The scientific discovery that so-called "Attention Deficit Disorder" may be inherited by some children has of course now let many millions of parents off the hook for their poorly behaved and anti-social children. Some were reported as being relieved they weren't to blame, as if they were also relieved of responsibility for how their children behave (although a cruel person would argue if it is in the DNA then one shouldn't replicate it) or perform at school.
It is a measure of these times for parents to evade responsibility for their children and their actions. It can be seen in the flippant approach of far too many (men in particular) who don't want to carry the responsibility for their own reproduction. It has long been timeless for teachers to notice the parents who refused to accept responsibility for their children being disruptive or violent at school. I recall my parents being told at parent-teacher evenings they need not have bothered coming along, because the parents the teachers really want to meet are the ones who never turn up - the ones who prioritise TV, the pub, their friends or their latest shag over their own kids.
Whilst undoubtedly medical science will continue to discover bio-chemical and genetic bases for all sorts of behaviour (I await the undoubted discovery that some pedophiles, sadists and masochists are born that way), the mistake is to think that there is nothing that can be done by means other than medication.
As Theodore Dalrymple writes in the Daily Telegraph, the real "attention deficit" is from parents, in particular fathers. He says "far more British children have a television in their bedroom than a biological father living at home throughout their childhood".
The destructive legacy of this is seen in boys growing up looking for male role models in all the wrong places (in the case of some ethnic minorities, gang culture in the teens is rife at both supplying and seeking out fatherless boys), and girls who learn from a certain age the main way many women get male attention, and so seek "daddy" figures of not quite the kind they need. The ease by which attention lacking young people now have communication means to pursue these surrogate father figures who prey upon them is largely ignored, and is probably too shocking for the middle classes to truly accept.
Far easier for some to blame their genes, far easier for politicians on the left to say it is poverty.
Far harder to confront that a combination of the welfare state, the post-modernist abstinence from individual responsibility regarding breeding and the lack of promotion of life values is what is the issue.
Showing posts with label Crime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Crime. Show all posts
01 October 2010
13 April 2010
Pope's moral authority destroyed
As an atheist, what the Roman Catholic Church does or does not do or say amongst its own flock is of peripheral interest to me. What is of interest is when those working for it commit serious criminal offences, and the Church and by implication the Vatican State seeks to cover it up.
There can be little doubt that many people in the Roman Catholic Church are deeply concerned about the litany of cases of child abuse committed by priests. Furthermore, the extended efforts by many in the church to cover up the cases, to demand silence from the victims and then to shepherd the abusers to new flock, which naturally they abused -given the sanction for abuse was simply to be sent somewhere fresh.
To some Christians it appears a new crusade is being fought, primarily by atheists, to destroy the Church. They will see it as unfair, in that there are clergy in all churches who are abusers. Nobody suggests for a moment that the Church has a monopoly on child abusers. However, it is never a defence to a crime to point out that your neighbour commits the same crimes. Particularly when you hold yourself up as a source of moral authority, guidance and trust.
Pope Benedict XVI has spoken strongly about the incidence of child abuse, and many Catholics will have seen his recent statements as showing some contrition and interest in remedying the situation.
However, the basis upon which he can do this now looks wanting. The New York Times has found a letter signed by the then Cardinal Ratzinger. The letter is about a 38 year old priest, who tied up and abused two young. The Cardinal said that "the case needed more time and that “the good of the Universal Church” had to be considered in the final decision. In other words, he put the good of the church above prosecuting and expelling this sadistically abusive priest.
There can be little doubt that many people in the Roman Catholic Church are deeply concerned about the litany of cases of child abuse committed by priests. Furthermore, the extended efforts by many in the church to cover up the cases, to demand silence from the victims and then to shepherd the abusers to new flock, which naturally they abused -given the sanction for abuse was simply to be sent somewhere fresh.
To some Christians it appears a new crusade is being fought, primarily by atheists, to destroy the Church. They will see it as unfair, in that there are clergy in all churches who are abusers. Nobody suggests for a moment that the Church has a monopoly on child abusers. However, it is never a defence to a crime to point out that your neighbour commits the same crimes. Particularly when you hold yourself up as a source of moral authority, guidance and trust.
Pope Benedict XVI has spoken strongly about the incidence of child abuse, and many Catholics will have seen his recent statements as showing some contrition and interest in remedying the situation.
However, the basis upon which he can do this now looks wanting. The New York Times has found a letter signed by the then Cardinal Ratzinger. The letter is about a 38 year old priest, who tied up and abused two young. The Cardinal said that "the case needed more time and that “the good of the Universal Church” had to be considered in the final decision. In other words, he put the good of the church above prosecuting and expelling this sadistically abusive priest.
The New York Times continues...
"John S. Cummins, the former bishop of Oakland who repeatedly wrote his superiors in Rome urging that the priest be defrocked, said the Vatican in that era, after the Second Vatican Council, was especially reluctant to dismiss priests because so many were abandoning the priesthood."
"John S. Cummins, the former bishop of Oakland who repeatedly wrote his superiors in Rome urging that the priest be defrocked, said the Vatican in that era, after the Second Vatican Council, was especially reluctant to dismiss priests because so many were abandoning the priesthood."
Now the priest concerned had already been convicted of child abuse a few years beforehand, apparently not enough for the Church to judge someone unfit to be a priest. The Pope to be considered it a bigger priority to think of the good of the church, that it retain a recidivist sadistic child abuser as one of its own, that to remove him.
Despite the efforts of Bishop Cummins who wrote to the Cardinal in February 1982: “It is my conviction that there would be no scandal if this petition were granted and that as a matter of fact, given the nature of the case, there might be greater scandal to the community if Father Kiesle were allowed to return to the active ministry.”
"Cardinal Ratzinger requested more information, which officials in the Oakland Diocese supplied in February 1982. They did not hear back from Cardinal Ratzinger until 1985, when he sent the letter in Latin suggesting that his office needed more time to evaluate the case."
More time? He already had THREE years, he had been convicted in 1978. In 1985 he started volunteering at a youth ministry.
The Pope should explain himself, explain why he thought the interests of the church itself were greater than the interests of children or indeed their parents, who trusted the church.
Given the Pope is now implicated quite seriously in engaging in the same sort of suppress and deflect behaviour that has been highlighted most recently in Ireland, does he not have some sort of moral obligation to confess his own failings?
How can anyone, objectively looking at the Roman Catholic Church, seriously believe that its leader can hold moral authority in damning those who have done what he himself has done?
How can people venerate a man who has preferred to protect the reputation of his employer than the safety of children?
04 March 2010
Devon and Cornwall Police harass peaceful residents
The Daily Telegraph reports how the Devon and Cornwall Police raided a home that contained a S & M dungeon. Not a brothel (though I suspect they thought it was), no one was being kept against their will, but for some unidentified reason three people have been arrested.
The report shows how utterly disinterested the Police are in the individual rights of the owners or anyone who would come to visit:
"The first officer who approached the home was wearing a suit and tie and when he knocked on the door we believe they thought he had an appointment.
"They invited him in but then several officers followed him in and carried out the search and found the dungeon. While we were conducting a search one gentleman arrived.
"He walked straight passed police vans and cars and several officers and rang the bell inquiring about an appointment. We had to have a word with him."
No you didn't, he wasn't hurting anyone. Fight some real crime! It's a disgrace, with the Police attitude even more telling:
DS Gilroy said: "We are glad to have disturbed this activity and restored normality to the neighbourhood. We would also like to thank residents who reported the activity to us."
Inspector Phil Chivers, police inspector for the South Hams, added: "This incident demonstrates that we, the police, are reliant on information from the community."
WHY are you glad to have disturbed this activity? What damned right did you have to be proud of disturbing people when you have NO evidence of any real crime? What the hell is "normality", are adults not allowed to have interests that you don't think are normal? Does Britain have a Ministry of Virtue and Vice now?
It's absolutely disgusting that the Police don't think they work for everyone and to protect their rights, rather than to be the interfering Stasi style busybodies.
It's not as if there is a lack of real crime to be chasing, or is this sort of case far too interesting for the Police to not stick their beaks into?
The report shows how utterly disinterested the Police are in the individual rights of the owners or anyone who would come to visit:
"The first officer who approached the home was wearing a suit and tie and when he knocked on the door we believe they thought he had an appointment.
"They invited him in but then several officers followed him in and carried out the search and found the dungeon. While we were conducting a search one gentleman arrived.
"He walked straight passed police vans and cars and several officers and rang the bell inquiring about an appointment. We had to have a word with him."
No you didn't, he wasn't hurting anyone. Fight some real crime! It's a disgrace, with the Police attitude even more telling:
DS Gilroy said: "We are glad to have disturbed this activity and restored normality to the neighbourhood. We would also like to thank residents who reported the activity to us."
Inspector Phil Chivers, police inspector for the South Hams, added: "This incident demonstrates that we, the police, are reliant on information from the community."
WHY are you glad to have disturbed this activity? What damned right did you have to be proud of disturbing people when you have NO evidence of any real crime? What the hell is "normality", are adults not allowed to have interests that you don't think are normal? Does Britain have a Ministry of Virtue and Vice now?
It's absolutely disgusting that the Police don't think they work for everyone and to protect their rights, rather than to be the interfering Stasi style busybodies.
It's not as if there is a lack of real crime to be chasing, or is this sort of case far too interesting for the Police to not stick their beaks into?
26 January 2010
Child protection law misdirected
There should be some irony in seeing that the day it is announced that parents will be able to check neighbours, friends or partners to see if they have convictions for being a pedophile, that the two parents of the Edlington sadists have name suppression.
The children who are the victims of their children are reportedly frightened that the sadists, who have permanent name suppression and will get new identities, (thanks to the mugs who paid for them and their parents to be fed, clothed and housed), will kill them once released. The other disturbing element is that the two victims no longer wish to associate with each other, in part because the sadists forced them to perform sexual acts on each other.
Allowing parents to ask the Police to check whether an individual has a "child sex offence", seems reasonable to most parents. However, there are a whole range of serious flaws in the idea.
1. The definition of "child sex offence" isn't clear, but it is plausible that it will catch those guilty of relatively minor offences - the classic teenage "oops she was 15, I thought she was 16" situation, where there is consent and the "offender" is only a few years older. However, that person will be deemed to be a "child sex offender" as much as someone who brutally abducts and rapes small children. There is no equivalency between them, but it will greatly hinder the rehabilitation and reintegration into society of those who have essentially committed victimless crimes. Surely if it is to happen, shouldn't there be a definition that weeds out the latter cases?
2. The hysteria about child sexual offences alone has left out the obvious. Rapists and anyone who commits violent offences are completely ignored. What mother would rather know if the man they are going out with is a rapist - of women - or has served time for bashing a previous woman? Why is this not important, or is it part of the modern day hysteria that treats only those who commit sexual offences against children as dangerous. Those who beat children or rape adults are somehow not seen as a risk.
3. If there are child sex offenders in public today that pose such a risk, should they even be out? Surely sentencing should reflect danger to the public and the top priority has to be protection. In an environment when the state is seeking to cut time in prison across the board to save money, surely a better effort would be to ensure sentences of those likely to re offend are sufficiently preventive?
4. Should there not be a bigger debate about what to do with information about convicted criminals? Should everyone have the right to know who has done time for violent, sexual and property offences? Wouldn't you like to check your real estate agent for fraud, your daughter's new boyfriend for violent offences? Or does that put a serious barrier in the way of rehabilitation?
5. Doesn't allowing such checks simply produce a false sense of security? The two boys tortured in Edlington would not have been protected because their assailants were minors too. A significant proportion of child abuse happens in feral homes, committed by people who are never convicted or even charged. Does making such a check become an easy substitute for being cautious, not leaving your children with people you don't know? Indeed shouldn't the best step be to have enough communication between children and parents that when the kids don't like someone, because of what they say or do with them, that parents listen?
This sort of proposal is driven by politicians seeking to get good publicity months out from a general election, a desire to "do something" rather than consider the whole criminal justice framework around protecting children and media hyped hysteria about high profile cases.
A better response is the following:
1. Preventive detention to be used more often for multiple repeat offenders and those who are considered to present, on balance, a real danger to the community. This applies also to minors who are offenders.
2. Applying a sentence of custody denial for anyone convicted of serious violent or sexual offences (including those against children). Intergenerational abuse and criminality is a key problem, and it is about time that parents who abuse are no longer permitted to live in the same home as other children. Why are abusers allowed to breed and raise children, but not allowed to work in schools? Is it less of a concern to make your own victims?
3. Promote self defence techniques for children and the means for them to safely advise trustworthy adults (i.e. at school) if they are frightened or abused.
4. Criminal negligence charges for Police or child protection authorities who ignore multiple reports of offences against children. The Edlington case is a palpable example of this.
5. Permanently deny welfare including housing to all convicted serious violent and sexual offenders. Taxpayers should, at least, not be forced to pay to sustain those who have harmed them. Let them be at the mercy of charities who will spring up to help. Let's not allow them to populate already tragically depressed housing estates and live their lives in leisure in front of TV.
6. Consider how and whether the general public should have access to criminal records of other citizens. Sexual offences are one thing, but so are violent and property offences. Would this make people safer or would it simply result in all criminals being incapable of living lives outside prison without criminality? Would it be a deterrent or would it allow like minded individuals to find each other and collaborate?
It's important to bear in mind that neither the Edlington case, nor the Jamie Bulger case, nor the Huntley case would ever have been prevented by the measures now proposed. Edlington COULD have been prevented by the Police and Child Protection Services, as the offenders had committed multiple violent and property offences over the years.
However governments rarely point the blame at themselves, make themselves accountable personally and financially, and seek radical changes to try to prevent similar occurrences.
The children who are the victims of their children are reportedly frightened that the sadists, who have permanent name suppression and will get new identities, (thanks to the mugs who paid for them and their parents to be fed, clothed and housed), will kill them once released. The other disturbing element is that the two victims no longer wish to associate with each other, in part because the sadists forced them to perform sexual acts on each other.
Allowing parents to ask the Police to check whether an individual has a "child sex offence", seems reasonable to most parents. However, there are a whole range of serious flaws in the idea.
1. The definition of "child sex offence" isn't clear, but it is plausible that it will catch those guilty of relatively minor offences - the classic teenage "oops she was 15, I thought she was 16" situation, where there is consent and the "offender" is only a few years older. However, that person will be deemed to be a "child sex offender" as much as someone who brutally abducts and rapes small children. There is no equivalency between them, but it will greatly hinder the rehabilitation and reintegration into society of those who have essentially committed victimless crimes. Surely if it is to happen, shouldn't there be a definition that weeds out the latter cases?
2. The hysteria about child sexual offences alone has left out the obvious. Rapists and anyone who commits violent offences are completely ignored. What mother would rather know if the man they are going out with is a rapist - of women - or has served time for bashing a previous woman? Why is this not important, or is it part of the modern day hysteria that treats only those who commit sexual offences against children as dangerous. Those who beat children or rape adults are somehow not seen as a risk.
3. If there are child sex offenders in public today that pose such a risk, should they even be out? Surely sentencing should reflect danger to the public and the top priority has to be protection. In an environment when the state is seeking to cut time in prison across the board to save money, surely a better effort would be to ensure sentences of those likely to re offend are sufficiently preventive?
4. Should there not be a bigger debate about what to do with information about convicted criminals? Should everyone have the right to know who has done time for violent, sexual and property offences? Wouldn't you like to check your real estate agent for fraud, your daughter's new boyfriend for violent offences? Or does that put a serious barrier in the way of rehabilitation?
5. Doesn't allowing such checks simply produce a false sense of security? The two boys tortured in Edlington would not have been protected because their assailants were minors too. A significant proportion of child abuse happens in feral homes, committed by people who are never convicted or even charged. Does making such a check become an easy substitute for being cautious, not leaving your children with people you don't know? Indeed shouldn't the best step be to have enough communication between children and parents that when the kids don't like someone, because of what they say or do with them, that parents listen?
This sort of proposal is driven by politicians seeking to get good publicity months out from a general election, a desire to "do something" rather than consider the whole criminal justice framework around protecting children and media hyped hysteria about high profile cases.
A better response is the following:
1. Preventive detention to be used more often for multiple repeat offenders and those who are considered to present, on balance, a real danger to the community. This applies also to minors who are offenders.
2. Applying a sentence of custody denial for anyone convicted of serious violent or sexual offences (including those against children). Intergenerational abuse and criminality is a key problem, and it is about time that parents who abuse are no longer permitted to live in the same home as other children. Why are abusers allowed to breed and raise children, but not allowed to work in schools? Is it less of a concern to make your own victims?
3. Promote self defence techniques for children and the means for them to safely advise trustworthy adults (i.e. at school) if they are frightened or abused.
4. Criminal negligence charges for Police or child protection authorities who ignore multiple reports of offences against children. The Edlington case is a palpable example of this.
5. Permanently deny welfare including housing to all convicted serious violent and sexual offenders. Taxpayers should, at least, not be forced to pay to sustain those who have harmed them. Let them be at the mercy of charities who will spring up to help. Let's not allow them to populate already tragically depressed housing estates and live their lives in leisure in front of TV.
6. Consider how and whether the general public should have access to criminal records of other citizens. Sexual offences are one thing, but so are violent and property offences. Would this make people safer or would it simply result in all criminals being incapable of living lives outside prison without criminality? Would it be a deterrent or would it allow like minded individuals to find each other and collaborate?
It's important to bear in mind that neither the Edlington case, nor the Jamie Bulger case, nor the Huntley case would ever have been prevented by the measures now proposed. Edlington COULD have been prevented by the Police and Child Protection Services, as the offenders had committed multiple violent and property offences over the years.
However governments rarely point the blame at themselves, make themselves accountable personally and financially, and seek radical changes to try to prevent similar occurrences.
25 January 2010
Feral youth require focused response
Edlington is now known in the UK as the place where two boys, aged 11 and 10 attacked, brutally tortured and left for dead two other boys aged 9 and 11. The details of the case are beyond that of most violent crimes, but demonstrate sadistic pleasure in inflicting the most horrendous pain, suffering and degradation. Having a sink dropped on your head, wounds cut to the bone and cigarettes burnt into them, with sexual assaults and left for dead. They even used a mobile phone to film their sadistic game.
Those who committed it now have preventive detention for a minimum of five years. The sentence of their victims will be for much much longer.
While many ask "why", it isn't rocket science to figure out. When asked why, one said "Don't know. Cos there was nowt to do."
The two perpetrators are sadistic psychopaths, probably without any hope of redeeming their lives. The criminal justice system should keep them securely incarcerated for many years, until - as the judge said - they no longer pose a risk to others. A children's charity has said a five year minimum is insufficient, as their victims will still be young and fearing their release. It would only be fair to at least keep them away for at least 15 years. Being granted anonymity for life and new identities is rather premature. Why on the one hand are some relatively harmless people put on the sexual offenders' registry, but these two - unreformed - will automatically be given a chance for a new start? On top of that, should not both be required to give some of their future earnings in compensation to the victims?
Whilst they are primarily to blame, the secondary blame goes to the oxygen thieves who are their parents.
The boys drank vodka and lager and smoked cannabis. Their 38 year old unemployed father would beat them and their mother. Both parents let them watch explicit violent horror films from around the age of 6, including the Chucky films. Their older brother has already been locked away for mugging a pensioner.
Their 36 year old mother is a heavy cannabis user, and has had seven children by two fathers. She said of the incident:
"It’s got nowt to do with me – they weren’t even in my care.”
You see only three weeks before the mother got them put into foster care.
So the father should at least be charged for the violence against the boys, for supplying them with intoxicating substances and neglect. The mother is at least an accessory to all that. Both should also be denied welfare and prohibited from having custody of children for at least a decade. It is about time that such grossly reckless and vile parents faced serious criminal sanctions, and taxpayers freed for being forced to pay for them. It is also about time that such people were denied any rights to live with children for the foreseeable future.
Finally, there is substantial blame to be laid at the foot of the Police and the child protection authorities in Doncaster. Nine agencies failed on 31 occasions to take action against the two boys. I would suggest the parents of the two victims seek legal advice about suing them for compensation for their boys.
An 11 year old neighbour kept a diary about how the boys would abuse her and throw stones at her and her family. In 2006 a boy threatened a school staff member with a baseball bat, no further action was taken. There were arson attacks with no follow up. An incident involving ducklings from a public pond thrown sadistically at a wall and killed. With a constant series of incidents, clearly the relevant agencies did not connect them and did not consider them serious.
A week before this latest incident, an 11yo boy was beaten up and kicked. They were meant to appear in front of Police to explain this on the day they chose instead to nearly kill two boys.
It should be beyond doubt that Doncaster council and the local Police have failed miserably to undertake their duties to protect the public. No one has been fired because of this, but it is about time someone was accountable. Given news the parents are now being investigated, it should not be long before someone from the authorities receives a lawsuit - and only when it is a sum commensurate to the years of therapy, and the loss of enjoyment of lifestyle that the two victims will endure in coming years, will it be taken seriously.
Yes intervening in such cases is difficult, but when two children repeatedly commit violent crimes at what point is that still an excuse?
19 January 2010
Police don't understand Twitter
"Robin Hood airport is closed," he wrote. "You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"
That's what Paul Chambers said on Twitter, jokingly frustrated about snow closing his local airport.
He was arrested under the Terrorism Act for being suspected of creating a bomb hoax. He has his iphone and computer confiscated, and was questioned for seven hours straight.
According to the Daily Telegraph: "I had to explain Twitter to them in its entirety because they'd never heard of it. Then they asked all about my home life, and how work was going, and other personal things," he said.
This hardly surprises me, as one recent experience I had with Police showed a complete lack of understanding of the internet (e.g. what's a blog, what's a message board, how can you find out who people are on the internet?).
Now Paul was foolish, and it may have been appropriate to ask him a few questions. However now it has become a thought crime, a crime to joke about blowing something up. He wasn't at the airport, and it would be clear he just should have been told his statement worried the airport company.
No. Instead he is to be treated like a terrorist, by Police who don't even know the medium he used.
That's what Paul Chambers said on Twitter, jokingly frustrated about snow closing his local airport.
He was arrested under the Terrorism Act for being suspected of creating a bomb hoax. He has his iphone and computer confiscated, and was questioned for seven hours straight.
According to the Daily Telegraph: "I had to explain Twitter to them in its entirety because they'd never heard of it. Then they asked all about my home life, and how work was going, and other personal things," he said.
This hardly surprises me, as one recent experience I had with Police showed a complete lack of understanding of the internet (e.g. what's a blog, what's a message board, how can you find out who people are on the internet?).
Now Paul was foolish, and it may have been appropriate to ask him a few questions. However now it has become a thought crime, a crime to joke about blowing something up. He wasn't at the airport, and it would be clear he just should have been told his statement worried the airport company.
No. Instead he is to be treated like a terrorist, by Police who don't even know the medium he used.
04 December 2009
Catholic Church split on homosexuality?
From the Daily Telegraph:
Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan says "Transsexuals and homosexuals will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven and it is not me who says this, but Saint Paul".
Fairly clear. Though one wonders why he doesn't mention the elephant in the Catholic room, maybe it goes without saying, although funny how others have had to say it.
However, he's being too tough apparently because:
Father Federico Lombardi, a Vatican spokesman quoted from the official Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, which says homosexual acts are a “disorder” but acknowledges that many people have “innate homosexual tendencies” and should be treated with respect and not be subject to discrimination. The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual acts are sinful but homosexuality in itself is not.
Respect being fair enough. Of course given the number of clergymen who no doubt have "innate homosexual tendencies", it is hardly surprising.
The elephant in the room is this.
As Austen Ivereigh in the Guardian said "The real scandal is that the church ignored its own law, derived from explicit and unambiguous biblical teaching, a law valid for the church in all political and legal contexts around the world. The principle in canon law is clear and unambiguous: whatever the inadequacies of the civil law, minors must always be protected by the church's law, and their abusers brought swiftly to justice."
Fortunately the Irish Government is refusing to tolerate any cover up and is accepting the state's substantial share of responsibility:
Whatever the failings of the past, the Government is determined that there will be no hiding place for those who break the law - whatever their status. The people who committed these abominable crimes should pay for them. A number have already been brought to justice, proceedings are pending against some others and a number of investigations are ongoing. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform Dermot Ahern TD made available a copy of the report to the Garda Commissioner and the Director of Public Prosecutions as soon as he received it in July. The Commissioner has assured the Minister that pursuing the perpetrators, whenever the abuse occurred, is an absolute priority for the Force.
Ireland for too long operated almost as semi clerocracy, with the church unaccountable to the state, and working in partnership, sometimes for good and clearly sometimes for evil. It is a clear reminder that only with clear separation of church and state, can institutions of religion start to effectively be held responsible when they conspire to commit crime or to conceal those within it who do.
Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan says "Transsexuals and homosexuals will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven and it is not me who says this, but Saint Paul".
Fairly clear. Though one wonders why he doesn't mention the elephant in the Catholic room, maybe it goes without saying, although funny how others have had to say it.
However, he's being too tough apparently because:
Father Federico Lombardi, a Vatican spokesman quoted from the official Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, which says homosexual acts are a “disorder” but acknowledges that many people have “innate homosexual tendencies” and should be treated with respect and not be subject to discrimination. The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual acts are sinful but homosexuality in itself is not.
Respect being fair enough. Of course given the number of clergymen who no doubt have "innate homosexual tendencies", it is hardly surprising.
The elephant in the room is this.
As Austen Ivereigh in the Guardian said "The real scandal is that the church ignored its own law, derived from explicit and unambiguous biblical teaching, a law valid for the church in all political and legal contexts around the world. The principle in canon law is clear and unambiguous: whatever the inadequacies of the civil law, minors must always be protected by the church's law, and their abusers brought swiftly to justice."
Fortunately the Irish Government is refusing to tolerate any cover up and is accepting the state's substantial share of responsibility:
Whatever the failings of the past, the Government is determined that there will be no hiding place for those who break the law - whatever their status. The people who committed these abominable crimes should pay for them. A number have already been brought to justice, proceedings are pending against some others and a number of investigations are ongoing. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform Dermot Ahern TD made available a copy of the report to the Garda Commissioner and the Director of Public Prosecutions as soon as he received it in July. The Commissioner has assured the Minister that pursuing the perpetrators, whenever the abuse occurred, is an absolute priority for the Force.
Ireland for too long operated almost as semi clerocracy, with the church unaccountable to the state, and working in partnership, sometimes for good and clearly sometimes for evil. It is a clear reminder that only with clear separation of church and state, can institutions of religion start to effectively be held responsible when they conspire to commit crime or to conceal those within it who do.
08 November 2009
Scum of the week
Teenage girls try to mug a mother, so attack the woman's two year old daughter in London.
Images of the oxygen thieves are here. They are still at large.
I need say nothing more.
Images of the oxygen thieves are here. They are still at large.
I need say nothing more.
30 October 2009
Laws is wrong, but
he is expressing the frustration of those who see an underclass of violent, negligent and destructive people breeding, producing children who face a bleak and difficult future.
His solution as described in the Dominion Post is wrong. Damned if taxpayers should reward people for being indolent, otherwise it becomes a career option for the stupid - be sufficiently vile and threaten to breed and get someone else's money for nothing. It has been deliberately misconstrued as "totalitarian", as if people have a right to be appallingly bad parents, when the likes of Cindy Kiro (backed by Sue Bradford) did advocate a totalitarian solution, yet no mainstream media ever picked up on it.
However he has a point. A point that the Child Poverty (in)Action Group misses, because it worships at the altar of "higher benefits" rather than genuinely combating the lack of ambition and the feral behaviour of so many in poverty. Barnadoes Chief Executive Murray Edridge rightfully says any child could become a doctor but he is wrong in saying "as long as there was community support for them", as he implies that good parents are expendable. The truth is that they are not. Sue Bradford even trots out the usual "more resources" nonsense to combat violence.
No, you don't need money to stop killing your kids.
The fundamental problem is twofold.
Firstly, people are paid to breed. Many who are don't abuse their kids, but they inculcate a culture of entitlement. A belief that everyone owes them a living and should pay to raise their kids. However, you can be a murderer, rapist, violent criminal, burglar or fraudster and still be paid by the state to raise kids, and get more money with every child you have.
The first simple thing to do is to prohibit all people convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence from ever being able to claim welfare. That includes anything for raising children.
Oh, but what about the kids? Indeed, the parents should have thought of that. They are responsible for the children, they bear the burden of paying for that. If people want to help, they are free to do so voluntarily. However, taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for criminals to breed - simple as that. After that, you might ask whether taxpayers should be forced to pay for anyone to breed.
Secondly, the state needs to be willing to remove children from their parents when they abuse them or become an accessory to abuse of them. The threshold should be high, but effort should be put into intervening when there is clear evidence of criminal behaviour towards the children, or fundamental neglect. Indeed, it should be considered in sentencing whether criminals should be permanently denied custody of their children, if the offending is serious or the children were used as accessories.
Finally, parents who clearly can't look after their kids should surrender them as a last resort, those who say they care about child poverty might actually think about doing something about kids in those situations, rather than complain the government hasn't done it.
There has always been an underclass that neglects and abuses children, what we know now is that it is more publicised, and cases appear to be more frequent. However, the answer to this underclass is to stop feeding the attitudes of dependency, victimhood and blame passing that welfarism promotes, and indeed more than a few on the left promote (the nonsense that capitalism stresses people out so much, they turn on their children).
His solution as described in the Dominion Post is wrong. Damned if taxpayers should reward people for being indolent, otherwise it becomes a career option for the stupid - be sufficiently vile and threaten to breed and get someone else's money for nothing. It has been deliberately misconstrued as "totalitarian", as if people have a right to be appallingly bad parents, when the likes of Cindy Kiro (backed by Sue Bradford) did advocate a totalitarian solution, yet no mainstream media ever picked up on it.
However he has a point. A point that the Child Poverty (in)Action Group misses, because it worships at the altar of "higher benefits" rather than genuinely combating the lack of ambition and the feral behaviour of so many in poverty. Barnadoes Chief Executive Murray Edridge rightfully says any child could become a doctor but he is wrong in saying "as long as there was community support for them", as he implies that good parents are expendable. The truth is that they are not. Sue Bradford even trots out the usual "more resources" nonsense to combat violence.
No, you don't need money to stop killing your kids.
The fundamental problem is twofold.
Firstly, people are paid to breed. Many who are don't abuse their kids, but they inculcate a culture of entitlement. A belief that everyone owes them a living and should pay to raise their kids. However, you can be a murderer, rapist, violent criminal, burglar or fraudster and still be paid by the state to raise kids, and get more money with every child you have.
The first simple thing to do is to prohibit all people convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence from ever being able to claim welfare. That includes anything for raising children.
Oh, but what about the kids? Indeed, the parents should have thought of that. They are responsible for the children, they bear the burden of paying for that. If people want to help, they are free to do so voluntarily. However, taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for criminals to breed - simple as that. After that, you might ask whether taxpayers should be forced to pay for anyone to breed.
Secondly, the state needs to be willing to remove children from their parents when they abuse them or become an accessory to abuse of them. The threshold should be high, but effort should be put into intervening when there is clear evidence of criminal behaviour towards the children, or fundamental neglect. Indeed, it should be considered in sentencing whether criminals should be permanently denied custody of their children, if the offending is serious or the children were used as accessories.
Finally, parents who clearly can't look after their kids should surrender them as a last resort, those who say they care about child poverty might actually think about doing something about kids in those situations, rather than complain the government hasn't done it.
There has always been an underclass that neglects and abuses children, what we know now is that it is more publicised, and cases appear to be more frequent. However, the answer to this underclass is to stop feeding the attitudes of dependency, victimhood and blame passing that welfarism promotes, and indeed more than a few on the left promote (the nonsense that capitalism stresses people out so much, they turn on their children).
10 October 2009
When Chris Trotter is partly right
From Bowalley Road:
"As New Zealand’s leading conservative party, founded in 1936 to restrain state power and protect the rights of the individual citizen, National should be the most avid defender of the ancient rights and privileges of the people. Sadly, on matters of law and order, National long ago surrendered to the irrational populism of the Mob."
He's not entirely correct, some of the "irrational populism" is a genuine sense of frustration at how repeat offenders get the opportunity to create new victims, but he's right. National shows precious little interest in restraining state power.
I don't share Trotter's view that "a huge number of otherwise sensible and compassionate people are no longer able to see that, for all but a few moments of life-transformingly bad decision-making, most lawbreakers are indistinguishable from themselves", which minimises when people DO use violence, rape or break and enter a property as being a "bad decision", rather than a violation of the rights of another, but he is indeed right that the presumption of innocence is fundamental.
However, whilst in principle he is right, is he right about the proposals he listed?
- Tougher bail laws when the issue is a person being a likely threat to public safety is not inconsistent with protecting individual rights.
- Abolishing the right to silence is not quite what it seems, it is in fact allowing it to be mentioned in court in evidence that the accused used the right and the Jury can interpret it as they see fit. The state should not force someone to speak. I hope I am correct in the interpretation.
- Cutting back on legal aid is essentially a welfare matter, but in essence nobody should be without defence counsel in court.
- The use of "teleconferencing" should not be ruled out because Trotter is old;
- Finally, the right to a jury trial, which Power intends to restrict only to offences where one faces 3 years in prison or not, IS fundamental. Power also suggests an inquisitorial approach to rape cases. This is a fundamental change to the entire criminal justice system, for one crime. One should tread carefully before considering this.
Jury trials are expensive and slow, but they are critically important. Though to be frank, I doubt I'd choose a jury over a judge if I was accused.
Note Power also talks about a "positive definition" for consent in sexual crime cases. At its extreme this would mean a signed form for sexual encounters to say you consent, which of course wouldn't obviate a last minute "no" for whatever reason. Rape is an inherently difficult crime for the justice system because it involves the greatest physical intimacy combined with violence, and too often includes people who already know each other, and circumstances that allow reasonable doubt to be presented.
However, that is not a reason to destroy that assumption.
So Trotter is somewhat right.
You see Simon Power's biggest error is this claim "The people in our prisons right now are there because they committed crimes against other New Zealanders.". For many he is right, for a few he is dead wrong. Not all crimes in New Zealand have victims. Remove victimless crimes from the books and he would be right.
However he made the point in a wider context in that the high prisoner population "is primarily a symptom of a much more fundamental problem – crime itself."
So the focus COULD be on removing victimless crimes from the books, emptying the prisons of those with such convictions, and focusing on real crimes with real victims.
That WOULD be a reason to celebrate law and order reform.
"As New Zealand’s leading conservative party, founded in 1936 to restrain state power and protect the rights of the individual citizen, National should be the most avid defender of the ancient rights and privileges of the people. Sadly, on matters of law and order, National long ago surrendered to the irrational populism of the Mob."
He's not entirely correct, some of the "irrational populism" is a genuine sense of frustration at how repeat offenders get the opportunity to create new victims, but he's right. National shows precious little interest in restraining state power.
I don't share Trotter's view that "a huge number of otherwise sensible and compassionate people are no longer able to see that, for all but a few moments of life-transformingly bad decision-making, most lawbreakers are indistinguishable from themselves", which minimises when people DO use violence, rape or break and enter a property as being a "bad decision", rather than a violation of the rights of another, but he is indeed right that the presumption of innocence is fundamental.
However, whilst in principle he is right, is he right about the proposals he listed?
- Tougher bail laws when the issue is a person being a likely threat to public safety is not inconsistent with protecting individual rights.
- Abolishing the right to silence is not quite what it seems, it is in fact allowing it to be mentioned in court in evidence that the accused used the right and the Jury can interpret it as they see fit. The state should not force someone to speak. I hope I am correct in the interpretation.
- Cutting back on legal aid is essentially a welfare matter, but in essence nobody should be without defence counsel in court.
- The use of "teleconferencing" should not be ruled out because Trotter is old;
- Finally, the right to a jury trial, which Power intends to restrict only to offences where one faces 3 years in prison or not, IS fundamental. Power also suggests an inquisitorial approach to rape cases. This is a fundamental change to the entire criminal justice system, for one crime. One should tread carefully before considering this.
Jury trials are expensive and slow, but they are critically important. Though to be frank, I doubt I'd choose a jury over a judge if I was accused.
Note Power also talks about a "positive definition" for consent in sexual crime cases. At its extreme this would mean a signed form for sexual encounters to say you consent, which of course wouldn't obviate a last minute "no" for whatever reason. Rape is an inherently difficult crime for the justice system because it involves the greatest physical intimacy combined with violence, and too often includes people who already know each other, and circumstances that allow reasonable doubt to be presented.
However, that is not a reason to destroy that assumption.
So Trotter is somewhat right.
You see Simon Power's biggest error is this claim "The people in our prisons right now are there because they committed crimes against other New Zealanders.". For many he is right, for a few he is dead wrong. Not all crimes in New Zealand have victims. Remove victimless crimes from the books and he would be right.
However he made the point in a wider context in that the high prisoner population "is primarily a symptom of a much more fundamental problem – crime itself."
So the focus COULD be on removing victimless crimes from the books, emptying the prisons of those with such convictions, and focusing on real crimes with real victims.
That WOULD be a reason to celebrate law and order reform.
08 October 2009
French Minister of Pedarasty?
So you defend Roman Polanski.
Then someone reads your biography from four years ago where you say:
"I got into the habit of paying for boys . . . The profusion of young, very attractive and immediately available boys put me in a state of desire that I no longer needed to restrain or hide"
Then someone reads your biography from four years ago where you say:
"I got into the habit of paying for boys . . . The profusion of young, very attractive and immediately available boys put me in a state of desire that I no longer needed to restrain or hide"
"All these rituals of the market for youths, the slave market excited me enormously ... the abundance of very attractive and immediately available young boys put me in a state of desire."
Let it be clear the age of these boys is not clear, they may be legal age.
However, it is a big oops.
He COULD come out and say the boys were legal age, I have no shame about exploiting prostitutes from developing countries who consented and were (young) adults (!). There is no proof he has broken any laws.
However defending Polanski does not make for a good look. Polanski no doubt was excited enormously and was in a state of desire, so he drugged and raped a young girl.
It is THAT that denies his moral authority for certain, whether his rapacious hedonism also does so is something we may not ever know.
04 October 2009
Police create market opportunity
Closing down one supplier, puts up the price, and a new opportunity emerges.
Someone will be celebrating this, it wont be the customers, who will pay more, but the competition.
So what good has been done?
So, if you're in Queenstown, have you found the Police very responsive to thefts, burglaries, car conversions and vandalism?
Someone will be celebrating this, it wont be the customers, who will pay more, but the competition.
So what good has been done?
So, if you're in Queenstown, have you found the Police very responsive to thefts, burglaries, car conversions and vandalism?
01 October 2009
Whoopi Goldberg's excuse for Polanski
Just when you thought you'd heard everything, Whoopi Goldberg, who one would think of as being a feminist and someone who would embrace protecting young people from violence says:
"I know it wasn't rape-rape. I think it was something else, but I don't believe it was rape-rape", according to the Daily Telegraph.
Hmm drugging then telling a minor to submit to having sex with him is what then? So when a 13yo girl doesn't struggle and fight, then it's what?
Oh that's right, it's the entertainment industry. You're special, you do so much for us, it's not so serious when one of you rapes a young girl right?
You pontificate about politics, judge so many other sectors, yet far too many of you give excuses for your friends to do violence to others.
The ONLY person with any right to say anything about this case is the victim, who happens to want it all to be left alone. That is the only mitigating factor as to how it is treated now.
Oh and she isn't the only one making excuses. Here is a petition (in French) signed by more than a few famous people, appeasing the man's forcible rape of a young girl.
"I know it wasn't rape-rape. I think it was something else, but I don't believe it was rape-rape", according to the Daily Telegraph.
Hmm drugging then telling a minor to submit to having sex with him is what then? So when a 13yo girl doesn't struggle and fight, then it's what?
Oh that's right, it's the entertainment industry. You're special, you do so much for us, it's not so serious when one of you rapes a young girl right?
You pontificate about politics, judge so many other sectors, yet far too many of you give excuses for your friends to do violence to others.
The ONLY person with any right to say anything about this case is the victim, who happens to want it all to be left alone. That is the only mitigating factor as to how it is treated now.
Oh and she isn't the only one making excuses. Here is a petition (in French) signed by more than a few famous people, appeasing the man's forcible rape of a young girl.
30 September 2009
Hey others abuse kids too
Oh really, as true as it may be, you do have to wonder at the wisdom of Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican’s permanent representative to the United Nations in Geneva, reported as saying that child abuse is common in other churches too. He claims 1.5-5% of clergy are involved in child abuse, which even if conservative is disgraceful.
However, there is no penance in being a party to covering up crimes to finger point "them too".
Of course, protestant churches and preachers of other religions abuse children too. Who has ever denied this? This also gets exposed and continues to be a cause of concern, but this reminds of the Albanian communist politician who on Australian TV said "every country has political prisoners" to excuse the then Stalinist state's repression of dissent.
Until the Vatican demands that all those who have committed atrocities towards children stand up and give themselves up to the authorities, and excommunicates the guilty, it can hardly start pointing fingers at others. Its own house absolutely reeks.
However, there is no penance in being a party to covering up crimes to finger point "them too".
Of course, protestant churches and preachers of other religions abuse children too. Who has ever denied this? This also gets exposed and continues to be a cause of concern, but this reminds of the Albanian communist politician who on Australian TV said "every country has political prisoners" to excuse the then Stalinist state's repression of dissent.
Until the Vatican demands that all those who have committed atrocities towards children stand up and give themselves up to the authorities, and excommunicates the guilty, it can hardly start pointing fingers at others. Its own house absolutely reeks.
11 September 2009
Authoritarian Britain to make kids safe?
New Zealand had a close call with the resignation of Dr Cindy Kiro and Labour losing the last election, to avoid a neo-Stalinist level of state intervention in families. Big mother was going to be watching you.
She wanted children monitored from birth, by the state, this was warmly embraced byformer Maoist Sue Bradford, Metiria Turei had a high regard for her, as did some Labour MPs. She blamed everyone for child abuse, tarred everyone with the brush that they tolerated violence and made all children the issue. She preferred a nuclear bomb rather than a sniper.
So how could things have been in NZ?
Well let's look at the UK. The Daily Telegraph reports that parents who formally arrange to transport other people's children to and from sports events or the like will need to be criminally vetted:
"Any formal agreement to ferry youngsters to and from the likes of Scouts, dance classes or local football matches, even if only once a month, will fall under the Government’s new Vetting and Barring Scheme.
She wanted children monitored from birth, by the state, this was warmly embraced by
So how could things have been in NZ?
Well let's look at the UK. The Daily Telegraph reports that parents who formally arrange to transport other people's children to and from sports events or the like will need to be criminally vetted:
"Any formal agreement to ferry youngsters to and from the likes of Scouts, dance classes or local football matches, even if only once a month, will fall under the Government’s new Vetting and Barring Scheme.
It means anyone who fails to register and have their backgrounds checked faces a fine of up to £5,000 and a criminal record.
Parents who help children read in class or those who host foreign pupils as part of school exchange trips will also have to be vetted by the new Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) and undergo criminal record checks.
School governors, dentists, pharmacists, prison officers and even dinner ladies are among the huge list of people who will now fall under the scheme, which starts to be rolled out next month and will eventually cover 11.3 million people."
So everyone is guilty till the state proves they are innocent, anyone who refuses to do so, is guilty of the crime of - not letting the state prove you are innocent.
Old Holborn says "This batty Quango seeking a role for itself at the public cost, is seeking to 'restrict access' to children. The little buggers are around us all the time, they are part of our lives not some protected species that is in danger of extinction."
So is this just about those convicted of abusing children? No. After all, not everyone caught abusing kids was caught before, so what will happen? The Times reports:
"Controversially, complaints or concerns from colleagues or members of the public that fall short of prosecutions may be held on an individual’s file, which will be available for viewing by any employer or voluntary group with which the person might work".
So got a grudge against someone, or a bit fearful of the eccentric chap down the street? Make a complaint, and you'll keep them from interacting with children. It IS akin to East Germany, where people were encouraged to report on their neighbours and files were kept about suspicious activities.
The Tories should promise to abolish the Independent Safeguarding Authority. All that should be able to happen is for people to choose to check if someone has a criminal conviction. Anything less is accusing the innocent of being guilty, ignores the truth that much child abuse happens within families (so will never be caught by this).
Most importantly, there needs to be a recognition that the state cannot hope to protect all children from the risk of an adult abusing them.
Remember, you can always justify an increase in state interference in the lives of innocent people on the grounds of protecting children. Take it to its logical end and everyone will need a licence to have children, there will be cameras in every home, children will walk around in burqas (so perverts don't look at them and fantasise), and everyone they interact with, and everything they see or do is officially approved.
By the way, with the exception of the cameras (but there are people watching in every housing block) and burqas (though state approved clothing is fairly plain) North Korea has a lot of this already. That's a place that knows how to treat children, especially children of people who object to any of this.
However, will British people stand up? No, they'll be inert like they have been for years over this sort of authoritarianism. I don't expect the Tories to have the slightest testicular fortitude to do anything about it either.
UPDATE: 10 Drowning Street says the logical extension is to vet all parents, and for the state to remove the children if they are deemed unsuitable.
The Independent Safeguarding Authority website is here. "The Independent Safeguarding Authority’s (ISA) role is to help prevent unsuitable people from working with children and vulnerable adults." Sadly they don't define themselves as being unsuitable people for working at all. What sort of control freak would "work" for this body?
Old Holborn says "This batty Quango seeking a role for itself at the public cost, is seeking to 'restrict access' to children. The little buggers are around us all the time, they are part of our lives not some protected species that is in danger of extinction."
So is this just about those convicted of abusing children? No. After all, not everyone caught abusing kids was caught before, so what will happen? The Times reports:
"Controversially, complaints or concerns from colleagues or members of the public that fall short of prosecutions may be held on an individual’s file, which will be available for viewing by any employer or voluntary group with which the person might work".
So got a grudge against someone, or a bit fearful of the eccentric chap down the street? Make a complaint, and you'll keep them from interacting with children. It IS akin to East Germany, where people were encouraged to report on their neighbours and files were kept about suspicious activities.
The Tories should promise to abolish the Independent Safeguarding Authority. All that should be able to happen is for people to choose to check if someone has a criminal conviction. Anything less is accusing the innocent of being guilty, ignores the truth that much child abuse happens within families (so will never be caught by this).
Most importantly, there needs to be a recognition that the state cannot hope to protect all children from the risk of an adult abusing them.
Remember, you can always justify an increase in state interference in the lives of innocent people on the grounds of protecting children. Take it to its logical end and everyone will need a licence to have children, there will be cameras in every home, children will walk around in burqas (so perverts don't look at them and fantasise), and everyone they interact with, and everything they see or do is officially approved.
By the way, with the exception of the cameras (but there are people watching in every housing block) and burqas (though state approved clothing is fairly plain) North Korea has a lot of this already. That's a place that knows how to treat children, especially children of people who object to any of this.
However, will British people stand up? No, they'll be inert like they have been for years over this sort of authoritarianism. I don't expect the Tories to have the slightest testicular fortitude to do anything about it either.
UPDATE: 10 Drowning Street says the logical extension is to vet all parents, and for the state to remove the children if they are deemed unsuitable.
The Independent Safeguarding Authority website is here. "The Independent Safeguarding Authority’s (ISA) role is to help prevent unsuitable people from working with children and vulnerable adults." Sadly they don't define themselves as being unsuitable people for working at all. What sort of control freak would "work" for this body?
10 September 2009
She believed it was ok
NZ Herald reports:
"A woman accused of inflicting head injuries which nearly caused the death of her four-year-old son has been found guilty of wounding with intent to injure.
Itupa Julie Mikaio, 40, of Blockhouse Bay, Auckland, was also found guilty of neglecting to provide the necessaries of life to the boy."
"She had admitted a charge of injuring with intent, causing injuries to his body by striking him with a shoe,...said her actions after Benjamin became injured were appropriate for what she understood."
As we know, this is now a legitimate mitigating defence in New Zealand. Your violent actions and subsequent gross negligence towards your victim is "ok" as long as you thought it was the right thing to do.
The case is quite nasty, as a 9yo witnessing the events gave evidence "She said Miakaio "chucked his head down and smacked it. She pushes it to the floor". She said Benjamin's head went on to the lounge floor "hard" and he fainted afterwards. When asked why she did this, the witness said it was because he wet his pants and his bed. She also described seeing Mikaio hit Benjamin with a shoe and part of a vacuum cleaner.
Quite the liar she is too. No doubt have frightened her daughter into lying to protect them.
Of course the law against smacking means this isnow STILL illegal, but lets wait and see the sentence one can get, for permanently disabling a small child under your care. Surely it must be less than drowning and torturing a woman to death to remove a demon you believe possessing her?
I presume Sue Bradford's solution for this sort of case is to give the mother more of your money, then she might be preoccupied with spending it rather than being vile towards her children. It certainly is John Minto's answer.
"A woman accused of inflicting head injuries which nearly caused the death of her four-year-old son has been found guilty of wounding with intent to injure.
Itupa Julie Mikaio, 40, of Blockhouse Bay, Auckland, was also found guilty of neglecting to provide the necessaries of life to the boy."
"She had admitted a charge of injuring with intent, causing injuries to his body by striking him with a shoe,...said her actions after Benjamin became injured were appropriate for what she understood."
As we know, this is now a legitimate mitigating defence in New Zealand. Your violent actions and subsequent gross negligence towards your victim is "ok" as long as you thought it was the right thing to do.
The case is quite nasty, as a 9yo witnessing the events gave evidence "She said Miakaio "chucked his head down and smacked it. She pushes it to the floor". She said Benjamin's head went on to the lounge floor "hard" and he fainted afterwards. When asked why she did this, the witness said it was because he wet his pants and his bed. She also described seeing Mikaio hit Benjamin with a shoe and part of a vacuum cleaner.
Quite the liar she is too. No doubt have frightened her daughter into lying to protect them.
Of course the law against smacking means this is
I presume Sue Bradford's solution for this sort of case is to give the mother more of your money, then she might be preoccupied with spending it rather than being vile towards her children. It certainly is John Minto's answer.
24 August 2009
Child abusers need to be bribed
So is the philosophy of leftwing columnist John Minto. After bemoaning child abuse figures in his Stuff blog, he has found a magic solution for it - give them more unearned money. Yes that's right, people rape, batter, torture, abuse, belittle and ignore their kids because the state hasn't handed them more money taken from everyone else. Like some sort of sick mafia racket, that means "give us more money or we'll hurt our kids".
Of course it's nonsense. Plenty of poorer families don't abuse their kids, and there is a share of middle income families who do. However, what really is abusive is Minto's malignant view of society and capitalism.
He doesn't conceal his hardened Marxism by saying: "we need economic policies which redistribute wealth from those who haven't earned it to those who do the work"
Of course it's nonsense. Plenty of poorer families don't abuse their kids, and there is a share of middle income families who do. However, what really is abusive is Minto's malignant view of society and capitalism.
He doesn't conceal his hardened Marxism by saying: "we need economic policies which redistribute wealth from those who haven't earned it to those who do the work"
Those who "haven't earned it". Who are they John? Farmers, doctors, lawyers, accountants, entrepreneurs and others who have spent time either managing something productive or applying their specialist skills to people willing to pay for it? (unlike Minto who has precious little to offer other than getting people like himself to chant in unison and moan how the world is unfair). Apparently if you pillage the people with ideas, who take risks and own property, all will be well - they wont flee with their money and skills and say "bye bye" will they? Or maybe John Minto wants a Berlin Wall type arrangement, to keep these people in NZ so they don't leave?
How about "those who do the work"? They don't get paid enough of course, John failing to note there always seems to be a lot of people willing to do the work for what they are paid, which suggests there is no need to pay them more. Labour shortages mean pay increases, but there is never a shortage at the bottom for people with next to no skills and experience.
Minto is in his heart of hearts a Marxist thief - he wants to steal from the rich to give to the poor, he wants the state to shove its jackboot in the face of those who get in his way.
He says "Taxes on capital gains (on all but the family home) and heavy death duties are the logical place to start. A financial transaction tax should follow and GST should be abolished"
"Tax and income policy should be based around what is needed for a breadwinner to maintain his or her family at a decent standard of living after a 40-hour working week based on sociable hours."
oh and if you actually earn less than that, don't bother trying, John Minto will make sure the state steals from the more productive so you can get a "decent" standards of living, with sociable hours. Delightful that. You wont bash up your son or rape your daughter now you don't have to work so hard for a living someone else has earnt.
THAT is how you reduce child abuse if you're a Marxist, you steal money from those who don't abuse their kids and give it to those who do - because when you're poor, you beat up and rape your kids (after all the anger's got to go somewhere doesn't it?).
Good job John Minto is far from poor then, or else his kids would be in for a hiding wouldn't they?
UPDATED: Opinionated Mummy agrees saying what Minto is promoting is damaging "The lessons you are teaching the young and impressionable people who may have (unfortunately) read your column are damaging, disrespectful, and (you won't care about this) economically unsustainable."
18 August 2009
Key's simpering apology for torture
Sorry John, you got it all wrong. In fact, the NZ Herald report of John Key's siding with Justice Simon France on the "Makutu" case while not surprising (it being a very big deal for any Prime Minister to criticise a High Court judge), it is disappointing. He could have simply kept his mouth shut.
Apparently John thinks being "misguided and not malicious" should mitigate any sentence someone gets for sustained acts of torture.
So the next time a sadist is up on charging of whipping his son within an inch of his life, and kills him accidentally, because he believed Satan had taken him over, then John will be sympathetic if this violent child abuser gets a community sentence.
The next time this lot have a go at getting rid of a Makutu, and ring the ambulance after whipping, burning or whatever other method of torture they wish to use against the 14yo cousin (who was next in line for their "exorcism"), then John Key and Simon France wont think they are a danger to society.
A man can molest a child and get an injunction against being near children to protect them, but a group of middle aged Maori men and women can threaten to torture someone because of sincerely held religious beliefs, and well let's not worry about that.
Oswald Bastable notes the Crown wont appeal the sentence.
So the next victim of this Dark Ages practice can point fingers squarely at Simon France, the Crown Prosecutor, and of course the PM now, for thinking this sort of precedence doesn't send a signal that "you can torture and get away with it using the "Makutu" defence".
Indeed, if there is one by someone of another religion, I look forward to the appeal on someone's sentence, on the basis that the High Court has now set a sentencing precedence.
Apparently John thinks being "misguided and not malicious" should mitigate any sentence someone gets for sustained acts of torture.
So the next time a sadist is up on charging of whipping his son within an inch of his life, and kills him accidentally, because he believed Satan had taken him over, then John will be sympathetic if this violent child abuser gets a community sentence.
The next time this lot have a go at getting rid of a Makutu, and ring the ambulance after whipping, burning or whatever other method of torture they wish to use against the 14yo cousin (who was next in line for their "exorcism"), then John Key and Simon France wont think they are a danger to society.
A man can molest a child and get an injunction against being near children to protect them, but a group of middle aged Maori men and women can threaten to torture someone because of sincerely held religious beliefs, and well let's not worry about that.
Oswald Bastable notes the Crown wont appeal the sentence.
So the next victim of this Dark Ages practice can point fingers squarely at Simon France, the Crown Prosecutor, and of course the PM now, for thinking this sort of precedence doesn't send a signal that "you can torture and get away with it using the "Makutu" defence".
Indeed, if there is one by someone of another religion, I look forward to the appeal on someone's sentence, on the basis that the High Court has now set a sentencing precedence.
16 August 2009
Trevor Mallard shows backbone
Following on from extensive comments in support of my view on Simon France's sentencing of five torturers comes Trevor Mallard, using the word torture (what are YOU reading Trevor?) to describe what these people did. He did it on the Labour Party blog. Good on him.
So what will the Minister of Justice, one Simon Power, say? Undoubtedly the standard line of not wanting to get involved in judicial decisionmaking. In fact, Simon Power was lectured by Simon France, when France was a lecturer at the law school of Victoria University of Wellington. Power was distinctly conservative at the time, so it will be interesting to see if Trevor Mallard has a better sense of what is nonsense than Power.
The Maori Party after all undoubtedly wont be speaking out about this, given Tariana Turia's own belief in anciest ghosts. No doubt, anyone thinking Maori who torture their relatives due to irrational religious beliefs should get a harsher punishment are Maori bashing - a label, ironically, that far too Maori could appropriately and sadly wear.
So what will the Minister of Justice, one Simon Power, say? Undoubtedly the standard line of not wanting to get involved in judicial decisionmaking. In fact, Simon Power was lectured by Simon France, when France was a lecturer at the law school of Victoria University of Wellington. Power was distinctly conservative at the time, so it will be interesting to see if Trevor Mallard has a better sense of what is nonsense than Power.
The Maori Party after all undoubtedly wont be speaking out about this, given Tariana Turia's own belief in anciest ghosts. No doubt, anyone thinking Maori who torture their relatives due to irrational religious beliefs should get a harsher punishment are Maori bashing - a label, ironically, that far too Maori could appropriately and sadly wear.
14 August 2009
Torture isn't serious in New Zealand
Picture this.
A gang of your relatives believe in "goblins, ghosts and demons". They believe you contain a "demon". No doubt the more you resist, the more they are convinced you have one.
They imprison you in a flat against your will. Assault and restrain you. Engage in the systematic water torture of you, to try to “exorcise” the “demon”. It is forced down your throat and nose repeatedly while you remain inprisoned by this gang.
In other words, Guantanamo Bay treated Islamist terrorist suspects better. Waterboarding is childs' play in comparison.
Ultimately your tired body, fed up with resisting, has its lungs fill with enough water that you drown. Remember drowning? That's when you can't breathe, because every time you do, you go into an enormous cough reflex and eventually pass out in desperation, all the while this gang force feeds you water.
What do these loving relatives do? They don’t phone for an ambulance, don’t try to resuscitate you. You see they probably don’t believe in modern medicine. They grab your 14yo cousin and start the same process on her.
What are the reasonable conclusions?
1. They are sadistic murderers, out to dispose of you, but not very efficiently (unlikely in this case)
2. They are clinically insane. Seriously mentally ill and dangerous.
3. They are stupid and mindless. Not quite insane, but very very stupid and incapable of empathy when they convinced a person is a “demon”.
Note the difference between 2 and 3 is a matter of degree and legal definition.
So what should a judge do with them?
According to the NZ Herald, High Court Justice Simon France says "community based sentences". Stuff reports that this includes this horrible penalty "Under the community detention order Rawiri and Wright will be curfewed to their homes between the hours of 9pm and 6am daily for six months." How rough is that? They will have to - watch TV and sleep then!!
Yes, it is the dark ages. So all you need to do to get rid of someone you know who you don’t like is to claim you’re exorcising a demon, demonstrate it as a truly held belief, and go for it. As Cactus Kate says, “Look for the "Makutu" mitigation of sentence to pop up in child-bashing cases from now on” and don’t expect the Greens, who care so much about child abuse, to express interest in this. These people will walk free and be able to practice their mindless violent techniques again.
Yes they didn’t intend to kill her, or harm her. However, how many other crimes can be justified by that? Can a child rapist claim “I wanted her to enjoy it, I wanted it to be positive for her, I didn’t intend to hurt her”? No.
However, presumably because it is Maori religious mumbo-jumbo it is ok. I suspect had a Catholic priest engaged in such techniques for an exorcism and the result was death, that he wouldn’t be getting a community based sentence.
So in New Zealand, torturing and accidentally killing someone isn't a reason to imprison, as long as you do it under the aegis of Maori supernatural beliefs. This wont, of course, be an issue for most New Zealanders - but woe betide the children or young adults of families full of these sorts of cretins. If auntie or uncle or mum and dad talk about worrying about demons in the family, get far away, there is precious little deterrent to them torturing you to get it out.
UPDATE: Oswald Bastable agrees "these fuckers are all barking mad"
A gang of your relatives believe in "goblins, ghosts and demons". They believe you contain a "demon". No doubt the more you resist, the more they are convinced you have one.
They imprison you in a flat against your will. Assault and restrain you. Engage in the systematic water torture of you, to try to “exorcise” the “demon”. It is forced down your throat and nose repeatedly while you remain inprisoned by this gang.
In other words, Guantanamo Bay treated Islamist terrorist suspects better. Waterboarding is childs' play in comparison.
Ultimately your tired body, fed up with resisting, has its lungs fill with enough water that you drown. Remember drowning? That's when you can't breathe, because every time you do, you go into an enormous cough reflex and eventually pass out in desperation, all the while this gang force feeds you water.
What do these loving relatives do? They don’t phone for an ambulance, don’t try to resuscitate you. You see they probably don’t believe in modern medicine. They grab your 14yo cousin and start the same process on her.
What are the reasonable conclusions?
1. They are sadistic murderers, out to dispose of you, but not very efficiently (unlikely in this case)
2. They are clinically insane. Seriously mentally ill and dangerous.
3. They are stupid and mindless. Not quite insane, but very very stupid and incapable of empathy when they convinced a person is a “demon”.
Note the difference between 2 and 3 is a matter of degree and legal definition.
So what should a judge do with them?
According to the NZ Herald, High Court Justice Simon France says "community based sentences". Stuff reports that this includes this horrible penalty "Under the community detention order Rawiri and Wright will be curfewed to their homes between the hours of 9pm and 6am daily for six months." How rough is that? They will have to - watch TV and sleep then!!
Yes, it is the dark ages. So all you need to do to get rid of someone you know who you don’t like is to claim you’re exorcising a demon, demonstrate it as a truly held belief, and go for it. As Cactus Kate says, “Look for the "Makutu" mitigation of sentence to pop up in child-bashing cases from now on” and don’t expect the Greens, who care so much about child abuse, to express interest in this. These people will walk free and be able to practice their mindless violent techniques again.
Yes they didn’t intend to kill her, or harm her. However, how many other crimes can be justified by that? Can a child rapist claim “I wanted her to enjoy it, I wanted it to be positive for her, I didn’t intend to hurt her”? No.
However, presumably because it is Maori religious mumbo-jumbo it is ok. I suspect had a Catholic priest engaged in such techniques for an exorcism and the result was death, that he wouldn’t be getting a community based sentence.
So in New Zealand, torturing and accidentally killing someone isn't a reason to imprison, as long as you do it under the aegis of Maori supernatural beliefs. This wont, of course, be an issue for most New Zealanders - but woe betide the children or young adults of families full of these sorts of cretins. If auntie or uncle or mum and dad talk about worrying about demons in the family, get far away, there is precious little deterrent to them torturing you to get it out.
UPDATE: Oswald Bastable agrees "these fuckers are all barking mad"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)