Doublespeak
May 16th, 2012 at 1:00 pm by David FarrarStuff reports:
A Whangarei childcare centre is planning legal action against the New Zealand Aids Foundation (NZAF) for slander.
The centre said NZAF made false comments about it, which have ruined its reputation – but NZAF said the centre needed to acknowledge it has made “really poor decisions”.
I would note it is very very hard for an organisation to win a defamation suite, as if I cam correct they have to show actual damage, not just reputational damage.
The centre received “mixed messages” about the level of care the boy needed and had never “excluded, expelled, or shut out” the boy, but rather asked him to stay at home while a care plan was established, Tipene said.
I’m sorry but that is an exclusion. It is doublespeak to argue otherwise.
More than 20 other early childhood centres in Northland have offered a space to the boy, without having to develop care plans, a NZAF spokeswoman said.
Restores may faith in the basic decency of Kiwis.
Related posts:
- An in touch Minister
- A smart decision
- What happened to the claims this would never go to court?
- Is Hager suing?
May 16th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
It is exclusion no doubt.
Vote:Any damage they might have suffered is self-inflicted as their double speak shows.
May 16th, 2012 at 1:29 pm
Maybe if the mother had been honest when the child was enroled in the centre, this might have been avoided. The centre, like ANY centre or school asks if the child has any health issues. None were declared. The centre actually did the right thing by asking that he be kept at home for a day or so whilst the teaching staff got contingency plans in place for a child who was HIV positive.
And if anything had happened to the child whilst in their care and they hadnt been told? The hue and cry would be enormous.
No, no child should be ‘excluded’ based on their having or not having an HIV positive condition, never ever. But FFS, will the mother take any of the stick that is well deserved by lying through ommission for this?
Highly unlikely.
Vote:May 16th, 2012 at 1:45 pm
“But FFS, will the mother take any of the stick that is well deserved by lying through ommission for this?”
Can you tell me why legally or morally any parent should say another if this were to arise again in light of the fact that the court someone who is HIV+ is not obliged to tell their sexual partner if a condom is used?. The later scenario carries a real risk while the former carries negligible risk.
“The centre actually did the right thing by asking that he be kept at home for a day” Have you any evidence that it was only a day or two? However, did other parents find out about the boy?
Vote:May 16th, 2012 at 1:47 pm
Same sex marriage is also double speak.
Vote:May 16th, 2012 at 1:49 pm
FFS David, grow up.
The child was under threat from other children’s parents. OF COURSE the school had to prepare a plan to care for him and they had to do it without the threat of imminent violence perpetrated by dumbarses at their establishment.
Vote:May 16th, 2012 at 2:02 pm
I don’t think I’d like to stay in a defamation suite.
Vote:May 16th, 2012 at 2:13 pm
If you’re unhappy with your accommodations, Mr Cato, perhaps we could upgrade you to a libel suite?
Vote:May 16th, 2012 at 2:23 pm
DPF – it’s not that hard for organisations to succeed in defamation. Under section 6 of the Defamation Act, the organisation has to prove that it has suffered or is likely to suffer pecuniary loss. If they can show that parents withdrew children or enrolled them elsewhere after the statements were published, that would be enough. But individuals associated with the childcare centre would probably also be able to sue anyway without having to provide evidence of actual harm on the basis that they had been identified sufficiently.
Vote:May 16th, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Chuck, I would respond, but I think your EASL skills have failed you – your paragraph makes no sense whatsoever.
Vote:May 16th, 2012 at 3:06 pm
Firstly is the following understandable?
“Have you any evidence that it was only a day or two? However, did other parents find out about the boy?”
I will try again
“But FFS, will the mother take any of the stick that is well deserved by lying through ommission for this?”
Why should the mother take any stick? Any future parent in the same situation would be more that justified considering the irrational action of other parents.
A court has ruled that if a man is HIV+ he has no legal obligation to inform his sexual partner provided he uses a condom. In the case of sodomy the chance of infection by the recipient would be in the of 1 in 1000 if a condom is used an 1 in 200 if not.
In the case of the boy the chance of him infecting another child would be extremely remote – maybe between 1 in a million and 1 in a billion.
Have you and evidence that this boy would pose a real risk infecting another child? If not, why should a parent of an HIV+m child tell anyone?
Vote:May 16th, 2012 at 3:33 pm
Chuck, thanks, you now are understandable. You still, sadly, dont make sense
You cannot equate the provision of required care with anal sex. Youve tried, and failed. The centre has an OBLIGATION to provide for ALL foreseeable circumstances related to the medical conditions of their charges. Being HIV+ is a medical condition, and therefore the mother was obliged to inform them before her son started at the center. This isnt rocket science. That notice would allow them the opportuntiy to put any and all contingency plans in place for the childs care, including sorting out some ranting fucktard who didnt want his little Jonny associating with such a person.
FWIW, I give a rats arse that the kid is HIV+ from my perspective as a parent who could have a child in the same day care center – nothing will happen, ever. But the mother had an obligation to advise, she didnt, she lied by ommission, and as such she has to share in the blame for this debacle.
There will always be parents who dont want their precious babys ever getting dust on themselves, let alone dirt or risk a scraped knee – thats their call. More fool them, and pity their children. But the center must be allowed to prepare for all contingencies when it comes to providing care, end of story.
To reiterate, its NOT about “Have you and evidence that this boy would pose a real risk infecting another child? If not, why should a parent of an HIV+m child tell anyone?” at all – its about the center being able to do what they are supposed to do.
Vote:May 16th, 2012 at 3:57 pm
Thanks for your reply. I think we might agree the mother had no legal obligation to notify the school. We will have to agree to disagree about her moral obligation. I think future parents will unlikely notify a school and I do not blame them. I wonder what others think.
Vote:May 16th, 2012 at 4:09 pm
Maybe – but where is the line Chuck? Can I decide which health condition I make the child care center aware of, and then bitch and moan if the childs care is compromised by my deliberate ommission?
Vote:May 16th, 2012 at 4:21 pm
I think this should be looked while the government look parental responsibility in regards immunisation. I know I would be a lot more concerned if a child in my care was going to school were the children were not immunised than one child had HIV and was receiving medication reducing the very small risk even more. Measles can kill of blind a child.
Vote:May 16th, 2012 at 4:35 pm
“asked him to stay at home while a care plan was established”
if it was a request they agreed to then it’s not an exclusion and definitely not an expulsion if it was for a limited period. Being expelled in the context of a school is permanent in common usage.
If the above is true then the AIDS foundation could actually be the one doing the language abuse here
Vote:May 16th, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Chuck, absolutely agree – and thats the point. Its not OUR call as parents whats notified or not, its the center, its their job to provide the care and contingency planning based on their childrens (customers) requirements.
You just agreed with me. Careful
Vote:May 16th, 2012 at 4:59 pm
hmmokrightitis, I do not agree that is should be left up to individual schools or child care centres. There should be specific legislation about all contagious diseases depending how they are spread.
I wonder if the centre asked employee about any diseases they have. If a teacher was found to have HIV it would be a lot more difficult for a school to get rid of the teacher.
Vote:May 16th, 2012 at 9:33 pm
Its not about how they spread Chuck, its contingency planning for the childs care in the event of risk turning in to issue. Thats the point…
Vote: