Out of moral dark ages
Our two supermarket chains, New World and Countdown, have pulled off one of the great con tricks of the century with the plastic bag scam.
They’ve stopped supplying them – saving themselves heaps of money. But if you want a plastic bag you can buy one – 15 cents a bag at Countdown – so selling plastic is now a revenue generator for them.
The cunning devils have shifted the cost of taking goods away from their shops to their customers. And they have ‘‘greenwashed’’ the whole thing by talking about saving the planet and referring to ‘‘single-use plastic bags’’.
That term is a piece of politics, not a product description. I can confidently say that there has never been (or at least only very rarely) a plastic bag enter my house that was used only once.
Buying meat at New World last week, I was asked if I wanted the meat wrapped in newspaper. Newspaper? That’s what fruit and veges were wrapped in back in the 1960s. Why do we have to retreat to such long-gone days?
After all, most of the plastic bag pollution is in the northern hemisphere, so how will ending bags here help that? It won’t.
John Bishop, Karori
We’re regularly told that soon there’ll be no more take-away plastic bags from supermarkets. Wonderful! But we are kidding ourselves if we think this will help. What is there in supermarkets and other shops that doesn’t come in plastic today?
But we ordinary people could solve the problem that plastics become if we say, ‘‘I will no longer buy anything that comes wrapped in plastic.’’
Imagine if we did that at supermarkets. We’d soon make a big dent in ridding ourselves of the scourge of plastic.
For me a single man, it’s not too difficult. I know it would be a bit more difficult for a family, but not impossible.
If we are truly concerned for the plight of Earth and future generations, we’ll be ready to go without. Many people in other parts of the world are being forced to suffer because of climate change. We are all citizens of the same common home.
Let’s say no to produce presented in plastic; start at the local supermarket. It wouldn’t take long.
John Pettit, Thorndon It’s revealing that Stephen Francis (Letters, Jan 7) has to resort to argumentum ad numerum to justify his opposition to voluntary euthanasia.
Yes, it is true that fewer than 5 per cent of jurisdictions worldwide allow legalised euthanasia, and that the vast majority of such bills fail, but does this make voluntary euthanasia morally wrong?
Yes, if you consider that New Zealand was wrong to give women the vote in 1893, because all other countries denied half their populations the vote.
And consider homosexual law reform. In 1900, male homosexuality was illegal in the vast majority of countries, despite the biological fact that homosexual orientation is as much part of a person’s nature as lefthandedness. But in the last 100 years laws in 118 countries have caught up with biology, leaving only 74 languishing in the moral dark ages.
The world is in the early stages of acknowledging the ultimate human right, the right to die at a time of one’s choosing. Francis is on the wrong side of history.
Martin Hanson, Nelson
Ann David (Letters, Jan 7) demonstrates lamentable ignorance of the role of the judiciary in our legal system. While Parliament is the supreme law-maker, the courts’ role is to interpret and apply the law.
Under the Bill of Rights Act, judges are obliged, wherever possible, to interpret other statutes in a way that is consistent with the protection of rights and freedoms. This would apply to the End of Life Choice Bill, and includes freedom from discrimination.
We already have the attorneygeneral’s report that the Seymour bill discriminates on the basis of age, and it is probable that the courts would substitute an age requirement of 16 years.
The common law then provides for under-16s who are deemed sufficiently ‘‘mature’’ to qualify. This is the Gillick concept recognised in both UK and New Zealand case law.
The prospect of assisted suicide being extended to ‘‘mature’’ children is not alarmist scaremongering, but legal reality.
Rather than attacking their opponents’ credibility, the bill’s promoter and his acolytes should remove their heads from the sand and obtain proper legal advice.
This would quickly reveal the multiple dangers inherent in this pernicious proposal.
Deborah Scott, Auckland Email: letters@dompost.co.nz
No attachments. Write: Letters to the Editor, PO Box 1297, Wellington, 6040. Letters must include the writer’s full name, home address and daytime phone number. Letters should not exceed 200 words and must be exclusive. Letters may be edited for clarity and length.