Hopkins to Hodgson and Maharey
Jim Hopkins writes a serious open letter to Pete Hodgson and Steve Maharey:
The truly amazing thing is not the silliness of the idea – that’s probably par for the bureaucratic course – but rather the breathless enthusiasm with which you have announced it.
If you’ll permit the discourtesy, Hodgson, we’ve got a problem. And this is it. Some people treat their children in a revolting and disgusting way. That is the problem. Some people inflict pain on their children. Pain that makes us weak – and weep – when we imagine it.
Some people beat their children; with fists, wood, tools, jug cords, or all of the above. Some people torture their children. Some people see fit to punish their children by putting them in a clothesdryer.
When we hear that, sirs, our reaction is simple. And so is our solution. We would put anyone who does that into a clothesdryer themselves. And we would leave them there for a month.
Please understand this, Mr Hodgson – and you too, Mr Maharey. We want such cruelty to be punished. Yes, gentlemen. Punished. Look, we know that “punish” is not a word that comes easily to the ministerial tongue but that is what we want. And we want you to want it too.
More to the point, we want an immediate end to all the inducements and all the incentives that are available to those who visit hideous harm on children.
We want all the well-intentioned but shamefully administered unconditional taxpayer-funded assistance stopped! Immediately.
Gentlemen, you can do this. You needn’t wait for the Mayor of Rotorua to suggest that some conditions might possibly apply to the payment of benefits before saying, “Gosh, that’s a good idea!”
So be brave, gentlemen. Tell your 25-year-old senior policy analysts that asking an 80-year-old lady who’s spent two years waiting for a hip replacement if she feels “controlled or always criticised” won’t fix the problem. Tell them that asking a nun admitted with a heart murmur if she’s been “asked to do anything sexual that you didn’t want to do” won’t save the life of a single child. Tell them, if they want to spend $11 million preventing domestic violence, not to waste it on questionnaires, but post it as rewards for any information that might spare a child and convict its abuser.
You see, sirs, when all’s said and nothing’s done, the national scandal described in this week’s headlines is not that adults are beating children. That is a personal disgrace.
The national scandal is that your government, our government, is all too often a party to the outrage. But it’s not doing an effective thing about it.
So here are your three questions, gentlemen: Do you care? Will you do anything worthwhile? When?
Now that didn’t cost $11 million, did it?
Ouch. My fingers almost got burnt blogging that.
August 4th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
The guy in charge of Womens health at Hawkes bay Hospital said they allready do this.
Hopkins should stick to his stand up comic routine as a paid entertainer at national or act conferences rather than interviewing his computer yet again for his raving discourses.
Look at this ludicrous jumble from a few weeks back.
Alas, time and again, just when they dare to imagine she will be theirs and theirs alone, bingo, in strolls some State House stallion and steals the Key to her heart.
Life for the Greens is a Mills and Boon story that never ends with the nerd and his beloved sinking into the downy bliss of a golden dawn – all because some winsome Winston or jaunty Johnny-come-lately is forever lurking in the wings, murmuring endearments.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/author/story.cfm?a_id=7&objectid=10437682
Seem the cheese has well and truely slipped off his cracker
Wikipedia says this>
Jim Hopkins is a well-known New Zealand comic, most notable for his red-rimmed spectacles.
It would be his only achievement too.
August 4th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
So Selma, what points do you disagree with? The fact that Hospitals already ask such questions of 8o year olds and nuns? Or that they now need another 11 million dollars to listen to the answers?
The letter is good. The challenge is reasonable. Your disrespect of the points raised indicates the usual placement of Labour politics ahead of the real issue at hand.
August 4th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
“We want such cruelty to be punished. Yes, gentlemen. Punished. Look, we know that “punish” is not a word that comes easily to the ministerial tongue but that is what we want. And we want you to want it too.”
Hopkins truly is a journalist of Mathew Hooten proportions. Spraying his retarded rants indiscriminately where ever he goes. I mean, hello, has this moron not hear of the Section 59 Crimes Act Repeal Bill?
August 4th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Oh yes, repealing section 59 was such a tough punishment. A quick search of medline reveals that there are 29000 published papers on “child abuse” worldwide which have been written during the period when child abuse has got out of hand (the namby pamby, spend till you see the tears in the taxpayers eyes period). This is a glympse of the size of the child abuse industry with doctors, nurses, social workers and bureucrats all “intereviewing their computers” and spamming their websites with white papers and making sure the one thing we don’t do is solve the problem.
“We want such cruelty to be SOLVED. Yes, gentlemen. SOLVED. Look, we know that “SOLVED” is not a word that EVER CROSSES the ministerial tongue but that is what we want. And we want you to want it too.”
At least the police had the good sense not to wait until after the tangi to start investigating this time.
And will National have a proper policy on this? Not likely because “welfare” is tapu.
August 4th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
repealing parents legal right to beat their kids was not something old RED EYES was in favor of
“But they’re being forced to vote for it. “Smacked” into line, regardless of the dictates of their conscience in what is supposed to be a conscience vote.
So it’s not just parents who are being told what to do.”
parents being told what to do . not allowed in RED EYES book
Plus he even thinks violence against children is NOT AS BAD as abortion ( being a man he just has to stick it in and not have worry about what pops out)
“By any measure, aborting an unborn baby is more violent – certainly in terms of consequence – than smacking the hand of a baby that hasn’t been aborted.”
August 4th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
The trouble is Zen Tiger people like Selma have had their heads stuck up their arses for years and only pull them out to tell others how they are to live.
This commie government could have done much to stop child abuse but thats not what they are about.
When we have a welfare system that expects nothing from it’s recipients and where young woman can pop out kids simply to increase their income is it any wonder some children are treated worst then animals. When we have a government that constantly tells us that we all must take responsibilty then does it’s upmost to take any control a parent may have over their child off the parents, will ask yourself, are these bastards stupid or what?
Most sensible Kiwi’s know how child abuse figues could be lowered but the government will do nothing to upset it’s voting base. Nothing will change while these imbeciles continue to govern us. This country is up shit creek and the paddles have being removed by the fools that should steering.
August 4th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Deliberateltly inflicted cruelty is horrendous and identifies man’s inhumanity to humanity e.g. terrorist bombings of civilians and the resulting miserey.
However that is an extreme case, but Jim Hopkin’s article shows the need for swift action on the home front. A parliament that drags its feet over these matters is condoning this sadistic behaviour.
Admittedly it is a small matter when we look at the scale of human misery world wide with wars, the present floods in India, China – etc- droughts – storms -earthquakes – volcanic eruptions – you name it. These, at this time we are helpless to prevent, but we can do something about cruelty to small children when it is apparent it is becopming endemic in this couintry
August 4th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Selma Bouvier, roger nome: Excuse me while I pick my jaw up off the floor.
You see, usually the left actually try to disguise their moral and intellectual bankruptcy. Mind, it is refreshing to see it out in the open sometimes.
August 4th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Speak of retarded comments, well done Roger once again you have proven what a complete ass you really are.
Selma…usually nonsense.
August 4th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Selma, you seem to think that the above abuse was administered as a disciplinary smack? And that removing the legal defence enables the police to prosecute? You are a few tumbles short of a full spin. Section 59 would never be a defence against torture, and your weak attempt to derail the post by revisiting smack=child abuse rhetoric has me agreeing with scrubone – your moral bankruptcy has been hung out to dry.
Perhaps you could try and come up with something relevant to the post?
August 4th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Selma
Come on, do your normal justification This has happened under a National Govt, spew a few historic cases and claim that the left are therefore blameless for their incompetence because YOU percieve incompetence 25 years ago under National.
Go on, just get it over with and the rest of us can then debate the way forward!
August 4th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
I remember Helen Clarke saying (with regard to scetion59) “I’ve got to do something about our terrible record of child abuse”….. (or words to that effect).
August 4th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Selma et al are typical leftists. Instead of addressing the issue raised they prefer to throw insults.
August 4th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Perhaps Jim Anderton can be put in charge of the issue. He can then make sure it’s not reported and the problem will be solved. Same as Labour’s solution to youth suicide.
See Selma, we could all make a complete mockery of the real issue if we wanted to.
August 4th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
The left thinks the poor are good; if someone is fallen, it is the rest of societies fault. Basic biology teaches us that life continues by recognizing and cutting out the bad.
jh
August 4th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Selma and Roger typically have nothing to offer.
All they have proved is that they are part of the problem.
August 4th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
And all because the most repulsive thing in the world to a slimy lefty is the thought of a middle class family being able to adopt a shild.
Uneducated, criminal, morally bankrupt kids……
They breed em,
we feed em
they abuse em
we excuse em
Now lets wait for the excusers to tell us there can only ever be one murderer…..barf!
Perhaps we should have another referendum and see if we can improve on the 92% of NZers who want tougher penalties for these scum.
August 4th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
An excellent summary by Hopkins…. Selma it is clear from the comments on this subject that it is Rogernome who is the stand=up comic.
August 4th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
These crimes have never been acceptable but under labours strong leadership on opposing all forms of violence against children ( and with the help of John Key , who moved national out of its denial of a problem) abuse of children have been stigmatised and made criminally liable and it is that which will produce results.
Just look at these accused who try to get their photos out of the media as they try to avoid any consequences similar to that inflicted on this innocent child.
Im very glad National was able to move on this before it was too late.
August 4th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
I am aware that is not considered good form to dish out personal abuse in this forum.
Especially as it’s not actually my forum, but DPF’s, and he is kind enough to allow people to make comments regarding his postings and on the comments of others.
I only mention this because I am aware that the following may get be banned but after reading the comments from Selma and Roger, I’m quite happy for my response to earn me a bit of down time.
You Selma, are a piece of shit, and you, Roger, are not far behind.
Selma’s first response implied that JH should not concern himself with the vile torture of a fellow New Zealander, and should stick to his comic routine. Well here’s the news Selma, you moron, the only people who disagree with JH are leftist sycophants like you. There has not been a single person I’ve spoken to, Labour and National voters alike, who doesn’t feel sickened to the core by the acts of this child’s murderers. But oh no Selma Sorry Arse’s sense of outrage is only ignited because someone attacked her revered Labour party and its socialist ideology.
As for Roger Knob saying, “I mean, hello, has this moron not hear of the Section 59 Crimes Act Repeal Bill?
Of course he has. There’s hardly a sentient human in the country who hasn’t and how many of those can recall Sue Bradford’s moment of glory when her amendment was passed. Sadly I cant find a link or a quote, but I distinctly remember Bradford saying “…. and now our babies will be safe.”
I put it to you Roger, Selma, and Sue Bradford that you all knew that that ammendment was never going to make any babies safe and it was all about intrusion into the lives of decent Kiwis and fuzzy do gooder Lowest Common Denominator Governance.
And to those who say “What’s your solution Grant?”, my answer is simple. The people convicted of the murder of this child, if any actually are, along with the killer(s) of the Kahuis and the others, should never ever be freed. They should disappear from view for ever.
G
August 4th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
I wonder if Hopkins kids could tell some stories, as red eyes is such a great believer in “parents rights”
August 4th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
The sad thing is that people like Selma and Roger nome or PJ are in fact the problem. Trying to justify people who use objects to silence children while retraining them, is in fact supporting this culture of torture of children.
August 4th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
“under labours strong leadership on opposing all forms of violence”
Didn’t see Helen vist the starship?
HCs carefully orchestrated pontifications were designed to give the pretence of caring but not send a message to the we wellington liberals that they were expected to actually get of their collective arses and do something.
Then how many people actually believe anymore that the cause of the problem can be part of the cure? 3? (SB, H1, H2)
Oh how irritating that this came up – now back to conducting the 20 year old rape case that never was to score brownie points with the feminists.
August 4th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Careful Grant, Selma will now have a crack at you for implying that we should be really harsh with these pieces of filth that tortured Nia. You see Nia has no rights, but according to PJ and Selma the shit that killed her should be granted every bit of consideration known to man.
The problem is that both Selma and PJ dont give a damn about the kid, its about their beloved party. Says it all really.
August 4th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
read the words… he blaming Labour!!
The national scandal is that your government, our government, is all too often a party to the outrage. But it’s not doing an effective thing about it.
Repeal of S59 , supported by labour AND national. its a start.
All forms of domestic violence- yes Grant, MEN are the problem- have been swept under the carpet (by men) for too long.
-interesting that grant sees his role as being a fart cushion in this .
Only once women have had postions of leadership , including jenny Shipley has there been the political will to do anything about it.
August 4th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Could’nt agree more Jim. The other issue connected to this, is the pathetic, spineless behaviour of our judges when these case’s come to a conclusion in court. They are never victims of any sort of crime and need to be stuck in a dryer for a while to focus their “dogooder” minds on real evil when they see it.
August 4th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
That is so right Selma. Since Jenny, Ruth, Helen and Sue we have never had a Lillybing, A Delcilia Whitaker, no Kahui twins or a Nia. You have to be the most brainless fool alive.
August 4th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
“I wonder if Hopkins kids could tell some stories, as red eyes is such a great believer in “parents rights” ”
aaahhh DPF are derogatory comments produced by the patella reflex allowed? I suppose you can’t really prosecute a perpheral nerve.
August 4th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Selma
What stories might Hopkins kids have to tell? Can you give us facts.
I further suggest that perhaps their stories and outcomes would be far rosier than the children of the beloved Sue Bradford.
August 4th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Fart Cushion Selma? Whatever..
Have fun all. Duty calls.
G
August 4th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
… the kids turned out Ok…
…or that a good hiding didnt do me any harm…
They all say that.
Didnt take long for for the apologists for white middle class child beaters to show up.
Who was the MP who got intangled in a family court case where the judge decided NOT to give custody to the parents.
We dont know but what could possibly be the reason parents who ” on the surface” seemed respectable.
August 4th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Selma, I wonder how long you could bear to listen to a tortured child’s cries…That long eh?… heartless sow.
August 4th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
When will people bloody well get it? – *the questions have nothing to do with children or child abuse* . . .
Hon Lianne Dalziel
03/08/07
Opening Statement : New Zealand Mission to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women
” . . . For example, we have established new Police Area and District Family Violence Co-ordinator positions nationwide to provide leadership, co-ordination, training and oversight. *And, only yesterday, my colleague, the Minister of Health, announced that screening of women who may be experiencing violence or abuse will now occur in all our public hospitals*. . . ”
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=30228
August 4th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Actually, the part of Hopkins article that disparages the idea of Drs asking women if they’ve been abused is really silly.
It’s an incredibly easy, low cost intervention that can only have some positive results.
August 4th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
My daughter got hurt at hockey today but I’m to frightened to take her to the feminazi liarbore lickspittle controlled hospital .
What has this country become ? Poor kids , dam the sisterhood , what comes around …..
August 4th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
What a load of fuck and nonsense. You’re taking this seriously?
Aside from the childish slurs about the government’s lack of concern about these issues and the lazy characterisation of public servants as youthful naifs, what does this comedian actually say that’s so meaningful?
That this violence is unacceptable? Well, who the fuck would disagree with that?
That the government has a role to play to combat this rather than being a party to the outrage? Well, yeah, I agree, but I am surprised so many of you so-called right-wingers are so enthusiastic for state-intervention.
That those found guilty of hideous harm should lose state entitlements? Well, those who go prison do have their benefits cut. So what else would he have people do? That those suspected of harm should have benefits cut? That those who don’t meet some sort of parental standard might have their benefits cut? That families where What a lot of toss.
This letter is not intelligent. It’s not particularly helpful (well, not in terms of proposing solutions). It’s not much actually.
Who could argue with the sentiment? But let’s not pretend this letter advances anyone’s understanding of the issues or actually moves the debate forward in any meaningful way.
August 4th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
The government does not treat mothers and fathers the same at UN level DDD you nutbar !
The nanny socialist government are guilty of breaking down the family and child abuse !!!
August 4th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Selma Bouvier Says:
August 4th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
These crimes have never been acceptable but under labours strong leadership on opposing all forms of violence against children ( and with the help of John Key , who moved national out of its denial of a problem) abuse of children have been stigmatised and made criminally liable and it is that which will produce results.
Oh for god’s sake!
The abuse of children has been stigmatised for far longer than since the repeal of section 59. Animals such as these five people that have been charged in Rotorua do not care about the stigma of society.
Selma, You say the repeal of section 59 will produce results. When? How many children will die between now and then?
Reasonable force never killed a child. The abuse that caused the death of Baby Nia was always illegal. Did these 5 mongrels care?
The Government is sending a message, but are the right people listening?
A heavy handed punitive approach is required, not this limp 3 questions approach. As Alan Duff said, less hui more doey.
August 4th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
DICK4J.
THen that proves just what a halfwit you really are.
On;ly you could blame women and hospitals in the same breath. Idiot!
August 4th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Sorry dropped an edit:
What I was going to say (in the area that obviously got dropped out) was that imposing what are, in effect, economic sanctions on families where there is alleged abuse is likely to make things worse for the kids rather than better. If the children are still in the family environment, then cutting off benefits is likely to be most acutely felt by the children. On the other hand, if the children have been removed from the environment then cutting benefits is only punitive. If it’s punitive, then be frank about it and review the full range of potential sanctions. Hell, this kind of sanction (cutting benefits) just might not be the most effective measure. I suppose the logical first starting point would be to review current penalties and THEN consider whether new or additional options need to be available.
Finally, a point that people understand sort of intuitively but often don’t think about is the whole double jeopardy issue. The government cannot penalise someone more than once for the same crime. So, if you’re going to cut benefits (as a punishment) for child abuse it effectively precludes any further punishment like imprisonment etc.
You know this kind of stuff – dealing with “wicked” problems is not easy. It’s so easy to glibly sit on the sidelines and claim the government’s not doing enough. Well, solutions are not easy. There are no magic bullets.
August 4th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Treating mums and dads different is wicked DDD you nutbar !!!
August 4th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Failing to provide a child with proper medical treatment when they need it could constitute abuse? It might fit under the Crimes Act s195:
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years who, having the custody, control, or charge of any child under the age of 16 years, wilfully ill-treats or neglects the child, or wilfully causes or permits the child to be ill-treated, in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering, actual bodily harm, injury to health, or any mental disorder or disability.
I am not sure the defence, “I am a psychotic misogynist” would cut the mustard.
August 4th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
If you only knew DDD – how wrong you are ?
You are going down – you feminazi whores – that I can assure you !!!!
August 4th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Dead Duck Dux
you really dont have a clue what you are talking about have you. Just another talk fest junkie that wants to try this that and the other.
They have all been tried. yet children die.
More money is spend, and still children are tortured.
We talk education and another kid is burned, beaten and killed.
Well maybe if we got down a bit harder on people there might have been a decrease in these cases, nothing else has worked.
And what cereal packet did you find this on the back off?
“Finally, a point that people understand sort of intuitively but often don’t think about is the whole double jeopardy issue. The government cannot penalise someone more than once for the same crime. So, if you’re going to cut benefits (as a punishment) for child abuse it effectively precludes any further punishment like imprisonment etc.”
Law according to DDD? We are talking about children you fool.
And those of us who have had enough of the torture could not give a shit if it is triple jeopardy if it will stop children being hurt.
Dont tell others that they sit glibly on the sidelines while you glibly spout nonsense.
Here is the deal. We have used the more money path… and children are tortured…
We have used the counseling BS and still children are used as wrestling props…..
You and your ilk thought it was acceptable that a minister of the crown taped balls in children’s mouths… now own that you are as much part of this problem as those who perpetrate the acts.
August 4th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
And DDD find out the difference between a penalty and a punishment..
Jeez!!!!
You wannabe lawyers piss me right off.
August 4th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Bok, let me ask you this – Are you a lawyer? A simple yes or no will suffice.
August 4th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
BTW: I know the difference between a penalty and a punishment. I wasn’t writing a legal submission.
And, for the record, I found DBP’s alleged actions against children to be outrageous. He should have been tried for it.
August 4th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
“So what else would he have people do? That those suspected of harm should have benefits cut? That those who don’t meet some sort of parental standard might have their benefits cut?”
Yes Yes Yeeea—eees!
“Finally, a point that people understand sort of intuitively but often don’t think about is the whole double jeopardy issue. The government cannot penalise someone more than once for the same crime. ”
Absolute bollocks!
Doctors, dentist, vets, teachers etc aren’t allowed to practice if they have been found guilty of serious crimes.
Recidivist violent offenders should not be allowed children.
August 4th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
I’d like to put on trial those who claimed that criminalizing 99.97% of NZs loving parents would help save childrens lives from abuse. You see, the 0.03% don’t know, don’t care, and keep the abuse of self and others up notwithstanding.
S59 just became a demonstraby failed policy in terms of promised protection on minors, but retains a ‘credit’ status in the game of Ideology Legislation Bingo played by our socialist leaders
August 4th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Porc said
“Recidivist violent offenders should not be allowed children.”.
.
Does that include you Peter Burns.
August 4th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Ummmm, Porc. that’s not double jeopardy. Read up a little before you play.
KrazyKiwi – section 59 was a defence used ONLY by people who had physically assaulted their children. This defence enabled parents to claim their physical assault was justifiable as parental discipline. I could also add that, to be noticed by the Police, the physical assaults must have been a bit stronger than gentle brushes of the fingertips. Whether some, all or none of those cases were genuine parental discipline is another issue. But let’s not get distracted by this S59 issue except to note the extreme irony of someone linking it to these current issue about child abuse given it was a defence used by accused abusers.
August 4th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Good one cyrus , been a backstabbing liarbore party jellyfish for long now ?
What a gutless wimp !
August 4th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
You know me dad and I know all about you.
August 4th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Oh yeah cyrus, you know me , great stuff , then you can tell me what high profile court case was I involved with last week ?
We will see who is telling lies now maggot fishmonger !!
August 4th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
As I thought cyrus – you’re a fucking low life labour party liar !!
August 4th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Dad4justice is getting to be a bit of a bore.
Can anyone remember when he actually contributed something worthwhile to any discussion on this site?
Sir, I ask you to think before you post, and season your responses with grace and civility. Some reason and logic wouldn’t go amiss either. All about the ball and not the player.
If you can’t contribute something useful, without resorting to foul language, silly childish personal attacks, or rabid lunacy, perhaps do us all a favour and refrain from posting…
August 4th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Well, this thread has hit rock bottom.
But let’s get back to the point at hand: what to do about child abuse?
The lefties here seem to think that Section 59 was a great thing. Yet it didn’t work here. Why not?
If we take the position that banning trivial and trifling force (no one wanted to retain “reasonable”, so Labour effectively was holding out to ban t&t – and succeeded) has nothing to do with this debate, we are left with the question “what now?”.
Jim has put forward a proposal that many agree with. The left here stands up and mocks him. That’s not constructive – put forward a counter-proposal if you don’t like his. If you’re so civilised, then win us to your point of view!
I agree quite that Jim’s writings can be a bit screwy, but on this one he’s making a case that a whole lot of people are agreeing with. Arguing as to who’s done more is irrelevant at this point – those things have clearly not worked, and people are getting sick of the leftist prescription of “more of the same, but much bigger”.
Again – put forward a proposal that will work, and stop abusing your opponents instead of trying to win them to your point of view.
August 4th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Roger – D4J may indeed by a bit of a bore at times, and his posts laden with emotional stuff – but that doesn’t give dickheads like cyrus the right to abuse him and name him. We are all able to post anonymously – that is our choice. Cyrus is playing games, and whilst I don’t support the nature of D4J’s responses, he is well within his rights to respond when provoked.
August 4th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Scrubone – I think you’re a little hard on yourself by claiming you represent the rock bottom of this thread. You also realise the Section 59 debate was about repealing a provision, eh? It wasn’t about creating something. You know that, eh?
August 4th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
I2: Burns/D4J outed himself on this Blog a while ago (and has done repeatedly and openly in other fora).
You know if he was a bit less of a toxic git, people might cut him a bit more slack. But when said toxic git starts mouthing off about law and order and the justice system it’s kind of natural that people might start opening up questions around his bona fides on these issues.
August 4th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
DDD
Not practicing
BA.LLB.(Hon) Stellenbosch
Why?
August 4th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Now yours DDD
August 4th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Bok: Thanks. It was a serious question. I just wanted to know how someone trained in the law could be so flippant about the legal implications of significantly changing the legal sanctions for child abuse. I excuse the chattering monkeys because they don’t understand the full and complex legal framework – but you do. You say you don’t care even if it were triple jeopardy. But of course you do. You know that if you were to try and accomodate this kind of regime in the existing system everything else would need to be shifted to balance it out. You know this.
By the way, I knew someone who went to Stellenbosch you’re all Mateys or something?
August 4th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
No I dont. You see this is where the bullshit keeps stopping any real advances being made. Double jeopardy has nothing to do with those who are guilty. only those who are found not guilty. So you cannot be tried twice for the same thing. However you are coming at this from the wrong side. If a murderer is found guilty in the states and sentenced to death, under your interpretation he has to be freed before being executed as being incarcerated is a form of punishment. It is a nonsense argument.
And we are talking about children here. Bullshit legalese is exactly the reason why we are getting no-where with the protection of children.
Your s59 arguments shows the same lack of practical application as your double jeopardy argument, which leads me to think that you are either regurgitating something you heard (party spin) or you are still at Varsity and simply repeating what a lecturer has told you, without you thinking it through. I am not having a go just making an observation.
Any-one who thought that S59 was anti child abuse 1) has not done the research, 2) Believed the hype and 3) are still party to child abuse.
The reason I say that is that after passing a stupid law, that serves no-one other than Bradford, you are now sitting back saying…we have done our bit…see we have passed laws stopping people hitting children..and yet they die.
And we are Maties a matey is what you call some-one you dont like.
August 4th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Bok: Where, pray tell, did I say S59 was anti-child abuse? I pointed out that it was the repeal of a defence used only by people who had assaulted their kids. You dispute that? And fuck the “party to child abuse” crap. I have kids and I love my kids. I also hate child abuse with a passion. That’s why I find the reaction to the removal of a defence used exclusively by those who have whacked their kids to be dripping with irony. I pointed to that irony. That’s all.
Seriously, matey is offensive? In Afrikaans or just a Uni thing?
August 4th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Matey is a new zealand term Matie is what you call some-one who went to Stellenbosch.
August 4th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Matey as in a diminutive of Mate
August 4th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
I don’t get the don’t like reference? You don’t like us Kiwis?
August 4th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
No, As far as I am aware , when you are being patronising to some-one you call them matey. Maybe I am wrong. Just the way we afrikaners talk I guess.
August 4th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Oh, I understand. As in “Look here, Matey”. Yeah, I suppose it does have a negative connotation (unless you’re a pirate, I suppose).
August 4th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
So that’s it. Call for sense, for ideas, and get abused by some smartass.
If you have a better idea than Jim, then give it. How hard is that?
Too hard apparently.
August 4th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
All this talk of Stellenbosch takes me back to those heady days when it was de rigeur to be quite rude about South Africans. Have you ever heard the Spitting Image song, Never met a nice South African? It was big here and in the UK. Another of life’s great ironies was many a card carrying member of the PC fraternity would, in one breath condemn South Africa’s policy of apartheid as being racist and then in the next breath say the most outrageously racist crap about Afrikaners or White South Africans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de6V90jT4SQ
August 4th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
It is hard, Scrubone. Breaking the cycle of abuse is one of those wicked problems that every government faces. I can tell you one thing, I can guarantee there is no single silver bullet solution. The whole go for the beneficiaries approach is a dull and as blunt as asking every woman between 16 and 65 three crappy questions. There are reasons why no country can claim to be free of child abuse. It’s because there is no real answer. I don’t think that the debate has been helpful. The debate tends to descend into people characterising the other side as being allied to child abusers. I think we all want the same thing…no child abuse. It’s just fucking hard to achieve that. It’s great to have ideas – but those ideas need to be tested.
August 5th, 2007 at 12:09 am
Selma claims its mens fault?
Nice to see your true colours there. Not surprising though
So are you saying that never in the history of NZ has a female ever ever performed wicked evil acts against any child, man or other women?
You are telling me that women are our saviour? Here to stop the evil man from his ways?
Sorry to disappoint you but your particular flavour of remedy is poison IMHO
Those that perform, assist and ignore such disgusting abuse and violence to any person are scum and also the likes of you Selma. The feminists who will use such tragedy for advancement of their cause or political point scoring and manuvering.
How low Selma? how far would you go to rid the world of bad bad man?
What a shocka but like I said previous, hardly surprising judging on everything you spew forth. The word venom comes to mind at the moment.
Women and Men and our beautiful children are the answer. Minus the venom and scum in our lives.
People
Hugs n Kisses
August 5th, 2007 at 5:19 am
Rodger and Selma -what can you say? No empathy for a little girl tortured to death just more platitudes about how child bashers etc. You two disgust me.
I’m in Pittsburgh at the moment and our friends over here cannot believe that these fucken animals are out on bail and that there is not a national outcry about this murder.
A friend, over here, has just had her exhusband sentenced for the ATTEMPED murder of her and her son. The ex got 27 -54 years in prison. That means he will serve a minimum of 27 years before being released.
New Zealand needs to start giving out similar sentences to make it obvious to animals like the ones involved in Nia’s case that they will be punished for behaviour such as this. We have had years of the going easy on offenders and its just not working. These people should be imprisoned for their natural lives. No release, no redemption. They have given up any rights they had by taking away Nias right to life.
When I look at my own children who are around Nia’s age I have to wonder how anyone could be so damaged as to want to harm them and so damaged as to defend them in the way that Rodger and Selma appear to be.
August 5th, 2007 at 7:42 am
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/a-nations-shame-as-tragic-toddler-loses-fight-for-life/2007/08/05/1185648213912.html
August 5th, 2007 at 7:46 am
Attn; Roger, Daley, cyrus, Brown , cabin boy and DDD and all the other twisted low life commie pooh face dogs .
You’re precious selfish control freak labour party has been so busy manipulating the system and covering up corruption from consummate liar MP’s so they can remain in a deluded utopian fairy state that they have failed to notice at the coal face, children are abused in a society where a mental PM denies the existance of an underclass?
It was preposterous for Helen Clark to say that , but then again what would I expect from a bilious bitch who called West Coasters -feral inbreds and Don Brash – cancerous , what a foul mouthed trollop !
I think her psychosis is contagious as most politicians are without a moral conscience because it goes with the job .
This poor girl , the culpable should have a forced lobotomy !
August 5th, 2007 at 7:48 am
Come on guys.
A 3 year old girl is murdered and tortured and its the Government’s fault?
While I can understand the “animals” tag reaction, it doesnt actually take us very far. After all those “animals” were once cute little three year olds too. So where is it going wrong?
National headline news in the country I am in at the moment? A fighting dog gets a reprieve from the Bundesgericht from being put down for biting after it was determined that it only attacked because the owner was behaving aggressively.
Yeap, front page news.
http://www.blick.ch/news/schweiz/kampfhunde/artikel67397
August 5th, 2007 at 8:18 am
Sean,
Some may argue that my truculence and tactless manner causes mayhem , however I am very committed to fighting child abuse head on and I am lost for an answer when people say it is not the governments fault.
I think they deserve the blame, as the recent UN roasting and the recent comments of Justice Hansen that the law needs a radical rethink indicate – it is their problem .
Unfortunately our politicians, the people we elect to fix problems like this are all from the gallery of the absurd unable to function and the sooner the penny drops about the absurdity of these nutbars the sooner as a society we can obiliterate child abuse, which is a sad indictment for us on the world stage . Bronze medal is something I am not proud of , are you ?
August 5th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Jimbo says:
More to the point, we want an immediate end to all the inducements and all the incentives that are available to those who visit hideous harm on children.
We want all the well-intentioned but shamefully administered unconditional taxpayer-funded assistance stopped! Immediately.
There is nothing new about child abuse in NZ. It didn’t start when the the dole was started in the 1930s or the DPB was implemented in 1974 nor did war widows inflict punishment on their children as a result of being in receipt of the widows benefit (now defunct). This is the inference of Jimbo’s post and what he thinks is the very simple cure to a complex social problem.
It is widely known that both Ron Mark and Pita Sharples were both abused as children. Yet when they were young there was no noise made about it. When they were young, girls who got pregnant were quietly whisked away on ‘holiday’ and either had an abortion or gave birth and had the child adopted out. Children who died as a result of beatings were reported as having had an ‘accident’. There was no national outcry, there were no internet blogs, there was no open consciousness about these things. What went on in the family was private.
We live in a different time. Nia Glassie’s death has nothing to do with the Labour government, nor with benefits (Nia’s mother was working), it is part of a cycle of behaviour that some individuals (like Mark and Sharples have broken) that is endemic in our society.
If Jimbo had anything of any merit to say he wouldn’t be just a comedian.
BTW chicken little, NZ has an imprisonment rate approaching that of the US. We are building new prisons and we have a shortage of cell space.
August 5th, 2007 at 8:58 am
Well said, Sean. D4J, get a life. I am not even a Labour supporter. This is the problem you and so many of the lesser endowed semi-trolls have on this forum: Anyone who has the audacity to challenge you is suddenly a Labour supporter. You stupid fuck. I would be saying EXACTLY the same thing if there was a National government in power. EXACTLY.
August 5th, 2007 at 9:01 am
A serious non-partisan question: Does anyone have any statistics to prove that incidences of child abuse have have risen sharply to so-called crisis proportions, or are we perceiving such to be the case because of sensationalist reporting…?
Don’t get me wrong, a single case of child abuse is a crisis to me, but I think some perspective is needed outside of media interests.
August 5th, 2007 at 9:06 am
I just read this article:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10455850
in which the following is reported
But ethnicity is not the prime predictor of child abuse; social class is. To put it another way, it is not Maori who are beating their kids; it’s poor people – and poor people are disproportionately Maori.
We may wring our hands and lament the epidemic of child abuse and child-killing, but the figures show that the number of children killed each year is actually dropping.
A former chief social worker for Child, Youth and Family, Mike Doolan, who analysed police data found the rate among Maori soared in the 1990s but that it has dropped dramatically since. The 90s began, not incidentally, with massive benefit cuts and, in the years that followed, sectors such as forestry and the railways – disproportionately high employers of Maori – saw huge job losses.
Much hand wringing and lamenting has gone on in this thread by people who do not appear to be even remotely close to the issue nor ever will be (Jimbo included).
Is that the kind of perspective you were seeking, Sam?
August 5th, 2007 at 9:23 am
DDD – you saying you are not a labour party supporter is like saying the twenty mothers who lost their children as state wards since Christmas in Canterbury is a great reflection on motherhood in general .
Maybe the $687 million spent by the Ministry of Social Undevelopment on itself would have been better spent at the coal face of social problems ?
August 5th, 2007 at 9:35 am
He He DDD. “Ummmm, Porc. that’s not double jeopardy. Read up a little before you play. ”
Thats a good way to dodge a question. So its OK to take a doctor’s livelihood away from them if they commit a crime but if a beneficiary commits a crime we give them legal aid and they keep their benefit, and of course they get let of making reparation because they’re “poor”.
No wonder we’ve got so many sociopathic child abusers out there.
August 5th, 2007 at 9:37 am
“Maybe the $687 million spent by the Ministry of Social Undevelopment on itself would have been better spent at the coal face of social problems ?”
Hang that man
August 5th, 2007 at 9:43 am
OK Kent, poor people are allowed to have a different moral code, kill kids and live by different laws. And all we need to do to stop these people we pay to abuse children is to pay them more. Thanks for clearing that up once and for all.
Only problem is that I have been at the coal face and I know that 99.99% of poor people would disagree with you.
Lets look at the household income of the latest tragedy shall we? 4 x dole + 1 x DPB + accomodation allowance no doubt. Errr wealthy people bring up their kids on less, let alone honest hard working poor people who you like to kick in the nuts.
Also a slight blip on the graph of rising temperatures does not make an ice age, mate.
August 5th, 2007 at 9:47 am
Kent and DDD
We now see that the mum has come out and said the following:”Nia’s mother, Lisa Kuka, said yesterday: “She suffered enough. She suffered enough. She suffered enough pain. I’m angry. There’s nothing being done about the mongrels that did this.
“I’ve never experienced a death – not my own [family]. I’m fresh off the boat with this kind of stuff. I’m going to lay her to rest. That will be my farewells to my daughter. I’m still here for her.”
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/a-nations-shame-as-tragic-toddler-loses-fight-for-life/2007/08/05/1185648213912.html
Yet we also hear that other children has suffered in her care.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10455891
This is exactly what posters here are talking about. Children for these people are not human beings, they are revenue streams. The more children the more revenue. DDD you talk about your children, is there any circumstance that you can imagine where any of your children would be treated even remotely cruelly? And then imagine not a one off occurrence, but a history. These people are treating their children the same way bad farmers treat their animals. There is no love or compassion here. It is simply a walking revenue stream. If the agencies had intervened Nia would be alive. How much indication is needed.
There was no love in this family for children, if the benefit for children (as well as children in their care being removed ) was stopped for this mother, do you think she would have had more children? Does she strike you as a nurturing caring type of person?
Kent there are in fact 3 studies out that says quite the opposite. But at the end of the day one child bashed is to many. This year Starship alone has taken in 273 cases of non accidental injuries. Yep a sharp drop indeed. You do not have a clue. Just one report:”There were 630 prosecutions and 254 convictions involving assaults on children in the 12-month period ending June 30.” (2006)
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78785.htm
In 1995 I was involved with the research for a documentary on child abuse, the figures were staggering, We were approached to help this year with a follow up project but had to walk away because of the nightmarish figures now. One should only have to deal with this once in your life. Now I would rather do something about it than make programmes about it.
August 5th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Porc ” hang that man ” , Ned Kelly said when he had to wear the vile rope tie “such is life .”
It’s all done by mirrors.
August 5th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Porc,
I am only relating what people who deal with these problems as a vocation have to say as a result of their investigations and with police statistics which are as scientific as we can get.
I don’t know where you get this: 4 x dole + 1 x DPB + accomodation allowance no doubt. from. I understand the mother was working over in Te Puke which was why the teenagers were looking after the child. If she was on the DPB maybe this wouldn’t have happened because she would have been present.
poor people are allowed to have a different moral code, kill kids and live by different laws.
Really, do you think that? Just because violence is more common amongst lower socio-economic people doesn’t mean they live by a different moral code.
And all we need to do to stop these people we pay to abuse children is to pay them more.
Poverty is not caused by govts not paying out enough in welfare. There are a multitude of factors that cause it.
August 5th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Mirrors alright. there’d be another 1/2 bil go down the gurgler on each of the health department bureaucrats and “social research” ala Mrs Clark which always toes the lefty line and never ever solves a single problem.
August 5th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Kent, you and your ilk are excusing sociopaths for being “depraved because they are deprived” This ridiculous social experiment of excusing people has gone on for decades (the quote is from West Side Story) – the same decades where it has got exponentially worse.
OK 4 x dole + 1 income +…
“who deal with these problems as a vocation” = are in the child abuse industry”. Social scientists usually spin their research towards the welfare state, so how can you even think of listening to it. Try listening to the police, doctors and nurses.
I think you are confusing poverty with immorality.
August 5th, 2007 at 10:45 am
a comment in a letter to editor in SST said it all really.
There are just as many ethnicities on as worse off or even more than maori yet they dont act like animals and treat their offspring worse than animals.
August 5th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Mark, please don’t get drawn into playing the game by their rules. It is not a Maori thing, it is a gravy train thing. The white Wellingotn liberals reserve seats on the gravy train by telling certain groups they are oppressed and are more deserving than the usual deserving poor. This instills in them a sense of all rights but no responsibility. In many cases the ticket on the gravy train takes the form of a child.
Maori as all other demographic groups, including the thousands of responsible solo parents, are apalled by these happenings – until we as a society can admit that it is rampant gime-ism irresponsibility that is to blame then nothing will change.
August 5th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Selma
How many welfare kids were beaten to death when Christine Rankin was the CEO at WINZ ?
Oh hang on, this thread is just a waste of time isn’t it because Jim Hopkins wears red glasses. Sorry – Move on.
August 5th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
kent once again grab statements out of the air, use it as fact and the then try and justify your position based on invented facts. Like me saying I am just going on what people who work with this every day say and based on police statistics, two babies get eaten every week by rabid hobbits.
I gave you an international report to refute what you say, now give me some evidence. Not so-called third hand made up BS
August 5th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Bok
Congratulations, you have engaged in an argument with an idiot and you didn’t let him drag you down to his level and beat you with his experience.
August 5th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Figures released by CYF to the Herald on Sunday last week show in the year to June 30, a total of 4672 cases of child abuse – 46 per cent of the overall total – came from Maori households, compared with 27.8 per cent (2828 cases) from Pakeha families. That number for Maori is up from 45.1 per cent the previous year. The figure for Pakeha is down from 30.7 per cent. Only 2.8 per cent of abused children are Asian and 16.4 per cent are Pacific Island.
“CYF refused to answer questions about what involvement it had had previously with Nia’s 34-year-old mother and also declined to comment on whether its protocols could be improved in the wake of the toddler’s death. All it would confirm was that the number of notifications it had received last week was up after the national outcry over child abuse – from 3500 calls a day to 3745 a day.”
Kent, lets say half of those are wrong numbers…leaves us with 1750
now lets say of that 2/3 are busybodies , vindictive calls that still leaves 583. Now lets say only 20% of that happens to be of any substance, that leaves 116 children getting the bash. Man you disgust me.
August 5th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Porc
The problem is the transition. Where we are today is pretty F##ked up and I don’t think many thinking adults disagree with that.
I agree the vote buying tactics of self serving Govt are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Chucking more money at people who don’t know how to manage the money they already get just makes the same mess bigger.
But try telling that to any poll damaged Govt in an election year!
August 5th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Enough this country needs to take the blinkers off & accept that Maori are statistically the highest % abusers & deal with it from the top. A non political body should take this on. Look what happened after the Kahui twins murder – the politicians put it in the too hard basket because it didn’t suit their agenda. Why not get the new Maori King to get involved?
I am sick of paying my taxes so they can be spent on paying scumbags to sit on their asses drinking and smoking dope all day, I’m sick of paying for kids to breed and sick of time and again some waste of space abuse and torture some innocent child, and sick of paying for that child to be in starship and sick of paying for the scumbag’s legal representation ( when I couldn’t afford that kind of counsel) Then if we get lucky we get to pay for the scumbag ‘holiday camp’ in jail for a laughable amount of time.
Make the bastards pay for the hospital treatment. Stop paying kids to have more kids who get neglected and the cycle continues and we end up with more crapheads in this country, until anyone with any sense says I’m out of here & NZ has gone to the dogs.
Link welfare to a specific contract that sets out minimum standards of behaviour – if these are broken the benefit stops. Pay kids not to have kids that they can’t afford and are inept emotinally & financially. Don’t pay for more than 2 children. Make the benefit tangible by not just giving money to be frittered away but food vouchers, second hand prams etc
Make beneficiaries look for work and if they refuse jobs take the benefit away.
Maybe someone should start a movement that nobody pays taxes until the government and Maori leaders have started some real initiative to start addressing this real problem
Stop the stupid 3 questions in hospital – if you must ask there should be a criteria where they are asked – of men & women – and where’s the question about children?
Profile the next serial abuser and get into that home quick smart. If 1/2 children are in care – make weekly checks on the toddler or take them away
This is sedriously pissing me off that politicians in this country can’t get off their political correct ass to do something positive. I’m ashamed to be a NZealander
August 5th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
roger nome
I think the issue here is the coroner’s in AKL. Clearly their policy of announcing that abuse has caused death is causing the problem to get worse. Wellington was recently saved from a spat of teenage suicides by simply removing the outspoken coroner.
August 5th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
good ideas virgin blogger.
Bok, but how many % were on welfare, had dysfunctional homes, had multiple convictions. Its just a spurious correlated variable aimed at getting the iwi elite more money. Dont play the game.
The Maori population is still probalby coping with the drift to the cities which explains their appearance in the real risk groups for child cruelty or violence or whatever – they’ve been listed ad infinitum – criminal histoires going back to pre-teens, welfare, drug and alcohol dependence, lenient justice system, etc.
The mother had 6 other kids and one was abuse by an aunt some years back.
Yes burt the transition is difficult – it will require a multiparty accord, protests and teargas and cyf/social welfare employees who aren’t scared of these people. We can do it the hard way now or leave it to our kids to do it the real hard way.
August 5th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
“Herald on Sunday reported one of Nia’s six siblings was seized by Child, Youth and Family (CYF) several years ago after suffering a non-accidental head injury.”
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/070804/3/1496.html
six!!!
August 5th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10455891
Oh maybe it wouldnt have happened if we’d paid her more…
August 5th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Reading through much of this thread, I am struck over and again, by the huge majority of right wing froth-heads who are stuck in the belief that the only valid response to violence and abuse….. is more violence and abuse.
Read your own words guys. While from one side of your mouth you are condemning abusers, at the same time from the other side you are using terms of abuse yourself and promoting violent vengeance as your solutions. You imagine that you can condemn violence, using terms of violence and then quite magically believe that some good will ever come of it.
I really do not think many of you actually care too much for the person of Nia Glassie, or any of the hundreds of other similar victims whose plight was not quite so dire as to have been the feeding frenzy of choice for our presstitute media this last week. What I am reading here is “Outraged of Epsom” listening to the echo’s of his own voice, a braying hooten discord of dark, turgid emotional outburst that uses the symbolic (and collective) guilt and shame of this child’s horrid fate, as a brass trumpet to sound off his own private frustrations with a world that has become too diversely boisterous to play nicely in the narrow corridors that were erected in his mind as a child.
As a nation we love violence. Our relationships and homes are full of it. Our school grounds have festered with it for generations. We sneakily admire bullies (and frequently promote them to be “managers”). Our national sports elicit their deepest response when the “contact” is brutal. We get drunk, do stupid things, fight, and tell breathless stories about it at work the next day. The best-selling movies and games we watch routinely entertain with a steady drama of mayhem and destruction. We vote for the political party that outbids the others in an insane “tough on law’norder” policy auction, and many, many of you quite openly believe that a John Key PM will restore a legal right to lay hands on your children in the name of “discipline”.
Most especially the right wing voter is in love with the idea of State sanctioned violence, brutal harsh life-long imprisonments with no hope of release, regular executions (some of you even fantasise that you would like to pull the trap-door levers in person!!) …and of course… an unwavering faith in all things military. Your vision of a nation is one united in fear and loathing of the outsider or the untermenschen. Lacking a war to cheer on (and how many of you sighed and moaned that you didn’t get the chance to “support our troops in Iraq”), the reaction has been indulge in ugly demonisation “scumlins and muzzies”, or turn upon the alienated and marginalised in our own towns and cities.
How easy for the socially comfortable to judge and condemn. Your thinking is locked into an atavistic and profoundly hypocritical cycle of hurt that perpetuates the very thing you profess to abhor.
The murderers of Nia Glassie have been arrested. They will be held accountable. As have been all child abusers and killers before them. But as you known full well, this action alone will not prevent the headlines of the last week being recycled in just another few months time. The torturers and murderers of the next innocent babies lives, right now, in a town near you. They most likely to be young, marginalized and quite disconnected from the norms of middle class New Zealanders. Put quite simply, they do not participate in our world, and have no investment in it. They understand at a deep gut level that they are not wanted, and in return they want nothing from us. Neither our noisy condemnation, nor our welfare, nor even our charitable efforts to “improve” their lot, impress them much. Not only are they poor in goods, but also they lack all social standing and dignity. With nothing to loose, with no sense of shame, nothing much restrains them. The result is ignorance, a brute violence that permeates their lives physically and emotionally like the stink of stale smoke and booze, they are the natural fodder of gangs, the young men garner long criminal records and the young women fecklessly breed children into the same dead end lives of their parents. This is the result. Now to deal with the cause.
The time for blame making is over. The time has arrived for the nation as a whole to collectively repudiate violence in all it’s forms, to accept the challenge of honestly examining our own consciences, beliefs and actions, and however slowly and imperfectly, set aside the ancient instincts that fuel our fears. God judges a nation, by how it treats the least of its peoples. If my use of the word God is not to your taste, I make little apology… feel free to substitute whatever humane and enlightened impulse motivates you.
If we had the humility to actually ask the people who work in our schools, Youth Courts, CYP Service… the Celia Lashlie’s of this world… we would discover that all the rational, tough-minded strategies to turn young boys away from crime are well-known. If we had the courage to empower Maori with the mandate and resource to reach out to every one of their own young women, to educate, encourage and protect them, to reach out across the deep class and tribal rifts within their own communities, and actually DO whanau instead of so often talking about it, their babies would grow up in their mother’s love instead of her drug-addled indifference.
If we listened to Tariana Turia’s real message, about how colonized peoples everywhere in the world have been crushed by a sense of worthlessness and sense of irreplaceable loss, we might better respect those many Maori have made the Herculean effort to stand tall under such a burden, and judge less harshly those who have failed.
And if instead of dismissing him as “left wing”, we honestly read Chris Trotter when he tells us to stop confusing the description of the problem (and the guilty emotions it arouses within us), with the causes of it, then we will be taking the first steps towards changing, firstly and primarily our own hearts… and then inevitably the communities we live in.
August 5th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
What’s your point Redrag?
You would be the first person to say that if we give overseas aid we must also be politically involved to make sure that those countries do not abuse our generosity by leaving totalitarian evil regimes in power. Al we are asking is the same consideration for our domestic charity. And it is charity.
We give until it hurts. We see our children with $50K debts to go to university which represents only 2 years tax. My children suffer. Graduates in this country earn bugger all – it will take them 10 years to pay off that debt. While trying to save the deposit on a house we will be telling them to wait until they can afford it until they start a family. They will be paying tax in the highest bracket to pay for kids to have kids. All of this against a background that we have been promised “this will solve the teenage pregnancy problem”, “life in porison will replace the death penalty”. “the social indicators will improve” if we spend more – well we’re near 50% of gdp and nothing yet.
The lefts quadruple standards are standing out magnificently here. So please if you have a solution to these problems please share them.
August 5th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Well spoken, RedRag. If the likes of virginblogger had their way, the deprived would have little choice but to turn more to crime to pay for their bread or their vices or whatever they spend money on. NZ would become more like Mexico or South America where prisons are over crowded hovels in which the inmates rule, where rich people can expect their children to get kidnapped in return for ransom and private militias are not unusual.
People with substance abuse problems and psychological disorders tend not to be CEOs or entrepreneurs with lots of money. They drift down the socio economic ladder and many end up on the street. Paying them benefits is a cheaper option to imprisonment or to dealing with the crime they would otherwise be totally dependent on. Because the welfare system fails one or two people does not mean the whole system is a failure. Similarly, because one or two people shoplift does not mean that our retail system is a failure.
Right wingers are supposed to be into individual responsibility, yet on this thread you are dead keen to blame the govt. The people responsible for this are the four or so people that Red Rag has pointed out are going to be put before the court. They, not the government, social scientists, Maori, or whatever, are responsible for the death of this child. End of story.
August 5th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Far from end of story Kent. One of the main purposes of government is to protect its citizens. it is failing at that.
And by saying these people will be dealt with is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff and oh dont we know how much the left loves to beat us with that stick. In fact the whole thing is so rich because you guys are the first to scream it’s the government’s fault most of the time (second only to it’s the employers fault)
“Paying them benefits is a EXPEDIANT option to imprisonment or to dealing with the crime they would otherwise be totally dependent on. ”
Kent you seem to think that welfare is a career choice, here to stay and designed to help the individual. this is not an isolated case! Government policies like welfare are meant to solve problems – its meant to be part of a bigger picture to solve the teenage pregnancy problem, to solve the problems as to why they cant work, to solve the recidivist crime problem. government policies are supposed to make society better, not worse.
August 5th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Porcupine,
I’ll give you credit for being one of the more authentic right wing voices in here, so I would have hoped that my point was not so completely lost on you.
You are correct. Unconditional and unlimited charity is an unwise thing that inspires little self-respect in the recipient, nor much respect for the giver. Neither is material poverty alone the sole predicator of dysfunction and crime.
The real cause is a poverty of values.
When I say that I’m thinking of old-fashioned words you don’t hear spoken in public these days. Virtues like; courtesy, modesty, dignity, respect, thrift, loyalty, generosity, integrity, compassion, forgiveness, grace….radiance of spirit. Our political leaders have neglected them (although the Greens have tried their best not to), our business leaders pay precious little homage to them, our sports heroes are only heroes as long as they keep winning, and many, many of the people I rub shoulders with each day, exhibit little ambition beyond a desire for comfortable life filled with shopping and entertainments. Try saying the word “grace” at morning tea tomorrow and see what I mean.
Our television and movies portray characters with the basest and vilest of motives, and teach us that the answer to any problem is to blow it away with as much splatter as possible. We wallow in this stuff, and then proclaim that when we get up, none of it has stuck. Well it has. New Zealand stinks of violence.
Not just the violence of fists and boots, but with words, betrayals and belittlements from the very top of our society down. Our political system is fundamentally based on the notion of confrontation. Our economic system is not called a “rat race” for nothing. Our Women’s Refuges are never less than overflowing. Our churches have utterly failed to unite people in faith and at every turn we focus on our differences and divisions, sedulously promoting self-interest with little regard to anyone else’s.
If I paint an unlovely picture, then consider how many of us New Zealanders like what they see even less. They numb themselves with alcohol and drugs; they go mad; they despairingly take their own lives in world record numbers.
Yet we are better than this. I know we are. I know of many deeply inspiring people, many from the most ordinary walks of life who have turned away from guilt and fear and in their everyday actions they make a difference. People who in their own unspectacular understated way put into action the virtues I mentioned above. I am not necessarily thinking of people who attend a church, although some do. I am not thinking of PC “do-gooders”, although some are. These people seek to reach out across divisions, they listen and consult honestly, they express themselves modestly and with humour and warmth, they give of their time without hope of personal gain, they work to solve their own problems, and yet will gladly aid another person to help themselves. These are the people who keep NZ ticking, they are involved, they participate, they lead groups, and they make changes. And our media almost universally ignore them.
The real solution to the disaster that Nia Glassie represents will come from our hearts. Not our pockets. I hear when you say that we “give until it hurts”. Throwing money alone at the problem of the underclass has not made it go away. Why? Because it us who has made them. With our indifference, our fears and timorous self-centeredness. You are right. We cannot pay to make them go away. Nor do I think that any amount of “righteous anger” can somehow eradicate them.
Anorexia is the tragic illness that occurs when the natural human appetite is so starved, so suppressed that the body eventually consumes itself. In a sense the underclass we are talking about is trapped in the same “anorexia of respect”. Treated as worthless for long enough, the victim believes it, and behaves worthlessly. In the end these brute, often criminal creatures that make up our underclass will stop being scum, because they want to. They will want to break the intergenerational cycles of dependencies and dysfunction because the will have the hunger and ambition to do so.
August 6th, 2007 at 7:18 am
Exodus 21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
Leviticus 26:22 I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children , and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate.
Numbers 14:18 The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
Deuteronomy 28:41 Thou shalt beget sons and daughters, but thou shalt not enjoy them; for they shall go into captivity.
Joshua 10:30 And the LORD delivered it also, and the king thereof, into the hand of Israel; and he smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that were therein; he let none remain in it ; but did unto the king thereof as he did unto the king of Jericho.
Jeremiah 6:11 Therefore I am full of the fury of the LORD; I am weary with holding in: I will pour it out upon the children abroad…
And so it goes on….
RedRag, are these the kind of values that “we’re missing” in Society? Sounds to me that the Bloke you’d like us to say Grace to is the ultimate child abuser and sadist. But hey don’t take it from me take it from the inerrant books written about him!
August 6th, 2007 at 8:19 am
DDD,
1. Like you I have little patience with the idea that ancient literature handed to us through hundreds of generations and a myriad translations could be “inerrant”. The Bible is a collection, a very eclectic one. It conveys many human notions about God, but apart from a very few inspired passages, it is not the word of God.
2. You have cast your net very narrowly and selectively. How about googling a little wider and see if you can source this?
“O Son of Spirit!
My first counsel is this: Possess a pure, kindly and radiant heart, that thine may be a sovereignty ancient, imperishable and everlasting. ”
Religion is not faith, and neither faith religion. They are two very different things.
August 6th, 2007 at 11:29 am
DDD I will not be so polite. That was a disgusting cheap shot and you should be ashamed, but I suspect you cuddle and flaunt your atheism because it is the only thing that gives your life purpose. I happen to be an atheist but I still live by the good teachings of Christianity because they make logical and emotional sense to any thinking human being.
Redrag, we are in agreement. I only rail against short sentences because we need to fix the immediate problem of protecting people and start on the path to an egalitarian non-violent society. I didn’t say back to but in many ways we should learn from our forbearers. We thought we were so smart and thoroughly modern, as our young friend DDD does, when we ridiculed tipping your hat for a woman and letting her go through the door first or standing up for an old man on a bus. But of course like so many things we have “deregulated” those regulations were developed over a long human history for a purpose. The purpose was examples of how you could act nicely to your fellow man and practice them on a daily basis; and practice makes perfect.
So you have stated the long term solution with which I totally agree – we must become a non-violent society and lead by example, not by white papers. Legislating for kindness and consideration has had a terrible unforeseen consequence.
Bullying in schools which now starts at the primary level would be one example of what we must tackle. When people are bullied they react by developing a tough facade which may then translate into violence itself and the building of a wall around oneself that no-one can penetrate. If people feel safe they are likely to treat others better.
There is no simple answer, but as you say, most people should be able to see the way forward. Changing our outdated adversarial political system where points are scored by verbal violence and by how many underclass groups you can find to feel sorry for would go a long way towards getting us on that road to a non-violent society.
August 6th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Oops I now see the irony in what I said – apologies DDD for dropping that bomb today
but I hope you get the idea that you comments were somewhat inflammatory.
Perhaps, along with practice by repitition, we should use the other great educational aid – learning from our mistakes.
August 6th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
If that’s your idea of a bomb don’t go to Baghdad, you’ll shit yourself.
August 6th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Don’t worry I’m and Aucklander
August 6th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
I like being called young too. I had one of those Big birthdays recently. I like the fact someone thinks I am young still.
August 6th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Porcupine,
I think that you will find that society is getting better. What has changed is that people talk about things that they didn’t used to. Fifty years ago if a child presented at hospital with fatal injuries that were suspicious, it would have been hush hush. The child would have died as a result of an “accident”. The same was true with all the social ‘problems’ like teenage pregnancies (hush hush), bullying (be a man and take it!!), and suicide (more hush, although that still applies).
As I said the benefit system was set up to do a job, including providing payouts for the unemployed which enables businesses to restructure and be more flexible, and providing competition for wages, thus keeping them down. The DPB prevents women and children (and men) from being in coercive/violent/destructive living arrangements. The sickness benefit is a cheaper and more constructive alternative to the asylums and hospitals that used to house the sick and invalid. The fact that some people abuse this system is a reality that all systems are exposed to.
Every time someone on a benefit does something awry we have the likes of Muriel Newman chirping up that benefits need reform. There is no equivalent person complaining that the employment system needs reform whenever a fully employed person commits a heinous crime like the Manawatu father (Lundy) who killed his wife and daughter in 2000.
August 6th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Kent, you have some good points. I hate to think though that benefits are for the expediency of business to restructure. I am an equal opportunities hater of murderers so I have jumped up and down about Lundy.
Mainstreaming is in many cases (note I don’t see all!) a have concocted governments because there is a lot more employment opportunities and baby kissing substitute votes there than in institutional care and has generally hurt the people who it was supposed to help, and our pockets massively.
August 6th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Porc,
You imagine what would happen every time a business made people redundant if there wasn’t the dole. Businesses with a conscience would keep people on in redundant positions simply to keep them from poverty (which was often the case in the time when employees could expect to work for the same employer all their lives). Restructuring and laying off staff used to be painful for both employee and employer. Now with a generous welfare system it is a breeze. Employers can act with a clean conscience knowing that employees will be looked after until they get their next job. Employees can leave without being scared of not having money to buy groceries the following week.
Business requires about 6% unemployment to maintain wages at a low enough level and to provide a pool of labour to take on and release as required. The current low unemployment is actually a brake on our economic growth.
Not sure what you mean in your second paragraph
August 6th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Answer to the ist paragraph: Get another job? No, I hear what your saying and have not thought of it that way. My initial impression is that is is expediency gone mad, but will have to dwell on it a while.
My second paragraph was in response to that you seem to be suggesting that the sickness benefit is a way of mainstreaming sick people rather than instituionalising them. aminstreaming of many psych patients and slow learners has been an overlooked unmitigated disaster and to a certain extent could be contribution to the topic of this thread – a violent society.
August 7th, 2007 at 7:56 am
The term commonly used for closing down places like Lake Alice and putting the patients into the community is called deinstitutionalization.
I do think it is a better way of dealing with the sick: they are likely to be more adjusted because they are in a community, not cloistered away in an “asylum”, from which some could escape and wreak havoc anyway if they were so inclined.
I don’t think that our society is any more violent than it has ever been. Humans (mainly men) are innately violent. Look at our national game. Imagine living in 1942 or being sent to Iraq tomorrow as a GI.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:07 am
Murder was murder in the past as it is now Kent. if someones loved one got killed it was investigated. So please humasn nature may have been as violent but it was kept under control.
Luckily for all of us not all menatal patients have been deinstitutionalised. For some it may be the better way to go, for all it is the horrendously more expensive way to to.
I give you an example of mainsteaming of people with learning disabilities. My wife has worked at a school which caters for a wide diversity socioeconomically, ethnically and learning abilities. However since mainstreaming it is a parent’s right to send there severely handicapped shild to that school instead of a special school. These severely learning impaired children progress through the school at the same rate as any other child, no matter how poor their ability is.
This has necessitated the setting up of a whole department to cater for them and many resources have been diverted into them. These children will never ever hold down jobs. the scholl used torun a fantastic program halping the slow learners in the bottom classes (who will eventually need to hold down a job) but all that has had to go by the wayside.
This new system has severely disadvantages the bottom classes at the school along with disadvantaging the learning impaired children it was supposed to help, who could have been in a specialist school recieving specialist help. The whole thing is also at extraordinary expense to the taxpayer.
This would b e a typical outcome of mainsteaming.
August 7th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Porc,
So please humasn nature may have been as violent but it was kept under control. What kind of control do the events of WWI and WWII represent?
My children go to a school, like all others with a special needs department. As with deinstitutionalization, this means that these people learn in the same environment as the rest of the community. The whole thing is also at extraordinary expense to the taxpayer applies as much to doing it within mainstream schools as it does with having them in a special school, in fact the latter is probably more expensive.
I have no idea whether or not mainstreaming disadvantages anyone, but it has not been an issue as far as I know in recent history.
August 7th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
“but it has not been an issue as far as I know in recent history.”
It one hell of an issue but as always we are too PC and polite to bring it up. It is ludicrous to put more resources into people who are never going to be able to look after themselves than the normal learners at the lower end of the normal distribution curve who must one day pay taxes to keep the disabled. These disabled people are getting one-on one attention all day whcih is extremely expensive. Unfortunately their parents opt out and often seem to live in a fantasy world that their kids will “one day come right”. I apologise if your are in that situation but eventually reality must prevail.
As nasty as I can be, even I am too polite to hijack the autism thread and ask the difficult question(s). Ok sure, if its a cahrity and people give voluntarily thats fine, but to have our compulsory taxes go disproportionately into the most hopeless cases is very frustrating.
August 8th, 2007 at 7:47 am
It may be an issue for you but it hasn’t attracted the attention of the media.
even I am too polite to hijack the autism thread
Be careful, here Porc. You appear to know little about autism. Many kids revert back to normal before adulthood to lead productive lives. Many geniuses who make ground breaking research lie within the autistic spectrum, which also includes Aspergers.
The more we find out about autism, the more we are likely to find ways to treat it successfully. That is why we spend so much money on it.
August 8th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
When I talk about learning disabiites I’m not always talking about autism.
Funny those geniuses did well before autism was trendy. But as usual we’ll throw money at them and that will fix it – they’ll go away.
Its also really funny how many of these parent’s geniuses seem to fade away never to be heard of again. I know it must be very difficult comming to terms with a disabled child, but I would have thought it was better for all concerened to face reality than to live on false hope. Just a personal outlook on life there.