Would sterilization work?

March 3rd, 2010 at 10:49 am by Jadis

I’ve just been listening to DPF’s favourite friend, Michael Laws on Radio Live – Michael advocates sterilizing men and women who are perpetrators of extreme abuse of children.  Why are so many against it? Are these the same people that use the line “put children first”?  If we aren’t for capital punishment for people that kill and maim kids then perhaps sterilisation is an option.  The Family Violence Death Review Committee has just released figures that show at least sixteen children were killed in family violence incidents in the past year.  That is just child deaths from family violence, how many children have been subject to injury-causing sexual and physical abuse this past year?

If we were putting children first then sterilisation (voluntary or compulsory) could be an option – on top of prison sentences and the like.  The criteria would have to be rather tight.  Would sterilization just be for serious physical and sexual abuse cases? Or for neglect?

Many serious male, youth offenders between the ages of 15 and 17 are either Maori or Pacific Island.  Most present to the courts with a history of abuse, drug use, gang affiliations, and the like.  The stereotype really isn’t far from the truth.  Most of those boys have siblings. If we really cared about those children left behind then surely we would stop those children having to end up the same products of abuse – either remove children at birth OR take one step back and sterilise the Mothers and Fathers on proof of abuse.  Many of the offenders of New Zealand’s worst child abuse/murder cases had other children and others went on to have more… can we think about those children rather than focus on the abhorrent act?  How do we help those children left behind (or still to be born)?

We need to have a real consequence for the worst offenders to protect further children from being hurt.  Those that kill their kids through abuse and neglect can’t be trusted with precious children.

To change those broken parts of NZ society we need to look at what successful families do well and replicate them OR we need to accept that those parts of society will always be there.  The problem is we either need to make crap parents do these programmes (with consequences if they don’t) or we can put programmes into ECE and schools that are value based AND give children self-belief and esteem.  We can have teachers and doctors and other professionals that interact with these children and they will make a difference (I’m pleased it will soon be mandatory). Would crap parents care about programmes?

The problem with the “more programme” argument is that it takes the responsibility away from the perpetrators, it assumes crap parents want to commit to them and it is rather paternalistic.  I had an interesting chat to a Principal the other day.  He is a new Principal to a decile ten school.  Previously he has lead decile three and five schools.  As a Principal he is relishing that he and his teachers (in the decile 10) get to focus on teaching and learning outcomes.  He has told off about three children this year; literally a “don’t do that again” telling off.  In the decile three and five schools he had to deal with a myriad of issues that ultimately occurred because of the family issues.  Is it just a money and haves vs have nots issue?  If it was that then how come some successful lower-income families produce children that do have respect, values and contribute positively to society later in life?

It does take one person to notice, and act on abuse… as long as there is a trusted system that acts in return.  Of course, that system doesn’t have to be the State.

No tag for this post.

102 Responses to “Would sterilization work?”

  1. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    Perhaps now is a good time to go and read Brave New World.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Danyl Mclauchlan (1,069 comments) says:

    Like all irreversible punishments – mutilation, execution – this would require an extremely expensive appeals process to minimise the chances of a falsely convicted person being sterilised. That seems like money that was better spent on preventitive measures – nurse home visits for at risk children, say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Because eugenics by its nature is abhorrent.

    You follow that road and next you have citizen’s panels decided who should be subjected to post natal abortion for their ideas. It all sounds vaguely familiar as if we’ve been here before…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. OTGO (548 comments) says:

    I can think of about 50% of the existing prison population that should be sterilised.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Whoops (136 comments) says:

    Yes yes, and we should do the same for the poor! For the ugly! For those I disagree with!

    or… how about we solve the root issue before adopting something so uncivilized. Of course the question is how? and of course one can argue that what’s been tried so far clearly isn’t working (though I would contend; compared to what? The US system?)… but I think the moral and ethical implications of sterilization exclude it from debate in any non-fascist state.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. David Garrett (7,270 comments) says:

    Quite by co-incidence, I have blogged on this same topic on my own blog this morning.

    The above is a very thoughtful post – how sad that the first three comments are of the “oh no it’s all too dreadful, let’s not discuss it” variety. We have nurse visits and other “interventions” now, and have had for 20 years. The problem has simply got worse. In my view, there can be nothing more vile than the abuse and killing of helpless children. That fact alone means that at some point we need to have a discussion about this…no matter how distasteful or reminiscent (however vaguely) of “Brave New World” such a discussion might be.

    NB This post contains my PERSONAL views, which are not necessarily shared by my colleagues.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Ross Nixon (559 comments) says:

    When we allow abortion on demand, life is automatically devalued.
    There has been a flow on effect from this.
    You can’t deny it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Whoops (136 comments) says:

    @David G

    Surely society has already discussed this?

    Most seem to have concluded it’s a no go area. Do you think a new debate will result in a different outcome?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. m@tt (629 comments) says:

    There are several reasons why this is not only abhorrent but a deeply stupid idea.
    The one that might strike a chord here is raised by Danyl above, the cost to administer would be huge, probably outweighing any benefit when compared to other measures. In my opinion.

    On another note, if raising the driving age a year, repealing section 59 and banning cellphone use in cars is viewed as nanny state (as evidenced by quite a few commenters here and elsewhere) how could this be viewed as acceptable?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. andrei (2,631 comments) says:

    We need to have a real consequence for the worst offenders to protect further children from being hurt. Those that kill their kids through abuse and neglect can’t be trusted with precious children.

    They are not so precious when they are in the womb, we slaughter a quarter of them currently before they are born

    And this is related – 30+ years of social engineering has created a situation where the middle classes barely breed, are discouraged from doing so while the people at the bottom are encouraged to.

    But libbies will never get that – been brainwashed into believing normal family life as oppressive or something.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Mr Elbow (30 comments) says:

    People need licences for all sorts of things, but not to have children… accounting for the logistical problems with such a system, it does make me wonder about society’s priorities.
    Drivers lose their licences and their car when they drive badly, but many bad parents just keep on popping out more and more babies and get rewarded by taxpayers for doing so.
    Garrett’s written on this issue here http://www.davidgarrett.org.nz/?p=718 – asks the same kinda questions as Jadis.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. ben (2,379 comments) says:

    Less child abuse is of course desirable, but state sterilisation makes me nervous. First, the state is so strikingly incompetent at nearly everything it does that there can be zero doubt mistakes will be made. The wrong people will be sterilised. Operations will be botched. We know that. Strike one against the idea.

    Second, I worry about the slippery slope. The slippery slpe is real. It holds for National and Labour governments. Witness the slew of new regulation from National after being elected on a no nanny state platform. Governments look effective and win votes by passing more regulation, not less. The slippery slope is real. So: sterilisation for child murder today, child abuse tomorrow, and too many unpaid parking tickets the next. No thanks.

    Third, while I care little for Brand NZ (that’s an argument deployed by anyone without an argument), I do worry about real world retaliation against NZ for this sort of thing. Europeans would I think fall over themselves to punish NZ for such a policy. Not even the US does this to its citizens.

    While handing the state a ton more interference makes me nervous, no handing the state this tool doesn’t mean it won’t advance in different ways. Of course it will. The UK now literally puts cameras inside offenders’ homes and makes sure they feed them and put them to bed on time. I am not kidding.

    Anybody ever see V for Vendetta? That is the world we are heading too. I am scared.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Why is this such an untenable solution?
    It’s not as if we are looking at suspisions but actual proven behaviour.
    Bringing through the next generation is the most important thing we do as a society isn’t it?
    hello?

    When do the kids come first?
    Why do we allow families to clam up?
    Why do we not go after all who fit the profiles – drug use, benefit, single parents – low education etc etc, with vigour?
    Why do we penalise the majority of parents and pussyfoot around the perpetrators?

    I think this is a worthy topic to discuss and not just put it down with emotional painting words.
    lets discuss this as the children do matter whether white or brown.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. rouppe (971 comments) says:

    Don’t think it would work. Reasons:
    1) Administration and appeals costs, as mentioned by others
    2) Given that we have already dismissed capital punishment, consider this:

    The person being involuntarily sterilised would probably not be consenting therefore
    a) they need to be firmly strapped to the table
    b) they would need to be forcibly hooked up to the iv to administer the general anaesthetic
    c) you would need to find a surgeon willing to perform the operation on an unwilling patient
    Heck if you’re going to go to those lengths you might as well go the whole hog for capital punishment

    Here’s my take on capital punishment:
    1) It becomes a sentencing option for the judge in the most severe cases. But…
    2) The decision on whether it is applied is left entirely up to the victim or if they are deceased or otherwise incapable of the decision, their next of kin
    3) If the victim or next of kin decide”no” then the existing custodial sentencing process applies
    4) Appeals can only be on the basis of the conduct of the trial, not whether the application of capital punishment is “fair”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    rouppe
    from what you’re saying it seems you think that capital punishment is an easier to administer than involuntary sterilisation?

    Is this after a murder or just for Abuse and at what level?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    maybe after youve had everyone sterilized, you could start rounding up the Jews.

    slow news day here or something?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. David Garrett (7,270 comments) says:

    At last, some sensible discussion pro and con..

    ben in particular makes some good points re state compulsion. One possibility to avoid those concerns would be an incentive to get sterilized with some filter process, so middle aged men like me who need to do it but havent got around to it don’t get paid to do what I need to do because my family is complete.

    If – say – $5000 was paid to the likes of both parents of the Kahui twins if they chose to be sterilized, this would address many of ben’s and others’ concerns. Nothing compulsory, just an option. To take Kahui-King as examples, how much is it costing the state now to care for the children Maxyna King has had removed from her? How much will it cost to care for the 6 or 8 more she may have before menopause? How much is it costing for CYF to monitor the well being of Chris Kahui’s latest offspring? $5,000 to each of them is ludicrously cheap by comparison.

    For those who think this is a silly suggestion, the Indians did it 30 years ago (the reward was a transistor radio for every man who had a vasectomy) for population control reasons. I don’t recall why the programme was eventually abandoned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Dan (44 comments) says:

    The problem is that many abused children are not necessarily the biological children of the accused.

    Sterilization won’t help step-children or the children of a defacto partner from another relationship.
    Nor will sterilization help the children who have already been abused.

    It’s also an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.

    At the top of the cliff we need to do things like de-commodicising children (e.g.: abortion, WTF?), and reinforcing & supporting families who actually do a great job of raising their kids.

    First things first, people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Fale Andrew Lesa (473 comments) says:

    When you do a paper in Sociology at the University of Auckland, you walk away with the acceptance of the following (well I did anyway):

    1. That a vast number of social issues today are generational, in the case of child abuse: those who are often responsible were also former victims of this daunting experience (in want of a better term).

    2. That Sociological theories or explanations insist on empirical knowledge (evidence-based).

    3. That social problems often occur as a result of environmental factors rather than factors unique to certain individuals, ethnicity or other social groupings as often assumed in this very blog.

    Rather than focusing on individualism, there is often a bigger social picture and as is the case with child abuse in New Zealand: the solution must involve this bigger picture.

    If we’re going to introduce sterilization it is also going to open doors to the following:

    Capital punishment and the reintroduction of the death penalty.

    Corporal punishment and the reintroduction of teacher-student discipline.

    To avoid all of this chaotic historical door-opening we could simply implement a better solution, I am not in favour of sterilization. It does little to solve the problem, it simply punishes the problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” Michael advocates sterilizing men and women who are perpetrators of extreme abuse of children.”

    I wouldn’t even acknowledge such a disgusting suggestion with serious comment. I doubt Laws means this, but if he did, it shows that as I have frequently asserted, he might be opposed to some leftist ideas, but in reality he’s no real right winger or Conservative.

    Execute them maybe, but forced sterilization? No way ever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Danyl Mclauchlan (1,069 comments) says:

    For those who think this is a silly suggestion, the Indians did it 30 years ago (the reward was a transistor radio for every man who had a vasectomy) for population control reasons. I don’t recall why the programme was eventually abandoned.

    Classsic. Mr Garrett is obviously not a Salman Rushdie fan.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Whoops (136 comments) says:

    “Forced sterilization has been recognized as crime against humanity if the action is part of a widespread or systematic practice by the Rome Statute Explanatory Memorandum, which defines the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.[1][2]”

    Ahem…

    also… ref India…

    India’s state of emergency between 1975 and 1977 included an infamous family planning initiative beginning April 1976, which involved the vasectomy of thousands of men and tubal ligation of women, either for payment or under coercive conditions. The son of then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, Sanjay Gandhi, was largely blamed for what turned out to be a failed program.[14] A strong backlash against any initiative associated with family planning followed the highly controversial program, which continues into the 21st century.[15]
    The situation in China is the subject of a crackdown in which officials promoting enforced sterilization were jailed for their actions. [16]”

    Yeah sure it’s Wikipedia, so check the sources before quoting… etc… but geeez guy – if you’re putting this argument forward for serious consideration (‘must have a conversation’) rather than just a slow news day push to build some hype for yourselves then you should AT LEAST have done some googling…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. PaulL (5,981 comments) says:

    People change over time. Suggesting sterilising someone when they’re 25, based on their behaviour when they’re 25, seems to me a bit draconian.

    The reality is that there are families in NZ from whom children are taken as soon as they’re born, and some in fact where I believe the mother has been put in preventative custody in the late stages of pregnancy to protect the child.

    We will never end all child abuse, we will never end all child deaths. Sterilisation is abhorrent, and I wouldn’t advocate it. I would definitely advocate some other quite intrusive actions though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Mr Mclauchlan, there’s no need for you to come over all sanctimonious. The real reason for the growth in child abuse is the government policies you promote and endorse. Namely the idea that the state is a better upbringer and mentor of children than parents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    David GarrettI said nothing about not discussing it, I pointed out that it has serious dangers and HAS been tried.

    You’ll note (assuming you READ what I wrote) that at no time did I say it wouldn’t work. I meerly question how big a sledge hammer you plan to use for this egg.

    The essence of your comment meanwhile was what a shame people don’t agree with me. Given that attitude Ill see you in hell before I let you decide whose nuts to cut off thanks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    For those who think this is a silly suggestion, the Indians did it 30 years ago (the reward was a transistor radio for every man who had a vasectomy) for population control reasons. I don’t recall why the programme was eventually abandoned.

    Because the radios didn’t come with batteries.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. David Garrett (7,270 comments) says:

    Murray…you seem rather confused about what vasectomy involves….

    Thanks to whoever it was who gave detail about the Indian programme of the seventies…NB I say “no compulsion”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    Giving an incentive to people to get sterilized would be a winner. I still think the financial incentive should be big. $20K at least. The trick is, as David Garret pointed out, gettign the right people sterilized. I had a vasectomy at 45. I would have been a bad candidate for the incentive. But an 18 year old woman with kids on the dpb, or a young liable father with four kids to different women – different story.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Whoops (136 comments) says:

    @David G

    ‘no compulsion’? But you did say coercion is ok; “say $5000?”

    If you’re the best ACT has to offer on fixing NZ’s child welfare issues then your party is screwed.

    If you’re just trolling for media attention then you might just get what you want (and I’m sure Rodney will be pleased you’ve brought this particular spotlight on the party… personal view or not). Nice job.

    nb; obviously I’m assuming this is the real DG. And no, Whoops is not my real name.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. RKBee (1,344 comments) says:

    I thought drinking fluoridated water numbed and pacified the human brain.
    The problem must be 15 to 17 year olds don’t drink water ..they drink coke and other fizzy drinks instead.. Giving them rotten teeth rotten brains with rotten attitudes.
    While the majority of the rest of us drink town supply floridised water… and are to dozy to think or make decisions on the subject of sterilisation.
    Properly why Michael Laws is alone on this one… as we know he only drinks from his ego.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Pete George (23,558 comments) says:

    If deemed an acceptable measure (I don’t think it is) it still wouldn’t be very effective – how can you predict which future parents are at risk? Once they have had kids it’s a bit late. Even once they have had kids and abused them it’s too late.

    One way it could possibly work (I don’t think it would) in some cases is to identify mothers at risk of abusing at the time of birth and take their kids away from them. And cut the arms and legs off any at risk possible caregivers or step fathers of the future.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. cha (4,008 comments) says:


    Eugenics: Keeping Canada Sane

    Nevertheless, the Alberta Sexual Sterilization Act passed on March 7, 1928, creating a Eugenics Board with the power to authorize the sexual sterilization of individuals. From 1929 to 1972, the board approved 4725 of 4800 cases brought before it, of whom 2822 were officially sterilized. (British Columbia passed a similar act in 1933 but was far less vigorous in its implementation. In any case the BC records have been destroyed.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    All of these issues are coming about as the Progressive’s goal of the destruction of society’s moral base gradually reaches its desired outcome.

    The problem of child abuse can be fixed, and there is no need for radical action such as sterilization.

    The correct and workable approach is to reject Progressive political policies. To allow personal morality to be the guiding light for every individual and not the dictates of the collectivist state.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Whoops (136 comments) says:

    @cha

    Perhaps we should reflect on their mistakes?

    “Despite the inaccuracy of IQ testing and tremendous grey area in classifying the mentally defective, nearly 3000 people were rendered sterile by the Sexual Sterilization Act. The true nature of the act was revealed when Leilani Muir, a former inmate of the Michener Centre (also known as the Provincial Training School for Mental Defectives, PTS), discovered in 1971 that she had been sterilized. After being admitted to the PTS at age 10 as an unwanted and abused child, Leilani was given a substandard education. She was inaccurately designated a mentally defective moron (an individual with an IQ between 51 and 70), effectively nullifying her human rights. She was administered powerful antipsychotic agents without any due cause, as she had not manifested any symptoms of psychosis during her residency at the PTS. Eventually she was given an impromptu IQ test, on which she scored a 64. Shortly thereafter, she was taken before the Eugenics Board, and sterilization was authorized pending her mother’s consent (which was readily given).
    In 1995, Leilani was awarded $750,000CAD and $230,000CAD in damages for her wrongful and humiliating labeling as a moron and her subsequent sterilization. Since the victory, another 1300 cases have been opened, several of them concerning individuals who may have actual mental disabilities. It is unlikely they will be awarded any settlements based on stigmatization, but they may win suits based on involuntary sterilization, which is now considered battery under Canadian law.”

    Wikipedia again (sorry, I’m lazy).

    @ Redbaiter ‘can be fixed/no need’. Damn right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” NB I say “no compulsion” ”

    So why would the barbarians and savages who are the target of your concern go for it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Whoops (136 comments) says:

    @ cha again – from your article (interesting – thanks)

    “The story of eugenics is the story of human fallibility, of people who resorted to extreme theories while being convinced that they were absolutely right. While citing science to support their presumptions, they ignored the basic principle of true science — to think it possible that you may be mistaken. “

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Pete George (23,558 comments) says:

    The problem of child abuse can be fixed…..

    The correct and workable approach is to reject Progressive political policies. To allow personal morality to be the guiding light for every individual and not the dictates of the collectivist state.

    It doesn’t make sense trying to work you usual repeat mantra into this issue.

    Even if rejecting “Progressive political policies” was a definable and achievable thing to do, what if the subsequent allowed “personal morality” for some people was beating and abusing their kids?

    Absurd.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Whoops (136 comments) says:

    “If we were putting children first then sterilisation (voluntary or compulsory) could be an option – on top of prison sentences and the like.”

    Let’s also remember the o/p was talking about sterilization as a form of punishment (or maybe deterrent?). Three strikes and you’re a eunuch. What a genius – that’ll look great on a billboard. DG – I suggest you raise this next time you see RH.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. xy (187 comments) says:

    Ah, ACT, what have you become?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    David Garrett you seem rather confused about the dangers of imposing your will on other people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. cha (4,008 comments) says:

    Yes indeed Whoops and something else to turn the stomach, the PBS documentary The Lobotomist

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Scorpio (415 comments) says:

    How about a contraceptive implant? This is non-permanent but stops more babies being born to abusive parents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” what if the subsequent allowed “personal morality” for some people was beating and abusing their kids?”

    How is that for an example of the very twisted and irrational thinking that got us to the amoral swamp we stagger around in today? You Progressives have a lot to answer for, and one day, you will be held to account for your politically motivated lies, false allegations and smears against good people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Pete George (23,558 comments) says:

    Up to what year (AD or BC?) was everything perfect and everyone acted morally and never abused or hurt anyone?

    What planet did you come from?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. MIKMS (167 comments) says:

    This idea I believe could work and be very useful for NZ provided it was actually a form of sterilization that could be reversed generally such as vasectomy. The idea behind this is very smart that violent sex offenders won’t be able to harm any more people by rape and then the rape victim having to go through the channels to end the not just unwanted but forced and assaulted-on pregnancy. For instance sexual predators who get out on parole could be required to undergo a procedure as a condition of that parole and the procedure could be undone if the paroled individual so chose to at the end of his/her official sentence. It would not greatly impact the persons rights and if rational human beings think about it – how many of you would be happy a person who has committed violent sexual offences is able to keep/have a child while they are on parole. essentially this introduces an air of voluntary action to the system while punishing those who refuse to receive the correction since they do not care about the public at large so are not worthy of being released back to that public, and remember it may also be good for these individuals to have a chill off period outside of prison as well and this is a way for that to happen without any form of home detention or increased supervision .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. RRM (9,915 comments) says:

    Murray & Redbaiter are right on the money here.

    (f*ck me, the planets must be in some odd-as-hell alignment this week…)

    2 main objections to sterilisation:

    [1] Voluntary sterilisation:
    I might turn to a life of crime one day. I keep a good set of tools in the car, that would probably be good for doing burglaries. Should the state spend thousands assisting me to hand them in, as a way of ensuring I don’t carry out future burglaries?

    [2] Sterilisation under compulsion:
    We need to punish criminals, and we need to punish them hard, but in a manner that is already acceptable to most people e.g. serious jail time. Not holding convicts down and mutilating their genitalia. You’re not in Poland now, Dr Mengele.

    ACT should be pursuing full implementation of the 3 strikes initiative, not mad schoolboy schemes to castrate rapists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. rouppe (971 comments) says:

    MikeNZ

    What I was trying to say is that administering and executing compulsory sterilisation would encounter most of the obstacles present in administering and executing capital punishment… Given that the hurdles for the latter have already been seen to be too high, I can’t see compulsory sterilisation going ahead.

    I personally support the death penalty and the last para was my take on it to avoid the ‘state sanctioned killing’, as the sanctioning would have to be up to the beliefs and morals of the victim or next-of-kin.

    The bar would have to be pretty high. Murder is one, though again eligibility isn’t automatic for a murder. Burton would be one candidate. For abuse possibly. Kidnap a girl and keep her in an underground bunker for 20 years and father multiple children. Probably yes. Those scumbags who killed Nia Glassey? Possibly not because though the abuse was callous and indefensible, they were more stupid than calculating

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Lindsay (148 comments) says:

    Most (but not all) of the worst abuse goes on in benefit dependent homes. Some people have babies for the wrong reasons, one being that they are meal tickets. If you doubt that, watch the family wrangles that go on in the court over custody when a beneficiary parent stands to lose their source of income. Having had children for the wrong reasons they do not make good parents. So another approach could be to make using a long-acting contraceptive a condition of receiving welfare. In order to keep getting an income from the state the mother cannot have any more children. Anyone using the DPB the way it was intended would be avoiding having more children anyway. No need to sterilise men or women. No coercion.

    At the same time, for people not already parents, change expectations. No more open-ended, easy-to-get-on and easy-to-stay on welfare. Reforming welfare isn’t the whole answer. Like others I do not think there is a total solution. Child abuse, like other crime, will always be with us. But we shouldn’t be encouraging it by attaching substantial cash incentives to babies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. pollywog (1,153 comments) says:

    I say sterilise the rich and the powerful who send kids out to die in war and business for their fucked up beliefs. Them who create a market for illegal organ transplants to sustain their worthless lives and perpetuate more misery in their shallow gene pooled offspring.

    And by sterilising them to not create dynasties, thus making the world a better place over all by redistributing their wealth into culturally appropriate programs which actually deal with the root causes of familial child abuse….poverty, alienation, cultural bias and elitism.

    Sure, focus the media on the heart rendering stats of a messed up polynesian abusing his kid and turn a blind eye to the systemic abuse of young people on a mass scale thats tantamount to infanticide in some cases by those who should know better.

    One kid’s death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic and most of y’all are comfortable dealing with statistics at the expense of real life tragedies.

    If many of you actually grew a pair worth shit i’d recommend chopping them off but sadly i suspect most of y’all are a bunch of wimps hiding behind the fact that you’re an evolutionary dead end while polynesians are the ulitmate product of survival of the fittest, the proof of which is in our histories and traditions and the fruit of which will bear out in the next 2 generations or so.

    BTW polynesians practised infanticide and cannibalism for a reason, so do your worst. It’s nothing to what we’ve done to, continue to do and allow to be done to us that we haven’t seen or done before.

    What doesnt kill us makes us stronger.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    Why do people waste time something that is not going happen? There is no way compulsory or “voluntary” sterilisation with an incentive is going to happen any more than the death penalty or public flogging. This detracts from things that can happen.

    Children are already removed from parents who have already seriously abused children in the past. This could be expanded and the removal should be made permanent in appropriate cases. Children have ended up being seriously abused and even murdered when removed from good foster parents and returned to the birth mother.

    I do not think an monetary payment would ever be acceptable for sterilisation but a free sterilisation should be offered to any woman who knows her child will be removed at birth.

    Care would have to be taken not mainly target high profile cases. Chris Kahui to the best of my knowledge has not been convicted of any crime relating to children. However, a woman who was sentenced to 16 years along with her partner for the manslaughter of her young child has got custody of a baby to another partner.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Up to what year (AD or BC?) was everything perfect and everyone acted morally and never abused or hurt anyone?”

    Nothing was ever perfect, and nor will it ever be, but the rot started when your lot began promoting the idea that there is no good and no bad and its all relative. The decline in civil behaviour can be traced back to when that approach first began to gain acceptance in academia and the media and then was transferred into our culture.

    One one only has to look at skyrocketing crime and violence rates to see that there is a tie in to Progressive political ascendancy and the propagation of their core message by means of popular culture.

    Namely TV and movies out of Progressive Hollywood (for example) that laud amoral behaviour and when in tandem with education policies that produce ignorant of history knuckle dragging socialists instead of educated and refined people, it should be no surprise that society is slowly sinking into a swamp of amorality and barbarism.

    I repeat, it is such as you that has brought this upon us. Not that you’ll ever admit it. You indoctrinated Progressive wooden heads will go on boring holes in the hull until the ship sinks completely, and even then it will still be everybody else’s fault.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    You need to read “The Burden of Bad Ideas” by Heather MacDonald. I read it about ten years or so ago. Just put your “Das Kapital” aside for one or two days and try something new.

    It is based on a similar theme to that which Thomas Sowell addressed in an article the other day, and that is the influence of “intellectuals”. Dreamworld fuckwits who today, thanks to excessive taxation and ever increasing government, have far too much influence over our lives. Almost every idea they have ever had has been incredibly bad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Jadis (146 comments) says:

    And here are the experts views of what would work. http://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/all/files/ExpertsForumChildAbuse.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Pete George (23,558 comments) says:

    Could be interesting Red. Reminds me of something I heard on NatRad yesterday (hear me out before blowing a phoophoo) – an interview of a Southland health board manager about a new multi purpose ED/GP health facility for Queenstown.

    Asked about how the new system was going to work the interviewee struggled with muddled explanations, but when she diverted the conversation to the reasons behind the changes she proved to be fluent in management jargon (still no clearer but she seemed in her comfort zone).

    Back to the book:

    “She begins by placing blame for the current state of social policy squarely on the shoulders of private charitable foundations. Foundations, she asserts, provide the bulk of the funding for community activists who stamp out traditional culture among the poor and replace it with multiculturalism and “enlightened sexuality.”

    I can see why you might like it:

    “It’s so one-sided that it could only be enjoyed by someone looking for selected facts to support regressive political positions. Counter arguments are almost never addressed. The book takes a self-righteous tone that gets tiresome after a while. ”

    “If you are a dyed-in-the-wool conservative merely looking for a feel-good experience in the form of an endless diatribe against liberals, this book is for you.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. bigjed (1 comment) says:

    Laws is quite clear. He means “voluntary” sterilisation. So bringing up ‘eugenics’ and Nazism is over-the-top hysteria. People could do that now if they wanted – what he is talking about is state-funded sterilisation – nothing terrible about that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    So some Progressive reviewer doesn’t like the book.

    Yawn.

    I can’t believe you keep quoting these charlatans as often as you do. What does it take to get the point ( that their credibility is in shreds and has been for a decade or more) through to you???

    They just do not matter anymore.

    Have a look at this example of Progressive shit posing as a journalist-

    http://www.breitbart.tv/msnbc-meltdown-host-blisters-tea-party-express-organizer/

    for an excellent example of just how worthless they all are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Hugh Manatee (108 comments) says:

    David Garrett chides some posters for reactionary comments.

    F*ck me!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Ben Wilson (523 comments) says:

    When did Kiwiblog start doing anonymous parody threads?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    xy asks:

    Ah, ACT, what have you become?

    A former party of principle, founded on a coherent set of ideals which, at the first sniff of real power, tore off its trousers and grabbed it’s ankles and said to the Sensible Sentencing Trust “give me a cock”. And they got David Garrett.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Redbaiter 12:23 pm

    All of these issues are coming about as the Progressive’s goal of the destruction of society’s moral base gradually reaches its desired outcome.

    The problem of child abuse can be fixed, and there is no need for radical action such as sterilization.

    The correct and workable approach is to reject Progressive political policies. To allow personal morality to be the guiding light for every individual and not the dictates of the collectivist state.

    Indeed, Red.

    And 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 promoscuity 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:
    Remove the Progressives!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Pete George (23,558 comments) says:

    Who are the Progessives Kris? What do you suggest is done about them? And how do you address moral relativism?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Robert Black (423 comments) says:

    Too complicated and let’s face it you may as well be suggesting letting people having shots with live goldfish in them.

    In the most pathetic little PC country in the world, which is scrutinized like a goldfish bowl by the bored media it would be impossible.

    Of course here in China they don’t need to steralize their criminals as they just shoot them.

    A far cheaper and less complicated system.

    They allow freedom campers here though and fireworks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. PaulL (5,981 comments) says:

    Why are people banging on about ACT and David Garrett? Wasn’t it Michael Laws who brought this up?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Ben Wilson (523 comments) says:

    essentially re-embrace biblical precepts and values

    Yes, bring back Leviticus. Easy solution to child abuse – both abuser and abused are to be put to death. Unless the abused is a female slave, in which case sacrificing a sufficiently wholesome bull will be sufficient reparation.

    Also I particularly approve of the idea that slaves can only be taken from bordering foreign nations. We’re an island, so we can pretty much pick from the whole world.

    This idea of sterilizing abusers is particularly good, because according to Leviticus, their damaged testicles would prevent them from entering the clergy, so our children would be extra safe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    You do know Mr. Wilson that in spite of your typically Progressive odious and cowardly assertions concerning the clergy, the risk of a child being abused is about 100 times greater in the secular school system?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. quietlyscanning (12 comments) says:

    Red baiter you twat, show someone, anyone, your evidence that ‘100 times’ more children are abused in secular schools than ones with St. in front of them? How did people like you get in our country?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Anthony (796 comments) says:

    It was all those sex deprived priests who were doing most of the abusing!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Hugh Manatee (108 comments) says:

    “Wasn’t it Michael Laws who brought this up?”

    Like a fur ball. Or phlegm. Or something that looks like meulied carrot and tripe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Ben Wilson (523 comments) says:

    Been a long time since an exchange with Redbaiter. It seems I’ve changed from a socialist to a Progressive, behind my back. Is this like a Windows Update – it just downloads and you never need know? I was only just getting used to being a socialist too, dammit.

    How did people like you get in our country?

    CER, is my guess.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Ben Wilson [March 3rd, 2010 at 9:13 pm],

    “essentially re-embrace biblical precepts and values”

    Yes, bring back Leviticus. Easy solution to child abuse – both abuser and abused are to be put to death. Unless the abused is a female slave, in which case sacrificing a sufficiently wholesome bull will be sufficient reparation.

    Talking about “Windows Update[s]“, you heathens need to ‘upgrade’ to New Testament theology.
    Sacrificing animals for your sin is so 2+ millenium ago – get with the programme.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Alice (17 comments) says:

    Both of my parents were extremely abusive and I was lucky to survive. My father was/is a pedophile but taking him to account for his actions would take me about four years through the court system and then, at best, he would get a couple of years in jail – and probably be out in a year. In the meantime, I would not receive any ACC support or counselling throughout the traumatic four years it would take me to get it through the courts, would have to live undercover for the rest of my life (as would be scared of retribution) and could actually lose the court battle given that he was a university lecturer so would appear far more credible than his victim/s. I couldn’t live with that outcome so the results could be fatal to me. Every day I worry that he is hurting someone else. But luckily, my mother despises children so he doesn’t have access to other children. But I don’t know this for sure. However, what do I do? I have spent my entire life trying to overcome the effects of the abuse but am not strong enough to fight my way through the hostile court system to try and see justice done. Also, a couple of years in jail is hardly justice. My sentence, as a victim, has been much more severe than his would ever be. You just can’t take an abusive parent to court without any form of support – its traumatic and terrifying as you know you will be put through the wringer and will have to relive everything again. My mother was witness to this abuse and was very violent . However, there is no mechanism to take her to task for her actions and, as she worked for Social Welfare, would probably appear very credible to a jury – even though she’s a nutter in private. Sterilising the parents is not the answer as it sends a message to people like me that society wishes I was never born. That is very hurtful. A better solution would be to increase the number of Counselors in schools, make it compulsory for every child to see a school counselor three times a year, increase the sentences for abusive parents so it is a ‘worthwhile’ avenue for justice, sort out the court system to reduce the lengthy periods of time it takes to get a case before court, and reverse the recent decisions about ACC counselling for sexual abuse victims so there are less barriers for getting help. Also, in case you were wondering, I did tell a school counselor about the physical abuse at home but she ignored my complaint as there were other priorities for her. I didn’t tell her about the sexual abuse as I lose trust in her after she failed to help me over the physical abuse. So, I think more counselors in schools, with smaller case loads, would do a lot to help school aged children. Sterilisation is barbaric and sends the wrong message to victims. What we need to do is give victims more power and more support so we can play a role in improving society; we have a lot to contribute.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Ben Wilson (523 comments) says:

    Sacrificing animals for your sin is so 2+ millenium ago – get with the programme.

    Yes, with correct study I can definitely get my morals within 1500 years of the present. Or I could switch to Islam and creep another 500 years forward. Seems Progressive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Ben Wilson 10:41 am,

    “Sacrificing animals for your sin is so 2+ millenium ago – get with the programme.”

    Yes, with correct study I can definitely get my morals within 1500 years of the present. Or I could switch to Islam and creep another 500 years forward. Seems Progressive.

    Why do you Progressives seem to think that ‘morality’ is somehow linked to education/study?
    Education only informs, it doesn’t change behaviour – refer sex education in schools somehow reducing youth promiscuity – doesn’t work. To change your morals actually requires a ‘heart’ upgrade.

    And if you’re going to go down the Islam ‘road'; be warned, Mohammed didn’t die for your sins – and he certainly wasn’t a moral man (liar, cheat, pedophile, murderer).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Ben Wilson (523 comments) says:

    Kris K what exactly were you suggesting that I do with the New Testament to get my “heart upgrade” then? Use it as a pacemaker? Or perhaps you were offering to beat me over the head with it, to knock all that useless knowledge standing in the way of being a moral man out? It looks heavy enough to do some damage, even without the Old (and outdated you say?) Testament behind it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Ben Wilson 1:30 pm,

    Kris K what exactly were you suggesting that I do with the New Testament to get my “heart upgrade” then?

    A New Creature has a new heart/spirit; a new nature:

    Eze 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

    2Co 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

    And as a result he has a ‘new morality’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Ben Wilson (523 comments) says:

    Would that ‘new morality’ be in anyway related to extremely old morality? I’m trying to modernize here, without being Progressive, of course. I wouldn’t want my morality to be too new, or it might include knowing more about reproduction than how to get clean after touching my wife during her period. Please help, I can feel dangerously educated ideas hemming around me already.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Ben Wilson 2:17 pm,

    You obviously have all the answers, Ben, so I’ll leave it with you.

    Before we got off topic:
    My original point was that education does not equate to morality – morality comes from elsewhere – our conscience/spirit (which is further enhanced when God’s Spirit indwells us).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Pete George (23,558 comments) says:

    Morality is learnt from parents, family, peers, society. The way everything is learnt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Ben Wilson (523 comments) says:

    You obviously have all the answers, Ben, so I’ll leave it with you.

    Nooooo, don’t give up on me. My very immortal soul is in jeopardy. I don’t have any answers, only questions!!

    My original point was that education does not equate to morality – morality comes from elsewhere – our conscience/spirit (which is further enhanced when God’s Spirit indwells us).

    It would certainly be a lot easier to just have a conscience, and abandon all this moral reasoning. The tough part is when it clashes with other consciences. I guess if any resolution is to be had, then it’s going to come down to who has the most of God’s spirit indwelling? I wouldn’t want to be arrogant about this, and assume I had a monopoly on the Lord’s secret messages, so I’m kind of left wondering how I can know which revelations are the right ones. Mine, or someone else’s? I’m not really seeing any way around using my brain and doing a bit of study here, but that is obviously my shortcoming. Surely you can tell me from personal experience what to do in those cases?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Pete George 2:36 pm,

    Morality is learnt from parents, family, peers, society. The way everything is learnt.

    While societal values have traditionally, at least in the West, come from the application of biblical truths, when that society discards these truths we have seen a resultant erosion of the morality of individuals within that same society. AND these learned values work in conjunction with our God-given conscience/moral base.

    So while you might say morals are purely learned behaviour, Pete, there is a higher quality/accountability when our morality is sourced from the One who made us. Remove Him and His word and watch societal values go down the drain as has been observed in the last 25+ years especially.

    I’ll say it again, “Education [alone] does not equate to morality/values.”
    ALL morality (and conscience) ultimately comes from God.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Ben Wilson 2:47 pm,

    The tough part is when it clashes with other consciences.

    Surely you can tell me from personal experience what to do in those cases?

    Ahh, the human condition.
    To be honest, when in doubt (as a Christian) I usually pray about it in light of God’s word.
    I also seek wise counsel from others I trust and respect.

    But ultimately we (all of us) make our own ‘best’ choices based on the ‘best’ sources at hand – or at least this should be our aim.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Ben Wilson (523 comments) says:

    I guess I should stop going parody with you Kris K, since you seem genuinely to be preaching here. I do obviously have an opinion on this matter and it’s in a different world to yours.

    God as a source of morality was debunked well before Christ was born, by Socrates. He asked the famous question “Is an act pious because the gods love it, or do the gods love it because it is pious?”. It’s fairly clear with a moment’s thought that the latter is the case – God loving something evil would not make it good. He would just then be an evil God. Clearly, things that are good are good whether God loves them or not. I can go along with the possibility that God loves all good things, though.

    Socrates was famously put to death for these ideas. Especially objectionable was the inherent monotheism in them. Funny old world eh? He was also especially famous for following his ‘conscience’, which he considered to be all but indistinguishable from his rational mind. This was the very God that the ancient Athenians so hated the sound of, the original ‘imaginary friend’. This voice led Socrates to the very reasoning above by which your deliberately uneducated claims about morality are effortlessly debunked.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Ben Wilson 4:09 pm,

    This voice led Socrates to the very reasoning above by which your deliberately uneducated claims about morality are effortlessly debunked.

    So WHY is our society becoming more ‘evil’?
    This whole topic is essentially debating what to do with ‘evil’ men, and whether we should sterilise them or some such.

    If human philosophy and education are the basis for our morality/values then WHY are all, and I mean ALL, of the social indicators showing that our societal values today are pretty much crap, and are getting worse:

    We observe increasing – violence, child abuse (physical and sexual), promiscuity, rape, murder, deceitfulness, unfaithfulness, abortion, lack of respect for any and all forms of authority, homosexuality, sexual perversions (bestiality, incest, sex with minors, etc), etc. – basically everyone making their own rules and there being no objective standards by which to live your life.

    Have you a answer as to WHY? – I believe I KNOW why, but I really am interested in your answer on this, Ben.

    And if you know why, then what is your solution to fix the ills of society?
    [And yes, I have one.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Gotta chip in here Kris apologies.
    I’m so amazed at the sheer stupidity of the socialist type secular people. I mean shit half of those I speak with have degrees for God’s sake, you’d think they were educated wouldn’t you?

    STD’s are world class here in NZ between 14-23 yrs.
    and this with all the EDUCATION they have got in the last 5 yrs and are getting.
    Chlamydia rules guys, 20% of the female population is running around infecting others.

    hello?
    So it’s clearly not more education is it?
    So that debunks the left/secular we’re all a product of our environment, society has made us this way, or we don’t know enough to make good choices.

    Child abuse is on the rise and it is in all sectors, theft is on the rise, downloading of other peoples music is rife throughout society.
    So we are a nation of thieves as well.
    On another post here people were poo pooing that someone who had committed theft should be delat to harshly as it wasn’t sooo bad in the greater scheme of things.

    The reality is from the top down we are a nation of Liars and Thieves as we won’t tell the truth about things.

    I feel sorry for Ben in a way as Ben has no solution because it cannot be legislated nor solved with more education can it Ben?

    Sorry about the rant but some days I just can’t help let rip.
    Must be having a menopausal moment or something ;-).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Ben Wilson (523 comments) says:

    So WHY is our society becoming more ‘evil’?

    It’s not.

    We observe increasing ….

    Several things in your list are not evil in the first place. Promiscuity, unfaithfulness, abortion, lack of respect for authority, homosexuality.

    The rest: Where is your evidence they are increasing? What society are we talking about? Since when?

    But even if they are, I can’t see any necessary link to increased Godlessness and/or education. There could be a hundred other explanations, like rising wealth inequity, more guns available, increased population, changes in technology, law enforcement, rising global temperatures, increased pollen in the air, rising oil prices. Lots and lots of things are statistically linked.

    And if you know why, then what is your solution to fix the ills of society?

    It’s an extremely long process, that has been taking place for centuries and will continue long after we are both dead. It will have ups and downs, but basically, the answer lies in rising understanding of the causes of social ills, and tweaking or creating institutions to deal with them. It is never-ending, because society is ever-changing due to growth of many things, like population and technology and scarcity. I don’t claim to know the future.

    I also don’t claim to have an uber solution, indeed I think such claims are dangerous and foolish, and have done shocking harm at times. This especially includes religion, and one religion in particular stands out for the greatest body count. Have a guess which one? I’ll give you a hint, it’s the one with almost all of the guns and money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Ben Wilson 5:54 pm,

    So WHY is our society becoming more ‘evil’?

    It’s not.

    Good grief! – you have GOT to be kidding.

    We observe increasing ….

    Several things in your list are not evil in the first place. Promiscuity, unfaithfulness, abortion, lack of respect for authority, homosexuality.

    If we can’t agree that such things are foundationally EVIL, then I doubt we will agree on much else we may care to debate.
    Once again – good grief, unbelievable!

    We truly are a POST Christian nation if your views are atypical – God help us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    MikeNZ 5:51 pm,

    Gotta chip in here Kris apologies.

    Your ‘interruptions’ are always welcome – no need to apologise, Mike.

    If Ben’s views (5:54 pm) are atypical of many/most in society then I really do fear what the next 10-20 years may bring us.
    All I can add is, “Beam me up. Scotty.” and “Last one out turn the light off” – although I think the Light went out long ago, and when “He that restraineth” leaves then all hell will literally break loose.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Ben Wilson (523 comments) says:

    I feel sorry for Ben in a way as Ben has no solution because it cannot be legislated nor solved with more education can it Ben?

    Um, actually I think both of those can help a lot, as they have in the past. Legislation and education. There are other things too, like money put into the right institutions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Ben Wilson 6:39 pm,

    It’s a failed (socialist) experiment, Ben.
    “Legislation and education” have been the method we have been using for the last 40+ years – and they don’t work. More of the same will not work either.

    Time to go back to what we know does work – I know I live in a fantasy world because this will never happen. And your ‘solution’ will, no doubt, be the one that society settles for – a sad indictment of the times we live.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. dad4justice (8,208 comments) says:

    “like money put into the right institutions.”

    What kind of “institutions” are you talking about Ben W? Everybody with a clue knows that CYFS is a feminazi run bull dog and the other cess pit feminazi justice system who foolishly claim to act in the child’s best interested is a disgrace beyond measure?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Pete George (23,558 comments) says:

    Kris, there is no “solution”, only possible improvements. Dreaming about what never won’t achieve anything but frustration. The only way to go is forward, accommodating different cultures and religions, and accepting a significant proportion of the population won’t be religious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Ben Wilson (523 comments) says:

    If we can’t agree that such things are foundationally EVIL, then I doubt we will agree on much else we may care to debate.

    Certainly if you refuse to debate, then there will be no debate. It does seem typical (not atypical, look that word up) amongst people who opt to allow others to choose their beliefs for them, that you opt out of debate.

    Once again – good grief, unbelievable!

    Believe it, sir. Indeed I find it unbelievable that Kiwiblog has gone so soft that you haven’t encountered lots of people similar views to mine. Perhaps they have been made to feel unwelcome? I’m pretty sure you’ll find a lot of them are highly compatible with views expressed many a time by DPF himself.

    We truly are a POST Christian nation if your views are atypical – God help us.

    Gawd! What next? Postmodern? Nooooo!

    Don’t worry, all this Post stuff won’t last. It’s soooo been done before. Every generation thinks they’re Post. And they are, at the time. But Post-post just sounds dumb so we finally get something new after a while. I’m actually quite glad it was in fashion when I was studying such things, it made me give up pondering the imponderables, something that is notoriously badly paid (unless you can make a religion out of it).

    I also expect religion will tick along just fine. It’s been with us for so long, it’s built in, much like homosexuality has, and promiscuity, and unfaithfulness, and abortion (well OK it probably took the form of infanticide in less civilized times), and disrespect for authority. And also those things you called evil which actually were evil. Murder’s been popular for so long that we made a sport out of it and called it war. That is practically the only thing I think has actually become more evil – our sport of war has developed to levels of barbarity the ancients could only have dreamed of. The period immediately before when you claim that society has become shockingly immoral was one in which we took wholesale slaughter to the deepest depths it has ever got to. I hope it never happens again. Our current system of letting most of it occur in the Third World is only better for us, not the world. That one, I don’t know how to stop, or indeed if it will stop.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Ben Wilson (523 comments) says:

    d4j, long time no rant! Still bitter on CYFS eh?

    Actually, I was talking about a whole lot of institutions. Like increases in the number of schools and universities, refuges, libraries, roads, bridges, hospitals, fire stations, ambulances, etc. But yes, CYFS is one such institution, designed to try to protect children from abuse from their families, amongst other briefs. Seems like a worthwhile thing to have in a decent society.

    “Legislation and education” have been the method we have been using for the last 40+ years – and they don’t work. More of the same will not work either.

    Actually, we’ve been using them since we were cavemen. And that’s why we aren’t cavemen anymore (albeit not the only reason).

    And your ’solution’ will, no doubt, be the one that society settles for – a sad indictment of the times we live.

    You can always try a more purely christian sub society, if you like. It’s allowed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. malcolm (1,952 comments) says:

    Kris, can point to a time in last 2000 years when society actually reached the equilibrium of loveliness which you believe Christianity can bring about? If you can’t, then that seems to be good evidence that your solution a flawed, for whatever reason (or that the problems are unsolvable).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. dad4justice (8,208 comments) says:

    “Seems like a worthwhile thing to have in a decent society.”

    Hey Ben Wil : how many CYFS kids grow up to occupy a jail cell? CYFS is that dysfunctional it’s dangerous to ALL kiwi children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Ben Wilson (523 comments) says:

    d4j, kids enter the CYFS system because they are neglected or abused *already*. Kids like that are disproportionately represented amongst criminals. So of what relevance is your statistic? And do you even have one?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. dad4justice (8,208 comments) says:

    Don’t talk shit Wilson, CYFS destroy stable family units where often the children have no safety issues. I have dozens of examples.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Ben Wilson (523 comments) says:

    So you’d be against CYFS being able to sterilize people then? I think David Garrett deserves to hear from you personally on the matter. The thread is calling you here http://www.davidgarrett.org.nz/?p=718

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Bob R (1,370 comments) says:

    ***Is it just a money and haves vs have nots issue? If it was that then how come some successful lower-income families produce children that do have respect, values and contribute positively to society later in life?***

    No, it isn’t just a money issue. The children of poor Jewish migrants living in NYC ghettos 100 years ago did very well academically. Similarly, Asian migrants to the US despite experiencing considerable discrimination (especially during WWII).

    A significant factor here also is intelligence.

    “There is a mass of data which shows that the measurement which best predicts how a child will do in later life is not its parents’ income, but its IQ score at the age of 10 or 11. It’s not a perfect correlation – but it’s a far better guide than any of the variables that the NEP report considered, such as class, gender, ethnic or religious group, or whether you went to a private school rather than the local comprehensive.

    Around half of the variation between two people’s income and status at work is explained by differences in their IQ. Studies of twins separated at birth and raised in very different families indicate that between 50 and 60 per cent of an individual’s IQ score is down to their genes. The remainder can be affected by how you are brought up. It can be boosted if you are also raised by intelligent parents, or diminished if they don’t provide an environment which is sufficiently stimulating. So smart children, born to smart parents, have a double advantage – which may be why they do so well.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7113170/Inequality-in-Britain-isnt-down-to-class-but-brains.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. PaulL (5,981 comments) says:

    Keep fighting the good fight Ben – I agree with you, even if I usually don’t bother to ‘debate’ with Kris any more. He really has no interest in debate, in the sense that a good and clear argument has no chance at all of changing his mind. He is here to preach, although I’m not exactly sure why Kiwiblog is deemed a suitable place to do so. Perhaps it is a new electronic version of Mormonism?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote