Marc My Words – 5 Nov 2004
One covers who you are - the other changes it.
This week it's a 'two for one' deal because a couple of Court cases have raised my hackles. The first concerns the
controversy involving Muslim women and the burqa; the second regards a cannabis related case in Christchurch.
It seems strange to me that the rights and wrongs of women wearing the burqa have become a topic worthy of much
discussion. Clearly what people choose to wear is their own business. While I personally find no rational explanation
for why any woman should feel so dishonoured by the body their supposed god provided them with that they would choose to
hide it in public.
It strikes me as someone ashamed of their creator's creation! I don't see cows covering up for fear of being seen. Nor
do I see the same standard applied to the male of our species. It is for me a telling example of the subjugation and
humiliation of women. Nevertheless it is not my call. If adults choose to waddle around in duck suits, that's their
business.
In that sense I'm a bit more tolerant than our only self proclaimed Muslim in Parliament, Ashraf Choudhary. (I say
'self-proclaimed' because many Muslims have disowned him for what they regard as his diminished sense of moral capacity
- he was the person who after long and careful deliberation came up with his underwhelming 'abstention' on the
Prostitution Bill!). He was quoted as saying, "Muslim women should not only remove their burqas in Court, they should
not wear them in public."
While I disagree on the second point, I do agree on the first. We pride ourselves on having an open and tolerant
society. But our court processes should not be undermined by cultural lines drawn in the sand. We demand that the
accused be allowed to face their accusers. Literally.
Except in very special circumstances, for example involving children and rape victims, we demand the right to see the
face of our accusers. That should remain inviolate.
In addition, customs officials should not be compromised doing their job. Currently the procedures for checking the
identity of veiled Muslim women are under review, as more Middle Eastern visitors come to New Zealand. Why should
frontline staff be faced with dealing with the difficult issue of matching faces to passport photographs when tourists
arrive veiled or wearing the burqa? Should be easy.take the veil off and put it back on when done. If you don't like our
rules then go elsewhere. It is after all our country. What tolerance would there be from the Customs officer in Iran for
a Kiwi woman who arrived wearing short sleeves, a pair of hiking shorts, and with her hair uncovered? Her reception
would be less than hospitable.
Did these women who demand to keep their feminine graces covered by the burqa in a Court of law, remove their veils for
identification when they first arrived and processed by the Immigration Service? Do their driving licences carry a
photograph that actually resembles them and not the cloth they're cocooned in? Why don't we throw this uncompromising
and intolerant twaddle of theirs into the rubbish bin of political correctness, and demand that where there is a legal
and commonsense reason for abiding by our rules they do so, as the price of admission? Let's dump this ethnic and
cultural nonsense once and for all and leave our system to work in the manner of our choosing.
Frankly I think these women are lucky to live in a country where they may follow their own religion for the most part
unimpeded. In Saudi Arabia for example all religions other than Islam are banned. A Christian cannot even be buried
there! What a great example of tolerance!
Still.I can't help smiling though.It is a gentle irony that the debate regarding the wearing of the burqa occurred at
Halloween!
****************************************************
I have never apologised for my hard line against drugs and l sure as hell don't intend to now. However a recent case
concerning the use of cannabis screams for comment.
We know that most of the negative physiological effects of marijuana are well substantiated. These fall into six
categories:
· Brain - marijuana initiates changes in brain chemistry. Its use hinders the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, a
chemical that triggers various types of signals throughout the nervous system.
· Mood and behaviour - marijuana use leads to difficulties in concentration paying attention, and the ability to learn
complex information. There is also an impairment in the perception of time (see below), as well as of certain aspects of
memory.
· Heart - marijuana affects heart rate and blood pressure and simulates those conditions found in people under high
stress.
· Lungs - marijuana contains 50 per cent more tar than tobacco and has an irritating effect on the upper airways,
including the sinuses and larynx. There is some evidence that it may cause lung, head and neck cancers.
· Sexual performance - studies have linked marijuana to a reduction in the number and quality of sperm. Sperm mobility
is affected, with a consequent reduction in fertility. Considering that some of the people who have a drug lifestyle
accompanied by the requisite criminal activities, this may actually be a positive!
· Blood flow - marijuana has been shown to decrease blood flow to the limbs. In extreme cases these may require
amputation.
For anyone who argues the nature versus nurture nonsense, an Australian study of 311 pairs of identical and fraternal
twins concluded that age and lifestyle were significant factors in drug dependency. A study of same-sex twins showed
that those who experimented with marijuana before the age of seventeen were up to five times more likely to use harder
drugs such as heroin and cocaine later, regardless of genetic and family background.
Anyway, enough said.
We know the damage that drugs can do and without going into an arduous menu of reasons (medical and legal) for
maintaining harsh sanctions, I want to turn attention to one particular case.
Putting all the above aside, the recent case of Neville Yates deserves special consideration. He has received his fourth
conviction for marijuana cultivation and a ninth on cannabis-related grounds. He claims that his use of cannabis is for
medicinal reasons. Even so he was given a four month sentence of imprisonment.
I met Neville in my Christchurch office and in my opinion he is no angel. But before we rush to judge too harshly we
should also note that he is a disabled man who is wheelchair-bound and brain damaged. He suffers from chronic pain.
Since a serious accident when he was 14 years old, he has had a stroke, suffered paralysis and has had one foot
amputated.
I certainly don't want to diminish the prohibition against cannabis but I cannot see what is to be gained from
incarcerating Neville Yates. What public interest will be served?
It will cost at least $20,000 to keep him in prison for that time. He will not be assured of much medical or therapeutic
help; he'll be a vulnerable target for the violent bullies who are in there for more serious offences; and he'll come
out no better, in all likelihood, worse. A more satisfactory scenario for Neville Yates would be a proper medical
assessment and for him to be treated as a clinical rather than a criminal case; he should be given proper assistance to
reclaim some semblance of a life that has been riddled with pain and tragedy. The point is he is not a dope fiend
preying on others, but a heartbreaking example of a damaged person being further damaged by our lack of compassion - and
no doubt immune to our sympathies because his brain damage has made him less sociably acceptable than most.
The issue here is less about the rights and wrongs of the marijuana debate but much more about how we fail to treat
compassionately the less 'cuddly' amongst us at the point where they need it most.
Marc Alexander MP
LATEST NEWS:
++ find out about the PETITION AGAINST SMACKING BAN on Marc's new RADIO show this Monday, 1pm on Plains FM 96.9.
http://www.Marc-Alexander-MP.org/radio/radio_041009.htm
++ next PUBLIC MEETING 5pm Mon 29 Nov, at 173 Cashel Street: Lincoln Tan, chair Christchurch Asian Youth Council and
Managing Director bi-lingual iBall Newspaper
Email Marc - marc.alexander@parliament.govt.nz
ENDS