Tuesday, 5 August 2008

Child abuse needs urgent action

In reaction to the wave of brutality on children since the start of this year, a litany of horror itemised on the front page of today's Herald under the news that a four-month-old Papakura baby is on life support after "non accidental" head injuries, Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro says "a lot of the problem came back to how the abusive parents were raised themselves.  It is time something is done," she says, "to ensure we get it right for the next generation."

She's right of course.  Something must be done.  Urgently.  Three deaths and multiple cases of brutality since January this year -- atrocities that parents and step-parents are inflicting on their own children -- shows that whatever is being done now is not only not working to protect children, it's actively putting hem in harm's way. 

Something must be done.

The first thing that must be done follows from the fact that Kiro and her predecessors have used their office not to advance the cause of children, but for the sole purpose of grasping every opportunity to advance the nationalisation of New Zealand children.  Her office should be be disestablished forthwith.

The second thing that must happen follows from the failure of Sue Bradford and John Key's anti-smacking law to do anything at all to arrest the tidal wave of brutality, which is its immediate abolition and the return of  the power of honest discipline of their offspring to good New Zealand parents -- who are being punished for the sins of the few without the few themselves even feeling the effect.

The third thing that should happen follows from identifying the nature of those who are predominantly killing their children, which is predominantly children who kill their own children, i.e., people who are paid by taxpayers to have children they don't want , who kill those unwanted children with barely a moment's reflection -- and sometimes pause to eat McDonalds as they head off to hospital to drop off the bodies. 

The overarching answer is obvious: It's time to stop paying no-hopers to breed.  Here's how to do it.

UPDATELiberty Scott points out there's a few more things that need to be done, in addition to the cessation of paying no-hopers to breed.


  1. Too true, sadly though, being election year, nothing will get done, I bet. I thought Kiro should have mentioned 'this' generation, because they could still be helped and saved if something real was done.

  2. I'd say a lot more needs to be done PC. There is sentencing of criminals, those who have committed serious violent or sexual offences, regardless of whether or not they were with children, are unfit to be parents. Part of their sentences should be to bar them from living with anyone under the age of 16, this being part of breaking the cycle. Nothing is a bigger catalyst to criminal behaviour and child abuse than abuse as a child - and while it wont stop it, taking children away from recividist violent and sexual criminals would be a good start.

    Frankly the anti-smacking law makes not a jot one way or the other, but welfare does - big time. .

  3. The anti-smacking law make no differences to the abusers but it does matter to innocent parents prosecuted for disciplining their children (including a trivial flick to the ear).

    From the last line of the Herald article: "The Government is spending $14 million on a campaign to make family violence socially unacceptable."
    Oh. That's socially unacceptable now is it? Good thing the government's spending the money to tell us that. Sheesh!

  4. Yes, good points Scott. A lot more does need to be done, but I'm sure you agree a necessary condition of turning it around is the cessation of payments to no-hopers for breeding.

    And no, as we all know the anti-smacking law makes not a jot of difference to people killing their children -- but that was the ridiculous claim used at the time by the likes of Kiro and Bradford to take the right to honest discipline away from good parents.

    It's time to recognise the lie for what it was.

  5. "but that was the ridiculous claim used at the time by the likes of Kiro and Bradford .."

    And Clark.

  6. ?Let's make it legal for parents to assault their kids. That'll stop child abuse!

    I assume the above is libertarian logic, not like the logic the rest of us use.

    Child abuse is caused by the welfare state

    I assume this is based on libertarian history: not like the history the rest of us read. Yes, of course child abuse never existed back before the welfare state. Those Victorian times were famous for how well kids were treated then...

  7. Go back to sleep, Anonymous. The Papakura infant currently fighting for his abused wee life must be thanking his lucky stars for Bradford's bill.

    Just imagine how much worse it might have been for him without it.

    If the tiny soul *should* live, ask him in 10 years time if a smack on the hand for, say, being cheeky constitutes "abuse".

    Oh, and who the hell's talking about Victorian times, re welfare, for God's sake?

    Stick to the point. NZ state welfare in the 21st century is a monster. Soulless, mindless and heartless.

  8. what is being done about child abuse... currently?



1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.