Don’t feed the troll

Written By: - Date published: 10:46 am, June 7th, 2012 - 33 comments
Categories: babies, child abuse, child welfare, families - Tags:

Mike said it yesterday but it bears repeating: Bennett is running misdirection for the Parata.

Not letting bad parents have more kids is actually nothing new. It’s just the existing, and warranted, powers courts have to order CYFS to take newborns into custody and to ban people from contact with kids. With the meaningless* addition of making these orders before a woman is pregnant. No-one can show an example where this would have made a difference.

Good talkback bait though. Bennett’s just trolling again. Which is all she seems good for.

The Nats will be rubbing their hands will glee as the usual suspects line up to condemn what is little more than a populist restating of the existing law.

*(meaningless because it is not only previous instances of child abuse that can make a person unsafe to be a parent, and the ‘pre-banning’ won’t have any effect because it doesn’t actually stop a new pregnancy from occurring and any parent to be is going to ask for their no child order to be revoked when they or their partner become pregnant – the outcome will depend on the circumstances at the time. At best, you would get a slight chilling effect from a ‘ban’ but the kind of people who have newborn babies taken off them are a) unlikely to be chilled b) if they are chilled it will be from seeking medical assistance with a pregnancy, not from getting pregnant and c) must already know that they are likely to lose a new child under the existing law)

33 comments on “Don’t feed the troll ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. tc 1
    7 June 2012 at 11:28 am

    I like the comment from a follower of their welfare ‘reforms’ that this is consistent and expected from Bennett who appears to be channelling that other champion of the oppressed minorities, Rebstock.

  2. bbfloyd 2
    7 June 2012 at 11:54 am

    Chilling indeed to see the results of the herald online poll….over 70% of respondents thought it was a great idea…..

    I am seriously questioning whether there is any real point fighting for sensible, mature outcomes here in nz when it seems the bulk of the population appear to approve of this despicable behavior…

    If this is what we have become, then the best whoever is still trapped here can hope for is that the new owners have learnt what compassion means….

    I have resisted facing this, but it seems there is no choice now…. new zealanders really are irredeemably thick…….

    At least the rest of the world will get the benefit of what talent and intellect new zealand has produced up to now….All the new ideas, and innovations that gave us the good living standards we used to enjoy, will now be benefiting everyone but new zealanders….

    Another brilliant idea from johnny sparkles and his merry pranksters…. exporting our intelligence….It’ been wildly successful to this point……

    • Tom Gould 2.2
      7 June 2012 at 2:47 pm

      If a single brain dead pseudo journalist had bothered to call a family lawyer contact and ask ‘what is the difference between Bennett’s proposed law and the current law’ they would have gotten the answer so well put by Zetetic. But none of them did going by the coverage. Still hung over I guess. And why spoil an easy story that ‘writes itself’ with a factoid or two? So little wonder the largely ignorant public went for it by 70%. Where do you think they get their information from? What is “chilling” is not the public reaction, but the complete and utter failure of any media news source to give them the facts, even basic facts about the law.

      • Rodel 2.2.1
        7 June 2012 at 10:22 pm

        That 70% is pure nonsense. Just disregard, don’t even think it is of any importance.
        Those who respond to these idiot ” not scientific…ahem”polls are idiots themselves.
        Now a proper poll even a phone survey might be worth considering but these silly celebrity driven “polls” aren’t worth anything.Just ignore.

      • Rodel 2.2.2
        7 June 2012 at 10:26 pm

        That 70% is pure nonsense. Just disregard, don’t even think it is of any importance.
        Those who respond to these idiot ” not scientific…ahem”polls are idiots themselves.
        Now a proper poll even a phone survey might be worth considering but these silly celebrity driven “polls” aren’t worth anything.Just ignore.They do not represent public opinion..they represent utterly lazy journalism out for an easy story.. probably due to a shortage of journalists sadly.

        • bbfloyd 2.2.2.1
          8 June 2012 at 9:36 pm

          i would tend to agree with the herald polls being meaningless…. but the talk i hear coming out of national heartland electorates(i have family living in those areas) tends to echo the opinion that those 70% voted for…..

          this example was just a way to highlight the attitudes that i fear are becoming more entrenched every year regarding many different issues(and actions) with regard to certain “undesirable” elements in society(beneficiaries/ working poor/ polynesians/ immigrants/socialists, etc)… it’s the cumulative effect that scares me …….

  3. Craig Glen Eden 3
    7 June 2012 at 12:17 pm

    Bennett’s a troll alright thats for sure, now back to class sizes!

  4. gobsmacked 4
    7 June 2012 at 12:40 pm

    People aren’t thick, they just respond to an online poll by clicking, which requires no thought or effort.

    Most of us will have felt (not “thought”) at some time or other … “look at them on TV, they shouldn’t be having kids”. Going from that natural, human reaction to implementing a social policy is a gulf bigger than the Grand Canyon.

    I’m sure the online polls would have very different results if the question was:

    “Should the government have the power to order doctors to carry out a forced abortion?”.

    And

    “If doctors refuse, are they therefore criminals?”

    • bbfloyd 4.1
      8 June 2012 at 9:41 pm

      good luck finding anyone in the established “media” to ask those questions…. i don’t know if even scoop would brave it….

      if that slipped through and got published in the herald, all the senior editorial staff would be forced to choose between public humiliation, or taking the poison ….

  5. Ben 5
    7 June 2012 at 1:01 pm

    I’m yet to hear an argument against eugenics which makes sense to me. People in general seem to find the idea abhorrent, that much is clear, but the “why?” question seems to go unanswered. I’ve read columns about eugenics-based ideas / policies, and they often say things like “the reason eugenics is a bad idea is so obvious there’s no point going in to it.”

    Is it? What’s the reason? Why is it a bad idea?

    I’m certainly not saying I support eugenics whole-heartedly, I’m just yet to see a real analysis of why it’s bad. I can understand a persons initial “but that may mean I can’t have children!” reaction, and most people are terrified of being told that.

    Humans breed numerous animals (and plants) selectively in an effort to increase desirable traits. Personally I don’t see why it’s okay for plants and animals and not okay for humans (and, yes, I do understand humans are not plants or animals, and that we’ve decided we’re “different.”).

    There are, of course, practical problems with selective breeding (What are the criteria? How do we prevent people from violating their criteria? Who would administer it? How do we keep the birth rate high enough? and so forth) but beyond that, what’s the issue?

    Feel free to link me an article on the subject, I am genuinely interested in this.

    • doloras 5.2
      7 June 2012 at 2:48 pm

      Because it visits the sins of parents on innocent children. Because intelligence and social skills are not hereditary. Because humans are not dogs.

      • Ben 5.2.1
        7 June 2012 at 3:49 pm

        We always visit the sins of parents on innocent children.

        The hereditability of intelligence is a matter of great debate.

        Not always, but genetics are genetics.

        In short: None of your points are new or convincing.

        • Te Reo Putake 5.2.1.1
          7 June 2012 at 4:01 pm

          Why don’t you ask your parents, Ben? If they’d known what an asshole you’d turn out to be, would they have opted for a termination? And, more to the point, if the Government knew what an asshole you’d turn out to be, should society have the right to have your folks sterilised?

        • bbfloyd 5.2.1.2
          8 June 2012 at 9:55 pm

          “the hereditability of intelligence is a matter of great debate”…. which is debatable at best….surprising that i havn’t read, or heard of any serious debate on this subject…..

          intelligence is hereditary in as much as a person can be much smarter than their parents, having picked up the right combination of genes gathered from many generations of breeding…. my own situation is a prime example of that….i come from a long line of warrior poets, philosophers, artists,and researchers/physicians , yet while neither parent was stupid, i was outstripping them both by my early teens, and have an iq between 25 and 35 points higher than both…. so my intellect comes from much further back….

          i could give you links to demonstrate this theory, but that would necessitate revealing my family name…. and there are too many nutters who get on here to risk that…. my apologies..

      • Roy 5.2.2
        7 June 2012 at 4:40 pm

        On the other hand, mental retardation can be acquired prenatally by the mother’s alcohol consumption. I do happen to think that the courts should have some power to prevent women from producing a series of children with FAS, either by mandating contraception or mandating that the woman is held in preventative custody while pregnant.

        • Murray Olsen 5.2.2.1
          7 June 2012 at 8:48 pm

          All I can see your proposal doing is stopping some pregnant women from seeking medical attention. We’d have backstreet pregnancies just like we used to have backstreet abortions.

        • Colonial Viper 5.2.2.2
          7 June 2012 at 10:25 pm

          I do happen to think that the courts should have some power to prevent women from producing a series of children with FAS, either by mandating contraception or mandating that the woman is held in preventative custody while pregnant.

          The courts should also have the power to prevent women from giving birth to assholes with control issues over other peoples sexuality and reproductive activities.

        • bbfloyd 5.2.2.3
          8 June 2012 at 9:58 pm

          Roy….that has been in place for decades…… this is purely a diversion….. patrick gower has shown what a toadying little version of uriah heep he is in highlighting this on behalf of the “sparkles” party……..

  6. Uturn 6
    7 June 2012 at 1:14 pm

    NZ’s collective inferiority complex manifesting itself?

    The voice of the archetypal berating parent, spoken by the developmentally arrested children, to others as if they were children.

    And the observers demeaning themselves and their fellows for behaving like unintelligent children, articulating their learned hopelessness.

    Solutions?

    Give up the shallow aping of behaviour we commonly call culture or “common sense” and instead rely on the good within ourselves, for ourselves. Unofficial change, one person at a time. Bennett et al come from the same national pool as the rest of us. Her eagerness to attack what she was, the fear of what she was, is not such a mystery. Our culture is built on the premise of getting away as fast as possible from anything that does not bring immediate material reward. With so much running, there is no time for thinking about what we are, or were, experiencing. If we change our attitudes about ourselves, if we acknowledge our own denied inferiority, if we learn that uselessness is the beginning of usefulness, the problem goes away – or more correctly, growth ceases to be stalled.

  7. fatty 7
    7 June 2012 at 1:21 pm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Ethics

    Also Ben, how can we judge who is ‘fit to breed’ and who is not?
    Are John Key and Paula Bennett fit to breed…considering how their policies over the past 4 years have forced thousands of Kiwis into poverty? They have abused more NZ children than anybody else, but are never held accountable.
    The genes that you and me are born with are no better than those of a father who beats his children to death. The ‘genes’ of people are fine, its the situation they grow up in that is the issue.

    • Ben 7.1
      7 June 2012 at 1:29 pm

      Thanks Fatty.

      I’m not suggesting that eugenics is the answer to this particular problem, and I did acknowledge the practicalities around determining who is and who is not “fit to breed” – that’s another discussion.

      The wikipedia link doesn’t tell me much, really – only that you’d have to be very careful about how you determined who was allowed to breed and who wasn’t. Which, again, is more a practical consideration than a theoretical one.

      Am I to understand that the problem with eugenics is one of those “it’s very nice in theory but would never work in practice” things? (A bit like neo-liberal economics….)

      • fatty 7.1.1
        7 June 2012 at 2:39 pm

        “Am I to understand that the problem with eugenics is one of those “it’s very nice in theory but would never work in practice” things? (A bit like neo-liberal economics….)”

        No, I don’t see it as good in theory at all…as I said “The genes that you and me are born with are no better than those of a father who beats his children to death. The ‘genes’ of people are fine, its the situation they grow up in that is the issue.”

        I honestly don’t know much around the science of genes (I’m sure people here do)…but I do see criminal behaviour as a reaction to a situation. I believe in nurture over nature…and if nature does play a part, then I see the nurture of those parents as causing that ‘nature’…does that make sense?

      • Draco T Bastard 7.1.2
        7 June 2012 at 2:43 pm

        Am I to understand that the problem with eugenics is one of those “it’s very nice in theory but would never work in practice” things?

        Pretty much.

      • Deano 7.1.3
        7 June 2012 at 4:52 pm

        The problem is it doesn’t make sense in theory – because ‘bad’ traits aren’t all genetic – and worse in practice because one person’s four-thousand year old way of life can be, to another person, a ‘bad’ trait that deserves to be expunged.

  8. mickysavage 8
    7 June 2012 at 1:21 pm

    As part of a spooky coincidence it appears that Hekia is going to be out west at Paula Bennett’s office 429 Great North Road, Henderson today at 5 pm. This is apparently for a members only meeting but people may want to come along and express their views on what is happening.

    • tc 8.1
      7 June 2012 at 1:46 pm

      Careful MS one could garner an opinion that considers that a non-notified gathering of folk for anti social outcomes not aligned with our elected governors plans and as such, given the right set of legal circumstances…unlawful.

      Nothing surprises me with this lot….expect NZ finest to be in attendance.

  9. prosaic 9
    7 June 2012 at 8:45 pm

    What Bennett is talking about–is it really eugenics? Eugenics is about manipulating the gene pool to ‘increase numbers of better people’ and ‘decrease numbers of worse people’. This is about trying to stop convicted child-killers or child-abusers from having further children (perhaps because that theoretically eliminates harm to those potential children and perhaps because it reduces costs to tax-payers) and it is irrelevant what their genes are and what is heritable or not. All that needs to be said is that there are already measures in place to remove babies at birth from high-risk parents and that if a woman gets pregnant and has such an ‘order’ against her doing so, she will try even harder to hide from services and/or authorites.