So, NZ Bus doesn’t want the atheists money. Fair enough, they’re a private company and able to choose who they do business with. However, one point made by a Catholic Church spokeswoman did annoy me:

…people of faith make up the majority of New Zealanders, who would have been offended by the ad.

Offended? Well then I’m offended at the Catholic Church for their covering for pedophile priests (to be fair, certain parts of the Anglican Church aren’t any better). Of course, these wowsers moaned to the wowsers at the Human Rights Commission because of the potential offense they would’ve had to have endured. Neither the Atheists or Catholics have the right to not be offended by people of other faiths. It’s called religious freedom people.

And just to show I’m being consistent, apparently the UK is about to lift a ban on gay marriage in churches. Nothing wrong with that, however on reading the Bill it actually seems that this isn’t simply about lifting the ban on gay marriage in churches, it’s about forcing churches (and other religious institutions – good luck with that in certain parts of South London) to hold gay marriages. Sure, there might be some members of the clergy who support it. But let’s not confuse the difference between simply lifting a ban, which is good for freedom, with forcing churches to marry everyone. That is bad for freedom.

News that the Swiss have voted to ban minarets only goes to show how stupid binding citizen initiated referendums are. The move was is supposed roll back “radical Islam” in Switzerland. Of course it won’t – all it will do is give Muslims in Switzerland a sense of grievance. That will only fucking help radical Islam, not stop it. It strikes at the heart of freedom of religion – you know, the thing our grandparents died fighting Nazi Germany for. Oh that’s right, those holey-cheese eating cuckoo-clock-and-miniature-knife making  Swiss sat out the Second World War, choosing instead to be the banker for Jewish refugees, Russian Communists and the Nazis themselves. So the Swiss must’ve missed the memo on religious freedom.

Given that the country is often cited as an example for New Zealand to follow by advocates of binding citizen initiated referendums, it’s worth taking notice of. With 57% of those who voted supporting the proposition,  just 31% of the people actually supported the proposition.

It should be pointed out that the issues usually picked up on by advocates of binding citizen initiated referendums are the result of some sort of legislative change – section 59, Electoral Finance Act, Civil Unions Act, Prostitution Law Reform Act, etc. The recent “March for democracy” emphasised the multiplicity of options.

So here’s my answer to direct democracy on odious legislation, by amending the Citizens Initiated Referendum Act 1993 to the People’s Veto Act:

• Reduce the threshold for referendums to 5% of registered electors;
• Questions to follow the form “Do you vote to veto the xxxxx Act 2009?”: Yes / No;
• Referendums only to be held by secret ballot at either general or local elections (to ensure turn-out – none of this postal vote BS. It also saves money);
• Bills of Money and Supply (i.e. the Budget) cannot be vetoed – so we don’t end up like California;

What do you guys think?