From:
http://halfdone.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/section-59-and-foster-children/
Jim Mora on The Panel (note: audit link) yesterday spoke with with Mike Williams (Labour President) and Graham Bell (ex. cop). They spoke about the concerns of foster parents, raised earlier today in other media.It sheds some light on the issue, and makes a point that we have always made - that the new legal framework puts far more power in the hands of children than parents. This is then resulting in people choosing to avoid what was already an increasingly risky proposition - caring for troubled children.
Interview transcribed below.
Jim: … does this make sense to you panel?
Mike Williams: It does make a lot of sense to me and it seems to be that it could… um, if this is a problem a) they don’t’ tell us any numbers, is this two people have dropped out of 8 people, or, you know, 200 out of 800 - what is it, we don’t know. [actually, they said at least 10, so Mike is playing with the truth here just a little - S1] But it seems to me that you do not need to smack children to bring them up, I’m sure Jim you do not smack your own beautiful children and these people need training and that’s what should be offered to them.
Jim: I suppose so, … a lot of parents talk about this, we all hear people up and down the country discuss this and especially in the wake of the recent warning in Christchurch where that bloke was given a warning for ostensibly, ostensibly flicking his son on the head - isn’t that precisely the kind of trivial breach of the law that we were told would be more or less ignored?
Graham Bell: That’s right, and I said when this thing came out that it was just totally pointless, ill conceived, and was going to create problems, and was not going to stop the ill-treatment or murder of one child - it’s not going to prevent anything. These things have continued, there’s been another couple in Auckland since the, ah, this year, the bill is ill-conceived, a waste of time and it’s having more bad effects than good ones.
Jim: I take your point too mike and Allysa, and we’ll get her on in a minute and there’s a quote from her:
“These kids are really hard. They just don’t care who they hurt, and you need really special people to take them on. If you have a kid that is yelling and screaming at you, what are you supposed to do?”
Jim: So she’s talking about life at the coal face, and she joins, Allysa Carberry joins us now. Good Afternoon Allysa.
Allysa Carberry: Hi
Jim: So how bad is it, I mean, Mike Williams says how many people involved.. in your experience have left the whole area because of the new law?
Allysa: [points out that she was interviewed on a different topic]
Jim: nevertheless you do hold those beliefs do you?
Allysa: Ah, it’s the fear of being charged should you need to restrain a child or place a child in care, in time out. That’s a real fear. But there’s also, you know, caregivers are also leaving because of the statements that Brian Perkins made, about being dissatisfied with Child Youth and Family. So it’s not just one issue of why they’re leaving. Yes section, the repeal of section 59 is there in the background, but it’s a whole number of topics of why they’re leaving.
Jim: Hm, all right, so the headline “Anti-smacking worries push foster parents out” how accurate a reflection of your views and observations Allysa is that headline?
Allysa: The anti-smacking, it’s got nothing to do with anti-smacking as it states caregivers have never been allowed to smack foster-children.
Jim: [cautiously]Officially
Allysa: Officially [hard to describe the tone here - high I guess. One gets the impression that Allysa knows it happens and needs to happen sometimes] Um, they’ve never been allowed to do that but there have been kids, children in care that have been needed to be restrained because they were going to hurt themselves or others, and that’s… a real… fear that’s a really good possibility of it happening.........
Read the rest here at halfdone:
http://halfdone.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/section-59-and-foster-children/
Showing posts with label Blog. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Blog. Show all posts
Thursday, 24 January 2008
Wednesday, 16 January 2008
Blog-Section59
Blog-Section59
From:
http://section59.blogspot.com/2008/01/anti-parental-authority-law.html
Anti-Parental-Authority Law Criminalises Loving Father
Jimmy Mason was out for a walk with his two boys - Seth, 3yrs and Zach, 2yrs. They were having a great time learning to ride the bikes that they had recieved as an early Christmas present. Making their way along Cashel Mall in Christchurch, they came up to the Bridge of Remembrance.
This magnificent memorial was built as an enduring mark of gratituded to the thousands of young men from Christchurch who selflessly gave their lives to defend our Free Land of New Zealand from the tyranous usurpers, many thousands of miles over the water. They fought and died so that the generations that came after them might live in freedom and without fear of oppression from any government, whether it be their own, or a foreign governement.
As all little boys do, Seth and Zach crouched low over their handlebars, racing down the ramp leading down from the bridge, the path leading around a sharp corner. Seth, one year older than his brother, took the corner nicely. Zach however, struggled to keep control of his bike - and losing control, he smashed into the solid brick construction of the bridge. When his father ran up to assist his 2yr old son, he found him lying on the ground, holding his hand to his eye.
Seth had stopped at the corner. He looked down at his brother, lying on the ground, slipping in and out of conciousness. He saw the concern on his dad’s face, and heard him say “wait Seth, we have to look after Zach”. Whether or not he understood how serious the situation, it was with loving fatherly discipline that Jimmy flicked his son on the ear as he started peddling away.
An off-duty police-officer stood nearby, and she immediately reported the incident. With a few minutes, six uniformed police officers stood around the Man and his two little boys. As Jimmy cradled his injured toddler in his lap, one policemen pulled out his notebook as another pulled out his radio and spoke brusquely to head-office.
One can only imagine how scared the two little boys must have been, and the terrifying thoughts rushing through their dad’s head. How was he going to tell his wife that their children were going to be put into a foster-home?…
——————————–
Sue Bradford (Green Party MP):
Ms Bradford, the instigator of the anti-smacking legislation, says if an adult whacked another adult around the ear, they would be “marched down to the slammer.”
Ms Bradford says parents need to accept that it is no longer legal to hit children. She remains confident her anti-smacking laws will change what she describes as a culture of violence.
from http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz
Cindy Kiro, “Children’s Commissioner”:
Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro says she is pleased to see people in the community making a stand against violence towards children after a Christchurch man was reported for flicking his son’s ear.
“The most common cause of death by child abuse in this country is from injuries to the head. This should never be taken lightly.”
from http://www.nzherald.co.nz
——————————–
Kiro and Bradford, are both part of the huge bireaucracy of New Zealand. Kiro’s role as “children’s commissioner” was appointed by the Labour Government, and Bradford got into Parliament as a list MP. Neither of them represent New Zealanders. Bradford puts a spin on the case, labelling the flicked ear as a whack around the ear. In a statement to the media a couple of hours later, Kiro joins in the martyrdom of the caring father, firstly by honouring the off-duty police-woman that reported the incident, and then by linking child deaths resulting from being bashed on the head with a light flick on the ear.
Jimmy Mason:
“It was pretty bizarre to tell you the truth.”
“[The police officers] didn’t know and I said to them, ‘Well, you’ve just told me what I did was wrong so you must know what is right’.”
“It needs to be on record that I disciplined him for something he deserved, not that I’m a child beater. There’s an irony there that they can spray, Taser or shoot me but I can’t flick my son in the ear to stop him getting run over at an intersection.”
He was considering legal action to have the warning removed from his record.
from http://www.stuff.co.nz
——————————–
Seth and Zach are now confused, because they know that their daddy who they love is in trouble with the police. Jimmy is angry because he now has a warning on his record, and CYFS will be faster than ever to remove his children from him and his wife if they hear the slightest little thing.
From:
http://section59.blogspot.com/2008/01/anti-parental-authority-law.html
Anti-Parental-Authority Law Criminalises Loving Father
Jimmy Mason was out for a walk with his two boys - Seth, 3yrs and Zach, 2yrs. They were having a great time learning to ride the bikes that they had recieved as an early Christmas present. Making their way along Cashel Mall in Christchurch, they came up to the Bridge of Remembrance.
This magnificent memorial was built as an enduring mark of gratituded to the thousands of young men from Christchurch who selflessly gave their lives to defend our Free Land of New Zealand from the tyranous usurpers, many thousands of miles over the water. They fought and died so that the generations that came after them might live in freedom and without fear of oppression from any government, whether it be their own, or a foreign governement.
As all little boys do, Seth and Zach crouched low over their handlebars, racing down the ramp leading down from the bridge, the path leading around a sharp corner. Seth, one year older than his brother, took the corner nicely. Zach however, struggled to keep control of his bike - and losing control, he smashed into the solid brick construction of the bridge. When his father ran up to assist his 2yr old son, he found him lying on the ground, holding his hand to his eye.
Seth had stopped at the corner. He looked down at his brother, lying on the ground, slipping in and out of conciousness. He saw the concern on his dad’s face, and heard him say “wait Seth, we have to look after Zach”. Whether or not he understood how serious the situation, it was with loving fatherly discipline that Jimmy flicked his son on the ear as he started peddling away.
An off-duty police-officer stood nearby, and she immediately reported the incident. With a few minutes, six uniformed police officers stood around the Man and his two little boys. As Jimmy cradled his injured toddler in his lap, one policemen pulled out his notebook as another pulled out his radio and spoke brusquely to head-office.
One can only imagine how scared the two little boys must have been, and the terrifying thoughts rushing through their dad’s head. How was he going to tell his wife that their children were going to be put into a foster-home?…
——————————–
Sue Bradford (Green Party MP):
Ms Bradford, the instigator of the anti-smacking legislation, says if an adult whacked another adult around the ear, they would be “marched down to the slammer.”
Ms Bradford says parents need to accept that it is no longer legal to hit children. She remains confident her anti-smacking laws will change what she describes as a culture of violence.
from http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz
Cindy Kiro, “Children’s Commissioner”:
Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro says she is pleased to see people in the community making a stand against violence towards children after a Christchurch man was reported for flicking his son’s ear.
“The most common cause of death by child abuse in this country is from injuries to the head. This should never be taken lightly.”
from http://www.nzherald.co.nz
——————————–
Kiro and Bradford, are both part of the huge bireaucracy of New Zealand. Kiro’s role as “children’s commissioner” was appointed by the Labour Government, and Bradford got into Parliament as a list MP. Neither of them represent New Zealanders. Bradford puts a spin on the case, labelling the flicked ear as a whack around the ear. In a statement to the media a couple of hours later, Kiro joins in the martyrdom of the caring father, firstly by honouring the off-duty police-woman that reported the incident, and then by linking child deaths resulting from being bashed on the head with a light flick on the ear.
Jimmy Mason:
“It was pretty bizarre to tell you the truth.”
“[The police officers] didn’t know and I said to them, ‘Well, you’ve just told me what I did was wrong so you must know what is right’.”
“It needs to be on record that I disciplined him for something he deserved, not that I’m a child beater. There’s an irony there that they can spray, Taser or shoot me but I can’t flick my son in the ear to stop him getting run over at an intersection.”
He was considering legal action to have the warning removed from his record.
from http://www.stuff.co.nz
——————————–
Seth and Zach are now confused, because they know that their daddy who they love is in trouble with the police. Jimmy is angry because he now has a warning on his record, and CYFS will be faster than ever to remove his children from him and his wife if they hear the slightest little thing.
Blog-halfdone
From:
http://halfdone.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/i-like-the-big-brother-society-kiro/
“I Like the Big Brother Society” - Kiro
Apparently Cindy Kiro is not only ok with the “Big Brother” dobbing in of parents trying to do their jobs, but she is actually pleased people are doing it.
Heh, here’s where the lie gets mixed with the truth. Physical punishment was not what was banned - reasonable force as physical punishment was banned. No one ever suggested that unreasonable force (which is not “dangerous” by definition) should not be illegal.
Great! so I guess we won’t be seeing more quotes like this then:
I guess we shouldn’t examine the good doctor too carefully…
On the other hand, the teacher may be a socialist busy-body, who bullied the policeman into calling up his mates for no reason. Yet another mark off the reputation of the teaching profession.
Technically, the ear is on the head.
Funny how Ms Kiro doesn’t share any of that wisdom with us here. Frankly I think most parents would rather walk a mile over hot coals than walk into that office and ask for “help” from a woman who is only interested in persecuting good parents, ignoring her statuary obligation* to investigate bad ones.
http://halfdone.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/i-like-the-big-brother-society-kiro/
“I Like the Big Brother Society” - Kiro
Apparently Cindy Kiro is not only ok with the “Big Brother” dobbing in of parents trying to do their jobs, but she is actually pleased people are doing it.
Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro says she is pleased to see people in the community making a stand against violence towards children after a Christchurch man was reported for flicking his son’s ear.
“My office strongly supported the law change to section 59 because all the evidence points to physical punishment as ineffective and in the hands of some people, dangerous.”
Heh, here’s where the lie gets mixed with the truth. Physical punishment was not what was banned - reasonable force as physical punishment was banned. No one ever suggested that unreasonable force (which is not “dangerous” by definition) should not be illegal.
Dr Kiro said it was important not to jump to conclusions and view what facts had been presented in the case.
Great! so I guess we won’t be seeing more quotes like this then:
She told Radio New Zealand the school was “irresponsible” and “I don’t think
the school should be doing that.” The same criticism was reported in newspapers throughout New Zealand. On national television she described me as “seriously misguided”. All that despite not knowing what I had done. All that despite the law under which she works requiring her not to “make any comment that is adverse to a person if the Commissioner has not given the person an opportunity to be heard.” When I asked her about the illegality of her comments she would not reply. It was just one of many things she won’t include in the “discussion” she initiated.
I guess we shouldn’t examine the good doctor too carefully…
“The incident was such that at least two bystanders contacted police.
One was a teacher and the other an off-duty police officer and if they were concerned, then I believe there was something to be concerned about.”
On the other hand, the teacher may be a socialist busy-body, who bullied the policeman into calling up his mates for no reason. Yet another mark off the reputation of the teaching profession.
She said she was especially concerned when she heard the punishment included hitting the child’s head.
“The most common cause of death by child abuse in this country is from injuries to the head. This should never be taken lightly.”
Technically, the ear is on the head.
If parents needed information about how to discipline children without the use of physical punishment, they could contact the commissioner’s office for information, Dr Kiro said.
Funny how Ms Kiro doesn’t share any of that wisdom with us here. Frankly I think most parents would rather walk a mile over hot coals than walk into that office and ask for “help” from a woman who is only interested in persecuting good parents, ignoring her statuary obligation* to investigate bad ones.
Tuesday, 15 January 2008
Blog-darrenrickard
From:
http://darrenrickard.blogspot.com/2008/01/anti-smacking-law-puts-young-boy-at.html
Anti smacking law puts young boy at risk
The New Zealand Labour Party's chickens have finally come home to roost in a monumental way. The removal of section 59 or the "anti smacking bill", as it has become commonly known, midway through last year, has had another casualty, perhaps the worst one so far.
A Christchurch father who disciplined his 3 year old son who put his younger brother at risk, and was subsequently injured, was surrounded by six police officers minutes after a teacher(who would have guessed) witnessing the flick of the ear by the father informed an off duty female cop.
The father has been left with a warning by officers and a "black mark" noted on police records for attempting to keep his children safe from harm.
Apart from the obvious overkill by the six police attending and the stupidity of the off duty officer and teacher, the trauma that the 2 kids must have gone through seeing their father subject to extreme police harassment cannot be overstated.
The father's children will be getting a lesson from the whole incident that their dad has done something wrong, and that the lessons that he is trying to teach them are not to be believed.
When you undermine a parents authority in such a public way you risk that parents ability to bring up children in an appropriate way and ultimately keep them safe from harm, be it physical, psychological or emotional.
The politicians who trumpeted this sleazy law, Sue Bradford, Helen Clark and the various state bureaucratic heads and b grade celebrities, with the moronic support of the National Party are embarrassingly silent about this latest turn of events.
Those in support of the bill said that nothing like this would happen, it has, and after all, the sensible and intelligent amongst us we know it was designed to stop what this father did.
Those that supported this law change unflaggingly, should be voted against in the 2008 Election.
Labour, NZ First, The Maori Party, Progressives and Peter Dunne's Motley Crew do not deserve your vote on this law change alone.
John Key must be true to his word and repeal this change to sensible parenting and put the control of parenting back where it belongs.
In parents hands.
Related reading on Political Animal:
Trevor Mallard's Anti Violence Advert
http://darrenrickard.blogspot.com/2007/11/trevor-mallards-anti-violence.html
http://darrenrickard.blogspot.com/2008/01/anti-smacking-law-puts-young-boy-at.html
Anti smacking law puts young boy at risk
The New Zealand Labour Party's chickens have finally come home to roost in a monumental way. The removal of section 59 or the "anti smacking bill", as it has become commonly known, midway through last year, has had another casualty, perhaps the worst one so far.
A Christchurch father who disciplined his 3 year old son who put his younger brother at risk, and was subsequently injured, was surrounded by six police officers minutes after a teacher(who would have guessed) witnessing the flick of the ear by the father informed an off duty female cop.
The father has been left with a warning by officers and a "black mark" noted on police records for attempting to keep his children safe from harm.
Apart from the obvious overkill by the six police attending and the stupidity of the off duty officer and teacher, the trauma that the 2 kids must have gone through seeing their father subject to extreme police harassment cannot be overstated.
The father's children will be getting a lesson from the whole incident that their dad has done something wrong, and that the lessons that he is trying to teach them are not to be believed.
When you undermine a parents authority in such a public way you risk that parents ability to bring up children in an appropriate way and ultimately keep them safe from harm, be it physical, psychological or emotional.
The politicians who trumpeted this sleazy law, Sue Bradford, Helen Clark and the various state bureaucratic heads and b grade celebrities, with the moronic support of the National Party are embarrassingly silent about this latest turn of events.
Those in support of the bill said that nothing like this would happen, it has, and after all, the sensible and intelligent amongst us we know it was designed to stop what this father did.
Those that supported this law change unflaggingly, should be voted against in the 2008 Election.
Labour, NZ First, The Maori Party, Progressives and Peter Dunne's Motley Crew do not deserve your vote on this law change alone.
John Key must be true to his word and repeal this change to sensible parenting and put the control of parenting back where it belongs.
In parents hands.
Related reading on Political Animal:
Trevor Mallard's Anti Violence Advert
http://darrenrickard.blogspot.com/2007/11/trevor-mallards-anti-violence.html
Monday, 14 January 2008
Interesting blogs
Some interesting blogs relating to the father giving his son a flick on the ear and 6, yes, six police turning up minutes later.
http://thepauapalace.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/father-wants-warning-removed-from-record/
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/01/six_police_officers_for_smacking_complaint.html
http://big-news.blogspot.com/
http://nzconservative.blogspot.com/2008/01/doing-bradford.html
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2008/01/is-anti-smacking-law-turning-us-into.html
http://obaldnz.blogspot.com/2008/01/slim-pickings.html
http://www.gog.org.nz/2008/01/15/another-smack-in-the-face-for-democracy/
http://thepauapalace.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/father-wants-warning-removed-from-record/
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/01/six_police_officers_for_smacking_complaint.html
http://big-news.blogspot.com/
http://nzconservative.blogspot.com/2008/01/doing-bradford.html
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2008/01/is-anti-smacking-law-turning-us-into.html
http://obaldnz.blogspot.com/2008/01/slim-pickings.html
http://www.gog.org.nz/2008/01/15/another-smack-in-the-face-for-democracy/
Friday, 21 December 2007
Blog - section59.blogspot
From Section59.blogspot:
Police Report out on "anti-smacking" law
The long awaited police review of the "anti-smacking" law is out.
There has been a slight increase in smacking cases.
Check out graph here:
http://section59.blogspot.com/2007/12/police-report-out-on-anti-smacking-law.html
Police Report out on "anti-smacking" law
The long awaited police review of the "anti-smacking" law is out.
There has been a slight increase in smacking cases.
Check out graph here:
http://section59.blogspot.com/2007/12/police-report-out-on-anti-smacking-law.html
Thursday, 13 December 2007
blog - nzconservative
There is a great blog over at nzconservative
http://nzconservative.blogspot.com/2007/12/efb-bit-of-wake-up-call-for-nz.html
EFB a bit of a wake up call for NZ http://www.solopassion.com/node/3723
I'm not going to comment on the details on the EFB as a number of other bloggers (and the media) are doing a brilliant job already. The only thing I want to say is that after the anti-smacking bill, this one has to be a real wake up call for New Zealanders. The anti-smacking bill was not just a blip. What we are seeing is a democratic consolidation of power by the ruling party.
While Lindsay Perigo http://www.solopassion.com/node/3723 is talking coup (as pointed out by AJ Chesswas http://matthew5-9.blogspot.com/2007/12/perigo-calls-for-coup.html) - I don't think we are at that stage - yet. Everyone needs to stay calm and see if the bill passes. If you pray, pray for NZ. If you never have prayed before in your life, now would be a good time to start. I don't think it will be enough, but it's worth a try.
No, the real test is, will NZ vote the current lot back into power next year? And if NZ doesn't, will the new lot repeal not only the EFB, but also the anti-smacking law? And my personal bugbear, is the Care of Children Act which redefines parents into caregivers - people with only responsibility towards their children, but no rights. That's the bill that made me sit up and take notice of politics in this country when I came back with my family from Australia four years ago.
Time to hang on for the ride.
http://nzconservative.blogspot.com/2007/12/efb-bit-of-wake-up-call-for-nz.html
EFB a bit of a wake up call for NZ http://www.solopassion.com/node/3723
I'm not going to comment on the details on the EFB as a number of other bloggers (and the media) are doing a brilliant job already. The only thing I want to say is that after the anti-smacking bill, this one has to be a real wake up call for New Zealanders. The anti-smacking bill was not just a blip. What we are seeing is a democratic consolidation of power by the ruling party.
While Lindsay Perigo http://www.solopassion.com/node/3723 is talking coup (as pointed out by AJ Chesswas http://matthew5-9.blogspot.com/2007/12/perigo-calls-for-coup.html) - I don't think we are at that stage - yet. Everyone needs to stay calm and see if the bill passes. If you pray, pray for NZ. If you never have prayed before in your life, now would be a good time to start. I don't think it will be enough, but it's worth a try.
No, the real test is, will NZ vote the current lot back into power next year? And if NZ doesn't, will the new lot repeal not only the EFB, but also the anti-smacking law? And my personal bugbear, is the Care of Children Act which redefines parents into caregivers - people with only responsibility towards their children, but no rights. That's the bill that made me sit up and take notice of politics in this country when I came back with my family from Australia four years ago.
Time to hang on for the ride.
Saturday, 8 December 2007
Blog - drlaura
This is a very interesting blog from the US. It backs up what we were saying here during the Section 59 debate.
http://www.drlaura.com/blog/2007/12/06/child-abuse-more-likely-in-shack-up-relationships/
Child Abuse More Likely in Shack-Up Relationships
December 6, 2007
When a woman wishes to diminish her own value (as well as that of the covenant of marriage) by cohabitating with a man who is not willing to make the vow of committing his life to her, it’s a shame. When a woman with children does so, it too often becomes a crime.
Thirty years ago, nearly 80% of America’s children lived with both their Mommy and Daddy, who were married. Now, only two-thirds of them do. Of all families with children, nearly 30% are now one-parent families, up from 17% in 1977. The net result is instability, neglect, and the likelihood that children will be in homes with adults who have no biological tie to them.
Children living in homes with unrelated adults are nearly fifty times as likely to die of inflicted injuries as are children living with their bio-parents. (Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, 2005). Children of single parents had a 77% greater risk of being harmed by physical abuse than children living with both parents (National Incidence Study, 1996). Children living in stepfamilies, or with single parents are at higher risk of physical or sexual assault than children living with their bio-parents (University of New Hampshire’s Crimes Against Children Research Center). Girls whose parents divorce are at significantly higher risk of sexual assault, regardless of which bio-parent they live with (Family Law, Washington and Lee University).
It is righteous to judge the lifestyles of people who have children, because the results of their choices can result in harm (psychological, physical or sexual), as well as death to innocent children. “Six year old Oscar Jimenez, Jr. was beaten to death in California, then buried under fertilizer and cement. Two year old Devon Shackleford drowned in an Arizona swimming pool. Jayden Cangro, also two, died after being thrown across a room in Utah. In each case, as in many others every year, the alleged or convicted perpetrator had been the boyfriend of the child’s mother. (Associated Press, November 18, 2007).
The recent “Baby Grace” case was no different. According to news reports, the mother’s boyfriend beat the child to death because the child didn’t address him politely.
I am firm in my beliefs and advice that young women, pregnant out-of-wedlock, need to consider adoption as in the best interest of the child, and that divorced parents should not marry again until the children are grown (and if they do, they shouldn’t marry someone with children or create more children, because they will be sidelining their own children)......
To read more go to:
http://www.drlaura.com/blog/2007/12/06/child-abuse-more-likely-in-shack-up-relationships/
http://www.drlaura.com/blog/2007/12/06/child-abuse-more-likely-in-shack-up-relationships/
Child Abuse More Likely in Shack-Up Relationships
December 6, 2007
When a woman wishes to diminish her own value (as well as that of the covenant of marriage) by cohabitating with a man who is not willing to make the vow of committing his life to her, it’s a shame. When a woman with children does so, it too often becomes a crime.
Thirty years ago, nearly 80% of America’s children lived with both their Mommy and Daddy, who were married. Now, only two-thirds of them do. Of all families with children, nearly 30% are now one-parent families, up from 17% in 1977. The net result is instability, neglect, and the likelihood that children will be in homes with adults who have no biological tie to them.
Children living in homes with unrelated adults are nearly fifty times as likely to die of inflicted injuries as are children living with their bio-parents. (Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, 2005). Children of single parents had a 77% greater risk of being harmed by physical abuse than children living with both parents (National Incidence Study, 1996). Children living in stepfamilies, or with single parents are at higher risk of physical or sexual assault than children living with their bio-parents (University of New Hampshire’s Crimes Against Children Research Center). Girls whose parents divorce are at significantly higher risk of sexual assault, regardless of which bio-parent they live with (Family Law, Washington and Lee University).
It is righteous to judge the lifestyles of people who have children, because the results of their choices can result in harm (psychological, physical or sexual), as well as death to innocent children. “Six year old Oscar Jimenez, Jr. was beaten to death in California, then buried under fertilizer and cement. Two year old Devon Shackleford drowned in an Arizona swimming pool. Jayden Cangro, also two, died after being thrown across a room in Utah. In each case, as in many others every year, the alleged or convicted perpetrator had been the boyfriend of the child’s mother. (Associated Press, November 18, 2007).
The recent “Baby Grace” case was no different. According to news reports, the mother’s boyfriend beat the child to death because the child didn’t address him politely.
I am firm in my beliefs and advice that young women, pregnant out-of-wedlock, need to consider adoption as in the best interest of the child, and that divorced parents should not marry again until the children are grown (and if they do, they shouldn’t marry someone with children or create more children, because they will be sidelining their own children)......
To read more go to:
http://www.drlaura.com/blog/2007/12/06/child-abuse-more-likely-in-shack-up-relationships/
Monday, 26 November 2007
Blog - section59.blogspot
FROM: http://section59.blogspot.com/
Herald wrong on Anti-Smacking Law conclusions
The below article appeared in The Herald Editorial http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10478159, Sunday 25 November 07. All comments in bold are my own. I will just mention here that I am most impressed with The Herald's stand agains the Electoral Finance Bill http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/08/herald_on_electoral_finance_bill.html
----------------------------------------------------
The first conviction under the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 has probably realised the worst fear of those who opposed it: that, far from bringing an end to orderly family life as we know it, the law would be applied with wisdom and common sense and people would be stopped doing something they ought not do...
Incorrect. The recent case says nothing by itself. It is foolishness to look at one case and come to a conclusion on the workability of the new Anti-Smacking law. The Government, Police and CYFS have been very quiet in the months following the bill's passing into law. However let us give it one, or two years and we will begin to see the Nanny State horror of Sweden being imposed upon New Zealand families.
...The act, before it was passed in May, was better known as "Sue Bradford's Anti-smacking Bill". But its official name is a better one because it underlines the real intent: in changing section 59 of the Crimes Act,
Incorrect. The bill was labelled by Sue Bradford herself as an "Anti-Smacking bill".
...it removed the protection available to parents - and to no one else - against a charge of assault...
Incorrect. Section (1) of the original law read:
"Every parent of a child and, subject to subsection (3) of this section, every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances."
...Opponents of the law predicted many dire consequences: that busybodies would tell on their neighbours and police would have no choice but to prosecute; that CYFS would be swamped with notifications relating to loving parents who gave a toddler a tap; that decent Mums and Dads would find the wrathful state marching through their living rooms.
But what has come to pass is precisely what Bradford had hoped, intended and predicted: Ministry of Social Development figures show no increase in numbers of notifications that can be related back to the passage of the bill (by contrast, an increase in awareness prompted by the "It's Not OK" publicity about family violence has resulted in a rise in reporting). Meanwhile police, following up neighbour reports of parents smacking their children, have determined that no assault has occurred.
Whether or not parents are prosecuted for smacking their children is almost beside the point. The fact is that it is illegal for parents to smack their children for the purpose of correction. This places families at the mercy of the State. This new law gives more power to CYFS to intervene in cases where good parents have smacked their children - not beaten them.
In some cases, these neighbour reports may have been petty or spiteful, or even the actions of people trying (and failing) to highlight what they saw as bad law. But, as child protection groups cogently argue, no harm was done: the reported behaviour might have been the tip of an abuse iceberg. Those who speak of trauma and insecurity caused to good families might want to measure it against the trauma and insecurity experienced by James Whakaruru and Delcelia Witika, among others.
Bob McCoskrie of Family First wants the National Party to change the smacking law so that good parents are not "criminalised for lightly smacking their children". But the plain evidence is that this is not happening. Certainly it is not what happened in the case of the Masterton man convicted this week. He smacked his son three times on the backside for misbehaving at school, in the process manhandling the boy sufficiently to leave bruises on his shoulder. He himself admitted that he had over-reacted and lost his temper - and he has agreed to undergo anger-management counselling for which the state will pay.
It is hard to imagine a better outcome - or a plainer demonstration of the law working as it should. Those who see here the spectre of the state intruding into private lives cannot avoid admitting that they would rather see the state clean up after a child is killed. That is the logical extension of a social and legal environment in which it is all right for parents to beat children.
Even the New Zealand Herald falls into the trap of using emotive terms to push a point. No, it was not "all right for parents to beat children" under the old law. Reasonable force is not the same as a beating.
The man's partner has commented pointedly that the young boy concerned is "playing on" his father's conviction. It is hard to imagine such smugness surviving a couple of nights without television or something similar, but in any case, as the judge said, kids can be challenging and adults have to behave responsibly if they want their children to.
This law may have been unpopular but evidence of the widely predicted unintended consequences is pitifully thin. In less than a generation, we will look back and wonder why we waited so long to pass it.
"We" did not pass this law. Our Parliament passed it against the will of approximately 83% of us. The majority of New Zealanders are still unhappy with the new law.
Herald wrong on Anti-Smacking Law conclusions
The below article appeared in The Herald Editorial http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10478159, Sunday 25 November 07. All comments in bold are my own. I will just mention here that I am most impressed with The Herald's stand agains the Electoral Finance Bill http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/08/herald_on_electoral_finance_bill.html
----------------------------------------------------
The first conviction under the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 has probably realised the worst fear of those who opposed it: that, far from bringing an end to orderly family life as we know it, the law would be applied with wisdom and common sense and people would be stopped doing something they ought not do...
Incorrect. The recent case says nothing by itself. It is foolishness to look at one case and come to a conclusion on the workability of the new Anti-Smacking law. The Government, Police and CYFS have been very quiet in the months following the bill's passing into law. However let us give it one, or two years and we will begin to see the Nanny State horror of Sweden being imposed upon New Zealand families.
...The act, before it was passed in May, was better known as "Sue Bradford's Anti-smacking Bill". But its official name is a better one because it underlines the real intent: in changing section 59 of the Crimes Act,
Incorrect. The bill was labelled by Sue Bradford herself as an "Anti-Smacking bill".
...it removed the protection available to parents - and to no one else - against a charge of assault...
Incorrect. Section (1) of the original law read:
"Every parent of a child and, subject to subsection (3) of this section, every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances."
...Opponents of the law predicted many dire consequences: that busybodies would tell on their neighbours and police would have no choice but to prosecute; that CYFS would be swamped with notifications relating to loving parents who gave a toddler a tap; that decent Mums and Dads would find the wrathful state marching through their living rooms.
But what has come to pass is precisely what Bradford had hoped, intended and predicted: Ministry of Social Development figures show no increase in numbers of notifications that can be related back to the passage of the bill (by contrast, an increase in awareness prompted by the "It's Not OK" publicity about family violence has resulted in a rise in reporting). Meanwhile police, following up neighbour reports of parents smacking their children, have determined that no assault has occurred.
Whether or not parents are prosecuted for smacking their children is almost beside the point. The fact is that it is illegal for parents to smack their children for the purpose of correction. This places families at the mercy of the State. This new law gives more power to CYFS to intervene in cases where good parents have smacked their children - not beaten them.
In some cases, these neighbour reports may have been petty or spiteful, or even the actions of people trying (and failing) to highlight what they saw as bad law. But, as child protection groups cogently argue, no harm was done: the reported behaviour might have been the tip of an abuse iceberg. Those who speak of trauma and insecurity caused to good families might want to measure it against the trauma and insecurity experienced by James Whakaruru and Delcelia Witika, among others.
Bob McCoskrie of Family First wants the National Party to change the smacking law so that good parents are not "criminalised for lightly smacking their children". But the plain evidence is that this is not happening. Certainly it is not what happened in the case of the Masterton man convicted this week. He smacked his son three times on the backside for misbehaving at school, in the process manhandling the boy sufficiently to leave bruises on his shoulder. He himself admitted that he had over-reacted and lost his temper - and he has agreed to undergo anger-management counselling for which the state will pay.
It is hard to imagine a better outcome - or a plainer demonstration of the law working as it should. Those who see here the spectre of the state intruding into private lives cannot avoid admitting that they would rather see the state clean up after a child is killed. That is the logical extension of a social and legal environment in which it is all right for parents to beat children.
Even the New Zealand Herald falls into the trap of using emotive terms to push a point. No, it was not "all right for parents to beat children" under the old law. Reasonable force is not the same as a beating.
The man's partner has commented pointedly that the young boy concerned is "playing on" his father's conviction. It is hard to imagine such smugness surviving a couple of nights without television or something similar, but in any case, as the judge said, kids can be challenging and adults have to behave responsibly if they want their children to.
This law may have been unpopular but evidence of the widely predicted unintended consequences is pitifully thin. In less than a generation, we will look back and wonder why we waited so long to pass it.
"We" did not pass this law. Our Parliament passed it against the will of approximately 83% of us. The majority of New Zealanders are still unhappy with the new law.
Friday, 23 November 2007
Blog - mandmandmandm
From http://mandmandmandm.blogspot.com/
In the last 24 hours I have been following the debate over the father convicted of assault of his son. Predictably I have heard differing views from many people whose sense I respect. On the one hand I have heard that he was prosecuted for delivering three smacks. On the other I have heard that there were other factors, the man lost his temper and left bruises.
Reflecting on this has led me to wonder if there is more to this than the surface debate. Is this debate simply a symptom of a corruption of confidence that has occurred in the last few years (or even few months).
Under the old law we knew that a person accused of child abuse could argue that their act was reasonable in the circumstances. We knew also that 12 people, randomly selected from the population, screened for bias had examined the facts and we knew there were strict rules of evidence applied.
We also knew that the judiciary and police were independent of the government. And we knew that if an error was made we could appeal to higher independent tribunals if necessary. Hence if a person was prosecuted for "assaulting their child" we could have a degree of confidence they had done so unjustifiably. We also had some confidence that mistakes would be corrected. Of course the system was not perfect. It never is. But it was reliable.
Now we don't. There is no distinction between reasonable and reasonable force for correction in law. All force for correction no matter how minute is unreasonable under the letter of the law. We know that this is absurd and against common sense. However we are told that we do not have to worry because police can exercise discretion and we can trust them.
The problem is, many of the same people have just told us that the police cannot be trusted. In the last month we have been told that are police are racist and will accuse of terrorism without evidence often from the same community that supported appealing S 59.The greens have warned us that, under terrorism legislation that state have wide discretion that they can use the police to silence dissent apparently those in power can't be trusted to use commonsense in discretion. The Maori party has also told us that this police, whom can be trusted to exercise discretion, over react to allegations of violence and will proceed terrorize families and children in their zeal. Both these groups exhorted us to trust police discretion in their voting on s59. We know that only in the last 24 hours a high profile police officer, who has been dodged by rape charges for several years, has
resigned before he faced investigation on unspecified charges of misconduct.
We also know several of his colleagues have been convicted of rape. We also know that at least three MP's have committed assaults the police know it and they choose not to prosecute. We know that one of these MP's assaulted children while a teacher and this was not considered serious. We also know that the police seem to almost never prosecute labour MP's who commit crimes accept when those MP's are ones known to be offside with the PM. We also know however that they did try to Prosecute National MP Nick Smith and that merely owing 35$ to an MP warrants a police car to be dispatched to the creditors house. We also know that recently evidence suppressed by the courts was leaked to the media, and confident claims by people on the far
left is that that the police, whom these people assure us we can trust to not use their power unjustly, leaked the documents to subvert a fair trial.
As to the courts we have heard in the last 24 hours, again from the Greens, that the court may have convicted and innocent man for murder. We know also that the Privy Council overturned another murder conviction, one that had been subjected to intense review from all NZ's appeal courts, and described it as a miscarriage of justice. We also know that the privacy council has been scrapped, because the government considers it unnecessary, and that the ruling party now appoints the judges. We also are aware of evidence the court suppressed in the aforementioned police rape case may have lead to their conviction. We also suspect the courts have suppressed evidence which appears to provide a basis for thinking a group of people are terrorists.
We also have no idea what exactly our leaders consider reasonable or unreasonable force. We are told that violence is never OK. But that an MP who punches another will not face any serious ramification. We also know that a history of abusing children as a teacher does not disqualify you from being a government minister. While violence is never OK, we also are told that people who talk about killing pakeha, talk about engaging in armed insurgency, talk about assassinating people, also buy military weapons, dress as military soldiers and practice military style maneuvers are just mouthing of and it's an overreaction to think otherwise. Apparently activists on the left mouth off like this all the time. On the other hand we have heard that health professionals should should ask questions of all
women admitted to their care in order to screen for violence and abuse. And we know that these questions seem to work with a definition of abuse so broad that everyone is an abuser. Those on the left tell us that while it's unwarranted to gain warrants for phone taps and surveillance under terror legislation for the above mentioned "mouthing off" families need professionals to regularly monitor them to prevent potential violence.
We also have no clue what the law actually says or how it will be applied. We have just been informed this father would have been prosecuted even if the old law was in place. But they also told us that legislative change was necessary because the old law allowed people to beat their children with planks of wood and could get away with almost anything. They also told us that this law does not mean smacking is illegal. In addition they told us that smacking was already illegal and always had been.
And it's not just this law. We have been told that the terrorism suppression act was incoherent and impossible to apply. At the same time the MP's were voting on a slightly amended version of the act and it passed with an overwhelming majority. We have heard that the Electoral Finance Bill law is confusing and difficult to interpret and could threaten our civil liberties.
But that's OK because, you can trust the police the courts and the government to rely on the law of commonsense. As you see from the examples above what our MP's consider commonsense is difficult to discern.
In a fallen world violence is sometimes necessary. But it needs to be regulated. A civil society needs clear laws that the population can understand and which it's reasonable to think most people can obey.
Exceptions to these laws need to be understandable and not excessively complex to apply. These laws need to be applied impartially to all people regardless of their political allegiances and people who are governed by these laws need to be able to find out what they are. Most importantly we need to be able to trust those in authority to competently establish and maintain such a system. New Zealand is failing to do this. Our leaders in parliament are all over the place, and we have no idea whether those in charge can be trusted to do what they are supposed to do or even know what they are doing. For these reasons people justifiably do not trust the courts or the police to be sensible in prosecuting assaults nor do they trust legislators to pass adequate laws about assault and. And that is the real tragedy of this case.
In the last 24 hours I have been following the debate over the father convicted of assault of his son. Predictably I have heard differing views from many people whose sense I respect. On the one hand I have heard that he was prosecuted for delivering three smacks. On the other I have heard that there were other factors, the man lost his temper and left bruises.
Reflecting on this has led me to wonder if there is more to this than the surface debate. Is this debate simply a symptom of a corruption of confidence that has occurred in the last few years (or even few months).
Under the old law we knew that a person accused of child abuse could argue that their act was reasonable in the circumstances. We knew also that 12 people, randomly selected from the population, screened for bias had examined the facts and we knew there were strict rules of evidence applied.
We also knew that the judiciary and police were independent of the government. And we knew that if an error was made we could appeal to higher independent tribunals if necessary. Hence if a person was prosecuted for "assaulting their child" we could have a degree of confidence they had done so unjustifiably. We also had some confidence that mistakes would be corrected. Of course the system was not perfect. It never is. But it was reliable.
Now we don't. There is no distinction between reasonable and reasonable force for correction in law. All force for correction no matter how minute is unreasonable under the letter of the law. We know that this is absurd and against common sense. However we are told that we do not have to worry because police can exercise discretion and we can trust them.
The problem is, many of the same people have just told us that the police cannot be trusted. In the last month we have been told that are police are racist and will accuse of terrorism without evidence often from the same community that supported appealing S 59.The greens have warned us that, under terrorism legislation that state have wide discretion that they can use the police to silence dissent apparently those in power can't be trusted to use commonsense in discretion. The Maori party has also told us that this police, whom can be trusted to exercise discretion, over react to allegations of violence and will proceed terrorize families and children in their zeal. Both these groups exhorted us to trust police discretion in their voting on s59. We know that only in the last 24 hours a high profile police officer, who has been dodged by rape charges for several years, has
resigned before he faced investigation on unspecified charges of misconduct.
We also know several of his colleagues have been convicted of rape. We also know that at least three MP's have committed assaults the police know it and they choose not to prosecute. We know that one of these MP's assaulted children while a teacher and this was not considered serious. We also know that the police seem to almost never prosecute labour MP's who commit crimes accept when those MP's are ones known to be offside with the PM. We also know however that they did try to Prosecute National MP Nick Smith and that merely owing 35$ to an MP warrants a police car to be dispatched to the creditors house. We also know that recently evidence suppressed by the courts was leaked to the media, and confident claims by people on the far
left is that that the police, whom these people assure us we can trust to not use their power unjustly, leaked the documents to subvert a fair trial.
As to the courts we have heard in the last 24 hours, again from the Greens, that the court may have convicted and innocent man for murder. We know also that the Privy Council overturned another murder conviction, one that had been subjected to intense review from all NZ's appeal courts, and described it as a miscarriage of justice. We also know that the privacy council has been scrapped, because the government considers it unnecessary, and that the ruling party now appoints the judges. We also are aware of evidence the court suppressed in the aforementioned police rape case may have lead to their conviction. We also suspect the courts have suppressed evidence which appears to provide a basis for thinking a group of people are terrorists.
We also have no idea what exactly our leaders consider reasonable or unreasonable force. We are told that violence is never OK. But that an MP who punches another will not face any serious ramification. We also know that a history of abusing children as a teacher does not disqualify you from being a government minister. While violence is never OK, we also are told that people who talk about killing pakeha, talk about engaging in armed insurgency, talk about assassinating people, also buy military weapons, dress as military soldiers and practice military style maneuvers are just mouthing of and it's an overreaction to think otherwise. Apparently activists on the left mouth off like this all the time. On the other hand we have heard that health professionals should should ask questions of all
women admitted to their care in order to screen for violence and abuse. And we know that these questions seem to work with a definition of abuse so broad that everyone is an abuser. Those on the left tell us that while it's unwarranted to gain warrants for phone taps and surveillance under terror legislation for the above mentioned "mouthing off" families need professionals to regularly monitor them to prevent potential violence.
We also have no clue what the law actually says or how it will be applied. We have just been informed this father would have been prosecuted even if the old law was in place. But they also told us that legislative change was necessary because the old law allowed people to beat their children with planks of wood and could get away with almost anything. They also told us that this law does not mean smacking is illegal. In addition they told us that smacking was already illegal and always had been.
And it's not just this law. We have been told that the terrorism suppression act was incoherent and impossible to apply. At the same time the MP's were voting on a slightly amended version of the act and it passed with an overwhelming majority. We have heard that the Electoral Finance Bill law is confusing and difficult to interpret and could threaten our civil liberties.
But that's OK because, you can trust the police the courts and the government to rely on the law of commonsense. As you see from the examples above what our MP's consider commonsense is difficult to discern.
In a fallen world violence is sometimes necessary. But it needs to be regulated. A civil society needs clear laws that the population can understand and which it's reasonable to think most people can obey.
Exceptions to these laws need to be understandable and not excessively complex to apply. These laws need to be applied impartially to all people regardless of their political allegiances and people who are governed by these laws need to be able to find out what they are. Most importantly we need to be able to trust those in authority to competently establish and maintain such a system. New Zealand is failing to do this. Our leaders in parliament are all over the place, and we have no idea whether those in charge can be trusted to do what they are supposed to do or even know what they are doing. For these reasons people justifiably do not trust the courts or the police to be sensible in prosecuting assaults nor do they trust legislators to pass adequate laws about assault and. And that is the real tragedy of this case.
Thursday, 22 November 2007
Blog - nzconservative
http://nzconservative.blogspot.com/2007/11/and-it-continues.html
This man's crime was to get angry. You shouldn't apply discipline when you are angry. Instead, the issue is cast as "smacking". Do you see the difference?
Is it so paranoid to expect a zero tolerance policy towards smacking in the future? One where government social workers remove children from parents immediately if the child should be physically disciplined. We wont hear about such cases, because they will not go to court. Parents will trade silence for access to their children.
In the leftist mind, physical punishment is far worse a crime than removing children from parents and placing them into the 'care of the state'. In the leftist mind, they believe smacking inevitably leads to beating children to death. Is it therefore possible to extrapolate that State intervention inevitably leads to splitting families apart in a far more damaging way than the passing sting of a smack?
Read more here:
http://nzconservative.blogspot.com/2007/11/and-it-continues.html
This man's crime was to get angry. You shouldn't apply discipline when you are angry. Instead, the issue is cast as "smacking". Do you see the difference?
Is it so paranoid to expect a zero tolerance policy towards smacking in the future? One where government social workers remove children from parents immediately if the child should be physically disciplined. We wont hear about such cases, because they will not go to court. Parents will trade silence for access to their children.
In the leftist mind, physical punishment is far worse a crime than removing children from parents and placing them into the 'care of the state'. In the leftist mind, they believe smacking inevitably leads to beating children to death. Is it therefore possible to extrapolate that State intervention inevitably leads to splitting families apart in a far more damaging way than the passing sting of a smack?
Read more here:
http://nzconservative.blogspot.com/2007/11/and-it-continues.html
blog - couragetotremble
Take a look at this blog:
This morning while I was driving to work, I was listening to Leighton Smith on Newstalk ZB. Considering that my ride only lasts 15 minutes and one must listen to several commercials as well, I managed to just catch just a little snippet of the discussion.
One caller spoke about how children needed a balance of love and firmness. Love without discipline, he explained, produced pampered and rude children. Firmness without love produced repressed children. But with the balance, you had children who respected others and who were also well liked......
read more here:
http://couragetotremble.wordpress.com/2007/11/21/newstalk-zb-one-my-way-to-work/
This morning while I was driving to work, I was listening to Leighton Smith on Newstalk ZB. Considering that my ride only lasts 15 minutes and one must listen to several commercials as well, I managed to just catch just a little snippet of the discussion.
One caller spoke about how children needed a balance of love and firmness. Love without discipline, he explained, produced pampered and rude children. Firmness without love produced repressed children. But with the balance, you had children who respected others and who were also well liked......
read more here:
http://couragetotremble.wordpress.com/2007/11/21/newstalk-zb-one-my-way-to-work/
Thursday, 1 November 2007
Blog
Great Blog from:
http://edwatch.blogspot.com/2007/11/new-zealand-school-incriminates-mother.html
Thursday, November 01, 2007
New Zealand school incriminates mother for slapping son's hand
Post below lifted from NZ Conservative. See the original for links
There were several interesting aspects to this case:
1. The mother says her family feels traumatised after a visit from CYF and later (for a separate incident), by three policemen. The policemen questioned (interrogated?) her child separately. I wonder if that was without a third party witness? She feels she has been labeled a "child abuser" for a simple smack on the hand.
2. The mother was in favour of the changes to s59. Obviously, she bought the line that this law change was around stopping violent abusers from getting off serious abuse by a legal loophole. It wasn't.
3. She did not want to be named because she 'fears losing her children'. There were a few notable cases in Sweden where parents said they had been threatened with losing their children if they made any aspect of the case public. It is likely that those that will speak out are going to be in the minority. We can expect this theme of blackmailing parents by threatening to remove their children for unfavorable public attention will continue here.
4. We can see that it will not take much for people to 'dob in' parents for a minor smack, and this in turn will create the climate of fear. She was dobbed in by a school teacher when the child said he got a smack, and a neighbour. Had the child been 'educated' that a smack is a bad thing, so he thought he could use it to gain attention, or as an excuse, not realizing the implications?
5. Ruth Dyson, Associate Social Development Minister believes the CYF intervention was not a result of the law change, but 'reflected greater community sensitivity to child abuse'. Firstly, note how a smack on the hand, that leaves no mark, is equated to child abuse by Dyson. Also, reflect that the law change encourages zealots to report such infractions.
Over time, there will be an increase in cases where the punishment of removing children from basically good families will far outweigh the "crime" of physical discipline. Will we learn of these cases however? Will parents be forced to remain silent for fear of never getting their children back?
Update and related link: Dave at Big News has the Mother's side of the story in the form of a letter to Family First.
11:00PM - As usual, scrubone weighs in with a worthy post on this topic, by reminding us how hard Sue Bradford [of the NZ government] tried to sell us that this is all about the violent abusers, not a little smack
http://edwatch.blogspot.com/2007/11/new-zealand-school-incriminates-mother.html
Thursday, November 01, 2007
New Zealand school incriminates mother for slapping son's hand
Post below lifted from NZ Conservative. See the original for links
There were several interesting aspects to this case:
1. The mother says her family feels traumatised after a visit from CYF and later (for a separate incident), by three policemen. The policemen questioned (interrogated?) her child separately. I wonder if that was without a third party witness? She feels she has been labeled a "child abuser" for a simple smack on the hand.
2. The mother was in favour of the changes to s59. Obviously, she bought the line that this law change was around stopping violent abusers from getting off serious abuse by a legal loophole. It wasn't.
3. She did not want to be named because she 'fears losing her children'. There were a few notable cases in Sweden where parents said they had been threatened with losing their children if they made any aspect of the case public. It is likely that those that will speak out are going to be in the minority. We can expect this theme of blackmailing parents by threatening to remove their children for unfavorable public attention will continue here.
4. We can see that it will not take much for people to 'dob in' parents for a minor smack, and this in turn will create the climate of fear. She was dobbed in by a school teacher when the child said he got a smack, and a neighbour. Had the child been 'educated' that a smack is a bad thing, so he thought he could use it to gain attention, or as an excuse, not realizing the implications?
5. Ruth Dyson, Associate Social Development Minister believes the CYF intervention was not a result of the law change, but 'reflected greater community sensitivity to child abuse'. Firstly, note how a smack on the hand, that leaves no mark, is equated to child abuse by Dyson. Also, reflect that the law change encourages zealots to report such infractions.
Over time, there will be an increase in cases where the punishment of removing children from basically good families will far outweigh the "crime" of physical discipline. Will we learn of these cases however? Will parents be forced to remain silent for fear of never getting their children back?
Update and related link: Dave at Big News has the Mother's side of the story in the form of a letter to Family First.
11:00PM - As usual, scrubone weighs in with a worthy post on this topic, by reminding us how hard Sue Bradford [of the NZ government] tried to sell us that this is all about the violent abusers, not a little smack
Monday, 29 October 2007
Blog
Here are two excellent blogs regarding the Wellington Family left traumatised by police and cyfs
These blogs also include the letter from the mother to Family First.
http://big-news.blogspot.com/2007/10/family-traumatised-by-policy-and-cyfs.html
http://halfdone.wordpress.com/2007/10/28/bradford-attacking-the-friends-of-section-59-repeal/
These blogs also include the letter from the mother to Family First.
http://big-news.blogspot.com/2007/10/family-traumatised-by-policy-and-cyfs.html
http://halfdone.wordpress.com/2007/10/28/bradford-attacking-the-friends-of-section-59-repeal/
Tuesday, 2 October 2007
Blog
There is a great post over at nzconservative.blogspot. Make sure you read the comments too:
http://nzconservative.blogspot.com/2007/10/violent-children-in-nz.html
http://nzconservative.blogspot.com/2007/10/violent-children-in-nz.html
Monday, 17 September 2007
Blog
Jim Hopkins: Cindy "Big Mother" Kiro is watching
http://section59.blogspot.com/2007/09/jim-hopkins-cindy-big-mother-kiro-is.html
Jim Hopkins, Friday September 14, 2007
Commissioner Wants ALL Parents Checked - Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro wants mandatory screening of every baby's home life in a bid to halve New Zealand's child murder rate. Under her proposal, parents and caregivers would nominate an authorised inspector for compulsory home visits. Parents who refused to participate would be referred to welfare authorities - News Item
It is with much pride that the Harold now presents a thrilling extract from George Allswell's provocative novel Big Mother Is Watching You:
"Attention all parents!" boomed the strident loudspeaker on top of the big grey Ministry of Love van cruising slowly along the quiet suburban street. "You must be good to your children!"
"I am!" fumed Cindy Smith, near deafened by the din outside.
"And that's an order!!" rasped the harsh metallic voice, apparently unconvinced by her protestations.
"I'd like to order you not to broadcast your stupid messages five minutes after I've finally got little Winston to sleep!" yelled Cindy, her anger lost on the fading voice as the Ministry's windowless vehicle turned into Kiro Lane.
"What's the point," she muttered, resigned to spending another 20 minutes soothing her fractious offspring.
Before she could lift him, there was an urgent knock on the door. Cindy flung it open to two very grey people in very grey, ill-fitting uniforms of a proletarian cut.
"We're from the Family Inspectorate," declared the larger of the duo, presenting a Ministry of Love Identity Badge. "I'm Inspector One and this is Inspector Other One."
"Your baby's crying," said Inspector Other One. "You haven't been ... ?"
"No!" Cindy protested. "I have not!!!"
As if on cue, young Winston's wails became, first a gurgle, then a contented coo. Cindy's relief was palpable.
"We'll suspend judgment on that," Inspector One purred menacingly. "But you have denied access to the approved agencies authorised to conduct mandatory visits for the purpose of assessing family progress, haven't you, Cindy?" She paused. "I presume you think your home's your own?"
"Yes, I do!"
"Well, it's not!!" snapped the second inspector. "So we're coming in. And don't try to stop us. We've got a court order."
"Who cares?" Cindy shrugged. "The police just ignore them!"
"Are you Maori?" asked Inspector One.
"No."
"Then I don't think we'll have any problems," she hissed, striding into the house. "Check the nursery," Inspector One instructed her colleague. "You know what to look for."
Cindy waited until the inspector returned. "We've got a problem," the woman snapped, staring balefully as she re-entered the room. "The child has a Grade 7 cut on the left lower arm!"
"He's just learning to walk!" Cindy protested. "He tripped and scratched ... "
"Citizen 3124583 denies injuring infant," murmured Inspector One, noting the particulars in a large black book.
"I'm a good mother," Cindy pleaded. "I read stories to him. See! Thomas the Tuck Engine. It's a lovely story about how brave little Thomas helps the Fat Controllers take all the bad food out of schools!" She thrust it towards her interrogators. "See for yourself !"
"That won't be necessary," said Inspector One primly. "We don't accept books as proof of approved parenting!"
"Especially when a Citizen also possesses this!!" snarled Inspector Other One, brandishing a pamphlet found in the pile from whence Thomas had come.
Inspector One gasped as the offending document was waved under her nose.
"Why We Need Nuclear Power." The woman read the title with manifest distaste. "And you think this is suitable when you have a baby in the house?"
"It's not for him!!!" Cindy raged. "It's for me. I like to keep an open mind."
"Oh really, Citizen?" inquired the inspectors sardonically. "Well, the Great Leader doesn't. She likes to have a closed mind on the subject. She doesn't want nuclear power, the Party doesn't want nuclear power, so New Zealand won't get nuclear Power, Citizen!"
"Huh! Next time you see her, give her a knowledge wave from me!" Cindy mumbled.
"Pardon?"
"I said nuclear could be the new wave of low emission energy."
"But, Citizen, think of the risks!" urged Inspector Two. "As an approved parent, it is your official obligation to think of the risks!"
"There's risks with everything," Cindy replied. "That's no reason to blindly reject an idea! Look, its obviously risky for 15-year-olds to drive cars but the Leader allows that."
"Enough!!!" shouted Inspector One. "Citizen 3124583, I'm recommending you for immediate re-education as an unsuitable parental entity. Do not approach your child unless supervised and do not attempt to escape. We will be waiting outside until your re-educator arrives!" With that, the two grey figures clicked their heels and left.
Distraught, Cindy slumped into a chair. "When will people like the Children's Commissioner accept that the problem is largely caused by a welfare system which pays people to look after children but ignores how they're doing it? When will she admit it's the state that's failing, by neglecting the very children it professes to help? And when will she stop making ludicrous proposals for everybody else and start putting the Government's own house in order?"
"Don't hold your breath," came a little voice behind her. Cindy turned, astonished, to see Winston. With an inscrutable smile on his innocent face. Cindy couldn't decide whether to be thrilled he'd said his first words or chilled by his prescience.
"Out of the mouths of babes and ... " she whispered, but her message was swamped once again by the blasting loudspeaker on the Ministry van. "Attention all parents! Attention all parents ... "
http://section59.blogspot.com/2007/09/jim-hopkins-cindy-big-mother-kiro-is.html
Jim Hopkins, Friday September 14, 2007
Commissioner Wants ALL Parents Checked - Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro wants mandatory screening of every baby's home life in a bid to halve New Zealand's child murder rate. Under her proposal, parents and caregivers would nominate an authorised inspector for compulsory home visits. Parents who refused to participate would be referred to welfare authorities - News Item
It is with much pride that the Harold now presents a thrilling extract from George Allswell's provocative novel Big Mother Is Watching You:
"Attention all parents!" boomed the strident loudspeaker on top of the big grey Ministry of Love van cruising slowly along the quiet suburban street. "You must be good to your children!"
"I am!" fumed Cindy Smith, near deafened by the din outside.
"And that's an order!!" rasped the harsh metallic voice, apparently unconvinced by her protestations.
"I'd like to order you not to broadcast your stupid messages five minutes after I've finally got little Winston to sleep!" yelled Cindy, her anger lost on the fading voice as the Ministry's windowless vehicle turned into Kiro Lane.
"What's the point," she muttered, resigned to spending another 20 minutes soothing her fractious offspring.
Before she could lift him, there was an urgent knock on the door. Cindy flung it open to two very grey people in very grey, ill-fitting uniforms of a proletarian cut.
"We're from the Family Inspectorate," declared the larger of the duo, presenting a Ministry of Love Identity Badge. "I'm Inspector One and this is Inspector Other One."
"Your baby's crying," said Inspector Other One. "You haven't been ... ?"
"No!" Cindy protested. "I have not!!!"
As if on cue, young Winston's wails became, first a gurgle, then a contented coo. Cindy's relief was palpable.
"We'll suspend judgment on that," Inspector One purred menacingly. "But you have denied access to the approved agencies authorised to conduct mandatory visits for the purpose of assessing family progress, haven't you, Cindy?" She paused. "I presume you think your home's your own?"
"Yes, I do!"
"Well, it's not!!" snapped the second inspector. "So we're coming in. And don't try to stop us. We've got a court order."
"Who cares?" Cindy shrugged. "The police just ignore them!"
"Are you Maori?" asked Inspector One.
"No."
"Then I don't think we'll have any problems," she hissed, striding into the house. "Check the nursery," Inspector One instructed her colleague. "You know what to look for."
Cindy waited until the inspector returned. "We've got a problem," the woman snapped, staring balefully as she re-entered the room. "The child has a Grade 7 cut on the left lower arm!"
"He's just learning to walk!" Cindy protested. "He tripped and scratched ... "
"Citizen 3124583 denies injuring infant," murmured Inspector One, noting the particulars in a large black book.
"I'm a good mother," Cindy pleaded. "I read stories to him. See! Thomas the Tuck Engine. It's a lovely story about how brave little Thomas helps the Fat Controllers take all the bad food out of schools!" She thrust it towards her interrogators. "See for yourself !"
"That won't be necessary," said Inspector One primly. "We don't accept books as proof of approved parenting!"
"Especially when a Citizen also possesses this!!" snarled Inspector Other One, brandishing a pamphlet found in the pile from whence Thomas had come.
Inspector One gasped as the offending document was waved under her nose.
"Why We Need Nuclear Power." The woman read the title with manifest distaste. "And you think this is suitable when you have a baby in the house?"
"It's not for him!!!" Cindy raged. "It's for me. I like to keep an open mind."
"Oh really, Citizen?" inquired the inspectors sardonically. "Well, the Great Leader doesn't. She likes to have a closed mind on the subject. She doesn't want nuclear power, the Party doesn't want nuclear power, so New Zealand won't get nuclear Power, Citizen!"
"Huh! Next time you see her, give her a knowledge wave from me!" Cindy mumbled.
"Pardon?"
"I said nuclear could be the new wave of low emission energy."
"But, Citizen, think of the risks!" urged Inspector Two. "As an approved parent, it is your official obligation to think of the risks!"
"There's risks with everything," Cindy replied. "That's no reason to blindly reject an idea! Look, its obviously risky for 15-year-olds to drive cars but the Leader allows that."
"Enough!!!" shouted Inspector One. "Citizen 3124583, I'm recommending you for immediate re-education as an unsuitable parental entity. Do not approach your child unless supervised and do not attempt to escape. We will be waiting outside until your re-educator arrives!" With that, the two grey figures clicked their heels and left.
Distraught, Cindy slumped into a chair. "When will people like the Children's Commissioner accept that the problem is largely caused by a welfare system which pays people to look after children but ignores how they're doing it? When will she admit it's the state that's failing, by neglecting the very children it professes to help? And when will she stop making ludicrous proposals for everybody else and start putting the Government's own house in order?"
"Don't hold your breath," came a little voice behind her. Cindy turned, astonished, to see Winston. With an inscrutable smile on his innocent face. Cindy couldn't decide whether to be thrilled he'd said his first words or chilled by his prescience.
"Out of the mouths of babes and ... " she whispered, but her message was swamped once again by the blasting loudspeaker on the Ministry van. "Attention all parents! Attention all parents ... "
Wednesday, 12 September 2007
Monday, 10 September 2007
Blog
Here is a great post on ronbosoldier - make sure you read the links as well, some are really interesting:
http://ronbosoldier.blogspot.com/2007/09/new-zealands-far-left-glimpse-into.html
http://ronbosoldier.blogspot.com/2007/09/new-zealands-far-left-glimpse-into.html
Monday, 2 July 2007
1 July 2007 - menz.org.nz - Labor MP seen smacking
Interesting comments on:
http://menz.org.nz/2007/labor-mp-seen-smacking/
Sun 1st July 2007
Labor MP seen smacking
Filed under: General — julie @ 11:40 am
It seems one of Labor’s MPs has broken their own “No Smacking law” yet he will not be prosecuted as no complaint was made from witness nor 2 year old child. Advice to all MPs, “Don’t take tots to shopping centres. That’s a testing area for parents.” lol
NZHerald
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10448919
But on a more serious note. One of my neighbours came over last Friday night to talk because she is finding herself between a rock and a hard place at work. The childcare centres are getting hit hard over this new law and the top level management are blaming the staff of centres for not being able to control young children from hurting other children. My neighbour has spent many years working in the childcare centres and prior to that she was a strong advocate for women’s refuge. That was back when they would try and help the relationship sort out their difficulties unlike today where the refuges insist that the women do not have any contact with her husband and encourgae her to cut all ties between the fathers and children.
Anyhow, back to the childcare centre. 4 staff have already quit in the last month and my neighbour is having to do extra shifts. The childcare centre is finding it hard to replace the staff so she is quitting herself. Sad because she is great with kids and as she is older now, her opportunities for work are less than if she was younger. She says it is the culture in the children something the staff cannot change. I am not too sure what is going on behind closed doors but it doesn’t sound right if the staff are leaving.
This is the same scenario that happened to CYFS. Once upon a time CYFS workers were real life experienced men and women until policies and management made the employees work time miserable. And now we have young fresh out of school social workers who have no children themselves decide whether our children are safe with us parents.
http://menz.org.nz/2007/labor-mp-seen-smacking/
Sun 1st July 2007
Labor MP seen smacking
Filed under: General — julie @ 11:40 am
It seems one of Labor’s MPs has broken their own “No Smacking law” yet he will not be prosecuted as no complaint was made from witness nor 2 year old child. Advice to all MPs, “Don’t take tots to shopping centres. That’s a testing area for parents.” lol
NZHerald
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10448919
But on a more serious note. One of my neighbours came over last Friday night to talk because she is finding herself between a rock and a hard place at work. The childcare centres are getting hit hard over this new law and the top level management are blaming the staff of centres for not being able to control young children from hurting other children. My neighbour has spent many years working in the childcare centres and prior to that she was a strong advocate for women’s refuge. That was back when they would try and help the relationship sort out their difficulties unlike today where the refuges insist that the women do not have any contact with her husband and encourgae her to cut all ties between the fathers and children.
Anyhow, back to the childcare centre. 4 staff have already quit in the last month and my neighbour is having to do extra shifts. The childcare centre is finding it hard to replace the staff so she is quitting herself. Sad because she is great with kids and as she is older now, her opportunities for work are less than if she was younger. She says it is the culture in the children something the staff cannot change. I am not too sure what is going on behind closed doors but it doesn’t sound right if the staff are leaving.
This is the same scenario that happened to CYFS. Once upon a time CYFS workers were real life experienced men and women until policies and management made the employees work time miserable. And now we have young fresh out of school social workers who have no children themselves decide whether our children are safe with us parents.
Saturday, 23 June 2007
John Dierckx in My Journal - Helen's Fingers in My Kid's Pie: The Price of a Welfare State
http://johndierckx.terapad.com/index.cfm?fa=contentNews.newsDetails&newsID=23903&from=list
Helen's Fingers in My Kid's Pie: The Price of a Welfare State
By John Dierckx in My Journal
Published: Friday, 22 June 07 - 09:29 PM (GMT +12:00)
Last Updated: Saturday, 23 June 07 - 01:22 AM (GMT +12:00)
11 June, The NZ Herald covers a new ban, introduced by our government: this time it is a ban on schools to sell healthy food (or reduce availability substantially) and replace it with healthy alternatives.
See the story here.
Now of course we cannot deny that in New Zealand there is, like in many western countries an obesity problem. And no one will deny that it needs to be addressed. But what are we really seeing here?
What is the main theme here: is it really the genuine concern of the government, of Helen for our children? Helen, the childless mother of all of us here in New Zealand?
Are we seeing a pattern here?
What struck me most is the remark that instead of guidelines this ban has now become a government directive. For this unaware what the difference is: in the latter case compliance to this ban, regardless of its contents will turn into a compliance issue. So what can we expect here? The tuck shop Police? I can just hear Helen repeat that famous words again in the not so far away future:
"I am fully confident that the police will use their discretionary powers wisely"
Please not again. And seeing what has happened with the anti-smacking bill what is next? A bill making it an offence for parents to provide children unhealthy food in their lunch boxes?
"I am fully confident that the police will use their discretionary powers wisely"
The Price of the Welfare State
Taken away from the spotlight is what motivates the government to think they can and will interfere with for now schools, and you bet ya, within the near future parental interference in what we give our kids to eat: it has nothing to do with genuine care. It has to do with tax money and government spending.
When being asked questions, Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR replies on 26 July 2005, when this issue was discussed:
We are not in the position where we can tell schools what they should or should not sell in their tuck-shops. One thing I would say, though, is that if the National Party and its “Tax Cuts-Education Cuts” policy ever comes to bear, schools will be forced to sell high-return, high-sugar products in their tuck-shops.
Unhealthy food - Obesity - Medical Problems - Health Care - Spending Tax Money
I am not here to deny that getting people to eat healthy is not important, especially our children. But does that allow for a government to intermingle with the already overfull and compulsory extra curricular and curricular agendas of schools?
Look at the anti-smacking bill, now this good directive, and many other legislative and policy initiatives over the past years and what do you really see? You see a government that is making us pay the price for the welfare state we are living in. In part by keeping the taxes up, but more importantly by nibbling away on our individual, parental, organisational and community freedoms.
These freedoms are all making place for an ever expanding government body required to ensure that compliance with the authoritarian and absolutist government agenda is ensured.
Does this remind you of something?
Probably not, cause when facts based education was being replaced by issue based education and a monitored mainstream media:references to anything that might make our children and us as grown ups think or doubt are either taken out completely or dumbed down to useless or even false information. I get the feeling that we are seeing the recreation of a Marxist dream here.
To extreme for your taste? Than at least keep in mind that this welfare state or as some call it Nanni state has a price: the price of losing our rights and freedoms, and let's be honest: we are not just spending tax payers money on "welfare". More and more is required to have all those government workers that are paid from these same tax payers monies to ensure compliance with the ever growing red tape and directions of the government.
Has anyone ever checked how much the size government related organisations have grown over the past periods? I didn't but I bet my bottom dollar that it has been substantially in the past years. And what a great illusion: these expanding government agencies need to be occupied by government workers that will need to be recruited and thus the repression helps to promote the idea of a healthy economy with ever decreasing unemployment rates. In that sense your dear earned tax money is spent on creating a myth. Besides that and what's even worse we are now actually paying money to have our freedoms cut down and to ensure deeper and deeper government interference in our daily lives. So when we talk about a welfare state: who is actually faring well from it? Are we not actually paying for being repressed?
I would like to close of with a free translation of a quote from the well acclaimed Dutch Professor G. Peter Hoefnagels in his book People, fraud and the state, Ambo Baarn 1987 ( People, fraud and the state):
It does not get more symptomatic (blogger adds: of wrong state intervention in our daily and economic life) The emotional need for repressive reactions arises when the power feels the need to affirm itself. The ruler serves two needs by that: it leads the attention away from the real problems by focusing on the incidents and it exemplary demonstrates its power via an individual (blogger adds: offender, non compliant/deviant individual or party).
Have a great weekend and enjoy that fish and chips while you still can.
Have your say on this article at:
http://johndierckx.terapad.com/index.cfm?fa=contentNews.newsDetails&newsID=23903&from=list
Helen's Fingers in My Kid's Pie: The Price of a Welfare State
By John Dierckx in My Journal
Published: Friday, 22 June 07 - 09:29 PM (GMT +12:00)
Last Updated: Saturday, 23 June 07 - 01:22 AM (GMT +12:00)
11 June, The NZ Herald covers a new ban, introduced by our government: this time it is a ban on schools to sell healthy food (or reduce availability substantially) and replace it with healthy alternatives.
See the story here.
Now of course we cannot deny that in New Zealand there is, like in many western countries an obesity problem. And no one will deny that it needs to be addressed. But what are we really seeing here?
What is the main theme here: is it really the genuine concern of the government, of Helen for our children? Helen, the childless mother of all of us here in New Zealand?
Are we seeing a pattern here?
What struck me most is the remark that instead of guidelines this ban has now become a government directive. For this unaware what the difference is: in the latter case compliance to this ban, regardless of its contents will turn into a compliance issue. So what can we expect here? The tuck shop Police? I can just hear Helen repeat that famous words again in the not so far away future:
"I am fully confident that the police will use their discretionary powers wisely"
Please not again. And seeing what has happened with the anti-smacking bill what is next? A bill making it an offence for parents to provide children unhealthy food in their lunch boxes?
"I am fully confident that the police will use their discretionary powers wisely"
The Price of the Welfare State
Taken away from the spotlight is what motivates the government to think they can and will interfere with for now schools, and you bet ya, within the near future parental interference in what we give our kids to eat: it has nothing to do with genuine care. It has to do with tax money and government spending.
When being asked questions, Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR replies on 26 July 2005, when this issue was discussed:
We are not in the position where we can tell schools what they should or should not sell in their tuck-shops. One thing I would say, though, is that if the National Party and its “Tax Cuts-Education Cuts” policy ever comes to bear, schools will be forced to sell high-return, high-sugar products in their tuck-shops.
Unhealthy food - Obesity - Medical Problems - Health Care - Spending Tax Money
I am not here to deny that getting people to eat healthy is not important, especially our children. But does that allow for a government to intermingle with the already overfull and compulsory extra curricular and curricular agendas of schools?
Look at the anti-smacking bill, now this good directive, and many other legislative and policy initiatives over the past years and what do you really see? You see a government that is making us pay the price for the welfare state we are living in. In part by keeping the taxes up, but more importantly by nibbling away on our individual, parental, organisational and community freedoms.
These freedoms are all making place for an ever expanding government body required to ensure that compliance with the authoritarian and absolutist government agenda is ensured.
Does this remind you of something?
Probably not, cause when facts based education was being replaced by issue based education and a monitored mainstream media:references to anything that might make our children and us as grown ups think or doubt are either taken out completely or dumbed down to useless or even false information. I get the feeling that we are seeing the recreation of a Marxist dream here.
To extreme for your taste? Than at least keep in mind that this welfare state or as some call it Nanni state has a price: the price of losing our rights and freedoms, and let's be honest: we are not just spending tax payers money on "welfare". More and more is required to have all those government workers that are paid from these same tax payers monies to ensure compliance with the ever growing red tape and directions of the government.
Has anyone ever checked how much the size government related organisations have grown over the past periods? I didn't but I bet my bottom dollar that it has been substantially in the past years. And what a great illusion: these expanding government agencies need to be occupied by government workers that will need to be recruited and thus the repression helps to promote the idea of a healthy economy with ever decreasing unemployment rates. In that sense your dear earned tax money is spent on creating a myth. Besides that and what's even worse we are now actually paying money to have our freedoms cut down and to ensure deeper and deeper government interference in our daily lives. So when we talk about a welfare state: who is actually faring well from it? Are we not actually paying for being repressed?
I would like to close of with a free translation of a quote from the well acclaimed Dutch Professor G. Peter Hoefnagels in his book People, fraud and the state, Ambo Baarn 1987 ( People, fraud and the state):
It does not get more symptomatic (blogger adds: of wrong state intervention in our daily and economic life) The emotional need for repressive reactions arises when the power feels the need to affirm itself. The ruler serves two needs by that: it leads the attention away from the real problems by focusing on the incidents and it exemplary demonstrates its power via an individual (blogger adds: offender, non compliant/deviant individual or party).
Have a great weekend and enjoy that fish and chips while you still can.
Have your say on this article at:
http://johndierckx.terapad.com/index.cfm?fa=contentNews.newsDetails&newsID=23903&from=list
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
