The Dompost reports that Key, Hide and Garrett weren’t available to make substantive comment on Garrett’s plan to sterilise people.
Smile and wave wouldn’t rule it out. Hide hid. Spokesperson made non comment. And big brave Garrett may have left the country again.
What a dopey idea – have three or four kids, decide you want a vasectomy and to get one free you have to beat up one of the kids.
But both smile and wave and jeckyl and hide wanted the focus group results before they were prepared to put their opinions into the public arena. Talk about being gutless wonders.
Rebecca, if you want to advocate eugenics, it’s your funeral. If any political party wants to do so, it’s theirs. Until we, as a civilisation, have a discussion of the wider and deeper principles behind this proposal and at least thrash the philosophical and ethical and historical issues out, there can be no implementation of any policy which, in practice, does not weaken the very core of liberal civilisation.
There should be no debate on the merits until the fundamentals have been thoroughly worked out. That’ll take generations; you can’t just make it happen overnight. It probably can’t even begin until the last survivors of the Final Solution and the other abortive attempts at similar programmes are dead. Garrett and his apologists, and you yourself, are trying to skip the hard bit and go straight for the implementation. It cannot work.
L
Lew what I said was clearly tongue in cheek. I find it amusing that you choose to ignore the point of what I have said and instead prefer to focus on the issue of sterilization that is a non issue versus child abuse which is a real issue.
Why discuss something that is never going to happen? why not come out with solutions to protect the 30 children that that beaten, raped, molested, starved, kicked & verbally abused every day? Wouldn’t that be a more productive use of your time on this blog? These children will one day be adults, adults who are at a high risk of being further victimized or victimizing others.
This is what should be discussed.
Don’t worry, your stance is a very common one – hence the silent majority. I also find it interesting that all the Red Alert regulars have steered clear from this issue. This to me, speaks volumes.
Rebecca, if you genuinely think that sterilisation is a non-issue, then there’s simply no point in having the discussion.
L
Mark its wrong because it is an expression of a feeling of superiority and that leads down bad road
Don’t care to discuss the obviously stupid deleted Clare comments. Can even believe that this arrogance and these thoughts float through the heads of some twits.
For a sitting MP to even think of suggesting (or commenting) on this dumb idea shows two things:
1/ He is stupid (on the issue)
2/ He is stupid (on the reaction of the public/culture of NZ or however you like to put it)
He is probably too “holier than thou” & “I know better than everyone else” to Quit, but he should. He should be fired by Hide, but probably wont. Or we can not vote for him at election time, (woops MMP- We will have forgotten this comment election time & hes has no seat to fight one on one with someone who will remember).
Mark
Can you explain how sterilisation will deal with child abuse, as opposed to the very isolated area of preventing known abusers from breeding?
My inclination is to take Mr Garrett’s $5000 per head, and the money required to set up and administer that system and apply it to existing, identified and effective programmes to reduce child abuse across the board.
What continues to stun me is when someone makes an off the cuff remark like sterilisation without thinking it through practically so many jump on it as though existing programmes to address the issue dont exist. JUST because mark and others don’t know a programme exists doesn’t mean they are not out there and making a difference. Worse is an elected individual purporting to have knowledge of this very area doesnt know it, or doesnt feel compelled to support it.
I wonder, what reaction to my suggestion that all white middle/upper income men who have a second family, while trying to avoid support of the first children ought to be sterilised?
For child Abuse (& other social issues eg gangs) I’ve always though it is best to look at the females involved. How many young boys would like being in a gang, with no moles. How can you beat your kids, if you have no-one to breed with/ are not living with the kids.
I’ll ignore Dylans remark because its not worth replying to
@Tracey Rebecca said it better then I can but heres why it’ll deal with child abuse
Deleted. Could you rephrase without being so offensive. Clare
now im not saying it will end child abuse (frankly i dont think anything can) BUT it will stop those who do abuse kids having more kids to abuse
simple innit
(of course making it compulsory for parents committing certain crimes wouldn’t be a bad idea either…)
oh and on this issue i really hope winston peters doesnt run with it as i wouldnt want to vote for him
Jeremy you are making 2 assumptions: first that only men beat their kids and second that the issue pertains to physical abuse. Sterilization doesn’t stop old uncle tom from molesting little jimmy now does it?
@Clare
It was not an offensive comment, if you type of people don’t like straight talk then thats fine but don’t start a topic on it becase thats what you’ll get
Mark. it was offensive. And if you want to keep commenting, which is fine, then write want you want to say without being offensive. Clare
Mark, sorry, I missed your earlier comment. If you think sterilising child abusers and cheerfully tolerating child abuse are our only two options, then you might as well join Rebecca in the category of people with whom it’s not possible to have a reasoned discussion on this topic.
To answer your question to Tracey: no, it’s not simple. The core error is thinking that it is simple. if it were simple, it’d have been solved already — by any of the many different means previously tried, including the systematic sterilisation of unfit persons as already undertaken in India, Sweden, Germany and the USA (to name a few recent examples).
L
Lew YOU miss the point, we already ARE cheerfully tolerating child abusers, not only that but aiding and abetting them as well
Oh dear. Lew how amusing and incredibly ironic you state that I am not able to have a “reasoned discussion on the topic”. Deleted. Personal abuse. Clare
I am one of the few actually addressing the nature of child abuse. You are debating an idea that will only ever be theoretical.
Why is it people insist on debating moot points? Garrett is an egg and no government will ever be interested in carrying out the so-called ‘moral’ equivalent of what Hitler did the jews.
The issue instead rests on the fact that Garrett being contentious has brought our most insidious issue back into the limelight before another case like Nia Glassie has hit the news.
The sooner people like you and our MPs recognise this the sooner something might actually be done about addressing the issue.
My issue with this blog is that Labour and people like you are turning such a hideous issue into political football. How dare you.
Clare – fair enough although I thought it was mild! Btw – do you know who won out of Trevor and Chris…results haven’t been loaded yet :p
Rebecca, those who doubt what you say need only read mark’s comments on various threads, he keeps asking what is wrong with the idea, as though it must merit if someone does not directly address his question, although some have attempted.
So far his defence of the idea is “common sense” whatever the hell that means.
Garrett and those who now agree with him DO actually believe it has merit… THAT is part of the point. People who think Auckland rugby loses because it doesnt have white boys in the “thinking” positions dont consider themselves racist “just realists”.
I dont know why the MPs are running scared of this one, of course some, as you point out, are just running today (wink)
Mark you are building a straw man and then dismantling him. NOT favouring sterilisation is not the same as tolerating abuse.
The anti smacking legislation was part to remove a defence (which was not only abhorrent but used by several, and accepted by several juries) but it laid out a message to society about the basic behaviour toward children we will tolerate.
Now, here’s the interesting bit HOW many of the people who did not support that legislation now think sterilisationis a great idea? I would bet a large number. It’s because as parent sthey assume their own treatment of their children is fine, so how dare a law label them otherwise, AND it never occurs to them that it would be THEY being sterilised. Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
You are beginning to sound like those who say that if others cannot prove God doesn’t exist, then that must be proof god exists.
@Tracey
Heres what I believe:
If a person abuses their kid and that person (note I’m not say which sex, ethnicity or class they are) is then sterilised then they can’t produce anymore kids to abuse
Not Nazism, not eugenics just trying to stop people with no morals or ethics from producing more people without any morals or ethics
Here are some good discussion points
So what’s wrong with the sterilization idea that David Garret personally endorses?
1. It doesn’t actually address the real root causes of child abuse, instead it wrongly treats the fertility of certain individuals and groups as a causal factor in acts of child abuse
2. It creates a situation where abusing children will open up the possibility of earning an offender $5000 (by becoming sterilized after they commit acts of abuse)
3. It doesn’t prevent child abuse, it only responds to abuse after it has occurred – this is a reactive policy that does nothing proactive to prevent child abuse happening in the first place
4. It ultimately rejects the truth that our actions involve a freewill decision, as it suggests that the actions of child abusers are beyond their control
5. It is grounded in the pseudo-science of eugenics, which wrongly claims that some people are genetically inferior/evil, and that they must be prevented from breeding in order to prevent harm to society
6. It is grounded in hopelessness, as it rejects the possibility that a human person can choose to reject evil and find redemption by overcoming previous evil behaviors
7. It reduces the family, and important social issues relating to family life, to little more than economic units, where success or failure is measured by financial costs and outcomes
8. Voluntary sterilization would eventually become forced sterilization, and the criteria for sterilization would continue to broaden to include all manner of people and family situations
9. It would give the state an unhealthy power over individuals and families (even when it is voluntarily contracted in to)
10. It doesn’t encourage offenders to recognize and be contrite about their acts of child abuse, instead it encourages them to reject responsibility for their actions with the false idea that their actions were/are beyond their control.
http://familylifenz.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/ten-good-reasons-why-david-garret%E2%80%99s-sterilization-concept-is-a-really-bad-idea/
Will we also enforce abortions for those female abusers who slipped through the system?
Seems to me theres two type of people here
Those that believe that individuals rights are more important then the community and those who believe that believe the community is more important then the individual
@Tracey
1. It doesn’t actually address the real root causes of child abuse, instead it wrongly treats the fertility of certain individuals and groups as a causal factor in acts of child abuse
So what? It doesn’t pretend to, its just trying to stop these people producing more kids to hurt
2. It creates a situation where abusing children will open up the possibility of earning an offender $5000 (by becoming sterilized after they commit acts of abuse)
Wrong, if its made voluntary you’ll only have to sign up for it not hurt someone to get a refered
3. It doesn’t prevent child abuse, it only responds to abuse after it has occurred – this is a reactive policy that does nothing proactive to prevent child abuse happening in the first place
True but then nothing happening at the moment is doing that either and this is conjunction with such a plan would work well
4. It ultimately rejects the truth that our actions involve a freewill decision, as it suggests that the actions of child abusers are beyond their control
So?
5. It is grounded in the pseudo-science of eugenics, which wrongly claims that some people are genetically inferior/evil, and that they must be prevented from breeding in order to prevent harm to society
Nope just trying to stop people who’ve shown they don’t mind hurting children from producing more children
6. It is grounded in hopelessness, as it rejects the possibility that a human person can choose to reject evil and find redemption by overcoming previous evil behaviors
7. It reduces the family, and important social issues relating to family life, to little more than economic units, where success or failure is measured by financial costs and outcomes
Again so?
8. Voluntary sterilization would eventually become forced sterilization, and the criteria for sterilization would continue to broaden to include all manner of people and family situations
Sounds like the slippery slope arguement in which case we’ed better not try anything
9. It would give the state an unhealthy power over individuals and families (even when it is voluntarily contracted in to)
How? Its voluntary
10. It doesn’t encourage offenders to recognize and be contrite about their acts of child abuse, instead it encourages them to reject responsibility for their actions with the false idea that their actions were/are beyond their control
Actually it encourages them to make an actual decision
Tracey yes I agree.
Mark okay, in addition to what Tracey has detailed above, here’s the short answer:
It is wrong because it is immoral and unethical. It is a ’sticky plaster’ of the worse possible as it does nothing to stop children from being abused in the first place;in my opinion, where one child is abuse we as a society has failed.
The other thing that it would clearly fail to address is that fact that most abuses, especially sexual abuse are not actually reported until much much later, if at all. And yes, then there is the issue of the women who missed out on the injection or hysterectomy – what then? Compulsory abortion? My God, wouldn’t Hitler be proud.
Further, as Tracey has said it does nothing to teach the offenders that what they are doing is so wrong. So it’s not a solution, it’s just a quick fix.
While I perhaps indulged your argument a little with my comments, I in no way meant to imply that I agree that sterilization is the answer or even a valid proposition. It isn’t.
I want Labour to avoid turning this into a mud-slinging match and just give the issue the respect it deserves. By all means yes, everyone should ignore Garrett’s ’solution’ but they should not ignore the 10s of children that suffer in silence each day.
It frustrates me no end that people are prepared only to debate the so-called merits of sterilization rather than the issue it is meant to solve.
I want someone to take leadership on this issue and recognise that as a society we have huge issues across all demographics that translate into the abuse & neglect of 30 children every day.
We need to change the way society, the way WE, view our children. They are viewed by and large as being no more important (sometimes even less) than the family house or car. This has got to change.
Seems to me there’s two types of people here — those who see everything as clear-cut obvious black and white binary choices, and those who recognise that the world is a complicated place.
Anyway, I’ve said my bit. Enjoy your weekend, folks.
L
@Lew I’m one of those who think the world is complicated. In my job, you have to make choices. But you try to give issues a good hearing.
@Rebecca re your comment
“I want Labour to avoid turning this into a mud-slinging match and just give the issue the respect it deserves.”
Don’t you think you’re getting a good hearing here? Crikey, not sure where else you’d find a platform for all your comments where a bunch of politicians will read them and sometimes respond. Same goes for everyone.
Clare I was referring to the original post by Trevor.
It also sounds like you think that by listening to the opinions of your voters you are doing us a favour? I’m not sure if that is what you meant, but if so, well, isn’t that your job? We elect you and ultimately pay the taxes that pay your salary.
Whilst you are clearly giving voters and me the respect we deserve, but I am not sure you always give the same respect to an insidious issue like child abuse.
The only people that have been discussing it in depth on here have been other punters like me.
Mark, your replies made me smile. Your selective replies do also.
“nothing happening at the moment” – that is the crux of my argument with you, there are many things happening at the moment to address and change patterns of abuse. That you don’t hear about them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Clare, me too. Cheers for your engagement.
L
Rebecca – this and facebook are for me a bit of an experiment at different ways of having engagement with people. It will be a bit political – and sometimes needs to be to attract attention and sometimes inevitable as one make position clear.
Trevor of course I expect a political angle to a degree as you guys are our respected members of Parliament.
Where I get frustrated though is that sometimes seems to be all about politics and not solutions.
Child abuse has stayed on the back-burner for too long.
The only way things will really change for the better is if we see initiatives from the top down, initiatives that don’t involved genetic cleansing!
I also think it is the one issue that must be devoid of cross party conflicts.
However, I have said my piece here and I have emailed my proposal to Hon. Paula Bennett so that is pretty much the extent of what I can do other than continuing to be vocal about the issue and keep up my occasional contribution to one of the groups that work with these children and their families day in and day out.
I think you are right Rebecca. And if the government has a real proposal then of course we would want to work with them on it.
Are convicted child abusers “free”, or sentenced?
Are those in prison having children?
Do we try and rehabilitate people before they are released?
I suspect that some people are using child abuser as a synonym for some profile of a portion of the underclass.
Are we really not debating the presumption that certain people fit the profile of perps and there should be some way of preventing them from breeding?
Which is of course, a form of class warfare.
Frankly, raising the issue of sterilisation, is not to focus our attention on child abuse but exploit it for political purposes.
Roarprawn has an excellent article on her blog well worth a read.
http://roarprawn.blogspot.com/search/label/sterilisation
Shudder
Geez SPC deleted abusive Trevor
@Rebecca you are right, some form of leadership from our politicians (from both sides) on this issue would be welcome not political point scoring
As an example this is a perfect discussion starter, yet what opinion do we have from one of our elected ministers
“What a dopey idea – have three or four kids, decide you want a vasectomy and to get one free you have to beat up one of the kids.”
I’m sure any law created could certainly make sure this kind of carry on couldn’t be done but with this kind of attitude nothing will ever change…shame really as its a good opportunity
ps Trev while I respect the opportunity to add to this debate and am quite impressed with your willingness to talk directly to the people (refreshingly I might add) I feel you’re quite heavy-handed with your censorship
as an example I feel spc is being paranoid with his view that: “I suspect that some people are using child abuser as a synonym for some profile of a portion of the underclass.
Are we really not debating the presumption that certain people fit the profile of perps and there should be some way of preventing them from breeding?”
Hes looking for something that isn’t there
SPC/Mark: yes certain people are more likely to be “fit the profile of the perps” – these certain people are those adults that are survivors of childhood abuse, something which in one form or another, crosses all demographics, all cultures and all races.
Not all survivors of childhood abuse go on to become abusers but ALL abusers have themselves been abused.
How do you stop this cycle? Well Garrett has advocated the easy way out and suggested sterilization.
If you all genuinely care about this issue, about these children and about the future wellbeing of OUR children then you will not bother with giving someone like Garrett the validation he clearly does not deserve and instead actually start coming up with real solutions that the government can work with.
By constantly debating a non issue such as compulsory sterilization, which will never in a million years be implemented, you are all skirting around the real issue and worse still, belittling the horrific experience of anyone who has ever survived child abuse.
No, not all abusers themselves have been abused, though the percentage must be high.
Spud you know that for a fact do you? That not all abusers have been abused by way of verbal, physical, sexual or emotional abuse? That not all have been maltreated or neglected in some way?
I would love to know where you get your research as the research that I have read from the Ministry of Social Development, Methodist Social Services, Jigsaw Family Services and the Children’s Commission states otherwise. However, where this issue is concerned I am always open to new research…
I take your point that a huge percentage have been and that the cause and effect thing has been proven. I was just being pedantic. But what I mean is that there are people who a psychopaths and have no empathy, not all of them commit crimes, and in that way abuse can come out of the blue.
I’m sure your research is excellent and I meant no offense. I just wanted to point it out. truce?
Spud thank you and I agree there are always exceptions; there will be the odd person who perhaps due to whatever illness, commits and appalling crime even though they never had any real childhood trauma. I would suggest that Mark Lundy was perhaps that exception and even perhaps Clayton Weatherston. Both men seemed to have okay backgrounds yet both had the wiring of socio paths. However, for most people that is not the case and in many ways that is a good thing as it means that we have a chance to change things e.g. work with the at-risk littlies and their families so as to stop the cycle of abuse. The big question is which MP is going to be brave enough to take the first step
Doug, “excellent” is in the eye of the beholder. Simplistic yes, excellent??…weeeeeeeeeelll
Rebecca wrote
“How do you stop this cycle? Well Garrett has advocated the easy way out and suggested sterilization.”
Of course, this is where the idea is most ludicrous, because it doesnt stop the cycle because for sterilisation to be invoke at least one child must be abused. That child may grow up to be an abuser and will be permitted one child, before the mythical sterilisation steps in. Can a vasectomy getter have it undone? Is a vasectomy as costly as a tubal ligation or hysterectomy, I know only one of these procedures takes 15 minutes. Recovery time?
It is ridiculous to suggest an “answer” lies in a form of castration after one child is born and mistreated. Take the oodles of money it will cost for such a scheme and put it into proper prevention.
I was abused as a child, sexually and not by my parents. Sterilistion of my abuser would have achieve nothing, his children were grown (with their own children (shudder)- Could I have the $5000 Garrett would give to him? I wasnt abused by a member of the Catholic Church or a Govt funded institution so I just got the trauma, the depression, the loss of trust of significant adults, the stunted emotional growth…no money.
I’m sorry to hear that, Tracey.
Thanks Spud. I’m all good (wink). Hard work, but am all good. It’s funny how all the people I’ve spoken to who have been abuse din some way dont embrace sterilisation as the answer cos they know it wont solve the problem. Mr Garrett is overpaid.
Yes I agree Tracey and he clearly hasn’t ‘lived’ like you and I have.
Actually I would also say that it is only those that haven’t been abused, known someone who has been abused or worked with abused children that steer around the issue and debate the merits of sterilization instead of focusing on a solution for child abuse. Anyone who really understands the issue would not better than to belittle it in such a way.
These are all valid and good arguements and I tip my hat to you both but I still believe that fixing some of these people in conjunction with other solutions can only be of benefit
I’d be interested in either new or old ideas that could make a difference in this area – through this site or my email :- trevor.mallard@parliament.govt.nz thanks
Mark
Out of interest what “other” solutions do you have in mind when you write that.
I cant help but wonder, when people like Mr Garrett make such ridiculous suggestions and run and hide, if they doth protest too much. I can recall the Rev Graham Capill espousing castration for offenders at one time. I’m thinking he’s pleased he lost that round.
Trevor
Thanks for the offer. Will give it some further thought.
Trevor
I believe we have to expand our strategy (and it is already happening in parts of NZ and in particular communities) to include the family.
hard as it is for some to believe, an adult can inflict appalling stuff on a child without other adults in the house or vicinity knowing. However, there are always signs, no matter how much a child tries to conceal them. We have to find ways to flush out the truth and hold those who knew but did nothing accountable. This absolutely starts with education. Children must have and know they have SAFE (non family) places to go to report anything happening to them. Children and their families are threatened by abusers, eithe r I will kill you or your mother or whomever if you tell. This is powerful stuff to a child who wants nothing more than to please adults, especially family.
When a child is abused, and no one comes forward or can be found responsible by police or CYPS we (society) bring the family into it. This will seem odd and foreign to many European NZers who find it hard to understand how a brother can beheld responsible for another brother or siblings actions. However, in traditional societies this was always one of the strategies to address wrongdoing.
This is a version of my brothers keeper but the real purpose is to have families looking out for each and their weakest links (often children, sometimes women and dissabled members and so on). IF I am to be held to account in some way for my brother or sisters failings I will NOT stand by when they do something they ought not. I will confront them, try to change them or report them.
This is one way to break a cycle. How many of us, and I include myself in this, have walked on when we have seen a clearly angry exchange in the street, even pushing and shoving. Or done nothing when we hear a violent (verbal) exchange between our neighbours which makes our hair stand on end.
We need a dedicated hotline for people to report these kinds of incidents. Sure the police or whoever wont be able to get to everything quickly, or even at all until the incident is passed, but it will be recorded, and further measures can kick in. Children being quickly separated and interviewed BUT NOT with a family member present. An Uncle or Aunt or grandparent wont do. It needs to be a state appointed person to remove the family misguided loyalty.
We need to get real on consequences for what is always abuse. For example, possession of 300,000 pornographic images is a minimum 3 months in prison (note). NO name suppression unless the victim requests it.
(note) the minimum should be however long is required to satisfy the minimum time to get settled into prison (Prison service knows how long this is) and into an effective and proven programme. No choice. Compulsory. We have them away from society BUT we focus entirely on behaviour change. Family is included in these programmes. We guarantee the offenders job. Once released they can return to their job. IF we totally dislocate a person we drive them to their “Happy place” and for child abusers that is abusing children so it is imperative we dont plunge them into unemployment and further dislocation.
Obsession with pornographic images, particularly in this quantity, is statistically almost always a precursor to escalated behaviour. No home detention (how ridiculous that concept is for certain crimes, including white collar). Unless the home they are released to while undergoing treatment is a relative, not a home with children in it and the relative is held accountable for their movements… Yup, am suggesting if a relative is in charge and the person breaks curfews/detention or anything then the relative is in the gun. Obviously this will deter some relatives from agreeing so prison it is.
It’s not about going easy on offenders but about finding a genuine way to change their behaviour and break the cycle.
There is little point (but some point for sure) in educating children if others in the home continue and accept the behaviour.
As a society we have to stop sending mixed messages, and understand that abuse is on a scale. we engage experts with proven programmes and identification (of abuse behaviour). When people begin to show up in the system with some of these behaviours we red flag them. we take some kind of intervening step no matter how minor, and this puts the person on notice that something is not right. Of course the extent of this is govern by privacy laws, and the right of freedom of movement etc… BUT if we change our way of viewing those freedoms from “society” to “society’s vulnerable”, that is we make it a child centred approach. Weigh up the potential problem/harm to a child versus the freedom rights of adults.
I know some of the pitfalls and negatives already but we have to weigh that up against the pitfalls and negatives of approaching it as we do now.
The problem was highlighted by the s59a debate over the Crimes Act, when push comes to shove adults prefer their rights to those over their children. You can paint this any way you like but fighting to retain the right to hit your child when you boil it down says my child is worth less than I am. There are an infinite number of disciplinary methods that are available to parents who can be bothered learning them and using them, being patient with the process. Hitting is a cop out, it is easy and it often reflects the frustration and anger or stress of the parent far more than the misdemeanor.
We have to start at the beginning, and not assume white middle class people are automatically more equipped to be parents and so dont need education.
What about compulsory parental class as part of pre natal? Not just how to change nappies etc etc but how to bring up children. Role plays (Hate them myself but they work ) putting expectant parents in situations of terrible twos, first day of school, a fight with another child and so on and so on. While focusing parents to be on their child and strategies they are also learning about their own attitudes and approaches.
Having a second child? You still do the parenting course, but now it is for parents of more than one child, and so on…
I’ve gone on too long