Laws calls for cash to sterilise
The Dom Post reports:
Wanganui Mayor Michael Laws says giving the “underclass” money to be sterilised will address our child abuse problem.
Critics last night labelled the suggestion “totalitarian”, “draconian” and “reprehensible”, and questioned his appropriateness as a city leader.
Mr Laws said the children of beneficiaries, drug addicts and criminals had little chance in life. He offered his observations after he was approached for comment on the death of two-year-old Wanganui boy Karl Perigo-Check, the son of a convicted murderer and gang member.
“If we gave $10,000 to certain people and said ‘we’ll voluntarily sterilise you’ then all of society would be better off. There’d be less dead children and less social problems.
It is a fact there are some people who are not fit to be parents. And when they do have more children, the kids get removed from them at birth. I’m not sure how many are in this category, but there are a few.
I doubt anyone sensible advocates compulsory sterilisation. No state should ever have that power. Even the thought makes me shudder.
But if a parent has a history of child abuse (for example), should there be an incentive for him or her to get sterilised – such as a cash payment as Laws suggests?
Personally I don’t think it is a good idea. For one thing people can end up as parents, even if sterilised. They partner up with someone who had kids for example.
But also it is still pretty creepy to have our own version of China’s toasters for sterilisation policy. Now sure China was aimed at everyone – to keep overall population down. But I don’t think bribing our own citizens to get sterilised if a great innovation.
Also many sterilisations can be reversed anyway.
But Laws is right that something needs to be done. He hasn’t got the solution, but the status quo is not acceptable.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Compulsory sterilisation will come one day. The costs that some people are willfully imposing on society are just too high.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
October 30th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
And to think I once had respect for this blog…
October 30th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
it’s not radio-ratings week is it..?
you can usually set yr laws-outbursts to them..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 30th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
This quote is mostly correct. Although his (final) solution is idiotic.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Hitler tried to purify his race in his heil day…! but it’s during time of economic depression that rear people’s true colors. It is the material development that has taken hold in between transitions, Socialism upholds Totalitarian rule based on ethnicity, numer, and resources. Check it Socialism in Totality
October 30th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
The idea reminds me of the eugenics experiments of the early 1900s. Perhaps the most hopeless parents could be offered voluntary sterilisation. As these people are often so shallow a bribe might easily convince them.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
So all that ‘Gang Batches’ and ‘H’ spelling are race based huh heh heh heh
October 30th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Laws is wrong. 10K is far too high. $500 would do it. The rest of the cash would go towards appointments with a govt shrink etc & the surgery itself. People get a vastectomy or tubes tied voluntarily everyday, so what is the problem with state funding for it, if the recipients are sane & able to volunteer themselves? As DPF said the proceedures can be reversed, but at the patients own cost.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Why Blackmoss? David hasn’t supported what Laws has said. Just highlighted that there are issues in society that are causing people to suggest this type of solution.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Does the ’slippery slope’ argument get a look in here?
Who defines an individual as unworthy? On what criteria? Would those criteria shift as the undermenche (and yes, I use that term with intent) were dealt with?
Scares the crap out of me, and IMO efforts towards a solution should be about fixing the problem (drug abuse, parenting skills, poverty) rather than a draconian (a.k.a. ratings driven) suggestion such as this from Lhaws.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
should we sterilise the greedy troughers..?
i mean..we don’t want their children to grow up like them..
do we..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 30th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Flag offering cash
They say Lotto is a tax on stupidity, and if we don’t want stupid people breeding, then offer a Lotto ticket each week for a year
October 30th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
I don’t see the problem. Offer an incentive to stop them breeding. The current incentives to breed feral kids are too attractive. However, I would abate the amount as the person gets older. Say $20,000 at 18, dropping a few grand each year or so thereafter.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
It’s a worthwhile idea. VOLUNTARY sterilisation by the fiscally responsible happens today, subsidising VOLUNTARY sterilisation is just encouraging responsible behaviour.
It would require an age limit (at least 25). Proof of mental health you could probably skip as they are likely to be the at risk parents. The subsidy should relate to the amount of children the person already had. Perhaps 10,000 for a 30 year old with no kids, and 2,000 for a 50 year old with 6 kids.
I suspect it could have an overall negative effect as STD rates could possibly increase.
As I understand it, Bangladesh has achieved significant impact on family sizes through family planning, I don’t expect they used an idea like this though.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Even better idea — let’s sterilize all poor people! In a generation, everyone left will be richer, highly-educated, and highly productive. The country will hum along, and we’ll annihilate the wage gap with aussie, once we get rid of everyone unable to earn at least $40k a year.
What could possibly go wrong?
October 30th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
There’s a big difference between providing money to help voluntary sterilisation on the one hand and compulsory sterilisation, Nazi style, on the other hand.
If Laws had said money should be able for unfortunates who want long-term contraception but can’t afford it, people would get a better grasp of what he suggests.
Many long-term sterilisation techniques are reversible, eg vasectomies can be. Contraception is just short-term sterilisation.
Unfortunately, genetics and inheritance play a big, but of course not total, role in attributes such as intelligence and violence. The effect of liberal sentiments and the welfare state is to ignore the contributions of genetics to each of us.
We are on a road to trouble as our society encourages higher-intelligence and less violent people to either refrain from having families at all or to have tiny families, while at the same time setting up systems to allow the irresponsible, the violent, and vulnerable, and let’s face it on average the less intelligent, to have children prolifically, usually without the benefit of stable family relationships. Look at Kyle Chapman with the number of children he has by different mothers. The welfare state and the flawed views of liberals provide the wherewithal for him to behave like this. A worse example is the apology-for-a-man who murdered the little girl in Hawke’s Bay and was convicted many years later, thanks to DNA. He has left a trail of children by different mothers in small towns around the North Island. IF the mothers had access to cheap or free long-term contraception many of them would not have played a role in passing on the genes of that ratbag.
It’s cruelty to children to allow such reckless behaviour by people who are either unfit to be parents or reject the role. Their kids usually have bleak childhoods, are exposed to poor even twisted nurturing, almost predestining them to keep the cycle going.
Lee Kuan Yew in the brilliant creation of first-world Singapore out of a third world colony in such a short time, introduced special measures to encourage intelligent young people to marry and have kids. This extended to social clubs, and relaxing rules so that women in professional occupations etc could more easily marry foreign male equivalents who were happy to settle in Singapore.
Laws will likely be crucified today by the chattering classes on state TV and the other mainstream media owned by absentee foreigners. Their alternative is still more welfare and counsellors. Fuckwits.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Another angle to this – what would be the effect on population? To maintain or grow the population what would be needed? Give incentives to the overclass to breed more? Increase immigration?
But probbaly not necessary – contraception is easy to get now, for those that give a toss.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
It is probable that the uptake amongst the middle and upper classes would be highest. They are the ones that are paying for it to be done at the moment.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
It is the cowardice of the ‘liberal’ amongst us that will allow our society to deteriorate because they are unable to find room to help in their particular brand of morals.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Trouble with that is many of these young people have already had 3 or 4 kids by then. You have to get them when they are 18, and only have bred one or two.
Just to remind people, laws did not say sterilization should be compulsory, he said incentivise it.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
RE: Sonny Blount
Well perhaps I should explain myself, it was a visceral response really, kind of like if I was at a party and I came across this conversation, I would probably just leave not wanting to be around such people.
IMO, DPF didn’t go near far enough in stopping the potential conversations that have predictably already started on this blog — we now have people advocating eugenics in 2009 in NZ on a public forum (welcome back to the table ideas from Enoch Powell, Hitler…). I agree, DPF does disagree with Laws and says a little about why this isn’t a particularly nice thing to go into, I just don’t believe that Laws ideas even deserve consideration.
It’s kind of giving me the suspicion that the people here do not actually really care about the ‘underclass’ except for the fact they’re realizing they’re having to pay for it. So their answer, stop paying for it by removing the problem literally at its source — i.e. birth. I mean, is this best idea people can come up with since Key has made this a high-enough profile issue for the right wing to think about? This simplistic idea to deal with a complex problem. I’m grossly generalizing, of course, but I’ve heard no ideas around improving funding to some of the sex/violent offending schemes that have shown some efficacy, or increasing the number of social workers or their salaries, or suggesting that more mentoring programs be funded, or any highlighting of some effective programs that might be running across the country. I see little awareness of the cycle of poverty, or the historic effect of colonization on indigenous people’s for example. Mostly I see people who just want these problems to go away so they can be rich in peace (20% flat tax, cut this scheme, privatize this, reduce expenditure on that, get rid of benefits…) Others make statements which suggest they think certain races are intrinsically weaker and now we’re seeing that these people think we should sterilize these races.
What about some nuance to put Laws comments in perspectives:
- Lots of children in NZ are abused in a myriad of ways by all different races and people from all classes — do we sterilize all these people?
- 1 in 4 woman ( about 1 in 5 men possibly) have been sexually abused by someone at some stage in their life on average across the races, quite often by a family member. Can you imagine in these family cases where the parent is a perpetrator, what it would be like to remove all their younger siblings into non-existence, or if an uncle or aunty, to remove their cousings?
- Not all children that are victims of violent abuse go on to perpetrate the same crimes or to the same degree — some people rise above it, and more people would with external help.
- Is it acceptable for a person in public office who has blatantly painted a picture of child abusers as violent brown people to then suggest sterilization of these people.
- Is it acceptable for a high-profile political blogger to open up the floor to eugenics conversations.
The ability to rationalize purely by logic alone without recourse to other ideas like empathy, or morals is really a definition of psychopathy. I concur with philu that if we sterilized the richest 10%, while we would lose some good souls, we would on average make NZ a ‘nicer’ place to live. People that care more about money than people don’t come up with very nice ideas.
[DPF: What wonderful bigotry. That "rich" people are not nice. You have revealed more about yourself than you probably thought possible]
October 30th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Why do some of the people condemn the message here. As a society we use financial incentives to modify behaviour every day. Lower premiums for good insurance history, lower registration fees for responsible dog owners, subsidies for people to put their offspring into the indoctrination centers (preschools), earlybird parking in central citie, preventative health care etcetera. What is so wrong with offering failed, troubled or otherwise vulnerable parents sterilisation that they otherwise would not consider as an option because of ignorance or cost. Sounds like something to seriously debate to me.
October 30th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
I agree with Laws.
If his solution is so obviously wrong, then lets hear what you think the correct solution would be.
We simply can not afford to keep spending the kind of money that we currently do on welfare.
This won’t solve all our welfare woes but it will certainly prevent more unwanted and unloved children being brought into the world and it sure as hell beats the current option of tut tutting about the latest horror story of abused/murdered children and then carrying on as usual.
October 30th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
The real problem isn’t the wrong people are having too many children – rather it is the people who should be producing the next generation are not.
Still what can you expect from a culture that emphasizes “my rights” over “my responsibilities” and which endorses the slaughter of 17000 odd infants per annum.
It depressing really watching our elite commit cultural suicide and this idea is just a symptom of this malaise – producing the next generation just gets in the way of satisfying our immediate hedonistic desires.
October 30th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
While I disagree with Lhaws comments I do think that they are reflective of a growing sense of frustration that our children are not being adequately taken care of by various elements of society.
I disagree with you Whoops that the problem can be fixed by addressing problems like drug abuse, parenting skills poverty etc. These things don’t cause kids to be neglected, abused or killed, these are things that people use to try and justify why they’ve chosen to allow themselves (or others) to do these things to children.
I am a true believer to the old adage that children are a society’s most valuable resource which is why I believe that the state should provide any means to assist parents. Free education courses, free voluntary sterilisations, methods to voluntarily surrender the care of children to the state, vouchers for childrens toys, food whatever, I’m happy to have taxes raised to fund these programs. However for those who still choose to commit (knowingly allow) crimes against children then the only appropriate punishment is death.
October 30th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Just to remind, he also referred to the “underclass” and said “children of beneficiaries, drug addicts and criminals had little chance in life”. Targeted incentives? “All those in the underclass drop your daks and lie on the table, you can pick up your carton of ciggies and crate of beer on the way out”?
October 30th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
It comes down to money. You want a huge bestial underclass sucking the life out of the country, let’s carry on as we are, incentivising the breeding of children in lieu of ambition and work. If you don’t then you have to deincentivise that same breeding. Money for sterilization is one way. Cutting welfare is another.
October 30th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
All ambulance at the bottom of the cliff ideas.
While there are some effective people and programs out there. On a general society-wide level do you have any good data that suggests as we have increased our spending in these areas, negative outcomes for people have reduced?
You don’t really understand what those words all mean do you?
And those 1 in 4 or 5 women and men are amongst our doctors, engineers, and entrepreneurs. It’s possible that you don’t understand the significance of those statistics.
One person may have more reason to steal than another, one person may have more reason to murder than another. It does not matter, they are still to be held accountable to the same law and expectations. This is fair and reasonable.
This statement is racist, bigoted, and hypocritical. You are an intellectual peanut. Reread your first paragraph.
October 30th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
” The real problem isn’t the wrong people are having too many children ”
No its not actually.
The root cause of all the social illnesses we now suffer from is the removal of moral constraints from society. Without these voluntary barriers to destructive behaviour, society will breakdown.
The question that needs answering is “how why and when were these moral constraints removed?”.
How- they were removed incrementally by means of a Gramascian style assault on our Jeudo Christian heritage. Popular culture, media and the education system (particularly universities) were all perverted from their real purpose and became instruments of social change.
When- more difficult to answer, but given that welfare roles, sexual promiscuity, violent crime and various other negative social factors all began increasing back in the sixties and have continued a steady climb since then, its a fair guess to say it started somewhere in the late 50s to late 60s.
Why is the most easily answered. It was all done to bring power to a specific political group- socialists, liberals, communists, social democrats, fake environmentalists, fake feminists and various other anti-capitalist movements can all be grouped under one heading and that is Progressives, and at the core of the Progressive plan was the breaking down of the existing social structure and its replacement with an easily manipulated and controlled socialist society.
October 30th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
the idea won’t work as no Party would support it, maybe ACt, but what he (Laws) has done, once again, is get a real issue out there and debated.
If it was possible, then that would reduce potential Labour voters from about 2029 so I would support it.
October 30th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
SonnyBlount,
U nearly make a point, I just can’t see it. anyways I’m out — life’s too short buddy, I’ve got all the info I need about people in this forum. If you ever understand, think of me…
(Dramatic huh!) DPF: Nice to each other, but not nice in a deeper sense perhaps
October 30th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Interesting post RB, until the last paragraph. Are you suggesting that Jim Anderton is behind all this? Did he dupe hippies into growing their hair long way back then? Did he start up the gangs too? And remove import restrictions from condoms? The cunning old bugger. He must be just about ready to declare his hand, I presume he has put Labour into disarray creating the power vacuum he needs to step into.
October 30th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Does anyone else see the irony of the latest tragic child death – the son of a Mongrel Mobster jailed for murdering a child meeting a violent death? Though I wouldn’t wish the death of a child (in any circumstances) on anyone, there does seem to be a perverse message in the wasted lives of Karl Check and Karl Check Jnr – family violence is endemic in New Zealand, and will pass from generation to generation unless somebody does something to break the cycle.
Laws’ suggestion may not be the answer, but full marks to him for starting the debate.
October 30th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Absolutely. And it’s now happening in developing nations where the declining birth rate is being held up as a great thing because it lowers demand on natural resources. Never mind the fact, as we’re seeing with long-time developed nations, that the excessively-suppressed birthrate leads to fewer productive workers and taxpayers. This diminishing group is expected to pick up a bigger share of the tax-burden of caring for those for whom work is just a little inconvenient, and for those who have rightly done their share and would like to retire.
October 30th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Oh Rand…more collectivist drivel…
“I am a true believer to the old adage that children are a society’s most valuable resource which is why I believe that the state should provide any means to assist parents.”
Translation: Politicians should steal,via IRD,the property of others to fund my wet dreams of how children should be raised.What…? some people don’t have or want children and wish to keep and spend their money their way…?Atheist lefty scum!
” Free education courses, free voluntary sterilisations, methods to voluntarily surrender the care of children to the state, vouchers for childrens toys, food whatever, I’m happy to have taxes raised to fund these programs.”
Translation: I am happy for others to pay for my desires wheather they want to or not.
Kindly take your child rearing socialist fantasies and shove them up your totalitarian date.
October 30th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
I’ve often commented on this blog that the type of solution prescribed by LAWS is the most logical solution to the Breeding for cash solution, indeed it reverses the process, victimises nobody,and will result in a more orderly prosperous society. A lot has to give to reduce Government expenditure by $250 million per week, this would help a lot.
October 30th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Sterilisation; how to commit political suicide. Laws is now history.
October 30th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
The 30s and 40s weren’t too flash. The better part of a whole country of sensible, industrious, family-orientated, church-going types were busily wiping out 6 million Jews, Gypsies, bloggers, gays, communists, political prisoners, etc.
Not to mention there orderly Asian allies who were tidying-up China.
October 30th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
BlackMoss at 1.57 seems to chastise DPF for not shutting down debate on the Laws comments, then goes on to spell out his own rather rigid views.
Regardless of whether Laws is right in wanting to incentivise long-term contraception in what Marx called the lumpen proletariat, free and open debate on this subject is important. In advocating censorship of Kiwiblog, BlackMoss may think he’s on the side of the angels but in reality he sits in the grandstand of Hitler, Stalin, and other free-speech adverse totalitarians.
The famous quote of Milton is apposite here: “… who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?”
October 30th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Personally I think the idea of $10000 cash for sterilisation is great. Its completely voluntary and will probably have a positive affect. I truelly believe that children are better off if they are wanted and this would at least reduce the number of unwanted children which would hopefully have some affect on the child abuse statistics.
If I became a billionaire I would probably run a similar scheme. The only problem behind this is it is incredibly simple and un-PC. Unfortunately, people have an aversion to simple solutions and try to go with convoluted, ineffective ones.
October 30th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
We pay people to have kids and thats their “right”. Laws sugests paying them not to and its fucking hand ringing convention.
Get the hell over yourselves because if you don’t want to fix the problem you don’t get to bitch about it.
October 30th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Whoops asks:
Why, in Micael Lhaws’ world there’s only one person with the superior intellect and judgment capable of making that decision: Micael Lhaws.
Though given his track record, I suspect those that passed inspection and were sent off to the sterilisation chamber would be predominantly male (with the occasional ugly female).
Life under Lhaws: Droit de seigneur for the 21st century.
October 30th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
I am a very strong believer in human rights, so I don’t agree with compulsory sterilisation on principle. However, on a utilitarian basis, there can be no denying that offering say $10K to get sterilised would save the country a fortune over the life of each child not born, in terms of health and/or prison costs.
October 30th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
So in our retirement we are comfortable in the knowledge that there are fewer criminals – probably just as well because there are also not enough people earning money and paying taxes so we don’t get any pension that could be stolen.
October 30th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
If Laws wants to make a positive difference, he should be helping these people break the poverty cycle: rich families tend to have fewer kids than poor ones. To eliminate the problems of poverty (such as child abuse), one must eliminate the conditions of poverty, not those (in this case, potentially) living within them. Laws’ idea is a case of tackling the symptoms of a problem, rather than the issue itself.
On another line of thought, a former professor of mine once floated a similar idea, though materially different. His notion was to put a birth control in the water supply, which would prevent pregnancy unless one requested an ‘opt out’ pill, which would be made freely available. Ignoring the biological feasibility of this, this system is more humane than Law’s: the poor will still have children, but those children will be specifically wanted by the parents. If a child is specifically wanted, then abuse of the child is far less likely to take place.
October 30th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Whats the problem? The sterilization is VOLUNTARY. We have incentivised irresponsible breeding at present (the DPB), so why not the reverse? I am reminded of a case in a small North Island town where a solo Mum with chronic syphillis persists in breeding; the kids are born blind and become State wards. She cannot be compulsorily sterilized but would probably agree if there was a payment. This is all about the RIGHT OF A CHILD to be born and raised by responsible parents.
October 30th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
black moss said:..
“..It’s kind of giving me the suspicion that the people here do not actually really care about the ‘underclass’ except for the fact they’re realizing they’re having to pay for it. So their answer, stop paying for it by removing the problem literally at its source — i.e. birth..”
that pretty much sums them up…
what you often get here..is the bursting pimples on the boils that are all that is vile about (greed/self-interest-driven) rightwing politics..
and the pools of vomit from mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers..who hide behind false names..
and expound views that are an anathema to anyone with the slightest bit of humanist blood running in their veins..
..and funny you should mention the ‘if i heard such views at a party i would leave..’
‘cos’ i went to what i thought was a leftie-bloggers drinks night..
and horror of horrors..it was the kind of people who comment here..
i listened in ever-growing horror at how easily the hate dropped from their lips..
..and how they delighted/exulted in their tales/anecdotes of exploiting others whenever/however they can..
what finally made me walk was open/voiced anti-semitism..
(which was approvingly laughed at by the rest..one of whom is called elijah..(!)..i know..!..go figure..!..
so laws is just voicing publically what many/most of these people believe..
(they chose not to have the intellectual nouse to look at counties that don’t have an underclass/high child poverty numbers..
..to see what they are doing..that we aren’t..
they just reach for their grubby little bags of ‘final solutions’..
yep..!
they really are that vile/ignorant..
(and were vileness/ignorance/greed/prejudice be reasons for sterilisation..
they would all be crowded..
at the head of the queue..)
it’s as simple as that..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 30th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
And theres the argument in favor.
October 30th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
“However, on a utilitarian basis, there can be no denying that offering say $10K to get sterilised would save the country a fortune over the life of each child not born, in terms of health and/or prison costs.”
This is absolutely correct, also not to mention welfare costs/legal aid/youth workers/accomodation/counsellors etc.etc.
More fundamentally, people seem to overlook that receiving money creates some obligations. A basic reciprocal obligation in the case of those receiving welfare long term would be to use contraception. Aside from condoms or the pill there are also IUD’s which can be used temporarily.
People overlook that liberal icon Margaret Sanger who founded Planned Parenting and abortion rights advocate also favoured sterilization. The Child Poverty Action Group could learn from her advice:
“Her first pamphlet read:
It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them.”
October 30th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
If it was voluntary there is no control over how many of those that “had little chance in life” would have no chance of life.
And wouldn’t it be a form of social engineering?
October 30th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
“Lee Kuan Yew in the brilliant creation of first-world Singapore out of a third world colony in such a short time, introduced special measures to encourage intelligent young people to marry and have kids. This extended to social clubs, and relaxing rules so that women in professional occupations etc could more easily marry foreign male equivalents who were happy to settle in Singapore.”
Indeed, Yew was absolutely correct in offering incentives. At the macro-social level cognitive competence is more important than economic liberty for the economic growth of nations.
Rindermann, H. (2008). Relevance of education and intelligence at the national level for the economic welfare of people. Intelligence, 36, 127-142.
October 30th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
it is radio survey time…
funny that..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 30th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Oops. Clicked too quick.
I thought Laws was after some cash to get sterilised and figured I’d make a contribution.
Just pretend I wasn’t here.
October 30th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
“I thought Laws was after some cash to get sterilised and figured I’d make a contribution.
Just pretend I wasn’t here.”
Haha, let the child abuse continue unabated & take cheap shots at laws to feel morally superior. Nice.
October 30th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Phool
“so laws is just voicing publicly what many/most of these people believe..”
Count me as one of them, offer them bribes, sterilise the bastards, hell, if 10k is not enough then make it 20k and a guaranteed benefit for life.
You would almost eliminate the scum underclass in one generation.
What would emerge is a smarter, hard working class of people who cared for their kids, these parents would be excellent role models Phool, hell, for a start they would get up every morning and go to fucking work unlike you.
October 30th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
q.e.d..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 30th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Bob R
Of course the left want child abuse to continue, they also want the underclass to stay exactly where they are for no other reason than they know they can count on their votes every three years.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
If you’re going to incentivise something, why not incentivise becoming the kind of people who make good parents? Anyone? Anyone? Is this thing on?
October 30th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
“What would emerge is a smarter, hard working class of people who cared for their kids, these parents would be excellent role models”
That is essentially what happened in England in the lead up to the Industrial Revolution. The most productive also had the most children. UC Davis economist Greg Clark has an interesting book about this called ‘A Farewell to Alm’s’. Here’s a paper regarding surnames and ‘Survival of the Richest’. Over time the population became thriftier, more law abiding, less violent and more numerate.
http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/Farewell%20to%20Alms/Clark%20-Surnames.pdf
October 30th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Can you substantiate that in any way? If not it’s a grossly shit sort of accusation to make.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Forget sterilization, use birth control shots while on welfare. It’s immoral to have children and force others to support them.
“A shot in the arm that prevents pregnancy
Safe, effective, and convenient
Easy to get with a prescription
Lasts for three months
Costs $35–$75 per injection, plus any exam fees”
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-shot-depo-provera-4242.htm
October 30th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
that is big bruv..
he just makes shit up all the time..
with never a shred of supporting evidence..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 30th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Pete George
“Can you substantiate that in any way?”
Yes, take the last nine years as an example, Labour and the Greens did NOTHING to lift the underclass out of their shitty existence, no encouragement to educate themselves, no encouragement to better themselves, no encouragement to look beyond a state house and a benefit every week.
Helen Klark ever went as far as to say “there is no underclass in NZ”
The pinko solution to the underclass is to keep tossing my money at them, the left know this will not improve their lives but it will guarantee their votes.
Labour had nine years to make a difference, they had nine years to drag these people up and make them valuable members of our society and yet they did nothing.
So while you may not like the accusation Mr George, that is tough luck. The left are more than happy to see people stay in the underclass as they know it means they will continue to vote for them.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
I’m a leftist, and child abuse is AWESOME! Big Bruv has clearly been reading my emails. He has me and every other leftist down pat.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
“If you’re going to incentivise something, why not incentivise becoming the kind of people who make good parents? ”
Ryan, everything that people do can be boiled down to either moving toward pleasure or moving away from pain. Everything. And people do a heck of a lot more to avoid pain than they do to move toward pleasure.
So if your thought is going to work then we also need to heavily disincentivise becoming the kind of person that makes up a bad parent. Compulsory sterilisation might not be the right solution but there needs to be something.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
“with never a shred of supporting evidence..”
What about the OECD stats on us having the worst child poverty rates?
Oh sorry philu I forgot, the problem can all be solved by us taxpayers (not you) throwing more of our money (not yours) at the problem, to pay for child beaters to sit on their arse and breed.
October 30th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Eugenics was a popular and progressive idea up til WWII, and was basically seen as inevitable given rising population and our thousands of years of success selectively breeding plants and animals.
Even John Stuart Mill was in favour, on the grounds that bringing a child into a hopeless life was a crime.
Voluntary sterilisation might be a small step, but it’s still eugenics – providing a financial incentive for sterilisation is basically saying “we want less children of poor parents in society”.
The problem is, our motivation for this is to reduce crime – and there’s nothing *inherently* criminal about a kid born to a poor family. Bad role models, desperation, genetics, whatever, lead to criminal behaviour – not poverty itself. And even the poorest people in NZ can eat, go to school, sleep in a bed inside a house, play sport etc – being poor in NZ is not “hopeless” and giving birth to a kid if you’re poor is not a “crime”.
A financial incentive is the wrong way to go about it – we’d be throwing huge amounts of money away for a minimal reduction in crime, and would basically be telling every poor kid in NZ that they may as well break the law, because we’ve already assumed that they’re a criminal.
A much more effective way would be compulsorily sterilisation of anyone with bad genes – criminals, perverts, Michael Laws etc, but that’s politically impossible for the time being, mainly thanks to Hitler.
Until we start to see eugenics in a more positive light and can be honest about what we’re trying to achieve and the most efficient way to do it there’s no point in doing it half-assed.
October 30th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Consider the possibility that sterilization can be liberating. Given free choice many women would choose sterilization if their macho dominant partners (or the church) would agree. If the partner has to be bought off so be it. We are once again shown how the Left is unwilling to facilitate real free choice which could allow people to throw off the shackles of welfare dependency.
October 30th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
so..because labour totally failed to do what they should have..
this is now reason/justification..for sterilisation of ‘the underclass’/those neglected by labour..?
and y’know the really sick bit..?..why labour ignored those hurting the most..?
it’s ‘cos they were sucking up to scumbags like the sterilisation-advocates here..
they were a long way from home..weren’t they..?
that labour..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 30th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
nickb – some stats for you …
- COMPARATIVE CHILD WELL-BEING ACROSS THE OECD, pdf pp3, table 2.1. NZ is pipped at post by Turkey as the least safe country for children
- Child maltreatment deaths (most recent) by country. NZ ranks poorly.
- New Zealand has the highest rate of youth suicides in the OECD. NZ ranks worst.
- Child injury death index (most recent) by country. NZ ranks poorly.
October 30th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
I thought you would have known what proof was Nick. How is the OECD stats linked to evidence that “the left” has deliberately created and maintained that sort of situation?
Bruv, you aren’t proving anything either, but that is not surprising, you tend to avoid substantiating your claims. For a start my wife has worked in government initiated programs that have helped lift people into employment.
October 30th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Great idea, you could also do all the card carrying members of the the Lairboar party while you’re at it, 10 k money well spent we should chuck in a dozen Lion Red as extra incentive.
October 30th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPYd-htVNJg
On a related note…
I noticed during the speech that Bradford continued to lump in good parents in with the Kahui’s, not doubt helping to ensure that nothing will be done to attack the root of the problem:
“s59 has, in banning smacking, let people to realise they cannot use violence, hit, bash, smash, bludgeon their children etc”.
Since when is a light smack for correction violence?
October 30th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
pete..
how the hell can you defend the neglect by labour of one of their primary duties..?
those stats got worse under labour..
and that ‘maintanance’ of that situation by labour was more from cowardice..
than from any ideological plan to do that..
(that’s the most ‘charitable’ view..)
but surely even the most diehard labour supporter must concede that clark/labour really fucked up big time on this one..
you are trying to defend the indefensible..
at any time..clark/labour could have made any number of simple changes..
(an example being lifting the onerous clawback conditions on any monies earned by sole-parents and the like..
i.e..85% (post-tax) clawback on anything over $80..)
but no..
clark/labour did nothing..for nine long years..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 30th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
“nickb – some stats for you …”
Isn’t it disgusting getstaffed?
Yet with one of the most generous welfare systems in the world, comprehensive public welfare, education and health systems. It just goes to show the moral hazard implicit in making everything “free”, including taxpayer handouts.
I would wager a large sum that back in the 50’s, in the strong country our parents and grandparetns helped create, a time of no universal welfare, the poverty of children was virtually negligible. We were the wealthiest country in the world at a point in time.
So what happened philu? Welfare has improved things?
October 30th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
“..So what happened philu? Welfare has improved things?..”
the dismantling of the welfare state..in the name of rightwing/’freemarket’ ideologies..
by both national and labour..
it isn’t rocket science..
we used to be best in the world..
we are now the worst..
and those two changes marched in lock-step..
(duh..!..einstein..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 30th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
What about a light smack in the face for spite? A hard smack in the face? Where do you draw the line?
October 30th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
“..I would wager a large sum that back in the 50’s, in the strong country our parents and grandparetns helped create, a time of no universal welfare,.”
a time of..
free education..
free health..
young families easily able to get a home..
everyones’ boats lifting together..
not the vile/selfish/greed-driven/class-driven monstrosity we have become..
you really know s.f.a. about history..?
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 30th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Emphasis mine. Einstein you are not.
October 30th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
“everyones’ boats lifting together..”
The problem with your eutopia, little demented mini-man magpie, feathered fuckwit, gather of everyone else’s shiny bits …
… aka the lone blogger under the edge of the toilet seat …
is that you would be sitting in the boat while everyone else was lifting it.
Now stop being silly and go work on your cooking series. Vegan Jihad!!! Vegan Akbar!!!
October 30th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
a time of..
free education..
free health..
Universal welfare? NO.
Are you intentionally being disingenous, or are you jsut a moron?
October 30th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Pete George
“For a start my wife has worked in government initiated programs that have helped lift people into employment.”
There you go!, proof of what I have been saying.
So your good lady helps lift the underclass from the dole into employment, I take it by the use of the word “has” that your wife is no longer involved in this cause. Therefore I am going to assume that she worked in this government initiated programs under the Labour government and during the best economic conditions out nation had seen in living memory.
While I would never doubt your wifes intentions I cannot and will not accept that the government needed to do bloody anything to “find” people employment during the boom years, those of us in business knew how it was nearly impossible to find staff, it got to the stage where anybody with a pulse was guaranteed a job yet the real members of the underclass were still stealing money from us by way of benefits each and every week.
Of course, when this became an embarrassment to the corrupt Labour government they simply switched the long term bludgers from the unemployment benefit to the sickness or invalid benefit.
“Encouraging” the underclass (aka Scum) into work during boom years is not helping anybody, what the government should have been doing is forcing these people into work, force them to re train or lose their benefit, force them to tidy up their act or lose their kids and the DPB that goes along with it, that old tired left wing cry of “they need more money” just does not work and has not worked for generations.
A government that really cared for the underclass would not keep tossing fuel on the fire Mr George, a government that really cared would get tough with them, Labour, the Greens and the Mowree party do not care, sure, they might say a few things every now and again but the reality is that all they want are their votes.
October 30th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
I see the usual suspects are out in force – those who would have signed up with Hitler’s Brownshirts and Gestapo drooling with anticipation.
getstaffed @ 6.27 excellent contribution
nickb you need to understand that prior to Rogernomics, our state owned utilities acted as the welfare net, and our society was all the better for it. Muldoon’s Think Big was, in the clarity of hindsight, a huge mistake which hastened the end of that relatively idyllic existence, in addition to our farmers having to adjust to a non-captive market for their products (and they struggle to this day).
Laws is just caught out as the racist and white supremacist he really is, in my opinion. He simply refuses to acknowledge the role of colonialism in oppressing and dispossessing a proud Maori race as a primary formative factor in their sad position at the bottom of our social statistics tables.
Here is the solution to what troubles Laws. End child poverty. Don’t worry about where the blame should be apportioned, just end it. Finance it through progressive taxation or borrowing, it doesn’t matter. The payback will be immense.
All humans are valuable. If you don’t adhere to this principle, you are in danger of being seduced into genocide.
October 30th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Rubbishing everything, calling people scum and putting down large groups with generalised abuse and locking half the country up is hardly going to help lift the country. Are you part of a scheme that deliberately wants to promote conflict and hate? That is just as likely as your conspiracy theories.
October 30th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
‘cos’ i went to what i thought was a leftie-bloggers drinks night..
It was, phool. The left is big on anti-semitism and the Fabians were and still are big proponents of sterilisation for the purposes of eugenics.
If that shocks you too much, don’t worry. Just have another speedball.
Hi Malcolm Caldwell- sorry, Puke. Blaming the evil imperialists again, huh? Surprise surprise.
October 30th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Pete George
” Are you part of a scheme that deliberately wants to promote conflict and hate?”
What?, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Maori party.
October 30th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
“All humans are valuable. If you don’t adhere to this principle, you are in danger of being seduced into genocide.”
What a stupid comment!
Chris Kahui, The Curtis brothers, Lisa Kuka, Graeme Burton, William Bell and Clayton Weatherston are “valuable”
Yeah right!
October 30th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Laws is a pussy cat compared with our Philu.
In his 4.09 post Philu sounds as though he would sterilise just about everybody — right, left, the lot!
And his “pools of vomit from mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers..who hide behind false names….”
Sorry Mr Philu, I thought that you were using a pseudonym, but “Philu” is obviously your real name.
You spend a fair amount of your sober time on this blog, Philu. Must be hell for you. Are you paid to read it? Or are you a masochist? Or just lonely? Or bored with your greenie mates?
October 30th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Hmmmm…I cannot think why I voted for Mr Laws’ opponent when I resided in Wanganui…
oh! now I remember – because Laws is a lunatic seeking to run everyone’s life.
http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com
October 30th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
The essential difference between the left and right is that if the right pulls someone out of the underclass to become a success, they’ve gained a vote. If labour pulls someone up from the underclass to become a success, they’ve lost a vote.
October 30th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Jack5 – the reason he spends so much time on this blog is because no-one spends any time on his. Look at his front page, he’s posted about 40 of his meaningless screeds of full stops in the last two days. How many have attracted any comments ? Zero. If you ever need a cheap laugh, go to phool’s website and check the date of the most recent comment. Currently October 16th, 2009 at 4:02 pm. Says it all really.
October 30th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Pete, I think you’re a pretty switched on guy regardless of whether I agree with your views, which is why it surprises me that you defend the indefensible.
The fact is that welfare traps its recipients in a cycle, since the DPB was introduced in the 1970’s there have gone from being a few hundred mothers on it to hundreds of thousands of mothers; there is more teen pregnancy, less stable marriages, more family breakdown, more dropkick fathers etc etc… (Lindsay Mitchell’s blog is excellent in this regard).
Meanwhile the average hardworking kiwi puts money aside each week if anything was to ever happen to him/her, they pay a mortgage and feed their kids, all while having their hard earned cash go to sustain the philus of this world…
Do they feel like their tax dollars provide value for money when they see cases like the Kahui’s, a houseful of parasites killing their kids? The answer is no, and who could blame them for feeling that way
October 30th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
“the role of colonialism in oppressing and dispossessing a proud Maori race as a primary formative factor in their sad position at the bottom of our social statistics tables.”
And Luc, your attitude, so present i nthe minds of the Maori Party, ensures that nothing will ever be done about it, with the exception of having more of my money thrown at it.
What people fail to realise is that welfare is fundamentally inconsistent with traditional Maori ways of life, that of self-sustinence, hunter-gathering, whanau responsibilities etc.
If only we had heeded the advice of the great Sir Apirana Ngata when he said that welfare would destroy the collective way of life of the Maori people. It would appear he was right.
October 30th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
elijah .. I assume you voted for John Martin then .. he would make a very good mayor .. a huge worldly experience. His parents and mine were war time friends and I have lots of time for him .. a fantastic bagpipe player to boot.
What Michael has brought to local politics is a high profile and I have noticed he has caused all sorts of ruckus BUT he is actually expressing a populist opinion .. that means many people agree with what he is saying but maybe they have a problem in the way he expresses it. Yes he is very opinionated but aren’t we all?
Oh, and if I here the term colonialism once more I will scream
October 30th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
big bruv @ 7:35
Absolutely yes. In fact right now Kahui is living, by all accounts, quietly and is a loving father. Redemption is always possible. And it doesn’t need to be through a god.
Do you realise that your attitude is what led to the Holocaust?
nickb – money does not necessarily equate with welfare. I could list heaps of measure to eliminate child poverty, none of which include welfare, with the exception of better state housing, perhaps. For example, support lifting the minimum wage. Direct extra resources in education at the non-achievers, instead of robbing the achievers.
October 30th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Nick, I’m not sure what you think I am defending. I think the welfare state is an overblown mess, and would love to see much less of it and much less government. But just cutting it to shreds without a decent transition plan is likely to cause a lot more problems than it solves. Writing everything off that “the other side” has tried as a subversive plot is a bit pathetic unless it can actually be substantiated.
I don’t like how much I earn goes on welfare, and ACC, and MP perks. But being bitter and twisted won’t improve anything.
People on this blog keep going on about the deterioration in community standards and morals, and abuse shit out of anyone who seems different. I’m not always trying to defend opposite views, but I won’t hesitate to call anyone out who, for example, wish harm on others, or makes wild accusations that only alienate at put down others.
Many of the problems “debated” here are very complex with no simple or quick solutions. Negative attacks and abuse are unlikely to improve anything, in politics or in blogs. Understanding differences and trying to approach things positively may only seem minor but if enough people try it a little it can add up to a lot of potential improvement. Resign ourselves to continual bicker and moan? Or look for realistic ways to improve things?
October 30th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
jabba
colonisation
look forward to your scream
October 30th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
nickb
I should have added, just recognising what actually happened. I understand that may be a stretch too far for you, but remember this: the party that really kicked the settlement process along was National.
Bolger and Graham were visionaries who did the country proud.
Key may even sign up to the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. If he does, he will deserve similarly enhanced status in our history
October 30th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
“I should have added, just recognising what actually happened. I understand that may be a stretch too far for you, but remember this: the party that really kicked the settlement process along was National.”
What the fuck does that have to do with anything?
October 30th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
nickb
It means recognising the deleterious effects of colonisation on indigenous peoples.
As in the case of, for example, the colonisation of the Americas, and the genocide in a very short time frame, about a decade, of 55,000,000 human beings.
People, nick, just like you and I.
Maori were sucked into signing a treaty that was promoted differently to Pakeha and Maori. That’s why the Maori language version is so important.
And the reference to National is to emphasise that even our supposedly right wing party signed up to that view.
October 30th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
What strikes me about this debate is that those espousing a range of views have done so – mostly – in a coherent manner, some with research to support their opinion. Even those with whom I disagree have mainly expressed their opinions in a cogent and interesting manner.
Yet their contributions, and mine, will languish forgotten on a blog thread. While the foaming genocidal lunatic who sparked the debate will have the fawning media at his doorstep the next time he feels like an incoherent prejudiced rant. And the next time. And the next…
One of the problems NZ has is that the wrong people are leading the debate(s)… a self-perpetuating group of luvvies who run round interviewing one another and rarely allowing a new voice or voices to join their clique.
October 30th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Well said Rex
and you would know
and you have the balls to post under your name, unlike most here.
October 31st, 2009 at 12:57 am
Rex
Is he really a foaming genocidal lunatic?
I’ve always thought that he was just a preening narcisistic and attention-seeking little git who is once more bathing in the glare of the publicity that he has always craved and that was unfortunately interupted because he had to shoot through after admitting he was a lying little toe-rag.
Of course, I’m more than happy to defer given your more intimate knowledge of gentleman in question.
October 31st, 2009 at 5:54 am
thedavincimode : One does not necessarily preclude the other
I think it’s more a case of your having elaborated and given greater depth to my original description.
October 31st, 2009 at 8:01 am
Yeah – Colonisation was so bad for Maori. It gave them education and access to ALL the knowledge of the world through literacy (Maori literacy rates in the 19th C were higher than non-Maori), introduced new forms of protein (cows and sheep) and easily grown crops such as cereals and spuds, ended slavery and inter-tribal genocide. What a bad deal.
October 31st, 2009 at 8:06 am
I guess it was a bad deal for the possibly half of the Maori population that died due to introduced diseases.
October 31st, 2009 at 8:18 am
Well, that is just tough. They would have got the same diseases if the only white men they ever met had been traders. Diseases are like that – they spread. A third of Europe’s population died during the Black Death – do we blame the vectors that brought it into Europe hundreds of years after the event?
October 31st, 2009 at 9:19 am
I think that once you abuse children, you give up your right to have them or care for them. And I’m one of these leftie individuals who isn’t supposed to say that sort of thing. But I’m constantly confronted with child abuse in my work and people who produce children that they simply don’t give a shit about. We are talking about a very small minority here. But I don’t see why they should be able to produce these children that they abuse so terribly. So for some (very few) individuals, I think that compulsory sterilisation is actually an appropriate course of action.
However, we must remember that a huge amount of abuse occurs from step-parents, uncles and grandparents too. You can sterilise them, but it doesn’t reduce their access to children to hurt. So I think as an extension of that kind of policy, certain people should actually be banned from ever having contact with any children again. If that means that they have to go and live in a hut in the bush, away from their families, then so be it. Children should not have to be exposed to abuse simply because we allow known abusers the right to have access to them.
The children who suffer the kind of severe, chronic abuse that I’m referring to grow up to be completely devoid of empathy and unable to form meaningful relationships with others. Then they have babies, and replicate the behaviour which has been modeled to them as children. And so the cycle continues.
We have to do more to protect our children. The personal rights of adults who hurt children need to be discarded if we are ever to stop this cycle.
October 31st, 2009 at 9:22 am
Jabba 8:24pm – actually *blushes* I voted for Chas Poynter (who came third) ..HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
I considered voting for John Martin who seemed a splendid chap, but decided, on balance, that returning to Wanganui to be Mayor after many years abroad seemed a bit..ummmm… ‘rich’ in the sense of “he should have stayed during the bad years if he loved the place so much” (if that makes sense?)
http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com
October 31st, 2009 at 9:42 am
Elijah – I used to have a crush on his daughter when we were at Durie Hill School in 1968.
October 31st, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Compulsory sterilisation for anyone committed to a term of 5 years or more for crimes involving violence or threat thereof.
Please.
October 31st, 2009 at 5:20 pm
luc .. ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hehe
Brian S .. my wife went to Durie Hill School, and being 51 she may have been there when you were . another ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
the swimming pool is a little dangerous for me .. too deep for little kids as is/was Aramoho’s but we were blessed at Wang East.
yehaaaa big harbour up 14-13
October 31st, 2009 at 9:02 pm
elijah .. how could you vote for a guy with a haircut like the Chas’s? .. he did a reasonable job during his extended time as Mayor but he didn’t really come to terms with the Mhaori thing. He seemed strong but was actually weak .. gob bless him though.
John M was an army bloke who had an issue that stopped his early chance to join the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards. I believe he did actually play with them later in life (he has kept the bands profile up in Wanganui). He was very successful in the Asian financial world (American Express) before going home to retire. He is possibly more experienced/qualified to be a Mayor than many throughout NZ but lost out (2x) to a guy known throughout NZ who had a higher profile. I hope he has another go but it costs big $’s to campaign, even in a small city and he has other options.
October 31st, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Here’s a thought, if we castrated all Maori males at birth and then some Pakeha men mated with Maori women, would those offspring pretty much all be criminals just like the Maori offspring are now?
November 1st, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Steralising psychopaths would be a more effective strategy, no psychopaths no heartlessness to fellow humans, so there’d be no poverty. I guess we’d have to start with psychpaths in provincial local government.