The sterilisation debate
March 4th, 2010 at 3:24 pm by David FarrarBloody Jadis. I turn my back for a few hours and she does a post on sterilisiation of child abusers after listening to Michael Laws on Radio Live. David Garrett comments, and suddenly it is in the newspapers, on Morning Report and all over the blogosphere.
I suppose time to add my own 2c to the debate:
- Absolutely against any compulsory sterilisation. Apart from the fact no surgeon will operate on a non consenting patient, the state should not have the power to remove someone’s fertility.
- Not supportive of the proposal to pay child abusers to get sterilised, as it will only target poor child abusers, and may be thin end of wedge.
- However am open to having a debate on whether one could have it as an early release incentive for people who have been convicted of child abuse and actually gone to prison.
One of the reasons we send people to prison is to protect the community. If someone is sentenced to three years jail for child abuse, then is the community better protected by having them come out at 2.5 years and unable to have more children, or at three years and likely to have more children, whom will grow up abused, and in turn probably becomes abusers themselves.
By not having a monetary incentive, it removes the potential problems of being more attractive to poor child abusers.
Also by limiting it to people in prison, and convicted of child abuse, it means you target the worse of the worse.
I’m sure there are strong arguments against such a policy also, and I am not saying I support it without question. But unless one just wants to wring your hands about the child abuse problem, it may be a more palatable option than monetary incentives which I would not support.
Related posts:
- Is there a right to be a parent
- Guest Post: David Garrett on Sterilisation
- Dom Post says children first
- Laws calls for cash to sterilise
March 4th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Is it really probable? More likely than otherwise? Sure. But probable?
Are you really saying that more than half of all victims of serious child abuse will themselves abuse children? I suppose I don’t completely rule it out, but it seems pretty damn unlikely that it’s that high.
[DPF: Good point. I would say 90% of child abusers were in fact abused as children. But what percentage of those abused go on to be abusers themselves - that would be an interesting stat]
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
One thing with the “Pay somebody to do the operation” (or perhaps even a depro injection) option is that it doesn’t require any government compulsion or taxpayer money. So somebody (or a group of somebodies) could use their millions to offer money plus an operation to people who they think fit the criteria ( perhaps any person being released from prison ).
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
By not having a monetary incentive, it removes the potential problems of being more attractive to poor child abusers.
I am not going to comment on the merit of paid sterilisation.
However, isn’t what David says above a benefit? How does a fixed reward being worth more to the person count as a bad thing? What is the theory here – that the poor are so completely inept with cash that they would be better off without the $5000? Or that for amounts beyond – what, $100? – the poor lose the ability to think straight and this is just coercion? And why is ANY weight given to the possibility that someone might possibly be duped when a) they are a convicted child abuser, and b) there is strong reason to think they will offend again in future. It seems to me messed up that so much concern is beign shown for a fasionable theory to protect a child abuser and is being preferred to concern for kids.
Please.
Try counting the anti-poor prejudices in those ideas.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
http://www.darkness2light.org/KnowAbout/statistics_2.asp
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
OK, woman takes up offer, gets tubes tied at no cost to her. Receives $5000. Has operation reversed, say $1500, still comes out $3500 ahaed and can drop more sprogs.
Yep, Mike Laws is what Redbirther would describe as an “intellectual”.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Cheap shots targeting a vote does nothing especially when the man himself has been reprimanded for abuse of his colleagues. A fitting example would therefore demand that he terminate his own gene from the face of the earth. His only followers are obviously Michael Law and Jackson from that radio station…
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
IMHO We need to get more proactive rather than adopting the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff approach.
Again I dont see any attempt at joining up the dots.
FFS Surely the medical fraternity can identify a train wreck from the time a female presents herself at a doctors in a pregnant condition.
Is it not totally irresponsible to the unborn child and society who will have to bear the ongoing costs for some positive actions and interfaces to occur at that point.
Or do we have a Pontius Pilate medical profession.
The ‘rights’ of one party have been allowed to overwhelm their responsibilities so they now have NO responsibility and a parade of excusers and deniers all jumping to their defence and bugger everyone else
Its called SELFISHNESS. F… everyone else.
And its been growing for the past 40 years encouraged by dumb arse useless leadership without the guts to take effective action Too frightened of the minority will scream RIGHTS RIGHTS RIGHTS.
Time for some common sense.
Apply the same principles as we do to Health and Safety issues.
Identify the hazard.
Remove the hazard or
Mitigate the hazard
But FFS DONT do as we do now in these cases and leave the bloody hazard to the inevitable result and then wonder why it happened
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
No merit in this.
First, most abuse of children is physical, a la Nia Glassey. Chopping off the Curtis’s balls would not stop them putting a child on a clothes line, or in a clothes dryer, or performing body slams on them.
Second, women do not use their uterus for child abuse, so no gain there.
Third, sterilising an offender does not eliminate access to children. Plenty of abuse happens not by the primary caregiver but by aunts, uncles and step-parents.
I’m with Judith Collins. Not only are Police to be feared a bit more, but prison is to be feared – a lot. Hard labour, compulsory ‘attitude adjustment’ (aka brainwashing) sessions, graduated sets of privileges based on behaviour and performance – just like real life.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
***Not supportive of the proposal to pay child abusers to get sterilised, as it will only target poor child abusers, and may be thin end of wedge.***
This is unconvincing. Unfortunately, I think this triggers a ‘taboo’ switch in the minds of most ‘right thinking people’ and they reflexively dismiss the idea. It means intelligent people can avoid thinking about it.
The reality is that it would be an extremely effective means of reducing child abuse. It would reduce the horrific cases that CYFS have to deal with every day. But no, it’s the ‘thin end of the wedge’ or the start of a ‘slippery slope’. Sorry, but your priorities are badly misplaced.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
Jeff83 – I assume that that link was for my benefit. Thanks.
However, the numbers don’t stack up:
1 in 5 children are sexually abused before age 18.
Vote:AND more than 20% of children are sexually abused before age 8.
March 4th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Another query is why the Child Poverty Action Group don’t come forward to support this type of proposal. They are ostensibly socialist in their outlook, and it was socialists like George Bernhard Shaw and Planned Parenting Founder, and early feminist, Margaret Sanger who promoted contraception for the poor. Sanger wrote:
“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.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger
Instead, you get the platitudes like that suggested by Annette King saying the money would be better invested in parenting programmes. How effective are they for child abusers?
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Bob R (80) Says:
March 4th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Instead, you get the platitudes like that suggested by Annette King saying the money would be better invested in parenting programmes. How effective are they for child abusers?
Same old, same old.
The programmes may not work for abusers, but the idea is to provide the programmes early enough to prevent abuse.
Are you a dumb fuck, or just a right winger? Ooops, oxymoron that.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Most child abusers are poor. I don’t know why incentivising them not to have children that they can abuse is a bad idea.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
No. Anecdotally (and I hope someone with more time on their hands can dig out some research to tell me if I’m right) far more stepchildren are victims of violence than are the perpetrators’ natural children.
Take Laws / Garrett’s proposed $5000 sterilisation bribe and spend it on a register of anyone convicted of assaulting a child. If it’s good enough to put anyone who initiates sexual contact with a child (even if that contact does no physical damage) on a register for life, why the hell are those who beat, burn, whip, kick, punch and hang children on clothes lines not on a similar register?
And similar rules would apply. An obligation to tell any woman whom you are dating and who has children of your conviction, or the Police will do it for you. What amounts to lifetime parole, reporting to Police as often as they see fit (which can be every few weeks if they feel like it) and so on.
If the woman was stupid enough to continue dating the offender then hers and her children’s medical files are tagged to that effect so any suspicious behaviour or marks can trigger a professional’s concern immediately.
Our puritanical society has a definite double standard when it comes to different forms of child abuse. 85% of child sexual offenders do not go on to reoffend once they’ve been caught and punished, yet most jurisdictions subject them to a tougher regime than they do murderers. What, I wonder, is the recidivism figure for those who bash and maim children?
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
##LeftRightOut (240) Says:
March 4th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Bob R (80) Says:
March 4th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Instead, you get the platitudes like that suggested by Annette King saying the money would be better invested in parenting programmes. How effective are they for child abusers?
Same old, same old.
The programmes may not work for abusers, but the idea is to provide the programmes early enough to prevent abuse.
Are you a dumb f*ck, or just a right winger? Ooops, oxymoron that.##
More of a left winger in most respects, just as Margaret Sanger was. Yes, I appreciate that is the intention but how do you provide programmes “early enough to prevent abuse”? What is the trigger that leads to someone receiving a programme? And what evidence do you have that they are effective?
More generally, shouldn’t a birth control shot be a condition of receiving welfare if you are on the DPB? These are only temporary, and would protect against pregnancy while receiving the benefit. It is incredibly unfair to force others to pay while you have further children.
http://kidshealth.org/teen/sexual_health/contraception/contraception_depo.html
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Bob R By now you have come to realise that hard working tax paying citizens are considered no more than a bloody ATM as far as pollies civil servants and the LEFT are concerned.
They are there to keep digging into their pockets to fund the life styles of the dumb the stupid and the cunning all of which describe the beneficaries of the good citizens tax dollars.
One day the REVOLUTION will come and the good citizens will rise up and say NO MORE to the pollies and the civil servants.
That day cant come sooner enough for me.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
It is interesting to see how the word ‘sterilisation’ evokes all manner of linkages to Nazis and so on and yet New Zealand men and women have hundreds of voluntary vasectomies and tubal ligations etc every year.
It would be useful to find out how many and who pays for them.
I understand that these are not publicly funded hence by offering a grant to poor families one would be enabling them to exercise the choice exercised by the middle classes.
The authors of Freakonomics presented considerable evidence that one reason for the falling crime rate in the US was the 1973 liberalisation of abortion laws because so many unwanted children were no longer forced into unwilling households. (Roe vs Wade)
The rise in abortion rates correlated strongly with falling crime rates and also to how different States had interpreted the Supreme Court decision.
So reducing unwanted births by funding voluntary vasectomies may have a double benefit.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
###The authors of Freakonomics presented considerable evidence that one reason for the falling crime rate in the US was the 1973 liberalisation of abortion laws because so many unwanted children were no longer forced into unwilling households. (Roe vs Wade)…
So reducing unwanted births by funding voluntary vasectomies may have a double benefit.###
They pulled their punches – the reason wasn’t so much that the households were unwilling. It was that suddenly a large number of poor minorities (who are statistically overrepresented in crime in the US) were able to access abortion.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2005/10/01/crime-vs-crime-rate/
Funding voluntary vasectomies will likely only appeal to those who have high future time orientation and above average education. Those people are the most important in terms of economic growth and are already having the least children so it would potentially backfire.
“A large amount of studies published in the last two decades has shown that cognitive ability
levels of societies are relevant for the development of positively valued aspects of peoples
and countries. Following an economic research tradition “human capital” is relevant for
economic growth and wealth (Hanushek & Kimko, 2000; Lynn & Vanhanen, 2002, 2006; Jones &
Schneider, 2006; Weede, 2006; Rindermann, 2008a). In addition, cognitive ability of nations has
a positive impact on political development, in that it helps building up democracy, the rule of
law and political liberty (Simpson, 1997; Rindermann, 2008b). Intelligence, knowledge and
the intelligent use of knowledge also have beneficial effects on health, for instance they act as
a brake on the spread of HIV (Oesterdiekhoff & Rindermann, 2007; Lakhanpal & Ram, 2008;
Rindermann & Meisenberg, 2009). Finally, cognitive competence is relevant for the
development of modernity as a societal and especially as a cultural phenomenon consisting of
education, autonomy, liberty, morality and rationality (Habermas, 1985/1981; Meisenberg,
2004; Oesterdiekhoff, 2008; Lynn, Harvey & Nyborg, 2009). Societies at a higher ability level
develop more complex, more evidence-based, more ethical and more rational world views.”
Talent Development & Excellence, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2009, 3-25
Vote:http://iratde.org/issues/1-2009/tde_issue_1-2009_03_rindermann_et_al.pdf
March 4th, 2010 at 5:08 pm
Rob R
I don’t follow the reservation.
Take these sentencea:
“They pulled their punches – the reason wasn’t so much that the households were unwilling. It was that suddenly a large number of poor minorities (who are statistically overrepresented in crime in the US) were able to access abortion.”
And rewrite them:
“They pulled their punches – the reason wasn’t so much that the households were unwilling. It was that suddenly a large number of poor minorities (who are statistically overrepresented in crime in the US) were able to access vasectomies and tubal ligations.”
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
***They pulled their punches – the reason wasn’t so much that the households were unwilling. It was that suddenly a large number of poor minorities (who are statistically overrepresented in crime in the US) were able to access abortion. ***
Owen,
Sorry, here is the original paper by Levitt & Donahue. In the book they only mention ‘unwantedness’ but in the paper they refer to less politically acceptable findings:
“Teenagers, unmarried women and African Americans are all substantially more likely to seek abortions. Children born to these mothers tend to be at higher risk for committing crime 17 years or so down the road, so abortion may reduce subsequent criminality through this selection effect.”
http://www.bepress.com/cgi/viewpdf.cgi?article=1028&context=blewp&preview_mode=
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
***Rob R
I don’t follow the reservation.
Take these sentence
And rewrite them:
“They pulled their punches – the reason wasn’t so much that the households were unwilling. It was that suddenly a large number of poor minorities (who are statistically overrepresented in crime in the US) were able to access vasectomies and tubal ligations.”***
The reservation is that only relatively educated, future time orientated, people would go to the trouble of doing that. And they’re far less likely to be involved with CYF.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
“The reservation is that only relatively educated, future time orientated, people would go to the trouble of doing that. And they’re far less likely to be involved with CYF.”
That seems to be the case in the US at least:
“Low-income, minority and less educated men were underrepresented among vasectomy recipients. The majority of men were married or cohabiting (91%), non-Hispanic and white (87%), and educated beyond high school (81%). Only 7% of men had annual household incomes of less than $25,000, and fewer than 1% paid for the procedure using public funding; 81% of respondents paid through private insurance or a health maintenance organization.”
http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/vasectomy.html
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
This isn’t a blog I’d usually peruse however he has a nice, neat package of the reasons NOT to go down Garrett’s general ideas about sterilization. http://familylifenz.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/ten-good-reasons-why-david-garret’s-sterilization-concept-is-a-really-bad-idea/
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 5:35 pm
This debate just shows how far from reality we have strayed.
Vote:God help this very sick Nation!
March 4th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Owen McShane notes:
There’s considerable debate as to whether it was a falling birthrate amongst the poor occasioned by the availability of abortion which in fact deserves the credit that is often ascribed to “broken windows” policies. I personally believe it’s a mixture of both.
Agreed entirely. But surely you see the difference between that sort of evidence-based approach and Garrett’s “Look, poor people! $5,000!! You’d like that, wouldn’t you? You’d have about $4,000 left over after the vasectomy. Just think how much drugs you could buy with that” bigoted and condescending line?
For a poor person $4000 is a lot of money. For someone on a decent income, not so much. Thus his bribe is clearly a form of eugenics. The only way it wouldn’t be is if it were tagged to income, with those earning more being paid more to subject themselves to the procedure.
If we want to address the problem (whether the problem be child abuse, the shocking number of abortions carried out, the rising number of children born into poverty…) then Jenny Shipley had the answer years ago. Tackled on her views on abortion, she had the guts to say the only way we’d effectively reduce the numbers was to make contraception freely available to anyone, just about anywhere.
I seem to recall horrified puritans babbling about “condom dispensers in high school bathrooms” or somesuch, and the whole thing died. Once again Western society’s determination to make sure no one gets to have sex of which we don’t approve (missionary position, only when married, and only to produce offspring) gets in the way of workable solutions.
But if we’re serious about these problems then that – not a bribery program to wipe out the “underclass” – is the solution.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
These lost the plot politicial poofters know nothing about solving the child abuse problem. We will be gold medalists at it for the next decade Mr Fruitloop Garrett. Get a brain and stop the insidious problem for society. Anyone in the Beehive with just one caring brancell? Look for big increase in infanticide eh bro!!!
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 5:53 pm
Isn’t this issue REALLY about the fact that we as a society have lost our moral compass, and ONE of the predictable outcomes is increasing abuse, sexual and physical, against children?
While we have observed this moral decline in the West since the sexual revolution of the 60s, I think for New Zealand the rot really set in in 1986 when we decriminalised homosexuality and it became nothing more than a ‘lifestyle choice’. Throw into the mix societal encouragement of sexual promiscuity; especially of youth, young women encouraged to have children without the father present via the DPB, marriage frowned upon and de facto relationships regarded increasingly as the norm, and then children raised in these ‘alternatives’ arrangements where, even if a male adult is present he is unlikely to be the biological father of the children – AND THEN we throw our hands up in the air and wonder why kids/women are being sexually and physically abused, and societal violence in general is increasing.
Sterilisation of violent or sexual offenders is just another ambulance at the bottom of the cliff solution, and much like euthenasia/abortion, there are obvious dangers of implementing such solutions.
Address moral relativism, discourage sexual promiscuity outside of marriage … essentially re-embrace biblical precepts and values – and much of our societal problems will go away. Of course Progressives/Socialists are not readily going to let that happen while they remain in power in government/education/justice etc., and so they need to be removed and replaced with individuals with moral integrity and the will and desire to address the hard issues.
First step:
Vote:Remove the Progressives!
March 4th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
Do you think Ben is reading this thread too?
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
Second Step;
Hang all psychologists.
Third step;
Vote:Give the police a braincell or two.
March 4th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
***For a poor person $4000 is a lot of money. For someone on a decent income, not so much. Thus his bribe is clearly a form of eugenics. The only way it wouldn’t be is if it were tagged to income, with those earning more being paid more to subject themselves to the procedure.
But if we’re serious about these problems then that – not a bribery program to wipe out the “underclass” – is the solution.***
Rex,
Why does it have to be an either/or proposition?
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Jadis 5:29 pm,
I think it’s worth quoting his ten points:
Good points, indeed.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Perhaps paying child abusers to be sterilised is a little too far, however there is a strong argument for forced birth control in many instances.
Child abuse is complex and often involves a wider circle than the biological parents. Also what constitutes child abuse is debatable as well. Some people would include neglect and on that basis there is a strong argument that even the parents of Madeline McCann be included. What about the parents of the 2 year old who fell down the drain last year. Is there an argument to include them as well?
In the case of the Kahui twins or Nia Glassie, it was not just the parents, but associated adults who were involved or at least an accessory to the abuse. Arguably circumstances of poverty put some children into the care of abusers. It does not mean that the parents were abusers, they were simply not empowered mentally or emotionally to stop it. Take the case of Lisa Kuka, Nia Glassie’s mother. She was unable to take proper responsibility for her children. This may have more to do with drugs, gambling and poor choice of partner than being an inherently abusive person. However given proper guidance she may one day become a fit parent. I agree at present time she is unfit for further children, but given time the opposite may be true. Forced birth control in her situation is very acceptable, but it would need to be reversable.
Take a women who through drugs and an abusive partner would be an unfit mother. After successful drug rehabilitation and ending the abusive relationship, she may well become a responsible parent. Unfortunately removing her fertility will take such an opportunity away from her. While on drugs and in a detrimental relationship there is a strong case for forced birth control. However there must be the opportunity where this can be reversed should she sort herself out.
As also pointed out, step-parents are big perpetuators of abuse. Even though you can sterilise a known abuser, that will not stop them from torturing someone elses kids. That said, I do agree that they should not have the privalege of having more children and hence subject to forced sterilisation.
In conclusion, Peter Garrett’s idea has merit. I feel it needs a lot of modification and debate about the people who it should be applicable to.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 6:07 pm
“Bloody Jadis. I turn my back for a few hours and she does a post on sterilisiation of child abusers after listening to Michael Laws on Radio Live. David Garrett comments, and suddenly it is in the newspapers, on Morning Report and all over the blogosphere.”
Bloody Jadis!!!! ALL OVER THE BLOGOSPHERE!!! Bloody Jadis!!! I turn my back for a few hours!! Bloody Jadis!!! Suddenly!! Newspapers!! Bloody Jadis!!!
Pleeeeeze!
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 6:08 pm
MikeNZ 5:54 pm,
One can only hope.
I really do see much of where we as a society have ended up as a natural consequence of having no OBJECTIVE MORAL foundation – not that I need to convince you on that, Mike.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
“Jadis 5:29 pm,
This isn’t a blog I’d usually peruse however he has a nice, neat package of the reasons NOT to go down Garrett’s general ideas about sterilization.
I think it’s worth quoting his ten points:”
I don’t think those points outweigh the usefulness of this idea to address the problem of child abuse. I’ve made some brief comments:
1. It doesn’t actually address the real root causes of child abuse, instead it wrongly treats the fertility of certain individuals and groups as a causal factor in acts of child abuse”
> Yes it does. It prevents the abusive parent from having further children.
2. It creates a situation where abusing children will open up the possibility of earning an offender $5000 (by becoming sterilized after they commit acts of abuse)
> Right, and a prison sentence.
3. “It doesn’t prevent child abuse, it only responds to abuse after it has occurred – this is a reactive policy that does nothing proactive to prevent child abuse happening in the first place”
>Which is what CYF do at the moment with notifications. This would still prevent subsequent abuse.
4. It ultimately rejects the truth that our actions involve a freewill decision, as it suggests that the actions of child abusers are beyond their control.
> That isn’t much comfort for the children being abused. Also, if people have psychiatric problems or pre-frontal lobe damage there control may well be impaired.
5. It is grounded in the pseudo-science of eugenics, which wrongly claims that some people are genetically inferior/evil, and that they must be prevented from breeding in order to prevent harm to society.
> It is grounded in the idea that people who are abusive shouldn’t have further children. It is focussed on their behaviour, not their genes (although I would recommend you read Steven Pinker’s the Blank Slate – behavioural traits are significantly heritable as well as influenced by environmental factors).
6. It is grounded in hopelessness, as it rejects the possibility that a human person can choose to reject evil and find redemption by overcoming previous evil behaviors
> Again, this isn’t much comfort for the abused kid if the person doesn’t overcome previous behaviours. Perhaps a compromise would be temporary birth control shots after some rehab?
7. It reduces the family, and important social issues relating to family life, to little more than economic units, where success or failure is measured by financial costs and outcomes
> You’re missing the bigger picture – addressing our appalling child abuse stats.
8. Voluntary sterilization would eventually become forced sterilization, and the criteria for sterilization would continue to broaden to include all manner of people and family situations
> Slippery slope argument. How about sticking to what is proposed?
9. It would give the state an unhealthy power over individuals and families (even when it is voluntarily contracted in to)
> The State already has power to imprison people. That tends to interfere with more than just their potential to have children. In any case, the proposal isn’t mandatory.
10. It doesn’t encourage offenders to recognize and be contrite about their acts of child abuse, instead it encourages them to reject responsibility for their actions with the false idea that their actions were/are beyond their control.
> Again, their contrition is little comfort to the abused children.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Bob R asks:
It doesn’t. But making contraception freely available to all will reduce the number of unwanted (and thus potentially “abused”* children). If someone is serious about reducing child abuse then their steps would be as follows:
1. Freely available contraception to anyone, anywhere.
2. Free sterilisation available (note: no money paid to the recipient, just the operation paid for). Very different to Garrett’s proposal.
3. Anything else that works to protect children (such as the register of convicted abusers I’ve suggested above).
To my knowledge Garrett has proposed none of these. Instead he wants to bribe those he considers less worthy of reproducing tp stop doing so. At the heart of his proposal (and let’s not forget it’s Laws’ too) is a thinly veiled hatred of the poor, masked as concern for unwanted children.
* I use “abused” here in its widest sense… from savage beatings to simple knowing they’re unwanted as they’re passed from pillar to post but otherwise not physically or sexually abused
Psssst Grizz… good comment, but Peter Garrett is the Oils frontman turned hapless and hopeless Australian Environment Minister, who can’t man up enough to take responsibility for deaths on his watch in the insulation programme.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
I agree with most of the sentiments expressed here, this argument centres on the common sociological myth that the most extreme child abuse is performed solely by the parents/caregivers.
Time and time again, child abuse incidents are proving this inaccurate: an entire extended family can be involved and are often involved in such tragedies. Even family friends participate in such inhumane ordeals.
We also forget emotional and verbal abuse, most sociological experts will argue that this is just as important: put downs, verbal abuse and constant lack of confidence in ones ability often results in a long-term path of depression and failure in all areas. This is equally important and should be given some focus here.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
***If someone is serious about reducing child abuse then their steps would be as follows:
1. Freely available contraception to anyone, anywhere.
2. Free sterilisation available (note: no money paid to the recipient, just the operation paid for). Very different to Garrett’s proposal.
3. Anything else that works to protect children (such as the register of convicted abusers I’ve suggested above).***
Right, but the people who do this tend to have low future time orientation. Although I agree making contraception more available can’t hurt.
***Instead he wants to bribe those he considers less worthy of reproducing tp stop doing so. At the heart of his proposal (and let’s not forget it’s Laws’ too) is a thinly veiled hatred of the poor, masked as concern for unwanted children.***
Not so much the poor, as the parasite class as identified in these post-marxist social classes. Also, isn’t this the goal of the Child Poverty Action Group – to reduce the number of children born into poverty?
http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/03/the-four-postmarxist-social-classes.html
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 7:14 pm
If the outcome we want is to punish adults or parents who physically abuse their kids, then instead of paying them to sterilise themselves, wouldnt a better disincentive be to just cut off their hands?
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
I can’t let Rex W’s personalizing of his disagreement with David Garrett’s blog ideas go unanswered.
Rex promotes his own ideas as his own propositions to the debate but in several posts rather than treating Garrett’s ideas as proposition also, he maligns him and in the the last post ends up asserting Garrett’s motivations as “thinly veiled hatred of the poor”.
Pure jaundiced assertion. Garrett’s ideas only differ from Rex’s in means, not intent.
In case Rex hadn’t noticed, Garrett actually has a deeply *unveiled* hatred of non-reforming child abusers. He has made his propositions, why the associated cheap shot character assassination?
I personally don’t agree with the overall approach of the stop-the-breeding propositions, although I wouldn’t fuss up over voluntary state paid sterilization of second time child abuse offenders
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
It should be considered for ALL people who need to get welfare from the state, to raise children not just an option for those who have abused their children. But the Labour Party’s weak response interested me. They said people should be educated. What rot, these people who abuse their children are beyond education. To say that people will abuse their children to qualify for the money underlines to me that such people will not respond to education. Their is HUGE intervention NOW for people who are abusers. Time for Garrett’s final solution, maybe but it is too chilling for me.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 8:04 pm
bruceh:
My propositions are informed by my view of the world and my opinion of different “classes” (though I personally loathe that term) of people. It’s perfectly valid to argue, for instance, that I am wrong in my view of these people… asserting, for instance, that their lack of concern for the welfare of the women they impregnate and the children they breed that they wouldn’t bother using a condom if there was a dispender attached to their bedhead. And I’d admit that in some instances, you’d have a point.
My point is that Garrett’s “unveiled hatred of non-reforming child abusers” is in fact code for “poor people shouldn’t be allowed to breed”, so I take him to task for the wrongness of his underlying views.
We can’t just debate the proposition without seeking to analyse the motives of the proposer (especially when the proposer has got himself elevated to a position of influence), and in my view those motives are pretty ugly.
Bob R:
That site defines the “parasite class” as including “the working poor as well”, concluding “a sensible society would try to reduce the parasite class by discouraging this class from reproducing”.
So you think a decent loving father who works as hard as he can for his children but is paid bugger all for it and sometimes struggles shouldn’t be allowed to breed? Because under those rules, I wouldn’t have been born.
There I go, personalising things again, much to the disgust, no doubt, of bruceh. But let’s not forget these are people we’re talking about, not “labour units” or “a class” or any other term with which they can be handily dehumanised, freeing us from any pangs of guilt as we discuss chopping off their balls.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 8:43 pm
“My point is that Garrett’s “unveiled hatred of non-reforming child abusers” is in fact code for “poor people shouldn’t be allowed to breed”, so I take him to task for the wrongness of his underlying views.”
This is mere an assertion on Widerstrom’s part, Garrett never said any such thing and I doubt he believes it. Rex simply asserts ugly motives; secret coda and no doubt dog whistling.
Talk about a bit of a drama queen.
I guess Rex is a bit suspicious of politicians after being duped by Winston1. And have being duped he is quick to conclude ugliness.
I suspect that David Garrett knows that poverty is often a co relation with serial abuse but it isn’t the cause.
I suspect he knows that many New Zealanders are brought up in modest circumstances and were not abused as children and nor do they abuse their children.
Poverty can indicate other social dysfunction but it’s normally the symptom rather than the cause.
It’s more informative to discuss this matter at face value rather than focusing on the supposed motives of those participating. There is something pretty ugly about that.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
Rex, that code is your assertion. It is cheap shot presumption on your part.
In this situation your seeking to analyse the motives of the proposer has no more basis than me making an assertion that you are beautifully displaying the shadow land of Jungian projection
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
Sterlize them, castrate pedophiles, amputate the hands of thieves and anyone who speaks up against it should have their tongue ripped from their mouth. Don’t forget public stonings for murderers, rapists and homosexuals.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 10:01 pm
I am not going to comment on the merit of paid sterilisation.
My objection is to the frequent and bizarre idea that offering people, including (but not limited to) the poor, money in exchange for anything is somehow immoral or unethical. You see the argument in various places, health insurance, organ exchange – and here it is being deployed in defence of child abusers. I just think it is obviously bizarre that the mere possibility, always stated without evidence or usually even a half decent argument, that somebody who is poor somewhere might take the money and live to regret it should be a reason to coerce everybody else against their own free will and ban some activity. That is neither sensible or ethical, IMHO. In fact it is evil, in view of the number of lives sacrificed to this ridiculous ideal in the banning or organ markets.
I have no idea whether targeted, subsidised sterilisation is a good idea. But I am saddened to see David fall for the idea that offering a deal that might, we suppose, be especially attractive to the poor is somehow wrong. It’s attractiveness is a feature, and I would trust any person who is demonstrably capable of feeding, clothing and housing themselves, perhaps with the help of government, to more often than not make a decision that is in their own interests on something like this, too.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 10:31 pm
Chris Diack:
Garrett has attempted to intimidate prison officers giving evidence to a Select Committee.
Given that, I’m willing bet Garrett played a role in blocking the Justice Ministry from giving advice to the select committee looking at the three strikes policy.
Garrett has asserted that freedom from homosexual rape in prison is a “creature comfort” to which prisoners have no right.
Garrett turned up drunk on Eye to Eye in late 2008, and said that in his view paedophilia was a sexual orientation which could not be altered, “just like heterosexuality and homosexuality”.
Garrett was reprimanded in June 2009 after he made inappropriate sexual comments to a member of the ACT Parliamentary staff.
Garrett was caught out lying in his claim that 77 lives would have been saved if three strikes had been in force. Official information responses from the Corrections Department reveal there would have been none.
Garrett made racist comments to a Green Party staffer, and then his his “explanation” for it got him into more trouble with the Tongan Law Society.
And so on, and so on…
I think I know exactly the type of person I’m commenting on here, and it’s not stretching credulity to impute some fairly unpleasant underlying bigotry to him.
The really sad thing is that ACT has an important place in NZ’s political system, was founded on an excellent set of principles, and has no shortage of talented people. It acted honourably and decisively against Donna Awatere-Huata when she threatened to bring it into disrepute, which few if any parties would have had the guts to do.
I’ve known many of your party’s MPs personally – Owen Jennings, Ken Shirley, Richard Prebble, Rodney Hide. I’ve corresponded a little with John Boscawen. While I don’t agree with everything every one of them has said they’re all people I’m proud to know.
Even if we assume I’m wrong, that just leaves Garrett as an amateurish buffoon who’s constantly bringing discredit on the party. How did he get to number five on the party’s list? Was he really the fifth best person in the whole of the country who wanted to stand for ACT?! Was he really worth ranking higher and has he done a better job than, say, John Ormond? (I use him as an example because he’s the only other list candidate from last time about whom I know a reasonable amount).
Your loyalty is admirable, but what you’re doing is giving the wider public the impression that Rodney, Heather and the wider ACT membership condones either bigotry or buffoonery. I’m sure they don’t, and yes, I do see some parallels with Winston’s blind loyalty to Michael Laws. And look where Winston’s ended up.
[P.S. I believe Winston did actually want a party that lived by the Fundamental Principles of NZ First, and certainly did so when I joined in 1992. So to that degree I wasn't duped. Where I was completely led astray was in not realising the power Michael Laws was capable of exerting over Winston. I blithely thought that Winston didn't realise what he was dealing with, and all I had to do was show him. In that respect, yes, I was utterly deluded].
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 11:20 pm
**Bob R:
That site defines the “parasite class” as including “the working poor as well”, concluding “a sensible society would try to reduce the parasite class by discouraging this class from reproducing”.**
Rex,
Yeah, I disagree with their inclusion in that class by Half Sigma.
**I have no idea whether targeted, subsidised sterilisation is a good idea. But I am saddened to see David fall for the idea that offering a deal that might, we suppose, be especially attractive to the poor is somehow wrong. It’s attractiveness is a feature, and I would trust any person who is demonstrably capable of feeding, clothing and housing themselves, perhaps with the help of government, to more often than not make a decision that is in their own interests on something like this, too.**
Good point.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 11:48 pm
Rex, David Garrett is indeed responsible for his style and actions, he is also responsible for taking the feed back on them and adjusting, which he does.
Irrespective of whether you like his style or actions you still unreasonably colour your above review of such.
Your statement he was ‘caught out lying’ about the 77 lives is nothing but another of your jaundiced slights against him – go read the link you provided, you will see the issue is an apple and pears comparison, nothing more nothing less.
There are not too many non-pc politicians around, warts or no warts. Confronting issues in a pc environment will make waves, positive and negative.
You question Garrett’s ACT list selection – getting 3 Strikes into place is one of the biggest push backs ever achieved against governmental timidity and implacable pc departmental opposition. It also single-handedly reinstated government’s prime duty to its citizens – protecting them from the bad guys.
Now what was your question again Rex?
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 11:56 pm
I haven’t given the issue too much of a thought but this does make you wonder if Kiwiblog is a safe place for anybody to have an opinion anymore. David Garrett proposed an idea here and the media acted like fucking children, feeding the left wing blogs and creating a little bit of a farce.
I expect the same response whenever Labour MPs make statements on their blogs or here too. This was really sad. Was it a slow news day?
Vote:March 5th, 2010 at 12:49 am
Well said Clint, except its nothing to do with Kiwiblog. Its just the left wing swine who are the mainstream media. They have it in for Garret because he isn’t the kind of smiling media fawning politically correct say and do nothing weasel they approve of.
ACT will probably never make it in NZ and there’s a few reasons for this, but among the main reasons is that they’re opposed to so much of what the Socialist media cheer for. I’ve said it before, and I will say it again, if ACT cannot develop a strategy to deal with the embedded derison of the mainstream media, then they may as well fold their tent.
..and you’re right on the other point too. Ever see them reporting so breathlessly on what Labour politicians say on blogs??
Vote:March 5th, 2010 at 7:07 am
doesn’t the state of our failure to rehabilitate people, because that’s what they are, Show that somethings got to change? why do we keep doing the same stuff with convicted criminals and expect a different result? If we always do the things we’ve always done won’t we always get what we’ve always got.
This might sound controversial but i don’t think people who abuse their kids as a result of being abused should not be seen as criminals but rather victem’s that need help.
Otherwise why not just lock up the child after he was molested, why wait for him to do it to someone else when he gets older if as they say that most abusers will eventually abuse.
Sure child abuse is bad in any country and sure we don’t want it in society, however can you tell me whats good about the society we live in? I think it’s just as toxic as many others in the western world. we might be saving a few kids by locking up abuser’s for a while but we don’t have a family centered view in this country which promotes child welfare anyway. most of what this environment we live in promotes through it’s media and policy is destructive to family and social life.
In a responsibility scale i think we are just as guilty for the state of our society as abusers.
We go to war to fight for our country. we lay our lives down to protect it and yet do nothing as it’s slowly eroded from the inside out.
Why do we not see reconciliation and restitution as valuable tools for rehabilitation? surely if faced with making right what we made wrong, a person would see the damage they had caused and the grief their victims suffered.wouldn’t that be a better deterrent than just a custodial sentence which has punished the person for the crime but has not actually addressed why they did it in the first place?
And lastly for those who have endured my blog this far. All victims ‘ and by this i mean all of society because we have all been victims of circumstances at some point in our lives , all have to ability to heal if given adequate resources and help to do so.
Vote:The only really fatal thing in life is death.
March 5th, 2010 at 7:37 am
You are wrong Clint, or at least in disagreement with Garrett. According to him he didn’t first propose the idea here.
David Garrett Says: March 3rd, 2010 at 11:15 am
“Quite by co-incidence, I have blogged on this same topic on my own blog this morning.”
On that blog he said:
He just extended his blog comments later on Kiwiblog. He also seemed to be inviting discussion:
Should the media have left this, or accept his invitation? Isn’t that what they should do? Or do you think they should selectively ignore some MPs in case they embarrass their party?
Vote:March 5th, 2010 at 7:41 am
@Clint Heine March 4th, 2010, 11:56 pm
Actually, Clint, the media were rather slow off the mark. The Standard ran a post on it on Wednesday at 2.59pm. The MSM didn’t pick it up until yesterday morning.
Why do you tolerate people like Garrett being in senior positions in your party Clint? He seems to represent the antithesis of the libertarian postion Act used to take.
Edit: Oh, and what Pete George says too.
Vote:March 5th, 2010 at 7:52 am
But wait, there’s more.
Vote:March 5th, 2010 at 8:18 am
Must be face palms all round at the Act meetings these days.
The John the Jew dickhead now this Bernard Shaw wannabe.
Time for a bit of a preemtive cull there Rodney.
As to the matter of voluntary sterilisation we have that NOW. Why the hysteria on that one?
Vote:March 5th, 2010 at 8:19 am
“Bloody Jadis. I turn my back for a few hours and she does a post on sterilisiation of child abusers after listening to Michael Laws on Radio Live. David Garrett comments, and suddenly it is in the newspapers, on Morning Report and all over the blogosphere.”
Methinks he doth protest too much…
Vote:March 5th, 2010 at 8:32 am
“Why do you tolerate people like Garrett being in senior positions in your party Clint? He seems to represent the antithesis of the libertarian postion Act used to take.”
Toad- Why do you tolerate people like Jeanette Fitzsimons being in senior positions in your Party when she makes comments like this “That’s like saying you’ve got six children, so it doesn’t really matter if you lose one does it” when talking about mining.
Vote:March 5th, 2010 at 8:35 am
Because left wing dickheads are ok but conservative dickheads are eeeeeeevil lukas
Vote:March 5th, 2010 at 8:45 am
Fitzsimons is history for the Greens.
Garrett is current, and rising toxic for Act. The problem is if they keep him until the election the damage may be terminal. Ironically it may strengthen Hide’s position, more reason why his seat is essential.
Vote:March 5th, 2010 at 8:49 am
Why are you guys even bothering with this thread?
It just ain’t going to happen!
The idea is just arrogant white men masturbation fantasy fuel.
Happy splattering, guys, with your morning glory!
Vote:March 5th, 2010 at 8:50 am
Given that most people rape/abuse for a power trip rather than to procreate, surely the strerilization argument is a bit redundant eh.
Vote:March 5th, 2010 at 8:56 am
bit of a “we must climb the mountain of conflict moment” eh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQrqMkCuHqA
Vote:March 5th, 2010 at 8:57 am
@Murray 8:35am
Murray, this research would indicate that conservatives are more likely to be dickheads though:
Vote:March 5th, 2010 at 8:58 am
You are one fucked up mofo luc. An 8 year old can tell you about your projection issues.
Meanwhile in reality land Act cut Kevin Campbell loose in heartbeat while Genetix is a hero to the left. Can you play spot the difference?
Vote:March 5th, 2010 at 9:06 am
Garrett? ba-bomp ba-bomp ba-bomp ba-bomp………..
Vote:March 5th, 2010 at 9:13 am
The voices in you head are leaking out pete.
Vote:March 5th, 2010 at 9:21 am
Murray
Have you changed hands yet?
Vote:March 5th, 2010 at 9:25 am
Thats the way to deal with those projection issues luc.
You keep worshiping gaia toad, you also used “science” to prove that we can change the weather with a tax.
Vote:March 5th, 2010 at 9:25 am
##Luc Hansen (1139) Says:
March 5th, 2010 at 8:49 am
Why are you guys even bothering with this thread?
It just ain’t going to happen!
The idea is just arrogant white men m*sturbation fantasy fuel.##
Luc,
Stopping child abuse isn’t simply a white male fantasy and it is disapointing that someone smart like yourself is so closed minded about addressing it.
Vote:March 5th, 2010 at 9:25 am
I’m grateful that garratt has the balls to openly discuss this issue and at least opine on options no matter if they’ll never fly right now.
To be sure there is the other side of the coin that you are all ignoring.
1. child abuse is still happening
Vote:2. data sharing and profiling isn’t happening as it should between agencies
3. there is no task force sorting the profiled out
4 the public can see no evidence that the issue is being taken seriously and dealt too.
5. even though key screwed ordinary parents and broke the social contract with the Kiwi voter child abuse is still happening.
March 5th, 2010 at 9:33 am
Bob R
I care.
But interfering with human bodies (think eugenics) is not the solution. And it just won’t fly.
The biggest drivers of child abuse are unemployment and poverty.
Chopping off the odd guys nuts ain’t going to work.
In fact, you run into the realm of moral hazard: if my life is fucked, I can abuse a child, get sterilised, free lodgings for a while, get 5 grand waiting for me when I get out.
Think about it.
Vote:March 5th, 2010 at 9:39 am
The options Garrett raised should never fly Mike. And they wouldn’t stop child abuse from happening if they did. Unless they targetted children before they could have kids who could be perceived to be at future risk of abusing when they had children – but this would be at least as bad abuse of those people.
Valid issue, very dumb approach.
Vote:March 5th, 2010 at 9:46 am
##But interfering with human bodies (think eugenics) is not the solution. And it just won’t fly.
The biggest drivers of child abuse are unemployment and poverty.
Chopping off the odd guys nuts ain’t going to work.
In fact, you run into the realm of moral hazard: if my life is fucked, I can abuse a child, get sterilised, free lodgings for a while, get 5 grand waiting for me when I get out.
Think about it.##
Eugenics is a taboo word so people can avoid thinking about it. As I’ve noted above, it was actually envisioned by the founder of planned parenting, socialist and early feminist Margaret Sanger, as a means of alleviating poverty.
There is no practical reason why it wouldn’t be effective. Similarly for actual paedophiles who can’t help themselves.
In terms of moral hazard, I don’t think the kind of person who is that damaged would be thinking that far ahead. Of course that then could be an argument for making it mandatory!
Of course unemployment and poverty are drivers but they’re not going anywhere. In fact they will get worse as jobs continue to be replaced by machines or outsourced overseas.
Vote:March 5th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Rex, has a good point. Serious sex offenders can be banned from being alone with a minor unsupervised. I recently watched a doco about Bert Potter. I understand he still has that restriction and rightfully so.
Surely, the same restriction could be put on those who murder or seriously abuse there children and improve systems to detect a breach and punish a breach when detected.
Perhaps, before we consider something that will not fly we should punish sexually offenders against children properly including those involved with child porn. By that I do not mean anything drastic but simply public humiliation by not giving these offenders name suppression particularly permanent name suppression.
We have had three cases that I know of recently of women over 30 having sex with underage boys. In one case it involved pregnancy.
We of course know all about the prominent person in the PN area who got permanent name suppression after convictions for child porn.
Never mind sterilisation I bet there is no restriction on these people having access to minors and the public have no idea these people are threat and may leave their children in their care.
In short why not look at applying the laws we have before considering making more.
Vote:March 6th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
what’s all this about sterilisation for gods sake .. there was an ad on telly with a vacancy for a couple of eunuchs .. they just needed a couple of bricks.
Vote:Pity this wasn’t an option for Hone H’s dad
March 6th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
Chuck – some excellent points in your post, and refreshing to read someone thinking of the wider issues.
Vote:March 7th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
This is a good article in the Herald today.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10630375
Talks about the quality of people that get involved abusing their children. It looks into the character of these child abusers. I think BobR has a good point but to be more specific, the benefit is causing more child abuse.
Vote:March 7th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
The Herald had a good article which shows the child abuser having more children which to me is a big mistake.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10630375
At least Garrett’s approach gives options and will help prevent child abuse in the future. I am game for this because what we currently have is nothing, only a ridiculous anti-smacking law and the benefit which is a major contributor to child abuse.
Vote: