Child abuse stats

March 11th, 2012 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

Sarah Harvey in the SST reports:

More and more New Zealanders believe is a cultural issue despite statistics showing that abuse does not discriminate between cultures, a social work lecturer says.

Raema Merchant, a social work lecturer at the Eastern Institute of Technology, said it was unclear how the public had developed a perception that it was a Maori issue.

Her masters thesis at Massey University found about half of the children killed in New Zealand died at the hands of a Pakeha abuser.

This story came up last year also, and is basically a rehash. As the weather is crap today, I’ve just spent a couple of hours reading the thesis. It is 158 pages in total.

There are some interesting stats in it, which I will get to. But its biggest failing is a total ignoring of the fact that European and Maori populations are of different sizes, so prevalance rates are what should be looked at.

The thesis says that the ethnicity of those convicted of assaulting children are Maori 48%, European 28%, PI 19%. To get a prevalence figure, I will use the population figures for under 14s. This is 21% Maori, 58% European, 11% PI and 9% Asian.

This works out to a prevalence rate for Maori that is 4.8 times that of Europeans. It is also 3.4 times that of Pacific Islanders. Or to compare all three, the comparative rates are Maori 4.8, PI 1.4, European 1.0.

Almost 9000 children were victims of physical abuse between 2000 and 2008, yet only 21 became “household names” in the media, she said.

Just one-third of child deaths were reported in the press, and they were predominantly Maori cases.

This is because no child victim can be named, unless they are killed. So it is the deaths that get most reported.  I do not believe they get reported more because they are Maori. They get reported more due to the nature of their details, with the more horrific the abuse, the more they get reported.

“Where are they getting it from? Child abuse is not a cultural issue.”

A recent survey by Research New Zealand found that 58 per cent of people believed child abuse was a cultural issue, up from 51 per cent the year before.

About 55 per cent believed child abuse was an economic issue, compared with 34 per cent in 2011, something which Merchant said was pleasing.

“I would applaud the people that accept that poverty has a lot to do with it. It’s often not so much the poverty of the people but in countries where the gap between rich and poor is the greatest then the child abuse figures tend to be the greatest.”

There are many factors in child abuse. I suspect the most powerful factor is that those who were abused themselves go on to become abusers.

The thesis is inadequately done to be able to make conclusions on whether or not ethnicity or culture is an issue. First it ignores the prevalence rate being 4.75 times higher. However if for example poverty is a powerful factor, that ethnic difference may be because (for example) Maori are 4.75 times to be in a family with low household income.

High quality research would look at ethnic prevalence rates, while controlling other factors which might be an influence such as poverty, welfare status etc.  I’d be very interested to also see data on prevalence rates by welfare status, once income has been removed as a factor. In other words is there more child abuse in households where no adults work, than in households where at least one adult works – but has much the same level of income.

There was some interesting data in the thesis. In terms of relationship to victims, 50% of perpetrators are step-parents or partners, 15% Mums, 11% Dads, and 12% other relatives.

 

Tags:

91 Responses to “Child abuse stats”

  1. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    in countries where the gap between rich and poor is the greatest then the child abuse figures tend to be the greatest.

    More “inequality causes everything bad” bullshit? I hope they didnt refer to The Spirit Level.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Longknives (4,878 comments) says:

    “Raema Merchant, a social work lecturer at the Eastern Institute of Technology, said it was unclear how the public had developed a perception that it was a Maori issue….”
    -Duh! She isn’t very bright for a supposed ‘Lecturer’..

    “Just one-third of child deaths were reported in the press, and they were predominantly Maori cases.”
    -Bullshit. Is this moron actually claiming that Non-Maori child murders aren’t even reported in the press? Let me guess- A conspiracy by those evil Pakehas to discredit the ‘proud warrior race’??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. publicwatchdog (2,822 comments) says:

    Where are the stats on ‘white collar’ crime?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Graeme Edgeler (3,290 comments) says:

    Just one-third of child deaths were reported in the press, and they were predominantly Maori cases.

    This is because no child victim can be named, unless they are killed.

    This has been the law for six days, so that cannot be the reason.

    [DPF: Oh okay, then let me say that child victims were not named to protect their privacy. This being the law for sexual abuse cases, nut only practice for other types of abuse]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    This has been the law for six days, so that cannot be the reason.

    I expect it’s got more to do with what she means by “child deaths.” If a bunch of accidental child deaths don’t get reported in the paper but one child getting beaten to death by a scumbag does, the reason only the one death got reported has more to do with what the media finds newsworthy than racist journos.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Australis (101 comments) says:

    The object of ‘profiling’ offenders is to ensure that preventative programmes with finite resources are as well-targeted as possible – ie the “bang for the buck” needs to be maximised.

    According to your stats, a programme aimed at the Maori population would have five times the success potential of one directed at the total population. That’s information worth having.

    But I’d quibble at your prevalence figures. The Maori population (all ages) is 15% of total, and less than 14% amongst those old enough to have children. So the offending rate is more like 7 times that of pakeha.

    This is all correlation, and does not imply causation. Maori figures here might be high because they are comparably high on statistics for welfare, poverty, drink/drugs, previous-abuse, etc. I would have expected that this basic analysis would have been amongst the first things considered by the Green Paper, but I fear political correctness may well have trumped the will to solve the problems.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    There was some interesting data in the thesis. In terms of relationship to victims, 50% of perpetrators are step-parents

    The risk of child death or injury rises as fewer biological partents are involved in proving care. It’s called the ‘Cinderalla Effect’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. kowtow (8,774 comments) says:

    “There are many factors in child abuse.”

    And the prime factor is the decision made by the abuser to commit a criminal offence in the first place. Same with most crime.Personal choices.

    You don’t need a PhD to work that out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    Child abuse is a cultural problem, our overall culture of violence is long established – and often ignored or denied.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    @KK

    “The risk of child death or injury rises as fewer biological partents are involved in proving care.”

    Correct. That and the fact that some have children to provide them with a ‘state income’ are the main causes of child abuse.
    The policies aimed at the destruction of the family and the dependence on the state are supported by which parties….?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    The media reported on Merchant’s work last year, so you’re right – it is a rehash. Not sure why it’s re-appeared.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5338700/Maori-child-abuse-disproportionately-high-Minister

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > a programme aimed at the Maori population would have five times the success potential of one directed at the total population.

    Maybe, maybe not. Clearly, most Maori don’t abuse their kids. So a programme aimed at all Maori is going to have mixed results. And, of course, a programme aimed solely at Maori is not going to capture abuse by other ethnicities. I don’t think a race-based approach is required.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    The thesis says that the ethnicity of those convicted of assaulting children are Maori 48%, European 28%, PI 19%.

    I’m interested in knowing how “Maori” and “European” are determined in these statistics. I’d guess there is very little if any Maori ethnicity in “European”, but there coukld be a lot of European and other ethnicity in “Maori”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    Less than 200 hundred years ago, maori were a warrior race whose main activity was the committing of violence against the next door tribe. This did not discriminate on any basis – gender or age. If you wereof the opposite tribe – you were to be killed.

    And to this recent cultural history the problem of step patenthood and youve got the ingredients for some serious violence. I dont think it has anything to do with poverty (people didnt kill their kids in the 1930’s or the 1890’s when there was greater relative poverty than there is today) or disparity of income.
    This Raema is trying to re-write the facts but usingsome statistics in a very convoluted manner. She does her race no good at all with this sort of dribble.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Northland Wahine (667 comments) says:

    Manipulate the statistics all you want to reflect the outcome you wish to present…

    It doesn’t change the result… Maori children and dying at the hand of Maori adults. The sooner our academics and liberals admit it, the sooner we can deal with it, effectively, without resorting to victim mentality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Leaping Jimmy (16,634 comments) says:

    It’s a shame isn’t it that academics who are employed to do science seek to hide the scientific conclusions simply because those are inconvenient in terms of their subjective precepts of how the world might draw conclusions from their work.

    It’s the same principle of the flat-earth scientists who sought to suppress or deny the work of Roger Bacon, Copernicus, Galileo, Columbus, and Magellan who all held the earth was round and we see the same today in the AGW field, don’t we.

    I just wish there were automatic punishment for such disingenuous liars such as instant dismissal from their jobs, immediate de-registration from their professional bodies and a dis-conferment of all their degrees on the grounds they clearly are not qualified and they have to start their training again as an undergraduate with Scientific Method 101, Principle 1: Don’t lie, don’t obfuscate, never ever.

    After a few of those happened no doubt the majority would get back to what they are employed and trained to do, which is to objectively investigate and publish, no matter how inconvenient the conclusions may be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    Maori children are dying at the hand of Maori adults.

    Yes, sadly that’s right and needs to be addressed urgently.

    But non-Maori children who are being abused and killed, that shouldn’t be ignored either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    Come on Pete. It’s all very simple.
    Being a Maori is either racial, cultural or both. It could also be a matter of ‘self identification’. It just depends on if there is any money or ‘special treatment’ involved. Now get with the programme!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    One fundamental trurh that you have hit in DPF is this.
    Those who were abused themselves go on to be abusers

    Recently Maori were torturing and abusing prisoners from other tribes. They took delight in it.
    they habitually involved their own children in that torture and abuse.
    It was their Culture. It is documented.

    barry 5,04 is on to it.
    Now i don’t know what race Raema is but one thing is for sure,

    She does the Maori race no good at all.

    The bigger question is .

    Where did Raema Merchant get her perverse ideas from ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    Recently Maori were torturing and abusing prisoners from other tribes.

    Do you know anything about European history? Or colonial history around the world?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    If a moron like Raema Merchant can produce a masters thesis such as this and actually
    have it accepted by Massey University.

    i hope every genuine scholar who ever went to Massey cringes with embarrasment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    Pete George 5.48

    Pathetic mate.

    Ask anotther 17 questions.

    How, in your mind does that advance any position ?

    Of course we all know by now your only position is both sides of the fence

    Why not stand up for fuken something Pete George ?

    Fuken ANYTHING.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. kowtow (8,774 comments) says:

    Colonial history around the world? hmmmmmmm

    Democracies in USA, Canada,Australia, NewZealand,South Africa,India.( among others).

    Those evil white colonials.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    I’m standing up to your crap bereal. The fence thing is a very weak cop-out.

    I’ve always stood up and expressed a strong position against abuse and violence. See previous thread for example.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    kowtow – yes, there was quite a bit of white colonial evil in all those countries.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. WineOh (630 comments) says:

    Whichever way the numbers are crunched, they are still shameful. Yes Maori are over represented in the stats, but if we remove the racial part for a moment, to me the corrolation seems to be strongest by socio-economic standing. Poor and uneducated parents are those most likely to abuse their kids. Parenting is a stressful ordeal to be sure, but many parents have ways of dealing with the frustrations. With more money comes more options. Being able to escape on a short holiday, having other family around to share the burdeon, fewer other external stressors like where the next rent payment is coming from… these must surely ease the likelihood of erupting in a fit of rage & bashing junior.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. wat dabney (3,809 comments) says:

    Poor and uneducated parents are those most likely to abuse their kids.

    You are talking about people who are rich by world standards.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. mikenmild (11,742 comments) says:

    wat
    Must be an inequality issue then.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Northland Wahine (667 comments) says:

    Pete G 5:28…

    Agrees also with you Pete… Child abuse is not solely a Maori problem. Non Maori children also die at the hands of those who are suppose to be protecting them. What we do not see are other kiwi blaming “white” colonization for their actions or lack of action.

    However, I do believe there are those who rub their hands in almost what appears to be glee, when another Maori child dies due to violence and or neglect by their parent/s.

    Such apparent racism is one of the reasons why liberals and academics continue to publish such bullshit about Maori victim
    status and how it’s “not their fault”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. wat dabney (3,809 comments) says:

    Must be an inequality issue then.

    Do please explain.

    My earnings are a trivial fraction of Bill Gates’

    How does this translate to me abusing my progeny?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. RF (1,452 comments) says:

    What utter crap. Reminds me of the famous quote from Lord Nelson as he stuck his telescope up to his blind eye. I see no ships.

    Get real and accept the sad and most unfortunate facts. Denial is going to result in more deaths. What a pathetic bunch of do gooders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. mikenmild (11,742 comments) says:

    I’m looking forward to wat’s explanation of the high rate of child abuse among Maori.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    Mikenmild, I’ll explain for Wat – because for too many of them violence is regarded as an acceptable way of dealing wirth things, and not enough peers and whanau speak up and stand up against it.

    Being poor or pissed is a piss poor excuse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    Northland Wahine.
    In New Zealand it is a Maori problem.
    Untill you and others of your ilk are able to accept that truth,
    There is no hope. No hope. Can you get it ?
    When we can accept that killing children in New Zealand is a Maori problem then that is step one
    Step one.
    Don’t want to accept that truth ,
    we can never get anywhere otherwise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. wat dabney (3,809 comments) says:

    I’m looking forward to wat’s explanation of the high rate of child abuse among Maori.

    Hmm. “high rate of child abuse among Maori.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Jinny (306 comments) says:

    I disagree Pete. Violence against children is not regarded as acceptable by Maori or a way of dealing with things.

    This argument fails to acknowledge that there are no full blooded Maori in New Zealand. Given the stats that indicate child abuse is also a pakeha problem, perhaps it’s not the Maori side of the individual, but in fact the pakeha side that is displaying the abusive behaviour?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Put it away (2,880 comments) says:

    This “thesis” is beyond pathetic – analysis as idiotic as hers wouldn’t pass muster in a third form social studies project. Any chance of this moron refunding my tax dollars that were wasted on her education?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    Jinny, I suggested similar querying how much European is in the problem. It’s not as if violence is unknown in Europe, or Russia, or Cambodia, or India, or many other places.

    But I disagree with you on your first point – some Maori (and some non-Maori) think violence is an acceptable way of dealing with children, that’s why they do it. Most people would abhor harming their children, but unfortunately some have grown up think it’s normal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. wat dabney (3,809 comments) says:

    Jinny,

    What are you, 7 years old?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    Northland Wahine

    Sorry,

    i missed your contibution @ 5.23
    You were spot on.

    Well said.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Northland Wahine (667 comments) says:

    Bereal… Apology accepted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Jinny (306 comments) says:

    wat dabney (1,270) Says:

    March 11th, 2012 at 7:26 pm
    Jinny,

    What are you, 7 years old?

    No I’m not. But to attribute a problem to a particular culture, when it is not specific to that culture is stupid. Child abuse is not just a Maori problem. The contributing factors indicate it is more assoicated with poverty than with culture.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Jinny (306 comments) says:

    Pete George, I do agree with you, some people, from all cultures seem to accept that violence is a way of dealing with stress. Or rather, violence is an acceptable response to stressful situations and therefore is hidden by family and associates.

    But we cannot solve abuse simply by saying violence is not acceptable. We can only solve it by providing coping mechanisms and helping to solve the issues that cause the problem, such as the financial stress, alcohol consumption etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    Jinny, poverty does not cause violence. Alcohol does not cause violence. Being a dominant husband does not cause violence. being an ex partner does not cause violence. Being a boyfriend of a solo mother does not cause violence. being an All Black does not cause violence.

    Violent people cause violence. And because too few non-violent people don’t speak up against violence, friends, family, whanau, community, then violent people think their violence is ‘normal’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. David Garrett (7,548 comments) says:

    This is disgraceful “scholarship”…I am not a statisticians ass, but it is immediately apparent to me – atlhough I wouldnt know how to start doing the calculations DPF as done – that you need to take relative percentages of each race in the population into account when discussing prevalence on a racial basis..What no-one has said is someone has supposedly “supervised” this stupid woman’s so called thesis, and at least when I was at uni, a doctoral candidate had to “defend” the thesis against criticism from fellow academics in the same discipline.

    How can this absolute shite possibly have survived that process and still led to the granting of a PhD?? As Wahine and almost everyone else has said, (Mikey and his mates can pretty well be disregarded) it IS predominantly a Maori problem…WHY that is is a whole different discussion…but denying that unfortunate reality isnt going to get us any closer to a solution to the appalling problem of little brown kids being bashed to death proportionately more often than little white ones.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Chris2 (770 comments) says:

    When it suits, often for financial gain, maoris claim a strong cultural bond with the land, foreshore and seabed.

    But if one were to say that maoris have a cultural predisposition to criminal behavour and abusing their children, one is called a racist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Peter Freedman (127 comments) says:

    Kimble, can you name one positive outcome of financial inequality? Just one?

    LongKnives, of course Raema Merchant isn’t saying non-Maori child deaths aren’t reported and you know it. Why call her a moron?

    Northern Wahine at the risk of having you labelled for life around here, you make great sense. Go, girl!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Jinny (306 comments) says:

    I don’t agree Pete. Violence is a response when people are unable to cope with a stimuli. People don’t drive home for work asking themselves what will they do tonight and choose to bash their wife or children as an option for entertainment. Violent people are mostly (apart from controlled punishment) are using it when their emotions are out of control.

    People know violence is wrong. People who bash their wives know it is wrong. If wouldn’t matter how many people spoke up and said its wrong, when a person is in a position where they are unable to control their temper, and they have no control stategies then they resort to violence. It is an innate response in all of us that has been controlled by ‘civilisation’, however the response still exists and people telling you do not go home and beat your wife, isn’t going to stop you, if the stimulis is provided that makes you lose control.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. mikenmild (11,742 comments) says:

    Chris2
    Do you believe ‘maoris have a cultural predisposition to crime and abusing their children’, or do you just want to imply that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    David Garrett: it IS predominantly a Maori problem

    No it’s not. People with some Maori ethnicity figure significantly in the statistics, but it is a whole society problem. I’ve personally seen much more non-Maori related violence than Maori related.

    If white people say it’s a brown problem, if rich people say it’s a poor problem, if biological parents say it’s a step problem, if women say it’s a male problem, if Remuerans say it’s an Otara problem, if Standardistas say it is a Kiwiblog problem, if Greens say it is a Blue problem, if sports jocks say it’s not a problem, then they are ducking joint responsibility and ignoring how much violence permeates our society escaping being confronted.

    New Zealand has a major problem with acceptance of violence. Blaming it on someone else won’t address it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    Jinny, going by what you say then it’s an innate response so we should just accept it as a fact of life, unless someone kills us.

    I don’t buy that. Babies aren’t born violent. They learn it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Chris2 (770 comments) says:

    mikenmild – the figures speak for themselves.

    When the media report the violent death of a child we all know to expect to read maori names further down the page, either as victim or offender.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    Coming to “academic conclusions”, is like sitting on the titanic wondering why the fuck it’s sinking. Too much navel gazing.

    A more valid conclusion would be if Maori stopped abusing children, deaths would drop by half/whatever proportion.
    And rubbish that it is associated with poverty. It’s associated with being a loser.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Jinny (306 comments) says:

    Totally agree Pete George. It is everyone’s problem.
    Passing the buck will not help save a childs life, nor will it stop the problem from happening.

    I believe the only way to stop it, is finding out why it happens and enforce strategies that teach people to cope in inflamatory situations by using non-violent methods.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. David Garrett (7,548 comments) says:

    PG: “I’ve personally seen much more non Maori related violence than Maori…” Jesus wept…

    Duh!!! Did you miss the entire point DPF is making?? All things being equal, you should see about five to six TIMES more “non Maori related violence” because there are many more of us whiteys!

    May I enquire how often – if ever – you went in to public bars in the days when all pubs had them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. David Garrett (7,548 comments) says:

    And for the deities sake…how can we make it clear to these leftie morons that there is NO EVIDENCE that “poverty causes child abuse” just as there is no evidence that “poverty causes crime”. “It’s all about inequality” is the new one, but that’s demonstrably bullshit too…

    In New Zealnd in the 1930’s we had unemployed in excess of 20% in the cities…and that figure didnt include women! The welfare safety net was minimal…if you were were a married man “of good character” with children you could get relief work such as planting trees on the volcanic plateau, which kept your family alive…just.

    Scan through news papers from the 1930’s….when I was bored at uni 25 years ago I did just that…sometimes for hours. Murders – when they happened were always front page news, often with follow up pieces inside. I defy anyone to offer ANY cogent evidence that at a time when people were literally starving in this country, child abuse was more than a tiny fraction of today’s figure. Perhaps “proving” me wrong could be this silly woman’s PhD thesis (Apologies, I see the first fairytale was offered for a Masters not a PhD, but the process leading to granting the degree is pretty much the same).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    DG – I’ve been in a few public bars around Auckland and was aware of the risks but missed any trouble. I also played in mostly brown rugby teams, and compared to the mostly white teams I played in down south they were not as bad for thuggery.

    I went on a number of rugby bus trips in Northland staying on maraes and the only assault I witnessed was an Australian guy smacking his Maori partner in the mouth.

    I’ve been to quite a few public bars and parties around Dunedin and Otago and saw a bit, and on the streets. I quite often went to one pub in Alexandra where some people used to specifically go for a fight. My friend left a party and got hit from behind, broke his jaw. These weren’t a Maori problem.

    Dunedin is know for three major crimes, Bain, Weatherston and Grey (Aramoana) and none of them seemed to be very Maori.

    I could go on but you should get the picture.

    I read the statistics. But to say it is a “Maori problem” is avoiding reality. There is violence throughout our society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. swan (665 comments) says:

    Mikenmild,

    Would you like to explain the mechanics by which inequality causes high incidence of child abuse? I’m really interested in the actual cause and effect.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Northland Wahine (667 comments) says:

    Lower income, non existent education, single parent families or children in families that do not share either the same mother or father… Maori are over represented in these stats in our country.

    Personally, I don’t give a rats arse what overseas statistics reflect in regards to their native population. I care about here. In our own country.

    If we maori weren’t overly represented in the above, then yes, common sense tells me we would not be over represented in child abuse statistics. (and I so hate that term, no child should be reduced to being a statistic).

    And yet we are… There’s that saying… When something has gone wrong in your life, there is always one common denominator… You…

    Maori need to accept ownership … No we HAVE to accept ownership before we can offer our babies a better, brighter and longer future.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    Jinny @ 8.11 – yes, I agree.

    Northland wahine: Maori need to accept ownership … No we HAVE to accept ownership before we can offer our babies a better, brighter and longer future.

    Yes, for sure. And so do non-Maori. Eg: Beating children normal – mother

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Chuck Bird (4,924 comments) says:

    PG. I am waiting to see eszett calling everyone racist for highlighting a statistical fact. I fail to see pointing it out this fact is going to solve the problem. Maori are over represented in child abuse stats be a factor of about 3 or 4. However, homosexuals are overrepresented in HIV stats and the sexual abuse of underage adolescents by a much higher factor. I would appreciate if if DPF of some of the many libertarians on the blog could explain this inconsistency. I expect the answer I get will more name calling. Libertarians seems to be more fanatic about their ideology than any Christan fundamentalist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. eszett (2,430 comments) says:

    Oh, for goodness sake, Chucky, is it possible for you not to bring up homosexuality in a post? You have a serious issue, maybe you should seek some professional help.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Chuck Bird (4,924 comments) says:

    eszett, why were you not calling racist? Your were happy for Maori to be put down by the stats. I am sure you are the one in need of some professional help.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. MrLimerick (10 comments) says:

    We’ve unfortunately had a large number of children neglected in my partners family who are Maori. I assume most of these cases have ended up as Maori stats, even though the majority of these children have had a Pakeha parent also. In one of these cases the Pakeha mother moved on from my brother-in-law to a succession of men who she let abuse the four children while she neglected them, she then abandoned them and they grew up in boys and girls homes. We didn’t know where she had gone with the children. Two pakeha
    men fathered five children altogether with two of my sisters-in-law, bashed them for a while, then left. One married a pakeha woman and became a respectable father and farm owner near Auckland, the other fathered almost 20 further children (!!!) with a succession of vulnerable young Maori women, some of I would classify as borderline intellectually disabled. We haven’t even seen these guys when their own grandchildren have died or become disabled! These children of course would appear only in the Maori stats.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. eszett (2,430 comments) says:

    As for the statistics, it is rather dangerous to have a complex issue like child abuse brought into relation of a single variable, especially not a single one like race.

    Overused but still true, correlation is not causation. For even those here who strongly claim to that it is a Maori issue, only manage to point out the correlation, but very much struggle to point out causation. If it is a Maori issue, what is the cause? Also if it is related to being Maori, it should have been able to be detected through history and shouldn’t be just a recent phenomenon.

    As for David Garrets assertion on poverty and crime, I don’t think anyone really suggested such a simple relation to such a problem. Of course if people suddenly find themselves in struggling circumstances they don’t turn to crime.

    But mostly the argument is not just poverty but the prospects of the individuals to escape that poverty. That’s were inequality comes into play. It’s certainly not as simple as poverty cause crime. But to say poverty has nothing to do with it is equally naive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Alan Wilkinson (1,889 comments) says:

    Very poor statistical basis for this work, which begins with a total failure to define and therefore determine ethnicity – which is supposedly its central focus.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. eszett (2,430 comments) says:

    Who do you think I should be calling a racist, Chucky? And why don’t you just do it yourself then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Ha! The usual dimwits blaming inequality for violence.

    Here is a sort of simplistic gedanken experiment. The King of Tonga, King Tupou 5th, decided to give the following top 3 world richest billionaires an Island each (out of a total of 176 Islands altogether where majority are uninhabited) for free so that they can bring potential economic benefits to Tonga with their billions.

    – Carlos Slim Helu (estimated worth $74 Billions)
    – Bill Gates (~ $56 Billions)
    – Warren Buffet (~ $44 Billions)

    Ok, the argument here, is that Tongans is more egalitarian today (ie, everyone is poor) where child abuse statistics can be said to be lower than the Maoris who are in a society (NZ) where wealth is unequal. Remember socialists claimed that it is Inequality is the culprit for child abuse. Now, with King Tupou 5th’s invitation to Helu, Gates and Buffet to move to the Island Kingdom being accepted by the 3 billionaires, according to the proponents of blame inequality theory, the Tongans society’s child abuse rate will dramatically shot up. WHY? If one has to recalculate the wealth distribution of the country after the 3 billionaires moved in to live there in Tonga, the wealth distribution will be so unequal in a massive scale.

    Now, since it is only a simplistic gedanken experiment I’m making here, I seriously doubt that the Tongans will all of a sudden start abusing their children in a rate in par with the Maoris here in NZ, simply because the 3 billionaires mentioned above have moved in to live there thus hugely distorting the wealth inequality distribution (socialists say that it is the cause)?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. eszett (2,430 comments) says:

    Fala, that is the most dimwitted Gedankenexperiment ever

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. David Garrett (7,548 comments) says:

    eszett: sorry old son…every time the question of crime came up in parliament when I was there, the idiot socialists would chant well rehearsed lines about poverty and inequality… I remember Jacinda Ardern giving me the benefit of her vast experience of life trying to “explain” that it “is all about poverty Mr Garrett…cant you see that?”

    but on inequality, one of the “explanations” that has been offered for why there was a DECREASE in crime in the 1930’s – when people literally were starving in Godzone – is that “we were all in it togther then”. Utter crap.

    In 1932, the year of the Queen Street riots, the take at the Ellerslie Christmas races was the same as 1931 give or take; the members stand was full of swells from Remuera, and one of the few job categories where vacancies increased was “domestic servant” – because the rich were hiring more of them at lower wages. In other words, relatively MORE inequality than now.

    And no brown – or white – babies bashed to death featuring on the front pages of the Herald…in fact fewer people of any age bashed than 10 years before…when even New Zealand was enjoying a somewhat more restrained version of the roaring twenties….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > Scan through news papers from the 1930′s…

    Hmmm I wouldn’t compare now to the 1930s. That’s like chalk and cheese.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    Pete George…….. really

    The difference about your theory of everyone torturing people is that maori seem to be the only ones that did/are doing it to THEMSELVES and their own families.

    At least all the others had the sense to do it to groups outside their community – with the aim of what they thought was advancememnt. Maori did it to themselves for no apparent good reason at all except the thrill of killing and maiming..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. David Garrett (7,548 comments) says:

    ross69: Well, we might as well all give up studying history then! Have you ever heard of the phrase “Plus ca change; plus ca meme chose” ??

    Sorta the reason that military colleges still study Sun Tzu, and politicians find inspiration in “the Prince” – published in 1500 something, or on the other side, dear old Karl and his mate Frederick….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Northland Wahine (667 comments) says:

    Ross… Those who cannot learn from history, are doomed to repeat it…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. wreck1080 (3,964 comments) says:

    It would appear the only solution is to sterilise the abused children.

    It’d break the cycle.

    But seriously, tough to fix. Maybe social welfare need to be redesigned. I think that is a large contributor to todays problems. Giving people free money replaces their ambitions and dreams.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. thomasbeagle (77 comments) says:

    The most interesting stat is surely: “50% of perpetrators are step-parents or partners”

    The myth of the evil step-mother (and father) would seem to have some basis in reality.

    [DPF: Yes. I suspect many are not formal step parents, but just current partners of one parent]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. mikenmild (11,742 comments) says:

    There are a few people here denying any link between poerty/inequality and child abuse. None of them are offering any other expolanation for high rates of abuse among Maori. That’s not to say that I think poverty is a sole cause, but racial or cultural explanation are weak also.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Chuck Bird (4,924 comments) says:

    There is a sensible non racist article by Lindsay Mitchell.

    http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19962237&postID=8654712751552516259

    It shows that children Maori and non Maori have far lower rates of abuse when living with both biological parents married to each other. The undermining of marriage over the last 40 years by various government has led to an increase in child abuse. The rate of marriage during that time has declined much quick amongst Maori than non Maori. I am sure there are other factors but I am sure that is a significant one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Spam (588 comments) says:

    Kimble, can you name one positive outcome of financial inequality? Just one?

    Ambition.
    Incentive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. grumpy (270 comments) says:

    Someone on these pages a few days ago (was it eszett?), tried to justify homosexuality by claiming that “400” species of animal exhibited same sex behaviour.

    A hell of a lot more species of animal have males killing their current female partner’s young by other males. Neatly condoning the current situation with children- it’s just nature (like homosexuality)..

    there Chuck – done it for you :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. KevinH (1,236 comments) says:

    Definitely there is a correlation between poverty, poor education and sociological values. Maori are well represented in all of those categories therefore the statistics are not surprising.
    Throwing money at the problem of child abuse is not the answer, although it is helpful in funding researchers, the long haul process of educating tomorrows generations is the way forward.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Paulus (2,664 comments) says:

    Are we to assume that the figures called “Maori” represent only those recorded by ??? (Winz?) as Maori ?
    Whereas there appears to be many assaults on children who are the product of non maori maori.
    Are they then recorded as maori or pakeha, or part of each.
    This then questions “What is a Maori” in the terms of this study ?

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

    It’s the same principle of the flat-earth scientists who sought to suppress or deny the work of Roger Bacon, Copernicus, Galileo, Columbus, and Magellan who all held the earth was round and we see the same today in the AGW field, don’t we.

    I just wish there were automatic punishment for such disingenuous liars such as instant dismissal from their jobs, immediate de-registration from their professional bodies and a dis-conferment of all their degrees on the grounds they clearly are not qualified and they have to start their training again as an undergraduate with Scientific Method 101, Principle 1: Don’t lie, don’t obfuscate, never ever.

    You just shot your self in the foot here because the claim that Galileo, Copernicus, Columbus and Magellan, had there work suppressed by “flat earth scientists” is false and based on extremely dubious historography. In fact the evidence suggests these claims are based on 18th century novels and 19th century propaganda tracts not on examining the primary source evidence which shows quite clearly that belief in a spherical earth was the consensus philosophers and theologicans for the entire middle ages and even the patristic era. I would not lecture people on the scientific method if your going to repeat discredited mythology as historography to make political points.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Peter Freedman (127 comments) says:

    Kimble, can you name one positive outcome of financial inequality? Just one?

    If this query sounds familiar, get used to it. There is nothing worse than a person who makes an assertion and goes to ground the instant it is questioned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Peter Freedman (127 comments) says:

    David Garrett: Oh, David, where do I begin?

    You cannot make any comparison between the 1930s and today for the following reasons:

    1) In the 1930s we had not experienced either Ruth Richardson or Roger Douglas, both of whom followed their mentor Maggie Thatcher, in trying to persuade there was no such creature as a community, we were all individuals who just happened to occupy the same space and time. Selfishness was their creed.

    2) In the 1930s, there was real community spirit. People knew and trusted each other. If they went out they left their house unlocked and often with the door open. Try doing that again now.

    3) While there was minimal welfare in the 1930s there were foodbanks all over the place. If you have heard of Uncle Scrim or read Jack Lee’s The Sugar Bag Years you would know better than to say the things you do.

    4) In the 1930s people cared about each other. They knew who their neighbours were, what they did and the condition of their finances. They helped each other out. Sometimes they even helped complete strangers.

    My grandfather ran a tobacconists shop in downtown Napier. Often down and outs would come into the shop asking for money to buy a cuppa or a bread roll. Instead, Louis offered them a hot meal if they came home with him. My grandmother wasn’t impressed when he appeared at the front gate with up to half a dozen derelicts straggling along behind. Could you imagine that happening today?

    So endeth the first lesson.

    Amen

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. adze (2,129 comments) says:

    PG: “Being poor or pissed is a piss poor excuse.”

    Lol :)

    On a serious note, the step-relationship link is an interesting one. It’s more compelling than a simple correlation with ethnicity or “inequality” (really, the causal mechanism for the latter has never been adequately explained to my satisfaction).
    But there are plenty of step relationships in the country that aren’t abusive, so other factors are in play…
    I suspect normalisation of violent controlling behaviour through abusive upbringing of parent/SO and peer approval may have something more to do with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. John Ansell (874 comments) says:

    It’s pretty simple: our high child abuse rate is caused by the high rate of Maori fatherlessness. And the prime culprit is the mother’s new partner.

    To the extent that all Maori are also non-Maori, and to the extent that those who are exclusively non-Maori also abuse their kids, then as Pete George says it’s also a non-Maori problem.

    But it’s disproportionately a Maori problem, as honest Maori like Northland Wahine are realistic enough to acknowledge. Maori need more like her.

    As David Garrett says, it’s not a socio-economic problem. It’s a moral problem. Too many Maori have low moral standards. (Few say it, but everybody knows it.)

    Just as their ancestors like Te Rauparaha thought nothing of slitting open a live pregnant mother and roasting the unborn foetus on a spit (at the battle of Kaikoura), so many latter-day warriors – only four generations removed from their cannibal heroes – think nothing of putting babies in spin dryers or bashing them against walls.

    (I know Chuck, it’s horrible pointing these things out, but better to tell the truth than cover it up.)

    As someone else pointed out, we of British descent can hardly afford to take a holier-than-thou attitude to such butchery, since our ancestors used to indulge in hanging, drawing and quartering and burning at the stake in the name of the law.

    The difference is that they stopped doing it earlier than Maori stopped doing it.

    Maori stopped doing it (officially at least) when they wisely opted to become part of the British Empire in 1840. Since that was only 172 years ago, we should not be too surprised that their part-descendants are taking a while to master the art of non-violent living.

    I don’t say this facetiously, but as a simple reflection of the relatively small amount of time Maori have had to adjust from stone age society to modern civilisation. (Has there ever been a race that’s come so far so fast?)

    When I see claims that about 50% of child abuse deaths are Maori, I consider that percentage rather light. I wonder why I am not seeing in the papers and on TV photos of dead European, Pacific and Asian kids – only Maori.

    Is it a true figure, I wonder. Are the New Zealand media being racist in over-reporting Maori child abuse deaths?

    Or are pro-Maori commentators exaggerating the Pakeha figures by comparing intentional acts of injury with unintentional?

    I don’t know, but would like to. Can any of you shed any light on which of these two scenarios is more correct?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. eszett (2,430 comments) says:

    It’s a moral problem. Too many Maori have low moral standards. (Few say it, but everybody knows it.)

    I just love it when people make silly statements like this. Always a sure sign, when people argue that it something is what everyone knows, but few dare to say without anything to back it up. Clear evidence that this merely exists in your own mind as part of you prejudice.

    As for the rest of the post, no wonder John was thrown out of ACT. Even he is too much for them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Bogusnews (477 comments) says:

    Good comment John. I agree this is a moral issue.

    I would extend it to include solo parent families in general. All the research I’ve done shows that the safest place for a child is when both biological parents are looking after it. The stats vary a little, but in the western world (canada, US, UK and Australia) a child is up to 85 times more likely to be abused if looked after by one biological parent.

    Helen Clark, Marg Wilson and other co conspirators got together in the mid seventies specifically to undermine and wipe out the traditional family. They succeeded. The results of this are painfully apparent today.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. mikenmild (11,742 comments) says:

    Nice conspiracy theory, Bogus (appropriate pseudonym BTW). Any evidence for it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. John Ansell (874 comments) says:

    eszett: I did not say ‘All’, I did not say ‘Most’, I said ‘Too many’.

    The brainwashing of New Zealanders by the elite (both Maori and non-Maori) amounts to an orchestrated litany of lies over 40 years.

    These lies are everywhere. For example, a few weeks ago, Rawiri Taonui wrote this in the Sunday Star-Times:

    “There is a serious problem when between 2002 and 2006, 28 Maori kids were killed. We know their names. But who remembers the names of the 48 Pakeha children who suffered a similar fate?”

    Really? I assumed this guy was lying, simply because that is the habit I’ve observed in my studies of the elite (both white and brown, political, bureaucratic, academic and media).

    I then find these figures from the Family Violence Death Review Committee:

    From 2002-2008, the number of family violence deaths for children under 15 were: 23 Maori, 17 European, 5 Pacific, 3 Asian, 1 Unknown. 49 in total.

    So not ’48 Pakeha’, but 49 in TOTAL.

    Perhaps these were not the figures Taonui were quoting, since all his numbers are very slightly out. What do you think?

    Regardless, the number of Maori Family Violence deaths from 2002-2008 were 47% of the total, for a race that makes up 15% of the population.

    It seems to me there are two types of Maori: the forward-lookers who are grateful for the benefits of British colonisation and who want to achieve like any other New Zealander, and the backward-lookers who are ungrateful and demand to be compensated for the supposed sins perpetrated by my evil forebears upon their blameless ancestors.

    I’m all for the first group, and have total contempt for the latter. They, together with Pakeha apologists perhaps including you, have been peddling lies about the Treaty for the last 40 years in a largely successful attempt to con the white appeasers to hand over billions of dollars of hard-earned taxpayer cash.

    It is time the truth came out. It soon will.

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