Basher Bennett rides to Hekia’s rescue

Written By: Mike Smith - Date published: 3:26 pm, June 6th, 2012 - 41 comments
Categories: animal welfare, child welfare, Hekia parata, same old national - Tags:

Same old National – when they’re in trouble, out comes the club for a distracting headline. Hekia Parata’s under fire and digging herself into a very deep hole, so Paula Bennett rides to the rescue with the “news” that Cabinet is discussing allowing judges to direct miscreant parents not to have children on the grounds that they can ban miscreant dog-owners from having dogs. They can already take the children away and did so for 148 children last year.

Who knows what the judges think about this hospital pass – let’s hope the media sees it for what it is.

[Bunji: fixed link]

41 comments on “Basher Bennett rides to Hekia’s rescue ”

Comments are now closed

weka 1

6 June 2012 at 3:38 pm

Mike that link’s not right.
Uturn 2

6 June 2012 at 3:42 pm

Bennett wrestling with Hekia to see who can stay in the path of an oncoming media steamroller. My bet is it’ll get both of them. Where do these people come from?
mickysavage 3

6 June 2012 at 3:50 pm

What is really sad is that kids are taken from their parents from birth already. No further law change is needed.

If they are serious the only further thing that the Government can do is ban adults from doing the wild thing.

This creates useful cover but it is totally unrealistic. Unless the Government intends to involve itself in private affairs the way no democratic government has ever done before.
- Draco T Bastard 3.1
  
  6 June 2012 at 4:19 pm
  
  Unless the Government intends to involve itself in private affairs the way no democratic government has ever done before.
  
  Could have sworn that homosexuality used to be illegal…
  - mickysavage 3.1.1
    
    6 June 2012 at 4:26 pm
    
    RIght you are Draco. I should have changed the last sentence to “for the last 25 years”.
- Dr Terry 3.2
  
  6 June 2012 at 4:32 pm
  
  This is a “democratic” government? News to me!
Tom Gould 4

6 June 2012 at 4:09 pm

Sad really. Their diversions get more and more extreme. The idea is simply nonsense. No judge will issue such an order. Christ, they won’t even take your car and crush it. But its a great headline, and the crazy shock jocks will go into hyperdrive. The pre-testing shows it could be worth a point or two in the polls, I hear.
- Maui 4.1
  
  7 June 2012 at 2:48 pm
  
  You mean it was focus group tested by Crosby-Textor ?
  
  What is your source .. (if publishable) ?
Vicky32 5

6 June 2012 at 4:32 pm

What worries me most about this is, that some parents have been falsely convicted of murdering their children (there was an example on Stuff on Friday, I think) – I am trying to find the link.
As New Scientist has pointed out recently, diagnosing shaken baby syndrome is not as easy or faultless as it seems.

This is not the link I wanted but it will serve, as it makes part of the point I wanted to make.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/features/4395244/Guilty-until-proven-innocent
- Olwyn 5.1
  
  6 June 2012 at 4:55 pm
  
  Yes, that worries me too Vicky. I fear that for a certain type showing up at a hospital, abuse rather than accident may be the first port of call. And fear of such accusations may drive people to avoid hospital when their kids have accidents, thus risking accusations of neglect. I recall a Dr Damian Wojcik, an experienced forensic doctor, claiming that the Kahui twins did not die from being shaken but from Barlow’s disease, which is an infant form of scurvy. He was soundly dissed by others of course, but his diagnosis seemed plausible to me, given that they were bottle-fed premature twins, looked after by an inexperienced and semi-literate 16 year old. He would neither have understood the instructions on the formula, nor the fact that babies reach a point of starvation where they no longer cry.
  
  http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10657828
  - Vicky32 5.1.1
    
    6 June 2012 at 5:10 pm
    
    . And fear of such accusations may drive people to avoid hospital when their kids have accidents, thus risking accusations of neglect.
    
    My nephew Andy was known as ‘No Brain No Pain’ and I saw examples of his behaviour when he was three (at a bowling alley with the extended family) – to use my sister’s/mother’s phrase he was ‘a bull at a gate’. Constantly hurting himself. C., took him to the doctor, whose new practice nurse called CYFS in, and bang, C & K., ended up in compulsory parenting classes! (It didn’t occur to anyone to look at their daughter, and her complete lack of injuries and maybe wonder if maybe C and K weren’t abusing Andy?)
    
    Andy was such a liability that when he was 22 he drove an SUV over a cliff and ended up being air-freighted to Welly hospital. Sheer carelessness, no drink, no drugs, no abuse etc, just stupidity. It took until he got married and became a parent the following year, for him to stop having asinine accidents… But back when he was little, C and K were very lucky to be comparatively wealthy, and to have a GP who, unlike the practice nurse, knew the family well… Had it been me, a DPB mother, I’d never have seen my children again! 🙁
Dr Terry 6

6 June 2012 at 4:34 pm

Well, this must mean that judges, surely, will order all these rich corporate body criminals to have no children! (Like hell!)
Dr Terry 7

6 June 2012 at 4:36 pm

Just to add that any judge would likely have ordered Bennett not to have her child (given enough notice!)
Vicky32 8

6 June 2012 at 4:37 pm

Finally I have found it! (It took a wee search as I couldn’t remember the headline)
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/6995376/Dad-vows-to-fight-Starship-slur
weka 9

6 June 2012 at 5:00 pm

Is anyone else getting a whiff of misogyny? The Panel on RNZ just before all were assuming that the parent was the mother. And that she was on the DPB.

Does anyone have the stats on who kills/severely abuses their kids, by gender and beneficiary status?

Of the 148 of children taken at birth last year, what was the make up of the family, and why were the children taken? How many of the parents had convictions for child abuse?

What will the judge order, and how will the police enforce it, if the offending parent is male?

Or the pregnancy is a result of rape?

Is abortion on demand going to be made available to women who have received the court order?
- Vicky32 9.1
  
  6 June 2012 at 5:13 pm
  
  Is abortion on demand going to be made available to women who have received the court order?
  
  By using that weasel phrase, you make it sound as if the mother would want or indeed beg for, the chance to be rid of her child. Don’t jump to such an asinine conclusion. Not even all raped women want abortion!
  - mike e 9.1.1
    
    6 June 2012 at 5:32 pm
    
    we might as well bring the chinese communist party to contract the job
  - weka 9.1.2
    
    6 June 2012 at 5:34 pm
    
    Well duh.
    
    If the state is insisting that some people are not allowed to have children, then the corollary is that those women should have free access to choose abortion if they want to. Women do get pregnant by mistake after all. Emphasis on the word choose.
    
    No-one has ever said abortion on demand meant compulsory abortion.
    - McFlock 9.1.2.1
      
      6 June 2012 at 9:10 pm
      
      No-one has ever said abortion on demand meant compulsory abortion.
      
      Except one or two people who oppose abortion on demand.
- John M 9.2
  
  6 June 2012 at 6:12 pm
  
  “Is abortion on demand going to be made available to women who have received the court order?”
  
  I’m assuming that by referring to abortion in this context you don’t mean “abortion on demand” at all because it simply doesn’t follow that a woman who “receives” an order to abort her child would “demand” ipso facto an abortion. I’m guessing that what you’re trying to ask is will women who’ve “received” an order be “forced” to abort their child? I don’t think she could ever do this, it’d just be too much of an infringement of basic human rights. However, all of this talk does beg the question which is what more can Bennett expect to add to what’s happening now? Currently children are taken from parents when risk is identified. If a woman with an “order” has a child all that can happen is that the child is taken away. In theory all must be done to work towards allowing the child to return to his or her parents by, for example, giving the required support to those parents to allow this to happen and if it can’t or doesn’t the child is not returned, but the point is what more can Bennett expect to happen by introducing these silly “orders”? Will the parent be fined also, or imprisoned? Will the current policy of giving parents the necessary support so that the child can return home, if possible, in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, apply to situations involving these “orders”? If it doesn’t it’d clearly be in breach of that Convention which NZ has ratified. Whichever way you look at it, the whole thing, just like Parata’s Treasury-driven madness, is just stupid.
  - John M 9.2.1
    
    6 June 2012 at 10:37 pm
    
    Didn’t mean to say “…it simply doesn’t follow that a woman who “receives” an order to abort her child would “demand” ipso facto an abortion.”. Should read instead “…it simply doesn’t follow that a woman who “receives” an order would “demand” ipso facto an abortion.”
  - weka 9.2.2
    
    8 June 2012 at 2:30 pm
    
    I’m guessing that what you’re trying to ask is will women who’ve “received” an order be “forced” to abort their child?
    
    Nope. I was saying that if women are to have court orders saying that they’re not allowed to have any more children, then abortion needs to be a freely accessible and affordable service for the women that would choose abortion over having their baby stolen from them. Unlike it is now where access to abortion is determined by two specially certified doctors and via a counselor. That’s assuming that the woman lives somewhere where abortions are carried out, which isn’t the case in too many places in NZ.
    - Vicky32 9.2.2.1
      
      8 June 2012 at 5:05 pm
      
      abortion over having their baby stolen from them
      
      What is abortion if it’s not having “their baby stolen from them”?
- David H 9.3
  
  7 June 2012 at 9:17 pm
  
  It’s starting to look like 1939-45 Germany to me. Rather than NZ 2012.
Stephen Doyle 10

6 June 2012 at 5:14 pm

What about making the fathers sterile as well?
Robert Atack 11

6 June 2012 at 5:23 pm

Paula thought this was an issue close to home for her, then she found out it was class sizes not arse sizes.
- weka 11.1
  
  6 June 2012 at 5:36 pm
  
  Was that a fat phobia joke? I couldn’t quite tell.
- John M 11.2
  
  6 June 2012 at 6:31 pm
  
  It’s absolutely frightening when watching both Parata and Bennett speak to see how incredibly thick these two are and that they’re making such important decisions about our childrens’ futures.
  - Anne 11.2.1
    
    6 June 2012 at 6:54 pm
    
    Two thick peas in a thick pod!
Daveosaurus 12

6 June 2012 at 5:40 pm

Watching the spin the Tories and the every-sperm-is-sacred brigade use to try to keep on each other’s good side after this is going to be entertaining…
MrSmith 13

6 June 2012 at 6:24 pm

They appear to be getting desperate at the moment Mike, state in the bedroom, more distractions or is this all early dog whistling to the conservatives as well, this lot aren’t stupid and they’re already thinking ahead.
North 14

6 June 2012 at 6:43 pm

Just watched the TV One clip of The Portly Leopard (not old enough – yet – to be a Cougar) coming across all spittley and puffy and outraged……….”Why not, we do it with dogs…….”.

Funny from the gob of this supreme dog (a certain dame of the realm in training). You could tell she doesn’t give it any credence though……it’s as you say……..bullshit distraction for The Princess Parata.

Given that you’re paid handsome bucks and accorded significant privilege how about focusing on children yet unborn into the poverty you claim to give a fuck about, you cow ?……..the poverty environment where a percentage of human beings turn feral, you cow.

Instead you play pathetic little smoke and mirrors games, you cow.

Disgraceful person !
xtasy 15

7 June 2012 at 1:09 am

They were in the 1930s wearing “brown” uniforms and marching down the streets in a country in central Europe, propagating eugenics and stuff like that. Now it seems, the uniforms are not needed, some few “selected” prime servants earning 600k a year – a with lighter shade of brown colour – have a similar mindset in NZ.

Let us abort, annihilate or whatever those “undesirables”, that may just be the start of things.

I cannot believe what goes on in this country down at the antipodean end of the globe.

Is this for real, or am I having nightmares?

Bennett must resign, must go, must be shamed and thrown off her chair, the longer she sits in Parliament, the more audacious, agressive, arrogant and mean spirited she gets.

That is not what this country should be about. Shame on her!
- Draco T Bastard 15.1
  
  7 June 2012 at 1:52 am
  
  Is this for real, or am I having nightmares?
  
  It’s for real, unfortunately, it’s also a bloody nightmare.
  
  Bennett must resign, must go, must be shamed and thrown off her chair, the longer she sits in Parliament, the more audacious, agressive, arrogant and mean spirited she gets.
  
  It’s not just Bennett but all of National and Act.
AAMC 16

7 June 2012 at 7:56 am

So, I’m a little confused. Where have all the Libertarians gone?

Surely this Central Planning is unacceptable to them, or is this another example of their two faced Liberalism?
Sanctuary 17

7 June 2012 at 8:27 am

it is pretty straightforward. issues like expose libertarians for what they are – authoritarian exceptionalists who want all the rules to apply to everyone else.
- SamHall 17.1
  
  7 June 2012 at 10:09 am
  
  Yep!
freedom 18

7 June 2012 at 9:41 am

Stuff poll has 30% voting for forced sterilization.

30 %!!! The concept of legally banning someone from having children is abhorrent enough as it precludes the reality that some people do change and not every act of historical abuse or neglect will necessarily be repeated. With proper services, monitoring and support many troubled people can and do achieve momentous growth, some even learn the error of their ways. Consequently they and their children often begin to live better lives. Granted it is an outcome that is not as common as we all would like but the reality is some people have had shit lives and need more help than others. I can agree that as a last resort legal enforcement of a non-procreation edict might save a few kids from harm but forced sterilization? The reality is it only empowers prejudice, the endgame of all authoritarian power structures. Without prejudice there can be no fear, without fear all governments are powerless.

Sieg Heil National!
Sieg fuckin Heil
- Tom Gould 18.1
  
  7 June 2012 at 10:09 am
  
  A little corporal cottoned on to this tactic way before Key and Bennett did. And he got real popular too, for a long while. Now that we’re into full on social engineering mode, can we please also give judges the power to order morbidly obese women to stop eating and lose weight? We could actually be more targetted than that, and make the orders apply only to morbidly obese women earning more than $250,000 a year?
Rehab 19

7 June 2012 at 3:23 pm

I don’t think Bennett really cares about anyone least of all vulnerable people. Her lack of understanding of the issues facing parents with little support is nothing short of horrifying. Good on Metiria for going after her, she needs to be exposed for being a hypocrite and a sell out. The more the public get to hear about what the real issues the better. However,I do have to wonder why Bennett is so intent on beating up on those that come from where she does. Underneath all her bravado she must really hate herself for needing state support in the first place. Which is not surprising considering the vitriol that has been expressed toward solo mothers on the DPB for decades. It is a pity that Bennett has fallen to victim to hating her own kind, she has allowed herself to be used by those who have an agenda that will never serve the vulnerable in our society.