Chocolate and curses

Much has already been said on the subject of Cadbury's backtrack on the palm oil issue, just months after changing from its traditional cocoa-butter-only recipe (while at the same time downsizing its king size blocks and upping the price).

Cadbury stood firm at first, insisting the changes had to be made. But as the public and environmental groups began to make a fuss (and rival company Whittaker's thumbed its nose in a series of comparison adverts) it must have begun to feel the effects of its decision.

And now the 'Kiwi icon' is apologising profusely and promising to revert to the old formula. The size and price of its chocolate ain't going to change, though, but this hasn't stopped a general public feeling that we stuck it to the man and won.

You'd be forgiven for drawing the conclusion that thanks to the "power of the consumer" (a term that's been bandied about all over the six o'clock news referring to this story), companies should no longer be able to make choices that are bad for the environment without expecting widespread backlash.

In reality, I'd hazard a guess that most people complained about the new-look, new-taste blocks because they were smaller, costlier and tasted worse - not because they were worried about the plight of the orangutans.

Still, we won... right?


On Friday five family members were sentenced for what one of their lawyers called "a crime of love", but which for many New Zealanders seemed a horrific act of cruelty. Janet Moses died in a curse-lifting ceremony, drowning as a large group of people poured water into her mouth and eyes to try and rid her of a makutu or evil curse.

The people involved firmly believed they were helping their relative. Instead she died at their hands. A jury found them guilty of her manslaughter, and they were given community-based sentences.

It's hard to comprehend the acts that took place in the unit where Janet Moses died. Most of us don't believe in evil spirits or exorcism. And it seems common sense to us that holding someone down and pouring water into their bodies is not in their best interests. Their actions seem misguided, to say the very least.

Having said which, I'm not going to argue with the sentences that were handed down. They were still found guilty of manslaughter. They have to live with what they did, and by serving time in the community rather than in jail they're saving the taxpayer money and hopefully doing some useful work.

So it bothers me that MP Trevor Mallard is proclaiming that the sentences were wrong, that the judge made a mistake, and that Janet Moses' killers have got off lightly.

There's a reason I tend not to comment on the outcomes of big trials, and that reason is: I wasn't there. If you weren't in the courtroom every day of a trial, if you didn't see and hear every piece of evidence, there's no way you can spout off on whether the verdict was right or wrong, because you don't know all the details.

So what I want to focus on is the fact that Trevor Mallard seems to think he has the right to decide that the verdict was flawed, and that he should use his status as an MP to publicise his opinion.

According to NZPA Mr Mallard is aware that this is not the norm, but he justifies himself by saying, "It is a very unusual set of circumstances and I think in this case the judge got it wrong."

The point is, Mr Mallard, that you don't get to decide whether the judge "got it wrong". The Crown will not be appealing the verdict, so clearly the powers that be are happy with the justice that was meted out. You are not part of the justice system. But most of all, you were not in that courtroom. So to insist that "they weren't sent to prison because they are Maori" is completely out of order.

So should MPs get to weigh in on court cases? And are you Team Cadbury or Team Whittaker's? Have your say in the comments.