Immigration level gets pass mark but voters split on party lines
Only a third of New Zealanders feel immigration levels are too high, according to a Herald-DigiPoll survey, while a majority feel the flow of migrants into the country is “about right”.
But the new poll showed 50.1 per cent of respondents were mostly unconcerned, saying immigration levels were “about right”. Just over 35 per cent said they were too high.
Labour voters were more likely to be concerned about immigration levels than National voters – nearly 40 per cent of Labour supporters said immigration levels were too high, compared to 30 per cent of National voters.
New Zealand First leader Winston Peters said he was surprised a third of respondents felt immigration levels were too high given the lack of attention to immigration issues.
He said the figure would be higher still if the Government measured the number of foreigners purchasing houses or if media focused more closely on the negative impacts of higher immigration levels.
“Given how little is disclosed as to house ownership, land ownership, to job occupation, to ease of entry, to superannuation accessibility … that figure of just 35 per cent is staggeringly high, and it will only get higher as people learn more about the truth of the matter.”
David Cunliffe showed he was out of his depth on the issue of violence. Poorly researched and out of touch.
He was being advised on and addressing a particular audience.
Women’s Refuge Chief Executive Heather Henare said Cunliffe’s comments were ones she had been waiting to hear.
“That was pretty gutsy and I think that it’s unfortunate that that part of his speech was picked up in such a negative way,” she said.
But he failed to appreciate there were much wider views than that. People don’t want a sorry sucker for a leader. But worse, he was pissing on the many decent men who abhor violence.
And he was portraying the opposite sort of role model to what is needed, as explained by Deborah Morris-Travers of children’s lobby group Every Child Counts.
‘‘One of the solutions to family violence is having all men healthy, educated, feeling good about being parents, feeling supported and engaged in their community and having a strong identity – not apologising for being male.’’
Women’s refuge work hard in a very difficult bottom of the cliff situation.
But to stop so many people falling off the violence cliff we need strong men to stand up, not sorry suckers.
“DigiPoll’s started as an offshoot of the University of Waikato Survey Research Unit, which
historically employed only tertiary students, providing many young people with their first
opportunity to be part of the adult workforce.
In addition to secondary and tertiary students, we provide many people in our community the
first step into meaningful and productive employment. May it be the new immigrants who are
often denied the opportunity by other employers to enter the New Zealand workforce, people
with disabilities or even those who have been away from the workforce for a while and seek
nzherald – “Greens outpoll NZ First as choice of coalition partner. Mr Cunliffe said Labour’s aim was to be able to work well with either or both “but of course we have a strong long-standing relationship with the Greens in particular”.
David Cunliffe claims he will turn his dismal poll ratings around by election time with new policies. My guess is he is thinking hard about what new bribes he can offer, how much of our own money he can give away to buy votes. I notice most of his policies are around minimum pay, housing for low income people and so on. I’ve heard little about what he will do for industry – his views on international treaties, pushing FTA’s etc. He knows the people affected by such policies are not Labour voters. By and large Labour voters ask what will the government give me while National voters ask what will the government do to smooth the way for me to get ahead by my own efforts.
Yeah Cun*liffe is unaware that 99.99% of of Men in Nu Zild enjoy hunting, rugby, rooting and a beer or three (before during and after) and dont feel the need to be a low life piece of shit and bash the Missus.
Its going to be an absolute pleasure to see that cnut get smashed in the September election.
Revealed: Rolf Harris downloaded indecent images of children
Rolf Harris downloaded appalling images of child abuse from websites offering picture of ‘little girlies’ and ‘tiny girlfriends’, it can be revealed for the first time.
The 83-year-old, who was convicted of 12 counts of indecent assault earlier this week, had been due to stand trial for the offences at a future date. But at his sentencing hearing at Southwark Crown Court, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) announced it no longer intended to proceed with the case.
When Harris was first arrested on suspicion of indecent assault, police examined his computer and unearthed evidence of indecent images of children.
In total detectives found 33 images of boys and girls that had been downloaded and stored on Harris’s computer.
Some of the material had been copied from websites with titles that left no doubt they were specialising in images of young girls.
The veteran entertainer is also said to have made a handwritten entry in his diary with details of how to delete his internet browsing history.
Harris admitted looking at adult erotic material online but denied searching underage sites, claiming any child abuse images must have found their way onto his hard drive by mistake.
I am pissed off with that goose Cunliffe making apologies on behalf of men. He is representative of homos, lesbians and transvestites, not MEN. He has never displayed traits of “real” men. He is as vile as Logie and KIng . . . tells a story, and if it is his, it will be lies. Best he crawls back into the rainbow room with his girlie boys and rug munchers.
colville – “I still think this election could see the Greens with the highest ever number of MPs. *shudder*”
While I agree with the sentiment, at least the greens are vaguely coherent. Labour/Cunliffe can’t even claim that. But, even if Labour did get more MPs than the Greens, the Greens would still be the drivers in the coalition of tax. Can you imagine Cunners putting up much of an argument against Metiria? I can’t. Especially now he’s a eunuch.
Ok Kiwibloggers – regarding the David Cunliffe ‘I’m sorry for being a man’ comment – here’s my considered opinion. As someone who was actually THERE at the Women’s Refuge 2014 ‘Symposium’ on violence against women and children – from 9am till 5pm. Two key words that many seem to have overlooked/ ignored/ or not known – judging from some of the semi-hysterical reactions – are the ‘contextual’ words ‘RIGHT NOW’? Labour Leader David Cunliffe was speaking to a room packed with (mainly) women – dealing with violence against women and children, at a range of levels, including 70 women from Women’s Refuge. Did David Cunliffe ‘look like he was going to cry’? NO. That’s just bullshit. In my considered opinion, the reason why the (male) Leader of the Labour Party, David Cunliffe was there, and the (male) Leader of the National Party, John Key, was not – is because Labour takes this issue of violence against women and children seriously – and National does not. Penny Bright
The greens do well because of the vacuum created by the lack of action on climate change by the right .
That they have an incoherent economic policy is immaterial to the economically illiterate.
At lest the left has a range of viable political party’s. The national monolith lumps many different and mutually exclusive standpoints under one banner.
Penny – Cunliffe knew he was talking to a much wider audience than those in the room. We can presume he carefully prepared that opening to his speech, or at least that’s how it looked.
He couldn’t have chosen a much more wrong headed way to get people backing his anti-violence policy (which looks promising).
He has not just failed to connect, he has pissed off alot of men (and women) at a much deeper and more personal level than tribal politics. And it was totally predictable if he had anything other than narrow advice on dealing with violence.
He has insulted the essence of malehood for a lot of decent people who are opposed to violence.
He has a record of gaffing but this was a gaffe to top all gaffes (so far).
I doubt ,Penny, you have considered anything other than how to suck money out of the public tit.
Once you abandon your privileged position and start paying your rates ,like the rest of us peasants have to ,maybe your deluded rantings can be given the gravitas they deserve.
I am curious what it would take for one of the MSM news sources to declare Cunliffe unelectable? He would be a major embarrassment overseas, how surely it can only be a gaffe away . . . although I said that yesterday too.
I’m actually a politically INDEPENDENT ‘Public Watchdog’ who has a proven reputation for ‘fighting hard – but fighting clean’ and telling the truth. Sorry if the FACTS aren’t to your liking – but I was there – and I will call BULLSHIT when I see it. What Labour Leader David Cunliffe was saying – in my understanding – is that most violence against women and children is carried out by men and men (including men who don’t actually commit violence against women and children themselves) need to step up to the plate, acknowledge that there IS a problem, that it’s NOT ok, and to help do something about it. At least now – the public awareness campaign/ debate has well and truly started! ‘Where there is HEAT – there is usually LIGHT’! Had Labour Leader David Cunliffe not fronted and made his ‘I’m sorry for being a man (right now)’ comment – would this Women’s Refuge Symposium on violence against women and children received anywhere the same publicity? What’s your view on THAT Kiwibloggers? Penny Bright
Most/all of the people I know are not against immigration per se. What they are concerned about are the present children of Muslim immigrants who will, when they reach their activist years, become politicised and create uproar here in NZ as they are currently doing in Britain and Australia.
Young people have for many years protested and been tolerated, but the Muslim youths are particularly lawless and vicious.
So while we welcome their parents, we do hope that they will educate their young to be tolerant of the society which is nurturing them.
And if they fail, let them be returned to the lands of their forefathers.
Cunliffe probably apologised because only males from his side of the political spectrum perpetrate the sorts of things which he is concerned enough about to comment.
Those on the other side are paragons, removed from such behaviour except by having to tolerate it spoiling their view of the world by its exposure in the media.
Those paragons of course have the redeeming features of igm and that Slater fellow. Should their clearly, consistently expressed ways of interacting with the world become commonplace, it will be too late for apologies, we would have descended into the Syria, Nigeria and Irak types of chaos.
Despite fingerprints, blood at scene
Police told a Wanganui businessman they didn’t have enough evidence to find the person who stole wheels from his car yard, despite never checking out the blood stains and fingerprints left at the scene.
Jack Jones, who owns Jack Diamond Motors on Heads Rd, reported wheels stolen from a vehicle on his car yard on June 27.
The thieves had left blood and fingerprints on the vehicle which Mr Jones told police about on the phone that morning.
Wood blocks were used to prop up the vehicle and the thieves had attempted to remove all four wheels but only managed to get away with two.
“They [police] were so interested in it, they still haven’t turned up,” Mr Jones told the Chronicle yesterday morning.
“I was told someone from Wanganui station would be out that morning [June 27] and not to touch the vehicle.”
Mr Jones called police again at 1:30pm when no one had come out. “I was then told that my case had been assessed at 10.30am that morning and no further action would be taken and I would receive a letter confirming this.”
He received the letter a few days later which said “after looking at all the available evidence we have not been able to find the person responsible.” This was despite police never coming to the scene where the offenders had left evidence which Mr Jones had told them about.
“I think it’s quite disgraceful,” Mr Jones said.
“Out tax money pays for the police.”
Mr Diamond said the wheels were probably worth $2000.
However, following inquiries from the Chronicle, police contacted Mr Jones yesterday afternoon and an officer was at the scene yesterday taking blood and print samples, Mr Jones said.
A police spokesperson could not say why police hadn’t attended the call earlier.
“Police have contacted the complainant regarding their concerns and are working through the matter to ascertain what has occurred between the complainant and the Crime Reporting Line,” the spokesperson said.
“When a call comes into the crime reporting line, the staff will collect as much information as possible. The file is then automatically forwarded to the relevant district’s file management centre. Qualified staff will then thoroughly assess the information received to determine whether there is sufficient information or lines of enquiry to pursue in order to identify suspects and obtain other evidence.”
The theft resembles an incident at Landlords Link on Dublin St this week where thieves had replaced the four alloy wheels on the company’s car with rocks.
Senior Sergeant Andrew McDonald said it was an “unusual crime” but was not aware of wheels being targeted in Wanganui recently.
– WANGANUI CHRONICLE
errr…… why would I apologise for being a woman? I’m very proud of being a fine, upstanding example of Kiwi womanhood Brains, heart, guts, balls – what more do you want in a woman? Kind regards Penny Bright.
Go ask A&E, the local GP’s nurse, or a dozen women you know about assault. It’s all crap. The whole lot of it. Most domestic assaults happen in the usual surburb in most towns across NZ. And in the usual suburbs in the cities.
Do you now anyone who has been arrested?
Do you know anyone who has been assaulted?
Have you seen a police car in your street over domestic violence – in a house that is owned by the occupier?
Most police callouts over domestic violence are into homes where the male was not bought up by his natural father. Two generations worth. 10’000’s of those homes by now. Enough to cover all the court, police & hospital statistics. That’s the truth of it. And nearly all the victims didn’t spend all of their childhood with their fathers either! Those statistics are seen again and again all across the western world. And it’s where you also see ‘child poverty’ and nearly all other under performance. Girls in Norway who do not spend ALL of their childhood with their natural fathers are 17 times more likely to suffer from court recorded sexual assault. 1700%.
A women today who is slapped once in a while by her husband would not see him as a threat to her life. She would tell someone and get help.
One off slaps are usualy over something rather serious – they can’t be excused- but are either sorted out between the two or with the help of friends or family.
Put Marriage back on it’s rightful pedestal as the protector of women and girls – and the next generation of fathers/males/protectors/violators. As nearly all men are doing their part anyway.
As I said the other day, when I did a bit of pugging, I would love to have had “Tojo” Cunliffe in a ring, it would have been unbelievable the extra power his wimpy looking mug would have generated one to belt the shit out of. After seeing The Herald it makes me detest the bastard more.
errr ….. ‘Komata’ – given you don’t actually put your name to your posts – I have to question your commitment to ‘transparency’? Think Ill leave it to the voting public to give a yardstick that can be measured and arguably not ignored when it comes to proven support for the anti-corruption policies I advocate? eg: the 11,723 votes I obtained in the 2013 Auckland Mayoral campaign? How many votes do you think Ill get when I stand as the Independent MP for Helensville? A lot of the women at the Women’s Refuge Symposium yesterday were VERY enthusiastic about the idea Penny Bright
So Calender Grrl you’re going to tell all your Helensville friends to ELECTORATE vote Penny Bright as Independent MP for Helensville? You won’t be the only one – LOTS of women at yesterday’s Women’s Refuge Symposium seemed to be rather enthusiastic about the idea …. Kind regards Penny Bright
errr…… why would I apologise for being a woman? I’m very proud of being a fine, upstanding example of Kiwi womanhood Brains, heart, guts, balls – what more do you want in a woman? Kind regards Penny Bright.
Hey penny, so that’s where silent t’s balls went. when did you find the time to take them off him.
So – opposition to corruption is a ‘hard-left’ cause? Wanting transparency and accountability in local and central government spending is a ‘hard-left’ cause? What’s your view on THIS comment David, and the TaxPayers Union? Kind regards Penny Bright
Our vision is leadership that influences the prevention and elimination of domestic violence.
And our purpose is to liberate women, children, families and whānau from family violence by providing quality services and social commentary.
These are the values we recognise while we’re working hard to do this:
Whakapapa: Relationships built on kinship and reciprocity.
Tikanga: Practising with integrity.
Wairua: Honouring diversity.
Tapu: Promoting self-understanding and development.
Mauri: Maintenance of the individual identity and values within a collective.
Mana: Inspirational leadership.
At Women’s Refuge we treat all women, children and their families/whānau in a respectful, confidential, sensitive and non-judgemental manner.
Four cornerstones underpin our values:
Parallel development: Ensuring the needs of Māori are met in ways that best suit Māori.
Collectivism: To ensure consensus decision-making, and in recognition that the actions of one refuge reflects on the refuge movement as a whole.
Feminism: Celebrating women’s contribution to society.
Lesbian visibility: To eliminate discrimination of any kind against women.
@ publicwatchdog (2,032 comments) says:
July 5th, 2014 at 9:28 am
No Penny, it wouldn’t have received any publicity. we live in a society where people like to pretend violence is someone elses problem. These people prefer to deal with things that really matter in (their) lives.
Cunliffe’s statement, which is continuing to be taken out of context, has at least again opened the dialogue. It has allowed yet again see many males, and even females, demonstrate their ‘excusist’ attitudes. Then there are people like IGM, who would like to use violence to shut Cunliffe up.
Gosh, I just can’t understand why our violence rate is so high.
You make an interesting point.I have also detected a tendency amongst certain posters violence as an appropriat form of conflict resolution.
Definitely misogyny towards women.Usually fun die Con Party types.
@ Redbaiter (7,381 comments) says:
July 5th, 2014 at 11:12 am
So you think women should be made to stay home, spread their legs on demand, and receive a good slap when they don’t do as they are told. Those that object to that, and speak out about such treatment, are doing so because they have become indoctrinated by the left?
Gosh, I just can’t understand why our violence rate is so high.
Better to ‘jaw jaw than war war’ sort of thing? INFORMED debate – based on FACTS and EVIDENCE is my preferred option. Which is probably why some gutless, anonymous Kiwibloggers respond the way they do to a lot of my posts? ‘Can’t handle the jandal’ sort of thing…… Kind regards Penny Bright
Bryce Edwadrs explains it well on The Nation. Labours core values are identity politics and rape culture (FFS). Bill the Plumber will will be confused, No?
He may have said “two of the core values of Labour are”?
“It is the left who have done most harm to women.”
Utter crap. Women have been being harmed since well before ‘left’ as a concept was invented. And since, regardless of politics.
Social policies have helped rescue many women from being imprisoned in violent relationships. And they have markedly changed policing and justice so violence is confronted much more effectively (with more room for improvement).
@ Pete George (22,426 comments) says:
July 5th, 2014 at 11:20 am
More excuses Pete.
Yes women do it, but the statistics demonstrate that overwhelmingly men are the biggest group of perpetrators. But not only that, that when men use violence, people are seriously injured or die, more often than when women use violence.
When a man uses violence against another man, the strength levels are usually similar, when a man uses violence against a woman, there is a strong disparity in the ability to defend oneself.
No one has said, especially Cunliffe, that women are not violent. He was speaking from the only point of view he can – his own, and he is personally appalled that males continue to be involved in violence at such levels. It was his right to make such a statement, especially as the context was talking to a group of women who have been victims of physical abuse. He was apologising to them, and that was perfectly acceptable in that context.
All of this, ‘women do it to’ is just the same old excuses – reasons not to address the issue, and part of the reason why it continues. “My mother smacked me lots when I was young, and that’s why I strangled you to death when you nagged me when I was drunk”. Don’t nag me and I won’t kill you.
@ hj (6,215 comments) says:
July 5th, 2014 at 11:30 am
I’m sorry, but I fail to see where he linked it to ALL men, other than when he went on to say that men need to put a stop to it by telling other men, it is not okay. That action has to come from within the same sex.
I believe that is true. I believe it is men that need to tell their sons, their brothers, and their colleagues, that violence is not okay.
A couple of weeks back, on this blog, a prominent poster was obviously angry with another, he gave his address, and ‘called’ that other person out. Inciting violence. When I raised the topic, the vast majority supported that posters action. That was a public display of someone proposing the use of violence. That same poster frequently talks about ‘putting his children’ to bed and so on. Would those same people have been so approving if the offer had been accepted and the visit resulted in one of those children being harmed in any skirmish?
Until men get rid of the attitude that violence, as a means of settling dispute, dealing with anger, and a ‘blokey’ way of dealing with someone who annoys you, the high levels will continue.
The vast majority of men are good loving men, but until those ‘good men’ stand up and discourage violence in others, as long as they continue to make excuses for it, people are going to continue to get hurt. I believe that is the message Cunliffe was trying to give – to call all of you to speak out against it. It was the wrong time, Cunliffe should have known it would have been taken out of its context and used against him politically – but the premise of the message was not wrong.
Unfortunately, I have too many commitments at work to enter into this debate. Here is a thought, though –and I appreciate that it involves a concept with which many of the commenters here may struggle — I have pasted links to the party policies on domestic violence. Perhaps the experts here (and all pretend to be) can provide a rational and objective analysis of the merits or disadvantages of each policy and explain why one policy will work better than another and come up with a coherent argument in favour of the selection of any or all or any combination of the methodologies proposed.
Nookin (2,968 comments) says:
July 5th, 2014 at 11:50 am
Okay, some of this is a repeat from another thread, but my take on the first link.
First two points good – however, again and again we deal with the results, NOT the cause, however, they are a step in the right direction.
But the GPS idea for the offenders is pathetic, will not work, will cost plenty and is just plain stupid, for these some of these reasons below: –
It is a system that if anything has the potential to contribute to the problem and which will be ineffective in reducing it. It’s yet again attempting to put a plaster on the cut – but not stopping what causes the pain in the first place.
It won’t work.
1. Because it is not going to be applied until there is a breach of protection order. Statistics show that many people are injured or worse, on that first breach.
2. The GPS system would only be useful if monitored constantly 24/7 to check the position of the potential offender. Which would be cost prohibitive.
3. 24/7 monitoring would be of no use, unless you also monitored the potential victim, to ensure the two were not in close proximity. Again cost prohibitive.
4. To be effective, the potential victim would need to be ‘imprisoned’ in their own home, which would be wired to set an alert should the potential offender came close, and no one is going to submit to that long term.
5. The GPS, like home detention bands, are easily removed, whilst this would trigger an alert, by time the offender was located, if they are hell bent on causing harm, it would be too late.
The GPS suggestion will only work on the honest, and those level headed enough and rational enough. The vast majority of those that breach the orders, are none of those. If a person is hell bent on causing harm to another, a GPS is not going to stop them, however, it will be handy in court to prove their whereabouts after the damage has been done. But we are pretty good at doing that without going to the expense of buying into this system.
6. The fact that an unbalanced and violent person is made to wear a GPS 24/7 as a constant reminder of his/her issues with the potential victim, is only going to infuriate them further, and add to the problem, not solve it.
7. The police response time would not stop the harm being done. The system still allows the offender to access the victim, it only takes a second to fire a gun, if that is the desire.
The only way to lessen domestic violence in this country is to get rid of the mindset that allows it in the first place.
@ Gulag1917 (572 comments) says:
July 5th, 2014 at 11:57 am
Violence of any form provides the mindset that violence is acceptable. We already know that many in society lack the ability to determine reasonable force. Abolishing the anti smacking law, and reverting to the right to smack in any reasonable manner is just supporting the use of violence.
Whilst the anti smacking law needs definition, to abolish the law and revert to the previous example, would not assist in giving the very strong message, that civilised human-beings do not hit/use violence in anger. As long as parents are allowed to hit their children – there will be those that do so in a rage and with anger – thus children get the message that when I am angry with someone, its okay to hit them.
The law needs to be defined to allow a controlled smack on the hand or buttock with an open hand, but the use of a fist, or an implement is not okay, and hits to any other part of the body – especially the head are not permissible. A controlled open hand smack on the hand sufficient not to cause injury or bruising, might be acceptable (although I question the need) but we need to make sure the message is of ‘control’ rather than anger.
Do you agree that there’s a sizeable subset of females in NZ who work on the assumption that “if he hits me he loves me”?
For those who have lived a sheltered life it may seem unbelievable but it’s an opinion I formed over the years I spent as a part time barman/bouncer to pay the bills after our first kids were born. It was the only way I could rationalise the way that women would deliberately wind up up half pissed, potentially violent partner.
Interesting as one of the four cornerstones that underpin the values of the Women’s Refuge is:
Parallel development: Ensuring the needs of Māori are met in ways that best suit Māori.
That reminds me of the following:
From: “The Theory of Apartheid: Nationalist Racial Policy in the union of South Africa”
The concept of apartheid envisages the parallel development of these two (Black and white) groups.
Of course the cultural relativists and the left, suffering from psychological projection, will argue, as they did with racism, that only white people can be accused of apartheid and racism.
‘Funny’ isn’t it that the most virulent racists and sexists will be found in left wing advocacy groups claiming to fight racism and sexism.
I can remember Mrs Papworth our neighbour. A huge woman. She used to give all her kids a clip round the head with her plate of meat hands. They all turned out faulty. My Mum, a very small woman, used to chase me with a leather belt but I could outrun her and by the time I came back home she used to give me a cuddle!
@ nasska (10,377 comments) says:
July 5th, 2014 at 12:09 pm
Hell yes Nasska. There are women who think that a man can only be that angry with someone he adores.
I am not absolving women for their part in the entire concept of violence in our society. Many of us bring our son’s up to be tough, to ‘stop being a girl’ if they aren’t. We also tell our children when we smack them that ‘its for their own good’ and we are ‘only doing it because we love them’. Thus we let them think that giving or receiving a hit is okay.
Women CAN be more manipulative and cunning than men when it comes to inflaming anger in males. It would be very wrong to say that violence is just a male problem – it is not – it is a societal problem – however, because of the strength ratios, and the way in which we raise males, they dominate the statistics.
Part of what I’ve said above to Nasska, extends to my criticism of Labour’s policy. IT is aimed to address violence towards women and children. That is admirable, but not complete. I believe we are in the mess we are, violence wise, because we give that mixed message. It’s okay to use violence here, but it’s not okay to use it there. You can bash your mate if you’ve both had a couple of beers, and he’s pissing you off, but you can’t bash your wife, when she’s annoying you, or the kids are making you angry or whatever.
The message has to be that violence is not a way of dealing with anger in any circumstance. When you’re angry, find some other way to channel that anger (although I am becoming very adverse to the constant application of cognitive behavioural therapy as a means of dealing with violent offenders – it does not work long term).
Children’s excessive discipline, child mortality, domestic violence and murders generally happen in a certain socio-economic class. I never knew of one case of cruelty, child abuse, over the top discipline by one family who smacked their children because they loved their children, were consistent and the parents knew if they disciplined too hard they would suffer the consequences and damage their reputation with other people. The left in their tunnel vision assumed because some parents were going over the top re discipline of children all families had to pay the price. That is one reason why the backlash is happening. The Conservative Party represent good middle class people where people are well behaved and may not have thought through the fact that some people are not like them in their culture towards children.
Hoskings on NewsTalkZB the other morning, had another one. A 5-year old who was being bullied in the playground and told to pull down his pants by the bully, did so, and guess what? The school charged him with indecent behaviour. A 5-year old.
Nuts right? So how come it happens, all the time, over there, now? See the link at the bottom of that article.
….”Children’s excessive discipline, child mortality, domestic violence and murders generally happen in a certain socio-economic class”….
To a large extent you’re right although I’ve seen some terrible beatings handed out to kids whose families all trotted off to church like good citizens every Sunday. Most were PI’s & David Garrett’s recent anecdotes about child discipline in Tonga are telling.
It’s the instances that I’ve witnessed where some fat arsed woman gives a kid a clout over the head that sends them halfway up a supermarket aisle that allowed the banning legislation to pass.
For what it’s worth I’m not against “smacking” per se but if it is to be reintroduced it must be defined so as to totally prohibit child torture & beatings which seemed sanctioned by S59.
@ Gulag1917 (574 comments) says:
July 5th, 2014 at 12:37 pm
I’m going to get slapped down for saying this because it comes back to the nature vs nurture debate, however, you are correct in that violence appears more in lower socio-economic groups.
My stance is this:-
Violence occurs most where there is uncontrolled anger. Uncontrolled anger occurs most when life is out of balance. When the economic, social and personal aspects are unable to be assimilated with each other. In our current society, money is a strong controlling factor. When there is a shortage of it, life becomes unbalanced. The social and the personal aspects become difficult to balance, at least to levels that are deemed acceptable. So like it or not, socio-economic status plays a large role, especially when social mobility is difficult to achieve.
Together with that concept is the ability for people who are more intelligent, with problem solving skills, to sort out problems as they eventuate. This is where I’ll get shot down, but in many cases (not all), people in the lower socio-economic levels, lack the ability to deal with the stress of an unbalanced life. Because intelligence is generally inherited, the ability to improve status, becomes determined by family as well. As generations proceed the ability to deal with something like violence becomes ingrained because of the example.
Whilst people in the upper levels may smack their children, those children are probably intelligent enough, and have the other examples that allows them to understand the reasoning behind the action. Not all children do – especially those in the situation aforementioned.
That is why for some it becomes a way of life, and for others, it serves positively as a moderating factor. I would even suggest that those in the higher status levels are not exposed to the same degree of stressors etc, which allow the use of violence in anger to be witnessed and therefore adopted as a way of life.
(having said all that, do not believe that violence doesn’t occur in the upper levels of society – it does, but frequently is hidden – but when it comes out, it is often more extreme – e.g. Clayton Witherston)
Reid, the US a Police state.? Your link doesn’t bother to consider whether a parallel Police Complaints Conduct authority will be reviewing the case.? This would be highly likely and there is no evidence, as per usual, that people are been carted off to FEMA conentarion camps. simple fact of the matter they don’t exist.!
The alleged Police State claims that is rampant amongst right wing nutters NWO ,Conpiracy buffs ,Fox news, WND etc is analyzed here,
Reid, as though the Russian Airforce does not have similar problems with the grounding of it’s MIG 29 fleet in 2009.,
Stephie, as I keep telling you, you don’t know how to think. See, if you could, then you’d know the F-35 program has been suffering major development problems for quite a few years now and that the report from RT was merely yet another in a long long line of similar reports from all sorts of agencies all around the world dating back many years. I didn’t post it BTW to pretend to be telling anyone anything new, I merely thought it was an amusing juxtaposition with the other story. So you got the wrong of the stick already, didn’t you.
Now it’s one thing to be ignorant and if you were merely that then fine, everyone is ignorant of some things, I am, you are, everyone is, no big deal.
But it’s quite another to not only be ignorant but think you aren’t. That’s your first mistake. It’s called arrogance.
Your second mistake, which is where you cross the line from being arrogant into being both arrogant and stupid, is that you pay most attention to the source of information rather than to the information itself. This is what children do, because they’re not equipped to know any better. But when you’re an adult, you’re supposed to be able to assimilate information and use logical processes to sort it into truth and falsity with all shades of probability in between. But you have never demonstrated that technique, ever, in any of your posts here.
Which is why I never bother to discuss anything with you, since it’s less productive than discussing particle physics with a child, since a child knows he doesn’t understand, whereas you think, or rather hallucinate, that you do.
God lord, I wasn’t offering my services. The ol’ boy frequently tells me he hopes I never cheat on him. He loves humanity too much to wish that on any man! It makes him feel noble to suffer for the sake of others.
would somebody please play the race card and identify and quantify those men involved consistently in violence towards “our” women. No,don’t ruin the argument by being honest or objective. Labour strongholds? Don’t exclude my WASPish upbringing. Perhaps if we had more men in primary schools with good mores we’d be a better society.
@ Johnboy (14,622 comments) says:
July 5th, 2014 at 1:02 pm
I don’t think anyone thinks labour is going to win the election. The question is very much what sort of government National will be able to stitch together. An outright win, in my opinion, would be far superior than anything else on offer, but I fear we will have an abomination of a coalition, that will mean nothing gets done, as National is held to ransom by the minority partners.
I still say if that happens, we will be back at the polls before due time.
As much as I strongly dislike Key (have I mentioned that before?) I would prefer National to win without the need for a coalition.
One way out of the mess is to have a decent education [and the system is not delivering] for the poor to work their way out. The public education system is dumbing things down e.g. delaying being taught trigonometry by a year. The poor often historically have had less crime levels and less murder rates than they have now which gets provokes the question, why.
U T , Reid and wiki etc.I was at a cafe yesterday when a good friend of mine whilst he had no doubts that 9/11 was not an inside job b he did have some reservations about WTC 7. I sent him this link which debunks the Truther theories about WTC 7 the source of patently false anti Semitic claims about it’s owner Larry Silverstein,
“Violence of any form provides the mindset that violence is acceptable. We already know that many in society lack the ability to determine reasonable force. Abolishing the anti smacking law, and reverting to the right to smack in any reasonable manner is just supporting the use of violence.”
The problem with this argument Judith is that it just repeats the word “violence” without making any distinctions between moral and immoral violence.
Violence used in self-defense, and defense of one’s family, is legitimate. Violence against an invading aggressor is legitimate. When the police use violence to take down a violent offender, that is legitimate.
So the issue is not violence, but what kind is acceptable and what kind is not. And that is what the anti-smacking issue is partly about, as well as not making otherwise perfectly good parents into potential criminals for a smack.
Personally I don’t think smacking is a particularly constructive way to deal with children. But turning thousands of parents into potential criminals was and is not the answer either. Like the marriage “equality” law this was not about dealing with an actual problem or issue in a constructive way, it was just the imposition of a far left ideology.
Domestic violence needs real solutions, practical ones that actually work, not far left ideology, including silly and counter-productive apologies for maleness.
And in a world with criminals, tyrants and terrorists, a world in which we need police and armed forces, silly statements that all violence is always wrong is just as counter-productive.
Leadership, investment and commitment to addressing and preventing domestic violence in New Zealand.
An independent Government Inquiry into domestic violence, considering both the ‘system’s response’ to domestic violence, and the prioritising, resourcing and funding of domestic violence services in New Zealand.
So that’s why we’re bringing back Kate to make a stand against domestic violence and once again carry a message for New Zealand.
So far – the Leader of the Labour Party David Cunliffe, has committed to ‘An Independent Inquiry into domestic violence’ – which he announced yesterday at the Women’s Refuge Symposium on Violence Against Women and Children.
HEAR IT FOR YOURSELF /THINK FOR YOURSELVES – AND STOP BEING ‘SHEEPLE’ – PEOPLE!
The Denver International Airport ( DIA ) conspiracy is nothing really new and refers to a few things about it’s design notably the sculpture roofing facade and design similar in somecways to the Sydney Opera House, the large mutual paintings and the alleged undreground network of tunnels and structures.
These are all linked together to suggest some kind of nefarious and sinister NWO Conpiracy .The sculptured roofing design is even described as the Devil’s towers by the over cooked and half baked imaginations of Conspiracy Theorist…Anyone who does not like their brains shredded or over baked should read this link about this absolutely absurd nonsense.,
Because I make no distinction between any sort of violence, other than the need to use violence to fight off an attacker to save your own life. There is no moral violence. Hurting another person is never acceptable – not for a civilised person.
When you use violence as a means of correction, you give the idea that violence under some circumstances is acceptable. As each and everyone of us has different standards, how do you determine who is justified, and who isn’t.
I might consider someone kicking my dog to warrant the use of violence on them in return, you might argue that she is just a dog, and no person should be harmed for the sake of an animal, and so on.
If a parent is able to command respect and get their children to behave by the use of any method other than causing pain to that child, then perhaps they should rethink being parents in the first place.
Children do not have the ability to rationalise as adults do. Most, especially the really young are unable to distinguish between a parent smacking them, and them smacking another child.
Hitting a child in anger, only teaches them to respond to the own anger with similar behaviour. Parent’s should be teaching their children how to cope with anger in a way that prevents harm to both themselves and others.
The problem with the ability to cope with anger comes from the severe feelings of shame and guilt, as well as a lack of ability to recognise and express empathy for self and other people. Teaching violent and angry people to recognise their own internal values and their personal best standards, allows them to know their best qualities, and in doing so allows them to substitute kindness and compassion for violence and hostility. Showing others by example on how to change, allows them to do that, and that is what parents should be doing. Teaching their children how to get the best from life – how to be a loving worthwhile person, not a bully and a thug.
Most of us know how it felt to be hit. IT wasn’t necessarily the pain, but the shame and the guilt for what we had done, or been caught doing. Working on those feelings, and teaching a child to want better for themselves, to avoid repeating the act that caused the parent anger and save themselves that shame, works far better than smacking, and allows the child to learn how to be compassionate in return. Such a child will never be a bully.
@ Gulag1917 (577 comments) says:
July 5th, 2014 at 1:25 pm
I believe there are two reasons, that are related.
Firstly, our system does not provide the incentive to achieve, and in fact gives the impression that lack of achievement doesn’t matter, because the government is there to assist. As I have said, the government does this from conception (paid maternity leave) to death (subsidised funerals). So no matter how one performs, their basic need to stay alive is provided.
Secondly, we have the confusion over values. Media constantly bombard us with images of violence and corruption. We all know the laws, but we see the illusion of being able to live successfully beyond the law in the media. Children’s media heroes, use violence, whereas historically they were real live people that did wonderful things. There are no longer the positive examples for people to aspire to.
Couple that with the dumbing down of society, through the education system, as you point out, and you have a whole heap of people, who don’t have to apply themselves to survive, who are given negative images and examples via media etc, and who don’t receive the necessary skills via education, either from their home environments, nor the schooling system – each and everyone of them belonging to families where individualism is promoted, and looking after your ‘own’ is limited, (you don’t have to care for others, because the government will) – its a recipe for – well, for exactly what we have.
Cheers UT. It’s an interesting place, not that Stephie would know anything about it and it’s not worth discussing it with him. But between you and I, it touches on a lot of areas, doesn’t it. They really are bastards, aren’t they.
Christchurch’s only rape crisis centre will close its doors today after being turned down for government funding.
The centre’s 24-hour phone service, SafeCare, needs $30,000 to keep running but it is ineligible for any of the $10 million announced in this year’s Budget for sexual violence services because it is insolvent.
Spokesperson Heather Smythe said SafeCare had been helping the women of Christchurch for more than 20 years and its services would be hard to duplicate.
“We’ve been running SafeCare for 20 years, and 20 years of experience and knowing the kind of volunteer we need, and the training we need to give them can’t be replicated in two minutes or five minutes or a week or a month.”
The closure of the service would hit its clients hard, Ms Smythe said.
Christchurch police have recorded a 40 percent rise in the number of sexual assaults since 2010.
Green Party MP Jan Logie said the Government should not have let SafeCare’s services go under.
That’s the sort of ‘sincere’ and practical help that those providing front-line services for victims of violent sexual crime against women are getting under this John Key led National Government.
Isn’t Penny the lady that dodges her rates? If this is true (i think i remember reading it somewhere, my apologies if i am wrong), then maybe if you paid them, the gov would have some money to put towards the causes you support!
@ Mike (396 comments) says:
July 5th, 2014 at 4:30 pm
So because Penny takes issue with her council and protests by not paying her rates, that justify’s John Key’s government ignoring the women of Christchurch to have a service that deals with sexual abuse and rape in their very stressed community?
I have to say, I see some flaws in your reasoning.
I wasn’t making any comment on the Key governments policy. I was making a simple observation that there is hypocrisy in having a say in government spending while avoiding the contribution of your fair share. As for withholding rates as a form of protest, i contend that writing a letter to the relevant bodies, organizing protest and spreading awareness of the perceived injustice are far more effective (and sincere) forms of protest. Society doesn’t work if people simply decide that they aren’t going to be paying into the system anymore.
It is ironic that in the other thread, you are essentially calling Maggie a liar (and using her experience with sexual violence as a tool to attack her politically), yet here you are commenting that Key ignores sexual abuse issues.
Half of all children killed by caregivers are Maori.
Seven times more young Maori women and four times more Maori children are hospitalised from an assault compared to Pakeha women and children.
49% of Maori women experienced partner abuse at some time in their life, compared with 24% of Pakeha and 23% of Pacifica women. http://www.areyouok.org.nz/files/Updated_Stats_Final.pdf
“Because I make no distinction between any sort of violence, other than the need to use violence to fight off an attacker to save your own life. There is no moral violence. Hurting another person is never acceptable – not for a civilised person.”
But this is my point Judith, you just made a distinction by saying “other than the need to use violence to fight off an attacker to save your own life.”
So in fact, you do make distinctions, and recognize self-defense as a moral use of force.
Johnboy at 4.48.
Obviously the Gordon’s has gone by now, but do you know if there is any truth in the lemon juice that is squeezed into your G & T is better if, when the lemons are in a green stage that people urinate on the tree. I had heard that the uric acid left around the tree in those amounts enhances the lemon juice.
BAGHDAD — A man purporting to be the leader of the Sunni extremist group that has declared an Islamic state in territory it controls in Iraq and Syria has made what would be his first public appearance, delivering a sermon at a mosque in Iraq’s second-largest city, according to a video posted online Saturday.
all this talk about men bashing women etc and then I read this;.
The daughter had thought her father had a “typical Catholic attitude towards sex and was quite prudish”, the judgment said.
the man’s behaviour became odd, and he started complaining to his daughter about his sexual relationship with his wife.
“He sat down and told me he was into bondage and discipline . . . he described his sessions with [the dominatrix] to me, being tied up and whipped,” the daughter said in evidence.
“That a man of age could become involved in totally unexpected sexual behaviour without being in any way impaired is beyond question,” the judge said. “It is however entirely different if it takes place accompanied by . . . changes of attitude and behaviour indicative of a generalised loss of judgment.”
“The economic crisis that emerged in late 2008 and the predictable responses it elicited from those in power has served to highlight the extent to which concepts such as human scale, the distribution of power, and our responsibility to the future have been eliminated from the public conversation. It also threatens to worsen the political and economic centralization and atomization that have accompanied the century-long unholy marriage between consumer capitalism and the modern bureaucratic state. We live in a world characterized by a flattened culture and increasingly meaningless freedoms. Little regard is paid to the necessity for those overlapping local and regional groups, communities, and associations that provide a matrix for human flourishing. We’re in a bad way, and the spokesmen and spokeswomen of both our Left and our Right are, for the most part, seriously misguided in their attempts to provide diagnoses, let alone solutions.
Though there is plenty we disagree about, and each contributor can be expected to stand by the words of only his or her own posts, the folks gathered here more or less agree with the above assertions. We come from different backgrounds, live in different places, and have divergent interests, but we’re convinced that scale, place, self-government, sustainability, limits, and variety are key terms with which any fruitful debate about our corporate future must contend. We invite you to read along, and perhaps join the discussion.”