Complain to council? Police come visit

Now I don't like Pauline Howe's opinions. I think they are quite vile. She thinks homosexuals are "sodomites" with "perverted sexual practices" who "spread sexually transmitted diseases" and can be blamed for the "downfall of every empire". She identifies herself as Christian, and obviously finds homosexual offensive. True to Voltaire of course I'll disagree with her, but agree with her right to express herself.

She objected, in writing, to Norwich City Council about a gay pride march. The response she got was twofold. Bridget Buttinger (let's call her "Norwich Chief Petty Fascist") replied warning her that she could face criminal charges for expressing such views. Buttinger says as a local authority it had an obligation to "eliminate discrimination of all kinds". Her letter was described as a "hate incident" because it was "motivated by prejudice or hatred".

No doubt it was such motivated. Mrs Howe was expressing an illegal opinion.

The letter concluded stating the matter had been passed to the police. Mrs Howe received a visit from two police officers to question her. Mrs Howe is a 67 year old grandmother, and understandably was quite shaken by the experience.

This is, of course, a total outrage. Mrs Howe should have the freedom of speech to be able to write to the council to complain about a gay pride march. It is her right as a citizen to hold her point of view and express it. She was not threatening ANYONE. She may herself hold views that means she supports the state initiating force, but then so does the entire Labour Party and indeed I bet most of the Conservative Party.

The Christian Institute, a campaign group, is investigating whether the council and police have breached her rights to free speech and religious freedom under the Human Rights Act.

Even Stonewall, a group campaigning for gay rights, believes the actions were disproportionate and are glad the police did not take things further.

It's outrageous. Mrs Howe should have every right to complain as she sees fit, even though I'd regard her views with utter disdain, she does not deserve to be threatened or told that her views are to be "eliminated". She can be told she is wrong, she can be ignored, but not threatened and the waste of police time and effort chasing this up is contemptible.

Yet no major UK political party will confront this.

There is nothing liberal about this - and I do wonder, how often the police confront Islamic preachers about how often they express their anti-homosexual views?

(Full story, Sunday Telegraph)

Tennessee ouch

(WARNING - CONTENT BELOW AND THE LINK MAY SERIOUSLY OFFEND)

This article is already popular.

However it does beg some curious questions...

In Tennessee, bestiality was apparently legal until recently, the crime committed being trespass (quite right to prosecute for that), but this just makes me go "ow":

Tait was also identified in court papers four years ago as being part of a horse sex 'party' in Washington state that led to the death of a man from internal injuries

I don't think the horse was quite the victim, given this statement "there wasn't enough evidence to suggest animals had been injured".

Obama Administration does something small but good

CNN reports that the US Justice Department has told federal prosecutors to pursue drug traffickers but NOT patients and caregivers in the 14 states that have legalised medical marijuana.

"It will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana," said Attorney General Eric Holder.

Furthermore

The Justice Department guidance said it would not be a wise use of federal resources to go after "individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law."

Of course, indeed it is the only humane approach.

Besides recognising the competency of states in deciding this sort of thing, it is a slight lessening of the rabid war on drugs that every previous administration, for decades has fought unsuccessfully.

The states where medical marijuana use is legal are Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Maryland, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

Let's be clear this is not legalisation, or decriminalisation, and drug users in those states wont be immune from Federal criminal action, but it does mean attention is withdrawn from a segment that simply comprises sick people using marijuana for relief. By what measure does the Federal Government have any right to interfere with this?

So dare I say it, a step for freedom from the Obama Administration.

It should be a crime!

Take this ridiculous statement reported by the BBC today:

Kathryn Szrodecki, who campaigns on behalf of overweight people, said that in the UK fat people were stared at, pointed at, talked about and attacked.... "This is a very common event - someone being beaten up should be a crime."

Oh it isn't? Woo hoo, let's go out and drat some brathchny tonight droogs, tolchock his yarbles and it will be a horrorshow raz.

Campaigners in the UK want a new law to ban discrimination on the basis of weight, so that people cannot be refused employment, housing or even be told by their doctor to lose weight, like a law in San Francisco.

So on the one hand, the state spends money telling people how to eat and to exercise, and wants to restrict advertising of unhealthy food, and use various tools of coercion to change eating and lifestyle habits, on the other hand there are people wanting the state to make it a crime to refuse services to people if they are overweight.

The report continues "Another campaigner, Marsha Coupe, said: "I have been punched, I have had beer thrown in my face, I have had people attack me on the train."

All of which are criminal offences. People who aren't fat face being attacked too, why is it more severe because of your weight (or indeed anything else)? Is Marsha simply not reporting the offences to the Police?

Yes it is true that people who are overweight do suffer cruel jokes, and the like. That is simply rude, and I am not endorsing such childish behaviour. However, is this a reason to pass a law against it? What next? No discrimination on the grounds of hair colour because blondes find it harder to be taken seriously and redheads are refused work because people fear they'll lose their temper?

Enough.

You do not have a right to not be offended. People will judge others for numerous reasons, from hair colour to eye colour to facial hair to weight, body shape, height and clothing. If overweight people want to campaign or boycott companies for being rude to them, then let them be - but this is not a matter for the law.

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.

It's not easy stopping P

There is little that need be said about the crackdown on P purchasers and suppliers that hasn’t been said before. Many users of P may be nihilistic and destroying themselves, and causing heartache for those who love them or depend on them, but criminalising them and the suppliers of what they seek will not change that.

Legalising P is the long term answer, but in advance of that much else needs to be done, in order that people become responsible for their own actions, and suppliers having to consider product liability. However, as there are already links on this I’d like to suggest something else that is more important, and nothing directly to do with politics.

Culture.

Most people take illicit drugs because they make them feel better, feel good. It is for pleasure. That, in itself, is not necessarily bad. However, it is clear that excessive use is about something else, escaping reality.

Whilst escaping reality is seen as a legitimate way to cope with overwhelming emotions, it is hardly a solution. Regular use of P helps people escape reality, with the logical consequences of abandoning reason – self destruction.

The decline through the 1950s to 1970s of the Christian-oriented basis for how many people saw life and existence saw holes filled with a range of philosophies. One of those was a nihilistic approach to life “there is no point”, “nothing means anything” etc. A destructive attitude that sees the only point to life the immediate satisfaction of pleasure, with the inevitable need for more of the same, greater, faster, longer, bigger, until ultimately you wake up from it all needing to eat, wash and find money so you have somewhere to live and pay for all of it. Whereas people once found solace in religion to cope with grief, relationship stresses, anxieties and the trials of life, some found solace in escaping it all.

None of this is new of course. Alcohol has a long history of supplying such escapism, but P has a completely different level of intensity. The problems attributed to both have the same source – philosophy.

The answer is to have a personal philosophy of embracing life, applying reason and enjoying existence for what it is. Enjoying your potential in whatever fields you get passionate for, whether business, the arts, sport, science, travel, social activities or anything else. For reality can be a pleasure of the senses, and a reason to live. The point to your life being to live it, enjoy it and share it if you wish with whoever shares your vision and values. The only limits being reality and respecting the same rights in others.

If the dominant cultural meme was like this, the prevalence of escaping reality would reduce, and then people would focus on assisting loved ones or others who needed help through difficult times. Criminalising those seeking to escape reality is likely to increase their willingness to escape reality. Making people responsible for their actions, through the health care system, welfare reform, criminal justice system and reform of ACC/tort law would be a step along the way to addressing it. These are all ways drug users escape the reality of any consequences of their actions (and indeed everyone else).

It is clear the status quo has both failed and is immoral. National is perpetuating it in the vain hope it will make a substantive difference, when the main effect will be to inconvenience people with cold and flu symptoms, and to harass tourists bringing in now restricted medications.

Meanwhile, guess how many pharmacies will have such medications in short supply by the end of the week?

As one sex offender finally is caught...

Like Not PC, I'm not really giving a damn about Roman Polanski finally getting caught. His achievements do not exonerate the predatory and violent treatment of a vulnerable young girl. These reports PC posted tell enough.

However, I am more concerned about this story, thanks also to Not PC. It essentially is the criminalisation of dozens upon dozens of teenage boys in the USA, for having sex, consensual factually (if not legally) with their girlfriend. The age difference is insignificant, but they are not only criminals, but registered sex offenders for life, with their names, faces, addresses constantly updated. In effect, they now have a life sentence of being unable to gain employment, or even find somewhere to live without harassment.

This is the consequence of a draconian blind war on sex crimes. The result is that the biggest victim isn't the girlfriend, but the "offender" who has, by and large, offended the precious feelings of the callous puritans.

It is a result Iran and the Taliban would sympathise about. It is a result warmly embraced by the Republicans and the Democrats.

Oh and in case you think New Zealand is immune from this, remember the hysteria from compassionate conservatives when Labour tried to amend the law to stop silly prosecutions of teenagers for fooling around with each other? Of course it couldn't do it.

Are you licensed to look after your neighbour's children?

For you see, in Britain, you might be breaking the law if you aren't.

According to The Times, Two Police officers regularly looked after each others' kids while they were on shift work. A perfectly normal voluntary arrangement between parents, for mutual benefit, and the benefit of the kids who have parents willing to work odd hours, to help raise the family.

You might think the state would simply let this be, or indeed private citizens would think nothing of it. No.

You see in Britain, there is an insipid culture that frankly would not have looked out of place in the former German Democratic Republic (that's "communist east Germany" for the confused). A neighbour noticed this arrangement and tipped off, Ofsted. Ofsted? The Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills. It has existed since 2007, and of course how did Britain cope without it?

You see if you look after children, who you are not related to, for more than two hours, for "reward", you must have a licence. You need to have First Aid training, training in childcare (amazing how parents can manage without this!) and be checked as to whether you have a criminal record. Reward in this case was the reciprocal provision of the service. However, money, baking a cake or giving a lift would also be a reward.

Yes, you read right. You cannot look after someone else's children for reward without a licence.

So the vile Stasi agent style neighbour having contacted Ofsted resulted in an inspector coming to visit to ask questions.

THIS is New Labour, this is the Nanny State going yet another step into intruding into the private arrangements of citizens. It follows on from the law that requires anyone who regularly deals informally with children, whether visiting a school or giving lifts to kids to sports clubs, to be vetted not just for crimes, but suspicions by private citizens that someone is a bit weird. It should send shivers up and down the spines of most people. It has shades of the Orwellian vision Dr. Cindy Kiro shared with the Green Party, had for New Zealand families.

At what point do people stand up and say no. When parents have a door knock every year to interview little Sam and Sarah, asking them if they ever get hit, ever see daddy's penis, ever hear anything racist from mummy and daddy, ever see them put recyclable items in with the rubbish, ever see any books that confuse them, ever get scared of mummy and daddy, what they eat and drink, whether they exercise much, etc etc?

Meanwhile, do people think it's ok for the state to licence almost every arrangements parents have with other adults involving their kids?

New Labour’s Britain, with full consent by the Tories and Liberal Democrats, doesn’t trust parents to make judgments about who should look after their kids, but apparently you’re all meant to trust the state.

So when a registered, state approved person next rapes a kid, will the parents be able to sue Nanny State for failing to protect them? No, of course not. It is more intrusion, and no more responsibility.

Those providing childcare should not rely on the state to approve its workers. No. Parents should ask childcare centres to demonstrate they do criminal vetting of their staff, and provide references. Most parents will only entrust their kids to centres who prove their safety and care for the kids. To make this a state regulated activity is in effect to nationalise it. It says to parents, don’t worry, the state has vetted everyone, they are trained, they are ok.

It says to parents, don’t you make your own judgment, the state knows better, and more disturbingly, it says that the state has the right to interfere in any private arrangements you make with others. In short, you can’t be trusted. Everyone’s a suspect until proven innocent. What sort of country does that make it then?

Sex with a teacher

Time to take a risk - add sex, a minor and the law, and you get heated views, and the one I'm going to express will be controversial.

A 26 year old teacher has a sexual relationship with a 15yo student (who will be 16 by the end of this month). Your automatic reaction? Appalled. It shouldn’t happen, the teacher should be punished and the student given the support needed.

However in this case there are some more interesting facts:
- The teacher is a woman, the student is a girl;
- The girl and the teacher were close, in love in fact and both apparently still are;
- The sexual relationship was initiated by the student, indeed she pushed for it over some time period;
- There is no victim statement from the student, who did not testify against the teacher. The victim statement is from the parents.

The teacher concerned was a child prodigy, undoubtedly smart and talented, it isn’t hard to see what the student might see in her. The teacher herself, helped to grow up fast because of her talent, may well emotionally be better able to relate to someone younger. Of course, we’ll never know. Indeed none of us should have known about this.

The only reason this got to court was because a woman got wind of the affair, after rumours spread, a meddler told the parents. The parents have reacted feeling betrayed, no doubt as much by their lying daughter as by the teacher, but it doesn’t look like they have spent much time thinking about the consequences of complaining to the Police about it. The likelihood is that their relationship with their daughter, now thoroughly humiliated and guilty for this, will deteriorate. After all, given she initiated the sexual behaviour, her guilt and blame for the devastation of the life of her teacher will be palpable. The teacher is getting 15 months in prison and being put on a sex offenders' registry (notice there is no violent offenders' registry, so you never know if you're going to hire or live near someone who has stabbed, beaten up or shot someone else) for ten years, and can never work with children again - because, of course, a lesbian adult is going to be a threat to 8 year olds presumably!!?!!

So where is the victim? The girl is distraught by the whole case because of how she and the teacher are being treated. In other words, the criminal justice system is caring not a jot for the so-called “victim”.

Let’s be clear here. A teacher should not engage in sexual relations with a pupil, it is entirely inappropriate. This is something that is appropriate to expressly forbid in employment contracts and in gaining teaching accreditation. Breaching this can quite rightly be grounds for dismissal and deregistration. In the UK it is a crime for a teacher to have sex with a pupil under 18, whereas anyone can have sex with those aged 16 and over.

However, the real question is whether it is a criminal matter when the only credible victim feels a victim BECAUSE of the criminal justice system pursuing the case.

In the current age some will feel “well if it had been a male teacher with the girl nobody would be asking these questions”, perhaps. What really matters here though is what is the role of the state in dealing with this case? If the teacher loses her job and her ability to pursue her job as a result of breaching terms and conditions, then so be it, that is appropriate. Beyond that the state is essentially saying the 15yo girl cannot make decisions for herself around sexuality to such a degree (yet she could these choices months later with men and women from aged 16 to 106) that the person who she pursued deserves a custodial sentence. Who is protected by this? What is gained by it?

If you were the parent you would be distressed your daughter went behind your back, and that the teacher and daughter lied continuously about the relationship. Why did they do that? Well it is obvious why they hid it.

Is it a reason to throw the woman in prison, given she can never teach again and faces having to rebuild her life from scratch because of that?

The judge in this case did make an interesting decision on contact between the two parties which speaks volumes about why this should not be a criminal matter. There is no prohibition on them having contact when the girl turns 16, including while the teacher is in prison. In effect, the judge acknowledged the two of them are in love, but the girl was the wrong side of the age line, marginally.

This is, after all, not about someone who is a child. This is not about the teacher approaching the pupil or just submitting to a flirtation, it is about a teenager and a young adult becoming emotionally close, and crossing a line by initiation of the teenager.

Would it not be preferable that in a case like this, there should be no criminal prosecution if the so-called “victim” objects? The question is at what age can one start to allow that, I would suggest the age of criminal responsibility. If someone is deemed old enough to know what she is doing as being right and wrong, surely that person is old enough to decide whether she is a victim.

It’s worth noting, of course, how hypocritical the UK is generally on this sort of thing. The Sun, for example, has had a voyeuristic field day on the case, of course knowing that not a few of its readers will wish that it could publish as many lurid details as possible. Similarly, in England you can be tried and found guilty of murder and rape if you are 10 or over, in other words, you’re an adult in terms of being a criminal from that age. On the one hand, many in the UK want to crack down on youngsters committing crime, quite rightly so, but equally want to treat them as victims and protect them. The truth is that they are somewhere in between that, and sadly the criminal justice system wont deal with that, and no politician would ever try.

The bigger issue is that teenage sexuality is problematic for so many. The reasons being that people are pulled between wanting to let teenagers be themselves and on the other hand shield them from something that is taught to be both very desirable and incredibly awful. That of course is another story, but in a country where all adults who have contact with children are to be treated as perverts unless they can prove their innocence, it is hardly surprising that sensible discussion is nearly impossible. This sort of nonsense which implies that the case of Madeleine McCann has some parallels, is the order of the day. Compare to this case of a 22yo female teacher and a 17yo male student, which was not a crime at the time.

You’re either in favour of being draconian or you’re a suspect. I would suggest that this article may actually have the more important point to be made here. Is it not time that young girls and boys did not feel that sexuality is about attracting attention, rather than reflecting who you are?

After all, it is only when a more rational and humanistic view of sexuality can be taken, will there be the ability of politicians to reflect wider views. Meanwhile, this is the country that plays the draconian card, and which at the same time has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe, stuck between guilt, shame, judgment and a massive undercurrent of hedonistic desire and perversion.

Gordon Brown does something right

Apologies for how Alan Turing was treated by the state.

About time. It is in an article in the Daily Telegraph by Brown himself:

"Turing was a quite brilliant mathematician, most famous for his work on breaking the German Enigma codes. It is no exaggeration to say that, without his outstanding contribution, the history of the Second World War could have been very different. He truly was one of those individuals we can point to whose unique contribution helped to turn the tide of war. The debt of gratitude he is owed makes it all the more horrifying, therefore, that he was treated so inhumanely.

In 1952, he was convicted of "gross indecency" – in effect, tried for being gay. His sentence – and he was faced with the miserable choice of this or prison – was chemical castration by a series of injections of female hormones. He took his own life just two years later"

Indeed.

Though, unfortunately, Brown's article makes one glaring error "For those of us born after 1945, into a Europe which is united, democratic and at peace, it is hard to imagine that our continent was once the theatre of mankind's darkest hour". Sorry Gordon, half of Europe was under totalitarian dictatorship, and it took another 45 years to liberate most of the other half. Even now, some remains under authoritarianism (Belarus and Russia most notably).

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 by former 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.

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?

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 is now 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.

Do nothing is an option, but

Some years ago when I worked in the public sector, I was reminded by a sagacious manager that "do nothing" was always an option that should be put forward to Ministers, with the relevant consequences. "Do nothing" was valid and often the best option he said.

Sadly, those days appear to have faded somewhat. "Do something" is what people expect and Ministers all want to "do something".

Lindsay Mitchell has written wisely about "what would happen if the government did nothing more about child abuse".

The state houses and pays for some child abusers, it supports those who don't want kids to keep them. So on the one hand it provide succour to those who abuse, on the other hand it also has its core and proper role, which is the identification and prosecution of cases of criminal abuse and neglect. In other words, when the state steps in for the rights of children not to be raped, punched and ignored.

There will always be parents, guardians and strangers who will abuse children in the foreseeable future. Quite simply because there will always be flawed human beings, who thrive in the torture and abuse of others, or those who are simply recklessly destructive, not caring who they ignore in the process. This sort of abuse always happened, children who would be beaten to within inches of being sent to A & E, who were too scared to tell anyone. Parents who knew they could physically abuse or sexually abuse, with others not able to find out. Indeed, in the not too distant past children weren't believed when they told of such things (fortunately the era seems ti have moved on from being convinced kids were being abused even when they adamantly denied it and there was no evidence of abuse).

So what can be done? You cannot hope to have the state monitor and interfere at every point in a child's life and detect abuse. No. Health professionals can keep their eyes open for signs of harm, as can teachers, but this will be by chance. The best hope is for the abused to be able to speak out, which beyond a certain age is possible.

That means both feeling confident to speak out to teachers, relatives, friends, neighbours and strangers, but also for those people to feel they can listen.

For one of the most malignant trends in the last 20 years has been scaremongering about the contact adults have with children, particularly men, particularly alone. Children are taught to fear adults, and adults are taught to not be seen alone with children who aren't their own.

Yes the odds are that every child will encounter at least one adult with such intent, but for every abuser, there are easily 100 adults who will do all they can to be helpful to children. Why? Because frankly if most human beings didn't act that way around children, the species would have died out a long time ago, or barely advanced from the caves.

So how about children being encouraged to talk to adults who they trust, how about children being taught self defence, and how about adults not being scared of children, and finally, how about NOT judging adults with children, unless it is obvious something is wrong?

Oh and while we're at it, is there any reason why those convicted of serious violence and sex ual offenders should be allowed to live with children? Isn't that one way to stop intergenerational abuse?

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.

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.

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"

This should not be a matter for the law

The NZ Herald reports how the Auckland District Court is hearing a case of a woman who was almost 30 meeting a man who was probably (but not certainly) her father who was in his 40s, and having a sexual relationship, is not something that should be a matter for the criminal justice system.

So it may disgust many, it may offend people of many religions, but it is a victimless crime - this is NOT a case of exploitation or force, just two consenting adults. It appears to be a more a case of the girl's mother being upset, which is frankly not a reason for criminal prosecution.

So here's an idea, a simple change to the Crimes Act so that incest is not an offence if both parties are over 18 and consent.

Of course we all know no MP will take this up, because of fear of being branded perverted and having strange priorities, but then again that's how many thought in the 1960s and 1970s when consenting adult men were thrown in prison for sexual activities with each other. Very few are prosecuted inappropriately under this law, but surely it is time to tidy up this nonsense and ensure none do. It ruins the lives of people who make misguided decisions, and most of all becomes a weapon for upset partners or relatives to use against those who are acting as consenting adults.

I'd prefer an omnibus bill to remove all victimless crimes, after all why should people be thrown in prison for this?

Cindy Kiro's swan song - blame everyone for abuse

The Dominion Post has published an article interviewing Cindy Kiro as she leaves the role of Childrens' Commissioner. While Kiro undoubtedly is a passionate and honest advocate for children, her collectivist way of thinking remains.

She says the risk factors for child abuse are "long periods of neglect, harsh physical punishment, caregivers being unemployed, drugs, a history of spousal abuse". Hold on. The first two of those ARE forms of abuse. Unemployment is a risk, but intergenerational welfare is moreso one. Other risk factors are criminality, poor education and unplanned/unwanted children.

She says the reason for child abuse is "It's pretty simple actually. The reason they're so high is that we tolerate violence to children."

Who is this "we"? She could have said "some people", she could have said "many", but no "we" tolerate violence to children. Because "we" all do, "we" all must be part of the solution.

Then she said "I actually feel quite optimistic about the next generation of parents. I think they are much more conscious of their parenting and they want to do a really good job." As opposed to the past ones, who were abusive and didn't want to be good parents.

She concludes by supporting her highly paid role "Somebody has to be there to step up. Somebody has to make sure that when laws are made, what's happening for children and young people and their best interests are at the forefront. And that's not a simple job."

Actually Dr Kiro, it should be the part of any good Justice Ministry to take into account the impacts of all laws on different groups of people. You were an advocate for surrendering the freedom and privacy of all families for a terrifying level of state surveillance all because you believed that "we" tolerate violence.

Most parents and most families do not abuse their kids, they love them more than you ever will, and do more for them than you ever will. It's about time that you focused your efforts on the minority who do abuse and neglect, instead of thinking you should be doing your bit for all kids.

Thankfully you'll no longer have the power and influence you have had.

UK's big brother state inches forward

The BBC reports that ISPs and telcos are being "asked" to keep records of all phone calls, all emails and all website visits to assist the Police in surveillance.

Nice.

Maybe the Royal Mail should keep a record of who sends and receives mail too.

Maybe there should be microphones in public places to keep a record of who has conversations with whom.

Why? Well the usual "it's about protecting you from murderers and paedophiles" nonsense is being trotted out, ignoring that most murders are between people who know each others, as is most molestation of children - and it is rarely planned over the internet.

It is the state being lazy. Too lazy to get warrants for interception of communications of people who are suspects of real crimes. Far preferable to hold information on anyone, communicating with anyone, looking at anything online. It has abandoned the idea of a single government database of communications, but wants voluntary agreement from the comms sector (which implies if it doesn't get it, it will legislated).

"Advances in communications mean that there are ever more sophisticated ways to communicate and we need to ensure that we keep up with the technology being used by those who seek to do us harm." says Jacqui Smith.

Of course it would help if the UK didn't have prisons overflowing, with limp wristed sentencing for those committing most violent and sexual offences.

No, we would all be safer under a Police state where we were all watched and if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. After all you can trust the state can't you?

UPDATE: Crusader Rabbit has essentially posted about the same thing.

London Met Police investigated again for brutality

The BBC reports two incidents recorded on video of the London Metropolitan Police lashing out at G20 protestors. In one incident, a woman slapped in the face, then whacked by a baton on her legs. Another shows a policeman using the edge of his shield to hit protestors.

Now I'm no supporter of the protestors at all, I despise their violence and vandalism. However, it is core to the state that the Police behave with restraint. It plays into the hands of protestors to do otherwise, and is frankly criminal.

The job is difficult, intensely so. They have to put up with abuse, and have to protect people and their property, as well as allowing angry people to protest verbally. However, they also have to ensure they do not initiate force - they exist to use force to protect themselves and others, and their property. Having this privileged use of force, police must always be under scrutiny, and those who go beyond the reasonable use of force in protecting the rights of others, should be held accountable and removed.