Mixed Messages

 Inebriation and Rape

The New Zealand police are saying that far too many young women are being raped whilst so intoxicated that they cannot recall who, what, when, or how.  These cases, whilst on the balance of probabilities  genuine, are very difficult to prosecute successfully.  This, from the NZ Herald:

Police are having to shelve sexual assault complaints because witnesses are too drunk to remember the details.  In Waikato alone, up to five complaints of sexual assaults are recorded each week, usually from women aged between 16 and 30, but many can not be acted on because of the high intoxication of people involved.

The problem also exists at another of the country’s busiest police stations, Auckland Central.
Police cannot take a case to court without clear evidence.  But some complainants were so drunk that officers’ investigations – costly in police time and resources – were left in in limbo.  “Sometimes it is so bad that they can’t remember anything, nothing at all about the sexual assault,” Detective Senior Sergeant Mark Greene of Hamilton told the Weekend Herald.  “But they know they have been assaulted. It’s also rare that someone walks in here and it’s not genuine.”

What are the lessons?  The first is to recognise the limitations of police, state, and judicial powers.
  The brute reality is that there are always crimes which escape detection and conviction.  The state is not god; it is not omniscient.  Human powers are limited, finite, imperfect.   The world and human society, prior to the Final Advent of our Lord, can never be completely, perfectly safe or protected from criminal malediction. 

The second lesson is derived: everyone is responsible to ensure that they do not expose themselves to needless danger.  Every adult person is responsible to those that depend upon them that they take reasonable care of themselves. 

Intoxication is a self-inflicted vulnerability.  We are not talking now about spiked drinks or unknowingly drugged food.  We are addressing the situation where people make themselves grossly intoxicated.  For that they are ultimately responsible.  No-one else.  Sure, no doubt there may be social conditioning (everyone else was getting slammed; my friends kept buying me drinks, etc.) but if one is an adult, the final responsibility rests with one’s own self-governance, not with inebriated, irresponsible friends. 

Our culture is riddled with blame shifting.  If bad things happen it is always someone else’s fault to some degree.  Society is always seen as complicit if something bad happens. So, a badly intoxicated young woman leaves a bar, trips over the kerb and breaks bones.  Who is responsible?  Part of the blame will be sheeted home to the bar which served her the drink.  The lack of warning road signs or the designers of the kerb or the local roading authority might also come in for a share of blame.  Maybe there is some merit in the blame-shifting.  Maybe there is some due complicity that needs addressing.  Society in general will certainly be held accountable insofar as it will pay for the medical treatment and physical rehabilitation of the “victim” without qualification.  But all too often the last person to be blamed or held responsible was the inebriate herself.  We have lost the moral and ethical clarity to say to the “victim” that she has been stupid, foolish and irresponsible. 

Ironically, most people instinctively know that this is the case, but it is impolite, politically incorrect to say so.  The games we play! 

In the case of the rape of an inebriate there can be no exculpation for the perpetrator.  None whatsoever.  The parallel situation in the example of the inebriate who tripped would be a situation where the kerb was manifestly and clearly unsafe.  The kerb constructor, the road administration, the civil authorities would all potentially be held accountable.  But it also remains true that it would likely never have happened if the woman in question had been sober.  Thousands would have stepped down from that particular kerb without breaking bones.  And for that the inebriate must bear responsibility. 

Until inebriates face up and hold themselves accountable for their actions and the consequences that may well result, we fear that little progress can be made.  This happens in some areas.  If a drunken person gets into a car and drives and kills someone, the inebriate is held responsible.  The driver never intended it to happen, but it did.  Accountability is sheeted home.  And if you were driving under the influence and another drunk driver hits your car, you will both be charged.  That is as it should be.  Driving under the influence in any circumstances is a breach of the law.

But society fails to apply the same principle when it comes to the rape of an inebriate.  Granted intoxication by itself is not a crime.  But, the concept of reckless endangerment is well established in Western legal traditions.  There are times when people, particularly intoxicated people, recklessly endanger themselves.  Any education programme to attempt to reduce the binge drinking culture that is now emerging amongst young women must focus upon the responsibility of the women in question to self-accountability.  Don’t get drunk! must be the blunt message.

A Massey University survey released this week showed 28 per cent of 16 and 17 year old girls were binge-drinking, downing at least eight standard drinks in a typical drinking session.  The proportion of binge-drinking young women had doubled in less than a decade.  And emergency departments throughout the country were treating more women for intoxication than ever before.

Mr Greene (Detective Senior Sergeant, Hamilton) said binge-drinking played a big part in the problems police faced with sexual assault complaints.  “It’s definitely part of the fabric of it.”  In Auckland, Hamilton and other centres, police and other agencies are out in the streets at night, pushing campaigns designed to prevent sexual assault.

We have organizations devoted to educating people about what constitutes rape and ways of prevention.  Unfortunately, it would appear that the education leaves out one of the fundamentals.  It focuses upon educating the predator, not the inebriation of women.

Rape Prevention Education director Dr Kim McGregor believed much of the solution lay in prevention.  She said victims were too often blamed because they had been drinking or wearing revealing clothing.  “Nobody goes out thinking they better not wear a short skirt because they might be raped – so let’s start focussing on the offender and how we can intervene in their behaviour, rather than blaming victims.”

No.  Dr McGregor is operating within a false dichotomy driven by political correctness.  There is clearly a message to be given to potential perpetrators.  There is another message to be given to the potential victims.  It is the same kind of message that is being conveyed to people who are irresponsible enough to drink and drive. 

>Islam and the West are Kissing Cousins

>Redemption by Law

Islam and the post-Christian West have a great deal in common. Far more than both think. They share the same grand vistas of Unbelief, of denial of the sovereign claims of the Lord Jesus Christ. The upshot is that on almost every issue or contention, the debate between the West and Islam is merely over tactics and tastes. It is never more than an intra-familial debate–although at times heated and hostile.

We were struck again with this as we reflected upon the public march in Manukau City this past weekend against alcohol’s easy availability. The NZ Herald blared forth in normal fashion with the “human interest” angle, designed to arouse pity and anger. A couple had tragically lost their daughter in a road accident caused by her drunkenness. The problem: she had become a victim to New Zealand’s binge drinking culture.

The 22-year-old alcoholic fell victim to what her parents described yesterday as New Zealand’s “widely accepted” binge-drinking culture. Three months ago, her life support was switched off after she was partially flung from the car she was driving drunk in a crash south of Morrinsville.

Now, we do not seek to trivialise in any way the tragic death of this young person. Nor do we wish to parley the grief of the parents into something unimportant or inconsequential. Our heart goes out to them: to lose a child is a heavy, heavy burden.

It is the particular use of the story that we object to. The blatant sub-text is that the social problem of alcoholism and binge drinking in New Zealand can be dealt with or prevented by prohibition. Granted–not total prohibition–but relative prohibition. If the government were to pass laws restricting the sale and availability of alcohol to teenagers then the problem would reduce. An adjacent sub-text is the notion that an evil force exists to promote drinking–namely the complex of brewing companies, supermarkets and liquour retailers, and the hospitality industry, all of whom benefit commercially from the sale of liquor. They extract filthy lucre from the suffering of helpless victims, a modern manifestation of the vile inkeepers, Monsieur and Madame Thernadier from Les Miserables.

“The government ought to do something” is the ubiquitous nauseating refrain of the West. The Church of the Lord Jesus Christ sings “Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war,” and the people of the land sing “Onward parliamentarians, redeem us from all evil”.

And it is here that the West and Islam begin to kiss passionately. Both believe redemption and sanctification is by law. Pass enough laws and promulgate sufficient restrictions and all evil will be banished from the land. Islam is just a bit more consistent and serious about it than the self-indulgent, sybaritic West–that’s all. But we are rapidly getting there.

In Islam alcohol is an evil–so it is totally banned. When alcohol consumption becomes a problem in New Zealand, we immediately turn to the same type of solution: redemption through laws and bans. It is just that we argue for partial prohibition and increasing restrictions. It is a matter of degree, not substance.

The West hates the burqha and the virtual imprisonment of Islamic women, objecting to their “chattelisation”. Yet the rationale is eerily akin to that employed to restrict the sale of alcohol because far too many people in New Zealand are getting drunk and committing stupid, if not criminal acts. Islam argues that lust for women outside of marriage is evil: the cause of the evil is not what arises in the heart of men, but the occasion of temptation–which is the sight of a woman. To a heart inflamed with lust, even the smallest part of the human anatomy can be eroticised and an occasion for lust–an ankle, a finger, or an ear. To, to “protect” their women, Islamic justice calls for the complete covering of the women. However, what is really at work is an external, legalistic attempt to stop men sinning. Men who lust are victims of circumstances, just as was the poor young woman who lost her life in the NZ Herald story. Change tthe circumstances, cover the women and men (not women) are protected from lust.

Redemption by law; attempting to make people holy by changing external circumstances. This is the “gospel” of Islam. It is nothing other than slavery and tyranny. It is also the “gospel” of the West.

Islam and the Unbelieving West have a great deal in common (which is why the West believes it can reason with Islam to a middle position). This approach truly makes sense and is completely understandable. But it also means that the West’s opposition to Islam is feigned. It is not a clash of world-views at all, but a mere inter-denominational rivalry. Salvation by law and sanctification through regulating externalities is so deeply held in both traditions that, in the end, both will form an unholy axis to turn upon the Lord Jesus and His church.

>Alcohol, Tobacco, and Legalism

>Beware the Spiritual Evils of Prohibition

It is clear that the nanny-staters amongst us are busily involved in a reasonably long term campaign to outlaw tobacco use in New Zealand completely. We expect they will be successful. Then we will go through a couple of decades of the consequences of nannying prohibition, and we will find, much to the disappointment and chagrin of the nannyers, that the law of unintended consequences has not been prorogued and that the social evils that burst forth in the era of Prohibition in the United States will have equally burst forth upon New Zealanders a century later. Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

Christian folk are likely to get caught up in this sort of thing. Below is timely reminder from Justin Taylor, Don Carson, and John Piper explaining why Christians should have nothing to do with any attempts to prohibit the use of alcohol or tobacco by means of legislative fiat or ecclesiastical edicts. For there is another law which has not been prorogued: a generation that is stricter than the Bible, will be followed by a generation which rejects the authority of the Bible outright.

Alcohol, Liberty, and Legalism

An interesting discussion took place in the comments to yesterday’s post on the Guinness Brewing Company. It seems that some think brewing beer is either an illegitimate vocation, and immoral activity, or unwise as a witness for Christ.

It’s not possible in one post to address all concerns. I’d just say, for my own part, that I do not advocate alcohol consumption and I don’t particularly like the taste of alcohol. Further, I find it slightly annoying when those who enjoy adult beverages talk about it a lot. (Sort of like the younger pastors who tend to work into conversation how much they enjoy a good cigar, or the occasional pipe. Good for you, bro!)

But the fact of the matter is that though alcohol can be abused, and is often abused, it is still part of God’s good creation—and Jesus partook of it enough that some falsely accused him of being a drunkard (Matt. 11:19 and parallels), and in fact he created “good wine” at a wedding celebration (John 2:1-6).

One of the reasons I think it’s worth returning to the issue is not because I care about alcohol per se, but rather because this issue is a good test case for hemeneutics, application, and ethics.

Again, with no attempt to be comprehensive, here are a few things that have been helpful to me throughout the years:

A Latin phrase to keep in mind:

abusus usum non tollit (“Abuse does not take away proper use”)

Ryan Kelly explains why Romans 14 has less application to this issue than most people think. Here’s the conclusion:

What we should conclude from all of this is that it is the abuse of a thing that is sin, not its use. Sin is that which violates God’s biblical commandments, not the additions and inventions we make. No man can bind the conscience of another. As Sola Scriptura Christians, our minds, wills, and hearts are directed by God’s revealed will in the Scriptures alone. On issues not forbidden or condemned by Scripture, we cannot invent a morality, or, worse, impose those inventions on others. We cannot be holier than Jesus, can we?

And this from D.A. Carson:

Paul refuses to circumcise Titus, even when it was demanded by many in the Jerusalem crowd, not because it didn’t matter to them, but because it mattered so much that if he acquiesced, he would have been giving the impression that faith in Jesus is not enough for salvation: one has to become a Jew first, before one can become a Christian. That would jeopardize the exclusive sufficiency of Jesus.

To create a contemporary analogy: If I’m called to preach the gospel among a lot of people who are cultural teetotallers, I’ll give up alcohol for the sake of the gospel. But if they start saying, “You cannot be a Christian and drink alcohol,” I’ll reply, “Pass the port” or “I’ll think I’ll have a glass of Beaujolais with my meal.” http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=jtertullian&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=158134922X&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrPaul is flexible and therefore prepared to circumcise Timothy when the exclusive sufficiency of Christ is not at stake and when a little cultural accommodation will advance the gospel; he is rigidly inflexible and therefore refuses to circumcise Titus when people are saying that Gentiles must be circumcised and become Jews to accept the Jewish Messiah. The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World, p. 145.

And here is John Piper, a teetotaller and an advocate of teetotalling, putting his young pastoral ministry on the line at Bethlehem Baptist Church in 1982 in order to argue against a provision requiring teetotalling for church membership

I want to hate what God hates and love what God loves.

And this I know beyond the shadow of a doubt: God hates legalism as much as he hates alcoholism.

If any of you still wonders why I go on supporting this amendment after hearing all the tragic stories about lives ruined through alcohol, the reason is that when I go home at night and close my eyes and let eternity rise in my mind, I see ten million more people in hell because of legalism than because of alcoholism. And I think that is a literal understatement. Satan is so sly. “He disguises himself as an angel of light,” the apostle says in 2 Corinthians 11:14. He keeps his deadliest diseases most sanitary. He clothes his captains in religious garments and houses his weapons in temples. O don’t you want to see his plots uncovered? . . .

Legalism is a more dangerous disease than alcoholism because it doesn’t look like one.

Alcoholism makes men fail; legalism helps them succeed in the world.

Alcoholism makes men depend on the bottle; legalism makes them self-sufficient, depending on no one.

Alcoholism destroys moral resolve; legalism gives it strength.

Alcoholics don’t feel welcome in church; legalists love to hear their morality extolled in church.

Therefore, what we need in this church is not front-end regulations to try to keep ourselves pure. We need to preach and pray and believe that “Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, neither teetotalism nor social drinking, neither legalism nor alcoholism is of any avail with God, but only a new creation (a new heart)” (Galatians 6:15; 5:6).

The enemy is sending against us every day the Sherman tank of the flesh with its cannons of self-reliance and self-sufficiency. If we try to defend ourselves or our church with peashooter regulations, we will be defeated, even in our apparent success. The only defense is to “be rooted and built up in Christ and established in faith” (Colossians 2:6); “Strengthened with all power according to his glorious might for all endurance and patience with joy” (Colossians 1:11); “holding fast to the head from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together, . . . grows with a growth that is from God” (Colossians 2:19). From God! From God! And not from ourselves.

>The Devolution of the Law Commission

>Malignant Cancers

Democracies in the West have degenerated into soft-despotic smothering administrative regimes. The State, with the consent of the people, has expanded its tentacles into every field of human action to rule, regulate, control and administer. It has vastly overreached its God-ordained powers.

When governments play-at-being-deities bad consequences always follow. One is that the law quickly becomes an ass–a tangled web of arcane, contradictory, costly, ineffective, outmoded rules and regulations that that quickly pass their use-by date. In an attempt to deal with the inevitably asinine character of the law under soft-despotic states the device of the Law Commission was created.

The fundamental objective of a Law Commission is to “clean up” and rationalise redundant and irrelevant laws. As Wikipedia has it:

A Law Commission or Law Reform Commission is an independent body set up by a government to conduct law reform; that is, to consider the state of laws in a jurisdiction and make recommendations or proposals for legal changes or restructuring. Their functions include drafting revised versions of confusing laws, preparing consolidated versions of laws, making recommendations on updating outdated laws and making recommendations on repealing obsolete or spent laws.

All well and good. But the law of bureaucracies is that they are cancerous. That is, they grow and expand to where they take charge of their host governments and begin to control government itself. Law Commissions are no exception. The latest report on alcohol in New Zealand shows that the Law Commission has grown cancerous indeed.

Formed in 1986, it now employs 32 people, with an annual budget of $4.3m. It would argue that it is under-resourced (the complaint of all cancerous bureaucracies). It has a point–after all New Zealand is sinking in an ocean of laws and regulations, growing exponentially by the year. Sir Geoffrey Palmer, President of the Law Commission lamented in 2006

Massive amounts of law are made in New Zealand every year, of which primary legislation sometimes does not produce the greatest bulk. Today, New Zealand’s primary laws comprise nearly 1100 statutes; 1096 to be precise. We had only 600 principal Acts in 1978. Under the authority of today’s Acts there are 4292 instruments published in the statutory regulations series. There exist also, according to the Parliamentary Counsel Office website, 273 sets of “deemed regulations”; this last number, the site warns us, may be incomplete.

How many pages of law this amounts to I cannot say because it is too big a job to count. The largest statute we have – the Income Tax Act 2004 – covers 2088 pages and takes three volumes of the 2004 statutes. There were seven volumes that year. This proliferation of forms of lawmaking poses problems in itself. But it also poses significant problems for the system of government as a whole. It makes it much more difficult ever to see the body of law as a whole.

One would have thought there is so much helpful work the Law Commission could do in recommending rationalisations and repeals of legal irrationalities, redundancies, contradictions, and blind alleys. But the Labour Government in August 2008 decided to focus the Commission’s attention upon the Sale of Liquor Act. This was something the Commission ought to have tried its utmost to avoid, but under President Palmer it could not help itself. It not only welcomed the Government’s stipulation, but decided to conduct a “root and branch” review of alcohol in New Zealand. President Palmer also indicated that he had a personal interest in this matter, and that he would ensure that Commission pursued its task with vigour. It turns out he was not dissembling.

Now, consider the brief that the Law Commission was given included the following in the Terms of Reference:

To consider and formulate for the consideration of Government and Parliament a revised policy framework covering the principles that should regulate the sale, supply and consumption of liquor in New Zealand having regard to present and future social conditions and needs.

Question: since when is it the statutory duty and function of the Law Commission to have regard for the “present and future social conditions and needs” of New Zealand and New Zealanders? According to the Commission’s website, the objectives of the Commission are:

to improve:
• the content of the law
• the law-making process
• the administration of the law
• access to justice
• dispute resolution between individuals
• dispute resolution between individuals and the State.

It would seem to us that the Commission’s role is expanding way beyond the intent of the original act setting it up. Now, we probably cannot simply blame the progressive philosophies and proclivities of President Palmer. It will also be the fault of the (then Labour) Government. But a malignant cancer upon the body politic the Law Commission has undoubtedly become.

So now New Zealand has the benefit of a 500 page monstrosity reviewing one piece of legislation–a review that has taken the Commission into issues of future public policy and social needs of New Zealand. It aspires to regulate exhaustively alcohol in every sphere of human and national life. The “scope creep” of the Commission will consign it to ineffectiveness; it has simply become one more engine for the rampant proliferation of soft-despotic laws, rules and regulations.

As one blogger put it–the nanny state has come back with a vengeance. The Law Commission has now moved from amelioration of administrative constipation to compounding the problem many times over. Under President Palmer it has become a sad case of “if you cannot beat them, join them”. But, more malignantly, the Law Commission is yet another example of a cancerous bureaucracy taking over.