course its terrorism

Over on Public Address System, a couple of loons are valiantly trying to excuse and minimise the murder of abortion doctor Dr George Tiller, arguing that it isn't terrorism. Of course it is. Tiller was murdered by a "pro-lifer" (quotes for the obvious irony) to advance a religious cause, with the clear aim of inducing terror in a civilian population - namely other abortion providers. That would meet our definition under the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002, and it certainly meets the United States'.

One of the minimising tactics is to claim that this is an "isolated incident" and a single murder. But it is neither. Since 1977, there have been 8 murders, 17 attempted murders, 179 assaults, 4 kidnappings, 659 bioterror threats, 41 bombings, 175 arsons, and 96 attempted bombings or arsons against abortion providers in the US. That's a sustained, but low-level campaign, driven by an organised movement which incites murder by publishing hate lists and "wanted posters", with the underlying aim of pointing random armed nutjobs at people who carry out a lawful medical procedure.

The bodycount may be low - largely I think because the US's anti-abortion nutjobs don't have access to rocket-propelled grenades and semtex - but this is unquestionably a terrorist campaign. And we should be honest enough to call it that.

Meanwhile, I'm just pleased that I live in a sane country, which does not have a right-wing culture of eliminationism, and where killing people for their political views is absolutely beyond the pale.