• Unbelievable: sex for kids

Here’s an entire article from the NZ Herald:

A free Christmas play for Wellington children in Child Youth and Family care contained swear words and sexual references.

Together with their foster parents, the 140 children, the youngest of whom was six, watched the entire opening night of ‘An Adagio Christmas’ at Wellington’s Downstage Theatre.

The play contains the use of the “f” word and one character spoke of losing her virginity and mimed a slapstick orgasm.

However, Ray Smith from Child Youth and Family says despite the suggestive themes, the children loved the show.

“I watched some of the little faces during the course of the show and the little kids were on the edge of their seats wondering if the wonderful acrobats were going to fall off their chairs and poles,” Mr Smith said.

Mr Smith hopes the children will look back and remember how much they enjoyed the outing.

So, this is what happens when children are taken into state ‘care’, including those children who are taken from good parents on nothing more than a suspicion of smacking.

Let’s imagine that a family came under scrutiny from Child Youth and Family, and CYF found out that the parents had sent their children to such a play. Would CYF say “Well done, good parents”, or would CYF say “Highly inappropriate, you bad parents”, take the children from the family home, and send them for sexual abuse counselling?

It’s always the same with the government: do what we say, not what we do.

~~~~~~~~~~

• Anti-smacking law: Key’s words don’t match his actions

This is from the NZ Herald:

Prime Minister John Key has reiterated his belief no change is needed to the anti-smacking law after a new review found cases were being dealt with properly.
[...]
“Lightly smacking a child will be in the course of parenting for some parents and I think that’s acceptable,” Mr Key said.

Asked if he had just said it was acceptable to lightly smack a child, Mr Key replied “Yes, I think so” and said the law was clear that such matters should not be treated as a criminal offence [that is only true if the smack is not for the 'purpose of correction' and is given for one of the permitted reasons].

“It’s up to individual parents to decide how they’re going to parent their children. My view is that it will depend on the circumstances and how you want to raise your child,” Mr Key said.

“Some people will continue to lightly smack their child for correction, some will not. It is up to them to decide.”

Let’s get this straight: Key is endorsing a law that specifically makes it illegal to smack a child ‘for the purpose of correction’ whilst also saying the following:

• “Lightly smacking a child will be in the course of parenting for some parents and I think that’s acceptable”
• “It’s up to individual parents to decide how they’re going to parent their children”
• “Some people will continue to lightly smack their child for correction, some will not. It is up to them to decide”

Mr Key, I am very glad to hear that you agree that light smacking is acceptable, and that you think it is up to parents to make a choice about smacking for the purposes of correction. Please tell me why you continue to support a law that is contrary to what you say you believe, because I and, I suspect, a great many other New Zealanders are confused about the difference between your beliefs and your actions. I urge you to put your beliefs into action and change this law; this would also be a great way of showing respect to the 1,470,755 Kiwis who voted against the anti-smacking law in the recent referendum.

Related post:
Referendum on anti-smacking law: John Key gives the finger

~~~~~~~~~~

Here’s the full text of section 59 of the Crimes Act:

Parental State control

(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—

(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or

(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or

(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or

(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.

(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).

(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.

~~~~~~~~~~

• Please leave Mike Pero alone

Yesterday Mike Pero said that he was being ‘persecuted’ and I agree with him. He was being interviewed hectored on National Socialist Radio by an unpleasant woman, who reminded me of a dog that is chewing on a clean bone and refusing to believe that there really is no meat on this particular bone.

What has poor Pero done to deserve this? After hearing that only six relatives of victims were able to go to Antarctica for the thirtieth anniversary of the Mt Erebus plane crash he decided to charter a plane that would go to the crash site and do a flyover. He’s not making any money out of this (many people would say that that was distasteful, but it is certainly not immoral) and I simply cannot see what the fuss is about. In his own words:

“When I saw that only six family members of the victims were getting to go down to commemorate this anniversary, I was moved to do something for them,” (source)

Now let’s have a look at four of the hysterical responses to Pero’s altruism…

Response #1

“Mike Pero did not engage with Air New Zealand over his plans for the flight to Antarctica or any opportunities this might present to families of Erebus victims. Therefore, the airline finds his announcement three days prior to the anniversary of the tragedy to be nothing more than commercial opportunism of the lowest kind and deeply disrespectful,” Air New Zealand said. (source)

Note the ‘therefore’. Air New Zealand is saying that just because Pero didn’t talk to Air New Zealand first he’s being disrespectful and engaging in commercial opportunism (trying to make money). That is a logical failure of the breathtaking type, not to mention grossly arrogant. Pero has said that he’s not in this for the money, and even if he hadn’t said that logic would indicate that a seriously wealthy man like him can find many better ways of making money. Also, as I said above, making money out of the flight would not be immoral. Where on earth Air New Zealand gets the notion of disrespect from I don’t know, and to the best of my knowledge there is no legal requirement to get a blessing from Air New Zealand before doing anything related to the Mt Erebus plane crash.

Response #2

Here’s another nappy gem from Air New Zealand:

Air NZ chief executive Rob Fyfe said he was personally upset by Mr Pero’s sudden plans. “I have been dealing up to 40 to 50 emails a day for the last couple of months with families and I’ve tried to build a relationship of trust and do the very best we can for the families,” he told Campbell Live.

“I’ve talked to family members and they were deeply disturbed…that someone was preying on their grief and I felt personally quite hurt by that and I guess I reacted in a way that reflected the feelings of the families that were being expressed.

“No wants controversy. There has been controversy around this issue for 30 years and I was trying to get through the weekend without more controversy and I just feel really disappointed that the families yet again are being dragged into something not of their making.” (source)

As far as I can see Air New Zealand is responsible for a lot of the controversy that has been stirred up regarding the flight proposed by Pero. Where people get the idea that Pero is “preying on their grief” from I don’t know, and Fyfe’s assertion that “I felt personally quite hurt by that” beggars belief.

Response #3

Now to a relative of a victim…

Susan O’Rourke, from Blenheim, lost her mother in the November 28, 1979, crash, in which 257 passengers and crew died.

“As an immediate family member of a victim of the disaster, I feel he is just capitalising on the situation of the 30th anniversary,” she said.
[...]
But Ms O’Rourke said the cost of Mike Pero’s flight would make it unaffordable for many families of victims.

Tickets will cost between $1400 and $8600, depending on seating preferences.

“$1400 – for a family, that’s a lot of money. Especially when there’s no guarantee they will go over Erebus. This flight can only further go to capitalise on those who have not got funds to be able to partake in the flight.”

She also questioned the timing of Pero’s memorial flight, and said it was in “poor taste”.

“If he’s so concerned, why didn’t he do it before?

“Why after 30 years? Why not after 25 years? Why now?

“At the end of the day he’s seizing an opportunity off family members that wouldn’t go.” (source)

She ‘feels’ that Pero is capitalising (making a gain from) the anniversary of the crash. This is a nebulous emotion without basis in fact. Which bit of chartering-a-plane-at-no-profit-to-help-relatives is in ‘poor taste’? As for “Why after 30 years? Why not after 25 years? Why now?”, my response is ‘Why are you asking nonsensical questions’ and ‘Why are you complaining when Pero is trying to help you?’.

As for the cost of the flight, I’m sorry if you and others can’t afford it, but life isn’t fair. Pero isn’t making any money out of this, so the ticket price is calculated thus:

Cost of charter ÷ number of passengers = ticket cost

Plane charters are expensive, so the tickets are expensive. It’s simple mathematics. Pero said:

“I didn’t set the prices. If people want to know there’s no margin [profit] in it for me.” (source)

Response #4

Here’s another relative:

One of the six relatives travelling to the crash site today, Eric Houghton, said it was a “cynical time” for Pero to promote the flight.

He was nine when he lost his father, John, in the disaster.

“This is an important time and we don’t need sideshows to distract from it,” Houghton said. (source)

I fail to see any cynicism in Pero’s plan, and the only sideshow I can see here is the one started by those who are beating up Pero for no good reason.

Conclusion

Mike Pero said

“I don’t want to do this any more. I was just out there with the best intentions and now it’s turned right round.

“All I was trying to do was facilitate what I believed were the wishes of the families. (source)

Here’s a free piece of advice: if someone is trying to help you don’t kick him in the balls, because it’s impolite and he’s likely to decide that he no longer wants to help you. Please leave Mike Pero alone.

~~~~~~~~~~

• Right to silence under threat

A crucial freedom is under threat. This is from the NZ Herald:

Momentum is building for a law change to prevent families from stonewalling police when a child has been assaulted or killed.

Public outrage over cases such as the unsolved death of 3-month-old twins Chris and Cru Kahui [what public outrage? I certainly haven't seen any - have you?] has thrust the issue into the spotlight, and the Government will soon have a report from the Law Commission suggesting what should be done.

Meanwhile, a senior Christchurch policeman who has overseen child murder cases has put forward his own proposal.

This would see New Zealand follow in the footsteps of Britain, where parents and caregivers who withhold crucial information can be jailed.

On Wednesday, a coroner’s inquest in Christchurch heard that the shaking death of 7-month-old Staranise Waru in February 2006 remained unsolved as the child’s parents were no longer willing to co-operate with police.

The parents, Nyree Hopa and Robert Waru, repeatedly chose not to answer questions at the hearing into their daughter’s death on the basis that they could incriminate themselves.

Justice Minister Simon Power told the Weekend Herald he had asked the Law Commission to speed up a review of the law that dealt with assault, injury and homicide.

“I understand that the commission’s soon-to-be-released report includes a new provision to better address situations where it’s difficult to identify the responsible offender within the family context and ensure that those responsible for protecting vulnerable children are held to account.”

The proposal put forward by Inspector Malcolm Johnston, of Christchurch, is similar to the culpable parenting law in Britain.

The right to silence would be removed, and parents or caregivers would be forced to co-operate with authorities trying to determine how a child has been harmed, and who did it.

I believe that the right to silence and the right to avoid self-incrimination [1] are essential ways of protecting individuals from the overwhelming power of the state. When the state can compel you to talk under threat of imprisonment there is no privacy left, and the police are experts at twisting what you say. Quite simply, you are screwed. Watch this video and you’ll see what I mean.

If you’ve studied logic you will know that it is impossible to prove a universal negative, e.g. ‘there is no life on other planets’ [2]. It is extremely difficult or impossible for a defendant to prove a negative, i.e. ‘I didn’t do it’. Positives can be tested and proven or disproven, e.g. if I claim that there is a copy of the Eiffel Tower on the moon it is perfectly reasonable for you to ask me to produce evidence to support my claim. Similarly, if the state is claiming that someone committed a crime (a positive) then the onus should be upon the state to prove that its claim is correct.

Removing the right to silence and the right to avoid self-incrimination simply makes it easier for the state to prove its claim that you committed a crime. When the state already has overwhelming power, an unlimited budget, and the individuals involved in prosecuting you have a personal vested interest in proving you guilty (it’s good for their careers), then removing those rights is dangerous in the extreme.

Already there are limited circumstances in which people have no right to silence and must produce documents on demand, but child abuse is the first instance of this erosion of rights which will affect the wider public. The state is using child abuse to erode your rights because beaten children attract public sympathy, and anyone who opposes the removal of the right to silence can be portrayed as protecting child abusers (boo, hiss go the politicians and the media).

Watch for a removal of the right to silence in other situations. Removing the right to silence in cases of alleged child abuse is simply a way of putting the frog into cold water before turning up the heat.

~~~~~~~~~~

1. As far as I know NZ does not have a legally protected right to avoid self-incimination. Here I am taking it as an implied right that is subsequent to the right to silence.

2. For a variety of reasons I believe that there is no sentient life on other planets, but I never claim that this is proven or provable.

~~~~~~~~~~

• Democracy is dictatorship: a response to Bob McCoskrie’s letter

Today Bob McCoskrie of Family First has sent out a letter titled “A personal note from Bob McCoskrie“, where he states why he is going on The March For Democracy this Saturday (the background to all this is explained in my earlier post).

In his letter Bob shows how governments have repeatedly ignored the results of citizen-initiated referenda, including the latest one on the anti-smacking law. 1.57 million people voted against that law, while Peter Dunne (who voted for the anti-smacking law) says that a petition signed by 45,000 people who wanted daylight saving extended is ‘overwhelming support’. If 45,000 is overwhelming support, what on earth is 1,570,000?

After showing how the various referenda with strong results have been ignored, Bob says

I want NZ to be a place of DEMOCRACY not DICTATORSHIP

I do not wish to criticise Bob in any way, but apparently he, like 99.99% of people, does not realise that democracy is dictatorship by the majority. Allow me to explain.

87.4% of a representative sample of the population have voted against the anti-smacking law. If they have their way and the anti-smacking law is repealed (or amended) then that 87.4% of the population will be imposing their will upon the 12.6% of the population who want the anti-smacking law retained as it is. That is dictatorship by the majority.

Presently the government is in favour of retaining the anti-smacking law without changes, so it is ignoring what is commonly called the will of the people. That is dictatorship by the minority, i.e. the 122 politicians in parliament who think that they know best.

My point is this: democracy is always a dictatorship. The real question today is this: which dictator will decide what happens to the anti-smacking law? Presently Mr Minority (the government) is deciding. I believe that it is a lesser evil when Mr Majority (the 87.4%) decides what happens to the anti-smacking law, and that is why I will be marching on Saturday.

~~~~~

Have you ever wondered why this country is a mess and why we always have dishonest politicians? When you realise which majority is ruling NZ and appointing the politicians it will all make sense. The answers are in my post The problem with democracy – Part One.

~~~~~~~~~~