The kneejerk and the jackboot

Written By: - Date published: 10:52 am, March 11th, 2010 - 3 comments
Categories: child abuse, law and "order" - Tags:

Sometimes you get a really pleasant surprise and I got one today from Garth George. I’m going to reproduce a pretty big chunk of his piece below because it is remarkably good.

Despite being a pretty old school conservative he gives a stunning rebuke of the knee-jerk authoritarianism/fascism/randianism that so often characterises the thinking of the Right these days and was recently highlighted by David Garrett’s call for sterilisation of the poor, which has been partially endorsed by several editorials and columnists that George describes as “extreme right”. Here’s the article:

We persist with the band-aid philosophy, even though over the years it has been proved, over and over again, to have very little, or no, beneficial effect.

One of the latest examples is the suggestion by the Act list MP, David Garrett, that parents with a history of child abuse should be given a $5000 incentive to be sterilised.

No one, apart from a couple of far-right columnists, took Mr Garrett seriously – and even he seemed to resile from the idea rather quickly.

But the mere fact that he came up with such an idea is typical of the way our politicians deal with such issues.

Apart from the fact that even voluntary sterilisation under such circumstances is a violation of what little is left of the moral and ethical framework of a civilised democracy, what would it achieve?

It would simply be another attempt to shut the gate after the horse has bolted – something at which we have always been adept – for the sterilisation would come after the abuse.

It would be accepted by only a handful of men and women, if that, since even the mentally challenged – as child abusers invariably are – would shrink at being reduced to sterility, robbed of the inalienable human right to reproduce.

It would, in short, do nothing whatsoever to alleviate the shameful and chronic diseases of child abuse and neglect that afflict this country. So what then? Compulsory sterilisation? Anyone with any knowledge of the history of the last century knows where that leads.

I have a dear friend here in Rotorua, a man rich in years, in experience and wisdom, strong and enduring in his Christian faith, who has spent a lifetime serving his God, his family and his church.

We talk often and at great length of the things of God and the things of the world. He contends, and I agree, that voluntary sterilisation amounts to self-mutilation and renounces the natural law of self-preservation.

“Every person and every society,” he says, “has rights, but equal and equivalent responsibilities go with them: the person to him or herself; to other people and to society; and the society to itself and its members.”

In history, he says, cruel practices such as mutilation and sterilisation have been used by governments to maintain law and order.

But history also shows that not only did they not conform to the legitimate rights of the human person but they were neither necessary nor effective. On the contrary, they led to further practices that were even more degrading.

So, the conclusion we arrived at – and it applies not just to child abuse but to all the other social ills that blight our society – is that we should invest heavily in methods of correcting attitudes and behaviour.

Advances in modern science in matters of cause and effect – particularly in the field of psychology – have clearly demonstrated these methods to be effective and it is our social responsibility to put these proven practices in place.

And that is the guts of the matter – we have to begin treating the causes and not just the symptoms.

3 comments on “The kneejerk and the jackboot”

  1. Pete 1

    FFS – is this the first sign of armageddon?

    Now let’s apply this same thinking “we have to begin treating the causes and not just the symptoms” to everything punted up for change and we may get somewhere…

  2. SPC 2

    The irony is that many were/are calling for better notification systems (within and across administrative systems) about those parents who abuse children – after the fact managment of the problem to prevent it recurring. Rather than the presumption that no safeguards (or reform) can be established – which sterlisation is premised on.

    None even touched on the issue of identifying those who were abused as they go on to become parents.

  3. PK 3

    ***It would simply be another attempt to shut the gate after the horse has bolted something at which we have always been adept for the sterilisation would come after the abuse.***

    On this basis would he close down CYFS? They also intervene after a notification of abuse.

    ***It would, in short, do nothing whatsoever to alleviate the shameful and chronic diseases of child abuse and neglect that afflict this country. So what then? Compulsory sterilisation? Anyone with any knowledge of the history of the last century knows where that leads.***

    It doesn’t have to lead anywhere, Planned Parenting Founder, and socialist Margaret Sanger promoted it to reduce poverty.

    ***He contends, and I agree, that voluntary sterilisation amounts to self-mutilation and renounces the natural law of self-preservation.***

    So he is opposed to people having vasectomies or tubal ligations?

    ***It would be accepted by only a handful of men and women, if that, since even the mentally challenged as child abusers invariably are would shrink at being reduced to sterility, robbed of the inalienable human right to reproduce.***

    In that case how about making ongoing DPB payments conditional on temporary birth control shots which protect against pregnancy?

    ***So, the conclusion we arrived at and it applies not just to child abuse but to all the other social ills that blight our society is that we should invest heavily in methods of correcting attitudes and behaviour.

    Advances in modern science in matters of cause and effect particularly in the field of psychology have clearly demonstrated these methods to be effective and it is our social responsibility to put these proven practices in place.***

    What methods have proven to be effective?

    ***And that is the guts of the matter we have to begin treating the causes and not just the symptoms.***

    Which would involve what exactly?

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Safety focus in improved drug driver testing
    Improving the safety of all road users is the focus of a new public consultation document on the issue of drug driver testing. Plans for public consultation on options to improve the drug driver testing process have been announced by ...
    5 days ago
  • Making it easier to get help from Police
    Police Minister Stuart Nash says calling a cop suddenly got a whole lot easier with the launch of a ground-breaking new service for non-emergency calls. “The single non-emergency number ‘ten-five’ is designed to provide better service for the public and ...
    1 week ago
  • More Police deployed to the regions
    Frontline Police numbers have been boosted with today’s deployment of 77 new officers to the regions. Police Minister Stuart Nash today congratulated the recruits of Wing 325 who graduated at a formal ceremony at the Royal New Zealand Police College. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Taxpayers get a smarter and fairer system
    One of the biggest IT projects ever undertaken in the state sector has successfully passed its latest hurdle with the transition of more than 19.7 million taxpayer accounts from one Inland Revenue computer system to another. Revenue Minister Stuart Nash ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Early insights into use of restricted drugs
    The first nationwide snapshot of the consumption of restricted drugs indicates the prevalence of methamphetamine use in New Zealand, says Police Minister Stuart Nash. “The first quarterly analysis of the nationwide wastewater testing programme reinforces the coalition government’s determination to ...
    3 weeks ago