Kiwi Polemicist

November 25, 2008

Tapu Misa of the NZ Herald advocates forced sterilisations

In her column Tapu Misa says

In the wake of last week’s convictions for Nia Glassie’s brutal abuse and murder, I can’t really argue with those who say some people shouldn’t be allowed to have children – though I have trouble working out exactly how we’d stop people breeding. Forced sterilisation on the grounds of low IQ and low income, perhaps?

I once worked with a woman who came from a well-to-do South Island family. Her mother was mentally ill, but her family kept that shameful fact hidden, so that she never received any psychiatric help. She married and had children, whom she basically terrorised behind a wall of respectability.

Her mother should never have had children. Given the science on child brain development, my colleague was lucky to emerge relatively sane and functional. [emphasis added]

Tapu, put the knife down and back off. Your arrogance is breathtaking. WHO GAVE YOU THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHO SHOULD AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BABIES?

Congratulations Tapu, you have joined the ranks of eugenicists that include such delightful people as Adolf Hitler and Winston Churchill. You go a step further than them – which is quite a feat – by making low income a criteria as well. By the way, what is the definition of “low IQ and low income”? Presumably anyone on a benefit is considered to have a low income and over 50% of the population of South Auckland is dependent on welfare, so your scheme will certainly reduce the shortage of midwives.

I am a beneficiary, so you are saying “Kiwi Polemicist, you should not have children. You are booked in for a compulsory sterilisation and if you do not attend the police will take you there in handcuffs”. Thanks Tapu, you’re a pal.

**********

Eugenics means “good breeding” and it is a totalitarian system for improving the genectic qualities of the human race. Totalitarian because someone with power decides who has desirable genes and therefore should be allowed to breed, and who has bad genes and therefore should not be allowed to breed. Interestingly, the person in authority never declares that he has undesirable genes: Hitler looked nothing like the Aryan ideal that he espoused.

When the totalitarian ruler has decided who should not be allowed to breed he employs then various methods to stop them, including the forced sterilisations that Tapu advocates. This means that someone is forced to have surgery and their private parts are altered so that they can’t have children – too bad if they object. Such programmes continued in the United States until 1981 (later in other places) and are legally crimes against humanity, so Tapu is advocating crimes against humanity.

The ironic thing is that the USA and Hitler used forced sterilisation against ethnic minorities, and Tapu would have been a target of those programmes.

Click here for an update to this post

Click here to view a closely related post

Click here for a biblical perspective on child abuse

Advertisements

22 Comments »

  1. I think you’re over-reacting here. I didn’t read her column as advocating for forced sterilisation, she merely admitted to some strong feelings about the Nia Glassie case (as most of us have) and one manifestation of those feelings was that she “can’t really argue” with those who say some people shouldn’t be allowed to have children. The bulk of the article is actually about child development, but you don’t mention that. Did you read that far, or just take exception to the first few paragraphs and launch straight into a tirade?

    Comment by Tim — November 25, 2008 @ 9:45 am

  2. Tim: I did read the entire article, and the part about child development is simply justification for her belief that some people should not have children.

    Misa clearly says that some people should not have children, and she only offers one method for enforcing this: compulsory sterilisation. Both points are straight from the eugenics manual.

    Totalitarian measures normally begin with a gentle suggestion such as Misa’s.

    Comment by kiwipolemicist — November 25, 2008 @ 10:27 am

  3. Woah there. Her question ‘Forced sterilisation on the grounds of low IQ and low income, perhaps?’ seems tongue-in-cheek and not meant to be taken at face value.

    And what I read from the stuff about her co-worker’s mother was not that she should have been prevented by the state from having children, but that under the circumstances it would have been better if she had not.

    Comment by richie — November 25, 2008 @ 1:26 pm

  4. Just to be clear, I’m not defending her article in entirety, rather that I think she’s said something that she didn’t necessarily mean to convey. That is, I don’t really believe from her article that she really believes forced sterilisation is a good thing.

    When put in the context of the Nia Glassie case I think her reactions are probably not too distant from mine. I have two young children and found myself unable to read much of the detail that emerged during the trial. My thoughts towards the accused (and the Curtis’ father) were not unlike those that Misa has put on paper. Doesn’t mean I believe it (sterilisation) should be put into practice though, and I give Misa the benefit of the doubt that she also doesn’t really support it, rather she was expressing her own reactions to this case.

    Comment by Tim — November 25, 2008 @ 1:41 pm

  5. Richie: she is clearly in tacit agreement with those who say that some people should not be allowed to have children and considering the enforcement of such rules.

    If she takes such a totalitarian view why would I interpret her question as being tongue in cheek?

    Comment by kiwipolemicist — November 25, 2008 @ 1:51 pm

  6. Tim: see my comment above.

    Your interpretation may be correct, but to me it read as a proposition. A person who accepts that some people should not have children (as Misa does) is placing themselves on the moral high ground and for most people the next step is to consider how to impose what is “right” on those who are doing what is “wrong”.

    Comment by kiwipolemicist — November 25, 2008 @ 2:06 pm

  7. It is concerning. I see Tim’s points that it may have been a quick reaction and not convey her true views, but it is a column published in one of the biggest papers in the country so you would expect you’d check what you were writing a few times so as not to give people the wrong idea.

    I think we are being slowly indoctrinated that it is the State’s role to fix everything, and there are no moral absolutes, so people come up with these suggestions without even considering whether that is the role of the State or whether it is morally correct or not. It just sounds a logical idea (eugenics does sound logical in a twisted way which is why many supported it prior to WWII, it is just immoral) so they suggest it.

    Comment by Mr Dennis — November 26, 2008 @ 7:20 am

  8. I expect we will have to kill the state then….

    Comment by Reginald. — November 27, 2008 @ 1:37 am

  9. […] Harvey is proposing that children be taken away from parents at birth, which is a tad less extreme than Tapu Misa’s idea of forced sterilisations. […]

    Pingback by Should children be taken into state custody at birth? « Kiwi Polemicist — November 29, 2008 @ 2:21 am

  10. […] totalitarian methods of state control that will supposedly help – I have written about these here and here. However, history will show that no human method of dealing with child abuse is entirely […]

    Pingback by Why can’t child abuse be stopped? « CCL: Christian Classical Liberalist — November 29, 2008 @ 6:15 am

  11. Reginald: please explain what you mean by “kill the state”.

    Comment by kiwipolemicist — November 29, 2008 @ 10:19 pm

  12. […] to: Tapu Misa of the NZ Herald advocates forced sterilisations In my earlier post I wrote about Tapu Misa advocating forced sterilisations as a means of preventing child abuse, and […]

    Pingback by Update to: Tapu Misa of the NZ Herald advocates forced sterilisations « Kiwi Polemicist — December 2, 2008 @ 2:09 am

  13. It is an over-reaction over her column. Ofcourse you could argue that I (and others) see sarcasm or tongue n cheek, where you don’t. But based on the tone of her other articles you can see that she is not an advocate for forced sterilisation.

    Comment by Rhys — December 12, 2008 @ 3:17 pm

  14. Yes, I’ve read the update, and both articles by Tapu. The way I read it (1st article) was, as a parent her natural reaction is for child abusers to be stopped from procreating. But after the parental instincts have subsided, the practical/ethical/reasoned logic comes into play. She actually advocates for child nurturing (ie improving the environment a child is raised in) as the obvious (as oppose to forced sterilisation) and most effective way to (quoting Tapu in 2nd article:) “growing up smarter, healthier, more emotionally balanced, and – importantly for the economists – productive”.

    She spends the majority of BOTH articles outlining the ways we as families, as a community can support our children. Forced sterilisation (came across to me) in her articles as the extreme point, to which she then offers the more acceptable solution to the problems raised in the Nia Glassey death.

    Again quoting Tapu she says: “If there’s one thing the recent advances in brain development research (mentioned in last week’s column) have done, it’s to render obsolete the old nature vs nurture argument – and the idea that intellectual capacity is determined by genes alone. Or that high IQs are not to be found in the children of the poor.”

    This shows forced sterilisation along genetics is not practicable nor is it the most effective way to combat the social issues we face today. From my reading of her articles, she also means that forced sterilisation is not desirable either.

    Comment by Rhys — December 15, 2008 @ 2:00 pm

  15. Rhys: your interpretation may be correct, and my interpretation may be correct. Tapu Misa is somewhat vague and thus what she says is open to interpretation. This sort of vagueness is an excellent method of gradually introducing people to extreme ideas that would revolt them if they were presented boldly.

    The nature vs nurture argument is not obsolete as she says, genetics and environment both have a part to play.

    You say “She spends the majority of BOTH articles outlining the ways we as families, as a community can support our children.”. Therein is the fundamental problem with everything that Misa says.

    It is not the job of the community to raise or support children, it is the job of parents and parents alone. State interference in parenting is totalitarianism, eg Misa says “Making sure poorer communities have more early childhood centres, libraries, swimming pools and parks than liquor stores matters, too.”. Misa is advocating a totalitarian nanny state that controls what shops exist, supposedly for the “common good” (and a nanny state is a police state, both of which we have presently).

    As Mr Dennis says in his comment above, “I think we are being slowly indoctrinated that it is the State’s role to fix everything, and there are no moral absolutes, so people come up with these suggestions without even considering whether that is the role of the State or whether it is morally correct or not.”.

    As Madeleine commented on the Paula Bennett post (link below): “Some say it takes a village to raise a child but I say only the village idiot lets the village raise their child.”

    In summary, Misa is a leftist who believes that it is the job of the state to control the raising of children. Such people are a public menace and should be resisted by all those who value freedom.
    **********

    Misa shares the dangerous beliefs of Bob Harvey:
    https://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2008/11/29/should-children-be-taken-into-state-custody-at-birth/
    and Paula Bennett:
    https://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2008/11/19/paula-bennett-claims-ownership-of-all-new-zealand-children/

    The Marxist agenda behind these beliefs is explained here:
    https://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/finding-out-which-politicians-are-family-friendly-and-why-the-rest-arent/

    Comment by kiwipolemicist — December 15, 2008 @ 6:41 pm

  16. I thought this post was criticising her supposed stance of advocating for forced sterilisations, as oppose to attacking the totality of her political views.

    I’m not a Labour/Green supporter, so it’s quite amusing and ironic that you, as a “beneficiary”, are complaining about the leftist views of Tapu. You criticise her for her views of advocating for a society that looks after all, yet you benefit from such a society.

    As a beneficiary, shouldn’t you be depending on your own means rather than the tax-payers to prop you up?

    Or am I mis-reading your comments too?

    Comment by Rhys — December 16, 2008 @ 10:55 am

    • Rhys: in the post I was specifically attacking her advocacy for forced sterilisations, and her other leftist beliefs were mentioned in my comments.

      I am on the invalids benefit and I am not required to work, but I do work part time. When there is no alternative one is sometimes to forced to use something that one is not in favour of: e.g. I am not in favour of public health care, but I’m not going to refuse that care and needlessly die for my beliefs.

      Comment by kiwipolemicist — December 16, 2008 @ 5:12 pm

  17. “I am not in favour of public health care, but I’m not going to refuse that care and needlessly die for my beliefs.”

    Yes, I’ve read your profile on this site. But does the fact that you depend on the invalids benefit to survive, support Tapu’s leftist ideas about creating a society that supports all (including the sick)?

    Because logically, if we didn’t have a welfare state, there would be no benefit. If there was no benefit, this would threaten your survival.

    But perhaps my interpretation of your views are a bit of a stretch?

    Perhaps also, you are stretching Tapu’s comments too? Advocating for a society that looks after everyone, doesn’t necessarily equate to totalitarianism, does it?

    Comment by Rhys — December 18, 2008 @ 1:52 pm

    • Rhys: the quotes from your comment are in italics.

      But does the fact that you depend on the invalids benefit to survive, support Tapu’s leftist ideas about creating a society that supports all (including the sick)?
      No, not at all, because people in my situation do survive where there is no welfare state.

      Because logically, if we didn’t have a welfare state, there would be no benefit. If there was no benefit, this would threaten your survival.
      This is specious logic, based upon the assumption that the welfare state is the only means of survival for someone in my situation.

      Perhaps also, you are stretching Tapu’s comments too?
      I do not believe so, rather I am exposing the pernicious ideology behind them.

      Advocating for a society that looks after everyone, doesn’t necessarily equate to totalitarianism, does it?
      Yes it does, because it is a form of totalitarianism when the state takes money from people by force and gives it to other people. To put it another way, it is a form of totalitarianism when the state enslaves people for about 45% of every year by taking all the fruits of their labour for that period and gives those fruits to other people (people are enslaved by the state from 1 January to Tax Free Day). As a welfare recipient, I gain from the same system that oppresses me.

      But perhaps my interpretation of your views are a bit of a stretch?
      What, in a nutshell, is your interpretation of my views?

      Comment by kiwipolemicist — December 19, 2008 @ 9:17 am

  18. You said: “This is specious logic, based upon the assumption that the welfare state is the only means of survival for someone in my situation.”

    Then why don’t you get off the benefit? If there are alternative ways for you to survive, then why are you not using them? It’s a bit rich to damn the welfare state on one hand, but then enjoy it’s fruits on the other.

    In your most recent comment you say there are alternatives to the Welfare State for your survival, but in an earlier comment you said you’d needlessly die if you refused the public health care.

    In a nutshell, your views are contradictory to your actions.

    Comment by Rhys — December 19, 2008 @ 12:32 pm

  19. Rhys: I was mistaken in not clarifying my previous comment.

    When I said that there are alternate means of survival for someone in my situation, I was referring to situations where there is no welfare state. In NZ there are no alternate means of survival, unless a private benefactor makes an extremely generous offer to me.

    Where there is no welfare state people in my situation survive with the help of their families and/or private charities, and this also occurred in Western countries before the arrival of the welfare state. The welfare state has largely killed such beneficence because people expect the state to take care of people like me. This is is not unreasonable when the state steals about 45% of their income and promises cradle-to-grave care for everyone (an “iron rice bowl” in Chinese parlance). Yes, there are plenty of charities around, but none that will sustain life.

    History shows that when there are no taxes people are more inclined toward philanthropic activities (as a means of expressing their care for those who cannot fend for themselves), and they have a lot more cash with which to demonstrate that care. Where there is heavy taxation people largely consider the paying of taxes to be fulfilling their perceived duty in regard to caring for those who cannot fend for themselves.

    My actions do not contradict my beliefs, because no alternative actions are available to me.

    Comment by kiwipolemicist — December 19, 2008 @ 1:12 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: