Tunnel Vista: On Bill Gates' Proprietary New Philanthropy

Microsoft has now launched its new operating system - Windows Vista. Within a year, 100 million computers will be running it. The code underneath the hood of the operating system is a tightly kept secret. There's no way to fix it if it's broken, other than to wait for Microsoft to come out with a patch. Indeed, most users won't have a choice about whether they want it - it'll come standard with new computers. Unlike free, open source software, Vista depends for its adoption on market domination, heavy advertising, and unforgiving software license contracts that force businesses to upgrade to it. Read the full article on Znet.

 

Coffee is still hot

Coffee is still a HOT topic in 2007. In the last issue of GEC news we called on you to join Oxfam’s campaign to encourage Starbucks to recognise Ethiopia's rightful ownership of its coffee names – ownership which would increase Ethiopia's bargaining power in the international coffee markets and ultimately increase the income for its coffee farmers by as much as NZ$132 million a year. Since then thousands of people have taken action and the growing buzz around the film Black Gold, which had its general release in the US in January and in the UK this month, is keeping the coffee industry in the spotlight. While Europe, Canada and Japan have granted Ethiopia’s trademark applications in the US, after consulting with Starbucks, the National Coffee Association is still blocking the country’s right to own two of the coffee names, Sidamo and Harar.

 

Since its premiere at the Sundance festival last year Black Gold has been enlightening people around the world about the reality behind their grande-double-shot-soy-latte. The film focuses on the prices offered by roasters and coffee chains to growers, many of whom receive only $1.60 per pound of coffee beans, while roasters can sell the coffee on for between $20 and $26 per pound and retailers can make up to $160 per pound!  Tadesse Meskela, the director of the Ethiopian growers cooperative Oromia Coffee and star of Black Gold, told the Guardian earlier this year that coffee farmers are “living hand-to-mouth.” Check out the Black Gold website for more info.

 

The coffee giant Starbucks accused the Black Gold filmmakers of “incompletely” representing the work of the company and charged Oxfam with misleading the public. The company defended the price it pays to coffee farmers stating that in fiscal year 2005, they paid 23 percent above the coffee commodity price. They also drew attention to the money invested in the farmers and their communities, through various development projects. Yet they still refuse to support Ethiopia’s trademark project, with a spokeperson explaining that to do so would be illegal under US law and not in the best interest of the coffee farmers. However, their proposed alternative of certification, Oxfam points out, would not generate further income for the Ethiopians nor increase their power.

Oxfam continues to push Starbucks to honour their committment to the coffee farmers. They still need people to take action now!

Visit the Oxfam website to take the actions listed below:

 

•Send an e-fax to the CEO of Starbucks, asking Starbucks to sign the voluntary licensing agreement.
•When you have sent the e-fax yourself, tell 10 friends to take the action too!
•Phone the Starbucks head office in Aotearoa New Zealand .
•Interested in getting more involved in the campaign? Oxfam is looking for people who would like to either coordinate or take part in regional campaigning activities in the next few weeks. Email campaigns@oxfam.org.nz for more information.

For more information, visit www.oxfam.org.nz or email campaigns@oxfam.org.nz .

 

Would you like some sugar with that?

Nicole wrote an article for JET last month on the sugar industry and uncovered a few not so sweet surprises.

 

Mmmm. A sugar rush. You can’t beat it eh? But how much sugar do we consume? A lot more than just what we add to our tea or cereal. What about all those fizzy drinks, lollies and cakes? And it doesn’t end there - sugar is a staple ingredient in most processed foods including savoury ready-made meals. Globally, sugar consumption increases by 2% per year, is currently around 150 million tons! Read the full article.

 

Section 59 - Separating fact from fear

The Crimes Amendment Bill passed its second reading last week 70 to 51, but could still fail at the next reading because National wants to amend it so that parents can still lightly smack their children. Sue Bradford says she will withdraw the Bill if such an amendment is passed.

 

There has been a great deal of debate surrounding the controversial Repeal Section 59 Campaign, dubbed by the media and opponents as the ‘anti-smacking bill.’ The idea of repealing a law that has been seen to protect the right of parents to use force to discipline their children has bought into the open a wide range of often uninformed attitudes, fears and opinion.

 

 

What is SECTION 59?

Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 states that the parent of a child, or a person in the place of a parent, “is justified in using force by way of correction towards a child if that force is reasonable in the circumstances.

Read Section 59 in Simple Terms for more info

 

 

Why does it need changing?

The UN committee on the Rights of the Child has twice before recommended New Zealand change its legislation to ban the use of physical punishment, however the recent debate around Section 59 comes at a time when there is general recognition across society of the need for change. What this change would look like and how this would affect New Zealand parents is where the difficulties and misconceptions lie.

 

The Facts

• Recently a UNICEF report ranked New Zealand at the bottom of 25 developed countries for keeping children safe.
• Children in New Zealand do not benefit from the same level of protection from the law as adults do.
• Under existing law statutory defence is available to parents or guardians who use physical force against their children in the name of discipline.
• While it is illegal for teachers and early childhood workers to use physical force to discipline children, it is not illegal for them to ask parents to administer this punishment on their behalf.
• The current Section 59 is not consistent with the principles and provisions of other legislation, eg the Domestic Violence Act 1995 and the Care of Children Act 2004 nor does it comply with international or domestic human rights obligations.

  

What will the Crimes Amendment Bill achieve?

The re-drafted Bill seeks to reconcile both the child’s right to the full protection of the law and parents’ need to be able to restrain a child for the purpose of keeping a child safe or performing everyday tasks of care in confidence without risking prosecution.  The Crimes Amendment Bill will achieve:

 

• Full repeal of the Section 59 defence.
  There will no longer be a statutory defence available to parents, and people in the place of parents, who assault their children in the name of correction.
• The removal of any common law rule.
  A provision in the new bill means that adults who assault children and are prosecuted will not be able to call on a common law defence of reasonable force.
• An equal status for children and adults under the law.
  Children’s status will be exactly the same as adults’ under New Zealand’s assault laws. All assault is illegal.
• Parents will no longer be able to administer physical punishment on behalf of schools.
• Protection for parents restraining children in specific circumstances
  The Bill specifically recognises parents’ responsibility to control or restrain a child in a variety of situations.
• Congruence with other existing legislation and policy
• Compliance with international and domestic human rights obligations

  

Why do opponents want to amend this Bill?

Chester Burrows believes that if the Bill passes the people most affected by it will be ordinary caring parents, whose children were never in danger anyway. He is concerned that it will criminalise good parents, who occasionally smack their children. His amendment seeks to limit, rather than abolish, the use of reasonable force in disciplining children. He defines reasonable force as drastically lowered to only causing "temporary and trifling discomfort."  Borrows feels that the amended Bradford Bill does not define reasonable force in any way, but merely amends the circumstances in which such force will be appropriate.He is worried that simply repealing Section 59 sees the decision about whether to prosecute left the police and this is unfair on both the public and the police. The amendment therefore is a sensible compromise, setting standards, but allowing parents to raise their children themselves.

 

Sue Bradford’s disagrees with this thinking. She believes that by defining reasonable force we are legitimising the use of force against children, reasonable or not. Borrows amendment says  “we should hit our kids in some ways and not in others, and that it is still OK to use force on children and babies that we wouldn't consider using on adults."  She states that the idea that her Bill would turn ordinary parents into criminals is based on a misconception that the repeal will criminalise parents.

 

For more information on Section 59 and the Crimes Amendment Bill go to

www.savethechildren.org.nz