Aid Agencies reject NZ donation - "Too Hard" to organise food aid for Pakistan

New Zealand organic baby food exporter 'Green Monkey Organics' are frustrated that their donation of food aid to Pakistan has been rejected due to what aid agencies are calling a 'logistical' issue.

The company has just pulled out of the US market and instead of selling leftover stock cheaply they decided to divert hundreds of thousands of dollars of product to help the crisis in Pakistan. However, aid agencies here, and abroad, are unable to assist.

Business owner Charlotte Rebbeck has contacted the UN, Unicef, and Red Cross, but all have said it is simply "too hard" to organise.

Her US freight forwarder even offered to get the product there free of charge and clear customs, but no-one is prepared to help distribute the product or offer any further assistance.

Pakistan faces the greatest humanitarian crisis of the decade. So far, over 1, 600 people have died, 2 million have been forced from their homes, and over 14 million lives have been affected by the disaster. Aid is both 'not enough' and 'too slow' as the international community has barely pledged a quarter of the UN's $650 million appeal.

It bemuses me that in one breath aid agencies say they are not receiving enough aid, and in the next they can reject a donation of one hundred thousand small meals of non-perishable organic fruit and vegetables due to 'logistical' problems.

The people of Pakistan are dying. Children are starving and suffering from malnutrition and disease. 'Logistics' is hardly a valid excuse for denying these people the aid that is due to them.

Perhaps I'm being naive, but I can't imagine it would take more than a few phone calls to coordinate the delivery and distribution of this product to the people of Pakistan. Aid agencies insist the process is "too hard" to organise, but it raises the obvious question - are they trying hard enough?


Credit to 3news.co.nz for this story.

Drink Driving - An issue of 'Conscience'

'When it comes to drinking and driving, you don't need the conscience of a saint to know it's not a good idea. However, nothing is black and white in the world of politics.'

John Key announced today that the issue of lowering the drink driving limit in New Zealand is likely to come down to a conscience vote - "I imagine it would be a conscience vote, that's generally how we deal with drink-driving issues - and I know there's a wide range of views in our caucus" (3news.co.nz)

Labour MP Darren Hughes has drafted a Private Member's Bill to lower the adult blood alcohol limit from 80 (almost twice the limit of Australia) to 60 micrograms. If this bill goes before Parliament it will be up to individual MP's to decide which way to vote.

Hughes says the government is "dithering" and that there is considerable public support for change. In April a Research NZ poll of 500 people found 63 percent support lowering the adult blood-alcohol limit and a staggering 84 percent were in favour of a zero blood-alcohol limit for under 20s.

 

The question that really needs to be asked is - do we condone drunk drivers on our roads? 

Campbell Live recently conducted an experiment to find out how much you can drink and still legally drive. The results were frightening. Journalist Tristram Clayton and four volunteers chose a common 5 percent lager beer and began drinking at roughly the same pace. After two beers everyone is well below the limit. After four drinks, despite obvious signs of intoxication, everyone is still under the adult limit. Five beers and everyone is still legal despite one volunteer admitting she is "Really, really drunk". By six drinks the female volunteers are finally over the limit. However, one male volunteer downed twelve drinks and was still below the adult blood-alcohol limit. Granted, he was 116kgs. But, so are a number of adult males in New Zealand - (watch the video here).

What concerns me about this information is that it not only reinforces the fact that there are a high number of drunk drivers on our roads in New Zealand, but they are legally within their rights to be there. The current blood-alcohol limit allows not only drink drivers, but drunk drivers - the law is essentially condoning what our Police and Transport Agency spend millions of dollars each year to prevent.

Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with drinking. If the law was amended and the limit was dropped to 50 or 60 micrograms you could still go out after work, have a drink or two with friends and safely drive home. The new law is there to ensure that those who are impaired by their alcohol consumption after four or five drinks are not able to lawfully drive. The purpose is to decrease the number of inebriated drivers on our roads and, in turn, the number of road deaths with alcohol as a contributing factor.

So far, the government has refrained from making a decision in relation to lowering the blood-alcohol level as they want to see more research on the level of risk posed by drivers with a blood alcohol limit between 50 and 80 micrograms, and that a change would be effective in bringing down road deaths.

There's your research Mr. Key

Science and statistics should serve to reinforce the argument to lower the blood-alcohol level in New Zealand. However, this is not an issue of sufficient research. It is an issue of conscience. Whether or not our government has one is yet to be seen.

Spanish Bullfighting - Culture or Torture?

Anti bullfighting demonstrators in Madrid, 2009

Alan Clendenning published an interesting article on the contentious issue of bull-fighting in Spain (Read the article here at 3news.co.nz). Spain's leading opposition party have proposed to preserve the art of bullfighting as an important part of their nation's cultural heritage.

This follows a ban of bullfighting in the Spanish community of Catalonia when its regional parliament voted in favour of amending animal protection legislation to include the protection of bulls.

What is considered a historic victory for animal rights activists is understood as cultural treason by bullfighting supporters. Both sides raise valid arguments, but where do we draw the line between torture and tradition?

It is worth noting that unlike similar animal rights issues (Whaling in Japan, for instance) there is strong opposition to bullfighting from within Spanish culture. In March of this year thousands of anti-bullfighting demonstrators marched on Madrid condemning the practice as a form of torture.  It is reported that over 70 percent of the population in Madrid reject these acts of barbarism, describing it as a 'national shame', and the ban in Catalonia was supported by a petition signed by over 180, 000 voters.

Bullfighting is an important part of Spanish culture. Its origins date back to 711AD, and has since become the iconic entertainment of Spain, and a must-see tourist attraction. Approximately 24, 000 bulls are killed each year in front of an audience of 30 million. Outlawing this tradition is going to cost Spain thousands of jobs, millions of dollars, and of course, the ultimate sacrifice of its cultural heritage.
 

However, tradition is often sacrificed to serve the greater good. If the Romans were still slaughtering people in the Gladiator arena, would that be accepted as simply, 'a valuable part of their cultural heritage?' Somehow, I don't think so. If the locals of Mississippi, USA still burned alive innocent African Americans in a 'socially acceptable racist ritual', would we, today, turn a blind eye? I believe not. While human rights are generally more protected than animal rights, the severity of bullfighting compared with these historical examples is not the point I am trying to make. The point is - culture evolves. Historically, when people realise that something is wrong, something no longer works, or something violates the rights of a sentient being, people bring change to ensure this 'something' is resolved, repaired, or removed.

It is natural for some Spaniards to cling to their heritage. Cultural preservation is usually in a country's best interests. But, people are culture. When a high percentage of the population voice a disinterest or opposition to this ancient tradition this voice deserves to be heard, and the idea of change needs to be considered. It is, and should remain, a Spanish issue. Bullfighting is in their blood - but just how much more blood needs to be spilled?