Published in THE ISSUES by frog on Mon, June 4th, 2012
Tags: general debate
More posts by frog | more about frog
Hide all Facebook comments on this site
Hide comments with a score of
Yay! I take it all back.
Miscarriage of justice
Clearly the juror who thought Tame Iti was guilty because of the way he looked should have been excused on the grounds that they were not impartial…
Like or Dislike: 2 6 (-4)
I think someone was on vacation… ? All’s well.
Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)
…among other things he pointed me at this –
We are in SUCH trouble, and National remains as clueless as my pet rock.
Like or Dislike: 5 2 (+3)
Like or Dislike: 3 0 (+3)
Soros, a Hungarian-American investor and philanthropist, said austerity measures were having a disastrous effect on the global economy.
“The authorities didn’t understand the nature of the euro crisis; they thought it is a fiscal problem while it is more of a banking problem and a problem of competitiveness,” he added. “And they applied the wrong remedy: you cannot reduce the debt burden by shrinking the economy, (but) only by growing your way out of it.”
Global lending by banks fell $799 billion in the fourth quarter, or 2.5%, the biggest fall since the drop seen after the collapse of US investment bank Lehman Brothers three years ago, the BIS data show.
It was led by deleveraging by banks based in the euro zone, which cut lending by $584 billion in the fourth quarter, or 4.7%. European banks are shrinking their loan books to meet tougher rules on capital requirements.
Most of the contraction was in lending to other banks, which accounted for $637 billion of the global decline, as international banks cut loans to banks in the euro zone. Lending to companies and other non-banks dropped by $162 billion.
Like or Dislike: 2 0 (+2)
I think that some Greens do. I have had some discussions with Dr Norman and with Kevin Hague. The thing is that it has to be brought forward as a policy proposal, discussed and organized at the AGM, and I haven’t been able to break from work and family to be that involved.
Just not a possible thing in terms of time.
Of course there was that ungodly long thread earlier where I defended the proposition against all comers, but it is clearly not going to happen soon. It would be a difficult thing. Our economic policies are hard enough for the public to get their heads around, and the answer I have looks a bit like the ideas of the social-democrats (but isn’t anything like them at all – though I would expect them to buy in).
Like or Dislike: 3 1 (+2)
Like or Dislike: 4 0 (+4)
I suggest that if the limit is reduced, then the penalty for exceeding the limit slightly should be an instant fine and demerit points, and the book should only be thrown at those that exceed the limit significantly – i.e. much like how we treat speeding offences. There is one significant difference – cars are fitted with speedos but they aren’t fitted with alcohol sensors that can warn a driver if they are over the limit.
The most powerful tool for achieving ecological sustainability, today, is full-automation transport which is being developed rapidly – not so much because of what it does in itself, but by what it allows us to do. Sadly the greens would rather talk about choo-choo trains which are inferior on every count, and are not even energy efficient. And I still don’t know why they don’t talk about planned obsolescence. Maybe they really are just communists dressed in green drag – using environmentalism as an excuse to push extreme left polices?
Like or Dislike: 2 3 (-1)
Funny how a 12 year old can have a much better and clearer idea than all those university educated economists.
Or maybe they do, but know they will not be paid for questioning the current paradigm.
Note; New Zealand’s Government, in the 30′s, extracted New Zealand from the great depression, well before most others, by issuing Government money for public works and stimulus.
Andrew Atkin. Yet another who has the delusion that a environmentally sustainable economy is possible, without a socially sustainable one.
Like or Dislike: 3 3 (0)
And we have talked about planned obsolescence many times.
Social fairness helps to remove the incentive to invent and sell ever more useless widgets and financial products just to make a living.
Like or Dislike: 2 4 (-2)
bjchip…altho’ unsure of what your role is within the Greens, I am invariably impressed with your contributions here…for me a huge draw-card to visit, listen and learn (as once was Phil but we know how that unfortunately ended).
I’m only amazed at how little sleep you seem to need! I believe Mrs Thatcher was the same
Like or Dislike: 1 1 (0)
National caught cherry picking numbers… again
The socio-economic costs associated with the deal between SkyCity and National are estimated to be in excess of $277 million. A reduction by 85% in construction jobs and around 50% less economy wide jobs means that the benefits do not outweigh the costs…
Right at the end of Stuff’s article about the new Department of Conservation Statement of Intent, I notice Eugenie Sage (as the Green Party Conservation spokesperson) is quoted as saying that DoC has a statutory responsibility to foster non-commercial recreation.
I agree that it should and I’m all for ensuring the law reflects that, but this isn’t my reading of the Conservation Act, which in Section 6 clearly states that DoC is meant to foster recreation (and “allow” for tourism), but it says nothing whatsoever about non-commercial recreation.
Can anyone see if there’s something I’ve missed in the Conservation Act or anywhere else?
On a tangent, the actual statement of intent being discussed is available on DoC’s website.
A Labour/Greens coalition on the cards
The current averaged polling shows that a Labour/Greens coalition at 54 seats could potentially govern alone… And a Labour/Green/Mana/NZFirst coalition on 65 seats would easily beat a Nat/UF/Maori coalition on 56 seats…
Like or Dislike: 0 1 (-1)
ACC’s false police complaint against Bronwyn Pullar
Clearly the complaint to the Police was not made in good faith. ACC would have known that Bronwyn Pullar had not tried to blackmail them, as the recording would have categorically proven…
It’s truly shocking how out of touch Joyce is in his Tertiary Education portfolio – he thinks students losing their student allowances can simply borrow the same amount off their student loan via living costs.
There is a reason why the two amounts are in fact different, those receiving the lower living cost amount have parents in a position to provide support.
Those unable to continue studying to post graduate level or to complete their post graduate degree in New Zealand on the lower level of income will have to either look to study offshore or seek work – a benefit or repaying their student loan while trying to save up enough to resume study.
At the same time the government is increasing class size to invest in post graduate teacher education – it is placing a cost barrier for half the population to post graduate study.
Jackal says “ACC would have known that Bronwyn Pullar had not tried to blackmail them”
So why did she not destroy or hand back all the private files immediately?
Why did she still have them weeks later?
It appears that we still have 12 hours to go, this could be a very significant event me thinks!
Underwater as in being close enough to the sea for the tide to inundate, or underwater as in it is raining cats, dogs, pigs and sheep and the drainage isn’t keeping up? How high is your car parked ?
Like or Dislike: 1 0 (+1)
Good luck Shunda – hope that water does not get too high and drains away quickly.
@photonz1 12:10 AM
Jackal says “ACC would have known that Bronwyn Pullar had not tried to blackmail them” So why did she not destroy or hand back all the private files immediately?
Simply destroying the files would have addressed the immediate issue, but not the systemic failure of ACC to implement appropriate information privacy procedures. There had been numerous privacy breaches at ACC before this one (and there have been several since). I suspect Pullar was, in retaining the files, attempting to force ACC to address its systemic issues re privacy, rather than using the files as an extortion tool as ACC alleged and the Police now reject.
Like or Dislike: 1 3 (-2)
The bad news is there are spring tides today and the Grey river is rising very rapidly up country, this will only exasperate the flooding.
Probably best you ask Bronwyn Pullar those questions there photonz1.
Dirty dairying in New Zealand
It costs ratepayers millions of dollars per year to take dirty dairy farmers to court. These costs should be met by the industry…
Like or Dislike: 1 2 (-1)
Manufacturing may be going local, anyway.
That technology has been around for over 10 years at least. Great for prototyping but not good for manufacturing. Basically only plastic (heat set)or plaster (adhesive set) can be used.
Excellent to get a 3D representation of parts and assemblies so you can get approval from clients before manufacturing or how best to machine a part.
Long way away if ever achieveable for manufacturing any finish components in anything but oil reliant plastics. Plaster one is good for study or demostration purposes but not much for anything else.
Not a green technology product and not likely to generate many new jobs.
Gerrit. You are a bit out of date. All sorts of alloy, metal and composite parts can be made. Though I agree the technology is still somewhat in its infancy.
Paula Bennett’s dog whistle
Clearly Paula Bennett hasn’t based her announcement dog whistle on anything resembling research…
Like or Dislike: 0 2 (-2)
To reduce harm from this, requires similar focus to that confronting drink driving. That did not mean an attack on the production, advertising and distribution of cars.
We simply set a blood alcohol level for drivers and made some attempt to catch those who were driving while too drunk to do so safely.
Similarly we need to set a blood alcohol level beyond which one cannot enter licensed premises. A technicality that allows (could be required) those selling alcohol to test people before they enter and establishes a level for exclusion. Then a higher level where a person (and the licensed premises venue) can be fined for being drunk or serving a patron to this point – again set at an objective blood alcohol level. The standardised tougher entry guideline to venues and the ability to police both patrons and hosts should provide some restraint. Similarly police should have discretion to fine those drunk (as defined by blood alcohol) on the streets if they do not move on and go home when called to (drunk and disorderly by refusing to move on as distinct from being drunk on licensed premises).
Problem is not the ability to make parts in metal or composite’s, it is qualifying the quality of the finished articles.
Just like cast aluminium is 100% weaker then billet, construction by 3D process is weaker still.
And composites, too much aeration not enough compression to get resin to matrix ratio high enough for commercial use.
Would not want to be in a car, bus, train or plane that utilised components manufactured this way.
Good for lampshades, kids toys, but not much else.
Will be the future but not till substrate integrity of a product made by 3D fusion is guarenteed.
Jackal says “Clearly Paula Bennett hasn’t based her announcement dog whistle on anything resembling research…”
Wouldn’t it be great if the Greens put as emphasis into the rights of children who are beaten and killed, as they do defending the rights of those doing the beating and killing.
Metiria was on tv tonight defending the rights of childbeaters to have more kids but not a word about the children getting beaten and killed
(1000 notifications of abuse EVERY week, 100 kids taken away from their families EVERY week for their own safety, or the 1 each month who is killed).
It doesn’t matter how many kids they beat or kill – the Greens defend their “right” to have more.
And we wonder why we have some of the world’s worst child abuse statistics.
Like or Dislike: 4 6 (-2)
This is the American model. The one National is so hell bent on following. This is a big reason why our people are leaving for Oz too.
The “American Dream” and the US Constitution itself, are all predicated on the ability of an individual who is willing to work hard, to get ahead. That assumption lies beneath everything done in our society.
Computerization, Automation and the rising skill levels required to get even an AVERAGE paying job have shredded that underlying assumption. One has to be a standard deviation above average AND have a good education to have a shot now.
Moreover, we used to pay even average jobs better than we do. Now we are lowering the average pay while we require still greater skill levels. I can’t imagine a graduate wanting to stay. The owners of Capital OTOH, obtain levels of compensation of 10 or more times their previous levels, particularly relative to the remaining workers.
This is not a problem to be solved by Unions, as they only can help people who already have jobs. It has to be solved by the society as a whole UNDERSTANDING that the system is broken and finding another basic social meme to allow it to function.
The system of obtaining ever greater productivity out of fewer and fewer employees has come to its inevitable and ultimate wall.
For humans, there is not a lot of pleasure in boredom. The entertainment has to always be there. Some people will go into the work of entertaining others.. and become sportsmen or actors or something else. The bulk of the population? I do not see how. We have to make sure they have an income adequate to live on though, and allow them the vices of their choice.
We also have to provide their children the opportunity to try to work their way out of that stagnant pool of able bodied but not smarter than average folks. The education system has to push them hard.
The productive upper 30% in terms of abilities need to be paid enough to make it worthwhile to work.
The Capital owners have to see their “wealth” redistributed.
…or we have to figure out how to make ourselves less efficient.
Anyone have a 3rd or 4th way?
Like or Dislike: 2 2 (0)
But not a word about the children getting beaten and killed.
You’re talking rubbish again photonz1.
Metiria talked about the existing law that is already in place that is meant to ensure children are not getting beaten and killed.
The amount of children removed from their parents has been declining… by over 18% since 2008. That would point to the fact that the problem is getting better, or CYF’s isn’t doing their job properly.
Like or Dislike: 3 2 (+1)
Paula Bennett wants to take kids away from child abusers.
She is definitely moving in the right direction, but really she needs to seriously consider forced sterilisation (for some cases). The negative epigenetics and probable bad diet and drugs and booze intake from an “underclass type” mother will be damaging enough, not to mention the damage that comes from removing a baby from its natural mother immediately at birth.
Just sterilise them. It’s the better solution. And we need to think long term because the long term status of humanity is more important than ever. We can’t afford to have a world of dangerous neurotic religious zealot types throwing nukes around (and other), because they were all too insane to see past the hysterical mob and “great leader”. You get my point.
-Also, my best guess is that the government at this stage is just testing the public reaction.
Heck Andrew, let’s just gas them en masse.
It’s the better solution.
Also, your best guess is way off I’m afraid.
They’re not testing public reaction, just diverting it from the monumental PR screw up that is Hekia Parata.
I don’t believe that gassing is necessary or humane. Forced sterilisation, for some, is all that is required to protect young children.
…oh, but every day we let more children be born into damaging realities we take another step closer to some form of holocaust scenario further down the line.
Like or Dislike: 1 4 (-3)
Relating to that speech you included, I just want to say what really gets up my nose is the way all politicans–not matter what their political position–make reference to “quality” but without ever actually defining it.
What ‘quality’ means is the degree to which your education system builds your kids to THEIR order. That’s all it really means. Behind it is the true debate that never sees the light of day: To what degree should humanity define society (self evolution) ahead of society (“corptopia”) defining the individual?
Behind all the bullshit is the blunt fact that schools are ultimately just *somebody else’s* human resource factory.
George W is correct when he calls Paula B’s outburst a diversion from Nationals cuts to public education. Its a very cynical and standard national party tactic.
CYF’s already removes babies and children from hundreds if not thousands of parents.
National are cutting resources for the less well off, compounding their problems and hurdles.
Cuts to public education and more money for private schools is what you get under a national government ….
But that’s absurd, Andrew.
These perpetrators will still have hands with which to abuse children. Strike them off I say!
Tongues to utter cruel words? Tear them out!
You are showing a disheartening lack of zeal, Sir!
The only solution must be a final one.
Do it for the children.
[frog: Deleted at your request, Andrew. I'm glad you belatedly realised it was unnecessarily crass.]
what really gets up my nose is the way all politicans–not matter what their political position–make reference to “quality” but without ever actually defining it.
If the Ministry of Education were asked how it measures “quality” then it might have an answer, and in the absence of saying something else you’d assume this is what a Minister and any other politician who comments would also have to mean. Not to suggest they actually care what they mean, as you suggest, but confronting a Minister with the government’s official metics would force a Minister to at least explain themselves or look pretty silly, or both.
Andrew – you’re wasting your time. There are plenty here who will prioritise the “right” of people who beat and kill children, to have more children, over the rights of those very children not to be beaten and killed.
Like or Dislike: 3 5 (-2)
I know. Also I asked Frog to delete my most recent post because although I felt the need to put the raw truth in some of these pc brains, it was a bit too extreme and tasteless.
I apologise for my last comment. Strangely Frog has decided, thus far, to decline my request to have it removed.
[frog: Only just picked it up, and have now deleted it.]
Andrew – my wife did a notification last week of kids who were in a dangerous situation. CYFs have 50,000 notifications each year and simply can’t deal promptly with anything like that number.
So they couldn’t do anything in time, and come Monday mum was seriosuly beaten and in hospital, dad was locked up, kids had no parents, and someone with a large family of their own (and who works) had to take in four extra kids and now simply can’t cope.
nznative says “CYF’s already removes babies and children from hundreds if not thousands of parents.”
Which results in stuffed up lives for everyone. If they can’t keep them, then better for everyone that these people simply didn’t breed in the first place.
Like or Dislike: 2 1 (+1)
Jackal says “Metiria talked about the existing law that is already in place that is meant to ensure children are not getting beaten and killed.”
You mean the law that hasn’t done a thing about us having one of the worst rates of child abuse and child murders in the first world?
You have just highlighted the impotence of the Green Party stand against child abuse.
And their priority of the “rights” of those who beat and kill children, to breed more victims.
So Parata/National change their minds on class sizes and I hear that The Greenz are asking for her to resign.
Why? Isn’t this a good thing that she/they are prepared to change?
We want them to re-think asset sales too, so lets applaud the ability of any government to be responsive.
Otherwise pig-headedness will prevail.
Well said. Your wife is looking at the real world – unlike others who just see the world via the History channel on SkyTV.
You previously said that “100 kids [were being] taken away from their families EVERY week for their own safety.” Which would mean the law is doing something about abuse and potential child murders. You’ve contradicted yourself photonz1.
Hekia Parata – Asshole of the Week
The last couple of weeks have been an unmitigated disaster for Education Minister Hekia Parata…
Like or Dislike: 0 3 (-3)
“You mean the law that hasn’t done a thing about us having one of the worst rates of child abuse and child murders in the first world?”
What reason is there to think it’s the law rather than something like resourcing or the approach to enforcement?
You can have the stupidest or best laws in the world and they’ll have no effect if they’re not effectively enforced.
There are plenty here who will prioritise the “right” of people who beat and kill children, to have more children, over the rights of those very children not to be beaten and killed.
This type of fallacious “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” reasoning adds nothing to the discussion. Objecting to an extreme position of forced sterilisation – as with objection to the death penalty – is not a tacit approval of an offense.
It makes you look shrill to suggest otherwise.
Also, there is no talk of “prioritising” respective rights. It’s a complete red herring. Rights are universal. No one has the right to assault or murder and these infractions are already adequately covered under existing statute. Rotten, cruel people are going to beat and kill children (or adults) irrespective of the law. You can’t legislate against sociopathy via statute, but merely attempt to address its results via the courts.
Additionally, any court order prohibiting people from having children is essentially unenforceable. To quote Einstein “Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced.”
Furthermore, your arguement is essentially tautological given that a child could not come into being with a sterilised parent. A hypothetical child cannot be actually abused.
Uh, “responsive”? Responsive might have been a government that properly consulted and seriously listened to people before it made a decision, y’know, if it’s the sort of government that really does care about what people think.
If it’s necessary to push through unpopular ideas as part of a larger plan then so be it, but announcing such things as final and then backing down after a major public back-lash that should never have been necessary is just a big, stupid waste of government resources. As far as I’m concerned it shows incompetence in planning those things from the outset. Why shouldn’t resignations be asked for if they might result in a replacement Minister or two who’s actually in touch?
Like or Dislike: 4 1 (+3)
Thanks Frog – yes, crass. But I do think people need to “visualise” what serious child abuse really means. As I’ve often said: If our domestic society were built with glass walls then most of us would support reproduction licensing tomorrow.
But I do think people need to “visualise” what serious child abuse really means.
This from a guy who equates State education with psychological abuse. Give me a break!
Has it occurred to you that most readers and contributors here are already able to visualise child abuse? Or are you seriously suggesting that you are the sole possessor of imagination, empathy, conscience and pathos?
Please do me a favour and don’t confuse my disgust of your revolting, fascistic proposals of breeding selection with an inability to understand the depressing socio-economic issue of child abuse.
Gregor – you just proved my point – arguing for the rights of people who beat and kill children.
If someone repeatedly drink drives, we make it illegal for them to drive.
If someone can’t use a firearm safely, we ban them from using a firearm.
If someone maltreats animals, we make it illegal for them to own animals.
But if someone beats and murders their children, you fight for their “right” to breed more victims.
Like or Dislike: 1 6 (-5)
Jackal says “Which would mean the law is doing something about abuse and potential child murders.”
The law you think is working only comes into effect AFTER they have already been abused.
Better for everyone to cut down on the number of children these abusers are having in the first place.
Please point out anywhere where I have argued for the right for people who beat or murder children to have more children.
Sure. But does that stop a drunk determined to flout the law? No.
So do we go further and cut the hands and feet off convicted drunk driver killers, so they can never drive again? Obviously not.
We already have statute in place for assault and murder. Will that stop sociopaths killing kids? No.
Will legislation stopping unfit parents from having kids actually stop those people having kids? Of course not.
The target population the same respect for the rule of law as the recidivist drunk driver.
Im surprised that the national troll photoNZ should accuse the greens of supporting child abuse.
It was photoNZ who defended and stood up for a drugged ( drunk ) parent who sexually abused their child getting discharged without conviction !!!. Thats my definition of support ………..
The state already has the power to remove at risk babies and children. Forced sterilization or abortion as Photo and the Nats suggest belongs to another era and place, Nazi Germany.
If CYF’s and vulnerable children need more funding then its the National governments responsibility …. one they are unprepared to do anything about but they will commission ‘papers’ …. and dog whistle.
Gregor says “Sure. But does that stop a drunk determined to flout the law? No”
Does it work better than if we had no licence suspension at all for drunk drivers?
It’s simple. If we didn’t ban drunk drivers from driving, we’d have far more drunk drivers on the roads killing people.
If we had bans on unsuitable people from having children, then we’d have far fewer children born into dysfunctional families where they are either beaten or taken away.
And we’d have far fewer 10 year olds who live permanently locked up in secure facilities with no one they know at the far end of the country from their families.
Andrew, do you also support capital punishment? I’m curious because I think in essence the arguments against that and something like forced sterilisation are of a similar nature.
If we had bans on unsuitable people from having children, then we’d have far fewer children born into dysfunctional families where they are either beaten or taken away.
And we’d have far fewer 10 year olds who live permanently locked up in secure facilities with no one they know at the far end of the country from their families.
Do you have evidence of this… or are you just basing this assertion on your prejudices again?
Your analogy is pretty bad there photonz1. Firstly there’s a huge diference to taking a license away (something provided by the state) to taking somebodies ability to procreate away.
Secondly there were 29,083 drink-drive convictions in 2010 and 27% of drink drive offenders are repeat offenders. Around 67,000 drivers are disqualified each year.
Driving drunk is currently against the law (banned), but clearly this does not stop some people driving drunk… it’s impractical to do so. It’s also unfair to implement laws that could impede law abiding citizens in the way you’re promoting.
The state has no place deciding who can and cannot have children.
Jackals says “The state has no place deciding who can and cannot have children.”
Currently FIVE THOUSAND TIMES EVERY YEAR the state decides who cannot have children.
No wonder we have such child abuse problems when people like you keep sticking up for the rights of the abusers and murderers instead of their victims.
How do you suppose the state might ensure a ban on having children is adhered to?
I’m not defending abusers… I’m defending all the people who you would label abusers who will not be. How do you suppose the state might choose who is and is not allowed to have children?
The rightwing policies that you often promote photonz1 are far more to blame for the abuse of children that happens in New Zealand. You and your ilk should feel highly ashamed for causing so much difficulty in peoples lives that is often the cause behind child abuse.
Let me ask you a simple question. What will society evolve to if we continue business as usual, and continue to allow and support anyone to breed. Ignore how disgusting I may be – just give me the facts as to where you think our society will go.
No I don’t support capital punishment.
Jackal says “How do you suppose the state might ensure a ban on having children is adhered to?”
With great difficulty. But like bans on driving for drunk drivers, even if the birth rate for child abusers drops by 75%, or 50%, or even 25%, it will be much better than the current situation.
Jackal asks “How do you suppose the state might choose who is and is not allowed to have children?”
Are you serious?
Perhaps the people who have regularly abused children and are among the 5000 every year who have had children taken off them could be on a shortlist (i.e. we ALREADY make that decision, and have been for years).
You should try prioritising the rights of abused kids ahead of the rights of the abusers for once.
And then you come up with the namby pamby excuse that someone else is to blame instead of the person doing the abusing.
Face it jackal – you’re just an apollogist for child abusers.
The state (on our behalf) will decide who gets to procreate, the only question is when it will happen.
We have known for decades that the only way to reduce crime is to do social engineering almost at the point of birth to get at risk kids away from situations that will pretty much guarantee they end up as career crims.
Finally, someone has the gumption to make a start on addressing social issues, and what do we get? Well, you see it all above.
This is a big picture issue. What kind of New Zealand do you want?
I find it hard to fathom that we manage to be co-equal to the USA in the production of something, but I am not surprised at what we produce in such copious amounts.
My real question though is what it is that causes us to manage to do this?
With great difficulty.
Unless you actually implement forced sterilization, it’s not just difficult, it’s impossible! The problem here is that the worst abusers wont care if the state automatically takes their children away. It will not be an effective deterrent to them abusing or having more children.
But like bans on driving for drunk drivers, even if the birth rate for child abusers drops by 75%, or 50%, or even 25%, it will be much better than the current situation.
I could throw some percentages around as well… like 0%. That’s how effective Paula Bennett’s dog whistle would be if it was actually put into law, which it wont be. It would be nothing like a ban on driving drunk. Having children is not illegal, driving drunk is. Find a better analogy photonz1.
Yes! How do you think the state should choose who can and cannot have (bring into the world opposed to existing) children?
5020 children were put in the custody of the Chief Executive last year for their own safety or because their parent/s or caregiver/s could no longer look after them. This includes orphans who do not have other family members that can look after them. There are not 5000 people who have children removed each year because they’re abusive. Some people are rehabilitated and get their children back.
Please outline the exact criteria for who would be banned from having (new not existing) children? Would it be a law that a person could appeal when they become rehabilitated? How would it work so there are no administrative mistakes and loopholes?
Would they need a conviction, or perhaps you want single woman discriminated against? Do you consider forced sterilization of males as well as females an option? Would you base the decision on the colour of somebodies skin perhaps… I mean where do your prejudices end and good social engineering begin?
I work towards reducing inequality… poverty is one of the largest contributors to the abuse cycle. I also promoted the anti smacking legislation, which is likely one of the main factors in a reduction (of over 18% since 2008) in the amount of children needing to be cared for by the state.
The government is responsible for creating a climate where abuse can occur. A community where families have adequate incomes, housing, health services and infrastructure is far less likely to have abuse. The abuser is also responsible for their actions… but I guess you’re more interested in having somebody to blame instead of finding real solutions that will work.
I’m not to blame for the child abuse that occurs in New Zealand photonz1, and make no apologies for such incorrigible actions. i do however understand some of the things that lead to New Zealand’s child abuse.
PS You spell apologist with one L.
It seems bizarre that people have got the relationship with government confused. The National Government behaves as if we owe it money, when in actual fact it is the people who are National’s landlords and we should be able to demand that any tenants we allow in Parliament respect our property and the privileges we we give them and return what is owed to us in full.
Jackal above list his reasons #167 – 184 why we shouldn’t take any action against child abusers.
Previously he tries to say right wing policies are “far more to blame” than the people who tie their todler to a clothes line and swing them around, torture them and put them in a tumble drier, then beat them to death.
Does that mean left wing policies were to blame in the decade of left wing govt?
Or is Jackal yet again making every excuse he can think off to shift the blame for child abuse away from the abusers.
You’re just being rude now photonz1. I think there needs to be action to increase the current trend of less children needing to be cared for by the state. I would like to see some changes that will work to reduce child abuse.
Previously he tries to say right wing policies are “far more to blame” than the people who tie their todler to a clothes line and swing them around.
I didn’t say right-wing policies are more to blame than the perpetrators who abuse children, I said right-wing policies lead to a climate where abuse of children is more likely to occur. It’s the same with suicide, whereby suicides always increase under a National government.
torture them and put them in a tumble drier, then beat them to death.
That was a terrible thing. I think it’s very low to say I’m trying to defend such despicable actions.
No! As previously stated, it’s right-wing policies that increase poverty within communities. Leftwing policies usually reduce poverty within lower income families. Poverty is one of the main influences and causes of child abuse.
It’s interesting that you never answer any of my questions, when yours are just trolling!
Jackal says “The rightwing policies that you often promote photonz1 are far more to blame for the abuse of children that happens in New Zealand”
Then Jackal says “I didn’t say right-wing policies are more to blame than the perpetrators who abuse children,..”
I’ll leave you to argue with your own comments….
photonz1, you missed out the last bit of that sentence:
You and your ilk should feel highly ashamed for causing so much difficulty in peoples lives that is often the cause behind child abuse.
Poverty is one of the main causes of abuse, and National’s policies are increasing impoverishment. I’ll leave you to argue with these articles:
Heads out of the sand NZ – CPAG
Unicef report card on poverty names crisis of monitoring
Children in poverty ‘lost’ to education system
Government policy impacting child poverty levels
Child poverty report sparks call for better monitoring
Government doesn’t care about child poverty
We all know that poverty and especially childhood poverty is a terrible thing. Nobody can really argue with the moral case for reducing poverty, but there’s also a good economical argument for reducing childhood poverty as well…
Jackal says “Poverty is one of the main causes of abuse,”
Yet another disgusting attempt to defend the abusers.
Most poor people do not abuse their kids.
Whereas kids of teenage mums are have a 500% higher chance of getting beaten and killed.
When you keep defending abusers and murderers, and put your head in the sand so you can’t see the strongest factors associated with child abuse, then YOU become part of the problem – not part of the solution.
When you pump more people into a country, then you have to have capital expansion (especially for things supporting fundamentals like housing, food and electricity, etc) to balance with population growth. That’s totally fundamental, of course.
With Auckland’s MUL’s the price of land goes through the roof (as it has) which suffocates housing development and commercial and industrial development too. This is elementary stuff. YET our government, in the context of actively restricting capital development, CONTINUES to pump in too many immigrants too fast relative to capital expansion. Depressed living standards and poverty become (as it has) totally inevitable.
The Green’s Julie-anne Genter has said that she thinks unaffordable housing is not about MUL’s but more likely an inability to use parking space for other purposes. But she has also mentioned before that if you got rid of minimum parking requirements then it would be a relatively slow transition for parking spaces to evolve into other purposes. What does this tell you? Get rid of the MUL’s or quit bleating on about poverty. That’s my message to the Greens, the government and the stupid evil people who make up Auckland council, who pander to existing property owners who want to gouge the public by creating an effective monopoly (no competing with fringe land) on their land…and shamelessly use every pitiful discredited argument under the sun to rationalise their greed.
You are not logged in. You can reply by using the form below but your comment won't be visible to others until it is approved.
Log in to have your comments appear immediately.
Mail (will not be published) (required)
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Notify me of follow up comments via e-mail
Subscribe without commenting
Please use on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Authorised by: Jon Field, Level 2, 17 Garrett Street, Wellington. Copyright © 1996-2013 The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand