Scott at Imperator Fish has kindly given us permission to syndicate posts from his blog – the original of this post is here.
People of Swedish descent who engage in acts of treason while dressed as nuns will no longer be eligible to receive welfare, Social Development Minister Paula Bennett announced today.
Paula Bennett said official Treasury figures showed that the annual cost of providing welfare to people with Nordic backgrounds convicted of acts of treason while wearing religious garb was “more than you’d think, uckshully.”
Ms Bennett said the problem was a growing one, thanks to the failure of the last government to crack down on benefit abuse by traitorous and seditious Scandinavians.
“People tell me how unfair it is that they’re working hard, while a criminal mastermind next door named Olaf Larsson is busy plotting the overthrow of the legitimately elected government, all while wearing a nun’s habit, and all while claiming a sickness benefit.
“It’s just not good enough. If people dressed as nuns are well enough to stage a violent and vicious insurrection against the state, then they’re well enough to work.”
The announcement is part of a package of measures announced by this government to stamp out benefit dependency and the abuse of the welfare system.
The measures previously announced include a policy of stopping the benefits of persons convicted of international maritime piracy, requiring all beneficiaries to get haircuts, and forcing all solo mothers to drink their own urine.
The moves have proven popular with the voting public, but have been condemned by opposition parties.
Labour Party leader David Shearer said it was outrageous that people of Swedish descent were being singled out, while lessons from countries like Finland and Denmark were being ignored.
“A Labour government will always support those who need help, but we must not forget the social contract. If my Danish neighbour wants to climb onto his roof and start plotting against the state while dressed in the regalia of the Roman Catholic Church, then he can do so at his own expense, and not the taxpayer’s.”
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress