Dear Dr Kiro, most people are not the problem

Dr Cindy Kiro - Children's Commissar (which is a title she will continue to get from me as long as she seeks Orwellian monitoring and surveillance of all families) is, according to Stuff, concerned about a "wall of silence" surrounding child abuse. She cites a rather disconcerting example of a girl of 11 who became pregnant and gave birth at age 12. It isn't clear what has happened in this case, but the girl is not naming the father, and the whole family denies any knowledge.

^

There are two likely explanations for her early pregnancy. Either someone older, influential and threatening within the extended family has effectively raped her (and she is too scared to point the finger because she wont be supported by her family), or she has had a boyfriend - transitory or otherwise - and they did what some adolescents do, without protection, and she is protecting him from prosecution. The family silence is far less likely in the latter category, unless she was often away from home and what she got up to was not monitored or even noticed by the family. Dr. Kiro is betting it's the former because of the wall of silence.

^

Now the concern being shown is laudable, but what does disturb me is how Dr. Kiro paints a broadbrush over everyone with her statements. She makes it everyone's responsibility.

^

For starters she seems to indicate that there is only just now starting to be a cultural change to reject child abuse. Stuff quotes her saying "New Zealand is at a tipping point where communities are making it clear they will not tolerate child abuse and every adult needs to take responsibility for the physical, emotional and sexual abuse and abuse through neglect of our children,". Notice the phrase "communities are making it clear". She likes to collectivise, I tend to think that individuals express themselves, but that is a diversion. The clear implication of this is twofold:

^

1. Up until today, people DID tolerate child abuse. This of course will be remarkable news to the vast majority of parents and adults who are appalled by anyone who abuses children. It is counter-intuitive for almost all adults to inflict harm or hurt children. It's not news, it has been a publicly expressed serious concern for at least a generation, and even before that there is little doubt that most people never tolerated child abuse, for as long as the concept of "children" has really existed in Western civilisation (which really does only go back to the early 19th century).

^

2. There is consensus that EVERYONE has to take responsibility for the abuse and neglect of children. Not just those who commit it, but you who don't. Where did she get this from? Of course if anyone I knew was abusing a child, it would concern me and I would be likely to take steps to intervene - quite simply I couldn't tolerate it. However, the state can't legislate for this, you can't make people talk, and all you can do is have particularly high standards for those cohabiting with children. A mother who repeatedly stands by while her child is abused by another is effectively an accessory to the crime and is grossly negligent by not protecting the child. In such cases, custody should be removed from her.

^

Dr Kiro also said that "New Zealanders had to change their attitudes and behaviour to become more child-focused." Well hold on, most parents do this. Most children are raised in abuse free, loving households. There is a small minority who abuse, and the appropriate response is for the criminal justice system to punish those who do, to protect the victims and to deny welfare (and if necessary custody) from those who commit these offences.

^

Underlying all this is, of course, a serious point. There are families which are large, and not so linked by relations as relationships, and in those circumstances it is convenient/lazy for the real parents to let others perform functions "in loco parentis". In other words, many adults have access to the children. Because the children are being watched over by a whole group, it means no two people are paying inordinate attention towards them, providing an opportunity for abuse through fear to be carried out. The rewards of having many adult role models (although sometimes a lot of those are questionable at best) are outweighed by not having two solid ones who protect, provide and monitor those kids. Indeed such large extended families risk there being nobody a child can turn to, because some bonds between adults are greater than those where families are not so closely interlinked. Children need adults they can turn to, trust and who wont respond erratically if they need to tell them something scary or awful - like how a relative, teacher or family friend has threatened them or sexually abused them. It's clear who Dr. Kiro needs to aim her message at, it is those who share the family raising among many adults. In short, the parents need to watch - and be their children's first defence, AND be prepared to turn against any close relatives who may be abusing their kids. The problem is, clearly, disproportionately Maori. Something else Dr. Kiro wont say.

^

Like I have said before, why not completely deny welfare benefits from anyone who is convicted of brutality or gross negligence against a child? Or indeed, how about denying welfare from anyone convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence (something above common assault or indecent exposure). Permanently. Stop forcing other New Zealanders to pay for those who are violent to survive. Granted, it would save little money, but it would make an important point.

^

and you can watch the socialists whine and defend violent criminals' right to welfare, because they might do it again - so because they will hurt you, you have to be forced to pay for them to live?

Winston in North Korea - we have much to learn from you

Who said that?

^

Why it's the pensioners' friend - Winston Peters! It must be true as the Korean Central News Agency said so "Winston Raymond Peters said in his speech that it was not long since the two countries established diplomatic ties, but there are a lot of things to learn from each other, hoping that the good relations between New Zealand and the DPRK would go on".

^

Hopefully when Winston returns from North Korea, he might be asked by the NZ Media, what exactly are the "lot of things" we can learn from North Korea? Here's some suggestions:

- Nuclear processing and weapons development? (hardly in a nuclear phobic NZ);

- Immigration policy? (stop people from leaving by force);

- Agriculture? (collectivise all farms and let produce be given to the state in exchange for a wage);

- Law and Order? (have 1/12th of the population spying on the rest, have internal passports, gulags, executions, summary judgments, torture)

- Disability policy? (kill all disabled newborns, have none living in the capital, mental patients virtually ignored)

- Culture policy? (have nothing but paeans to the leader, the party and the nation, censoring internal bad news and showing almost nothing but bad news about the outside world);

- Education policy? (take children from infancy and place into childcare where they are taught Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il are their fathers, and they should be loyal to them and the nation above their parents?)

- Health policy? (the elite get first class healthcare, whilst everyone else takes their chances with ancient medicine and antiquated equipment)

I can't wait.

What might North Korea want to learn? Well it is clear from the same report that Foreign Minister "Pak Ui Chun, said in his speech at the reception that it would be in the interests of the two countries to boost the bilateral ties of friendship and cooperation on the principle of respect for sovereignty, non-interference in each other's internal affairs, mutual benefit and equality".

^

That's the key, you see North Korea sees imprisoning children in gulags as an internal affair. However, don't believe everything (or indeed almost everything) the Korean Central News Agency reports, you see Winston did say something right.

^

He has raised human rights as a concern, as reported by TVNZ and Radio NZ. So he has played a careful diplomatic trick, by not mentioning it in advance - he mentioned in Pyongyang what North Koreans would get imprisoned and executed for mentioning. Good on you Winston. Hopefully we''ll find out exactly what you did say!

Electoral law reform

So can anyone tell me, plain and simple, what is wrong with letting free people decide how the express their views in campaigning in election year, as long as it isn't defamatory?

^

Is your vote bought by someone's elaborate political campaigning? Or do you think before you vote?

^

Or do you think that the vast majority of voters are stupid, and that spending lots of money on electoral advertising influences them in ways you don't like - and that there aren't enough people on your side of the argument willing to spend money to counter that?

^

You see my political views are almost always only represented by one party, which is small, has no Parliamentary funding and only modest levels of fundraising itself. I don't whinge and moan that most donations go to the main two parties.

^

So why would anyone want to establish rules on this, unless they were simply envious of those political parties and perspectives that they don't agree with? Labour supporters couldn't possibly be envious of National supporters being wealthier could they? Never!

Winston in North Korea

The Korean Central News Agency, which has a complete monopoly on all news publishing in North Korea has finally reported on Winston's trip. You'll be astounded at how little it says:

"Pyongyang, November 14 (KCNA) -- DPRK Foreign Minister Pak Ui Chun met and had a friendly conversation with Foreign Minister of New Zealand Winston Raymond Peters and his party at the Mansudae Assembly Hall Wednesday when they paid a courtesy call on him. "

^

The very same bulletin of news had such interesting points such as:

"New books came off the press recently. They tell that the Japanese imperialists are the sworn enemy of the Korean people and the aggressive nature of the Japanese reactionaries will never change."

^

Very peace loving.

^

or..."Capitalism was restored in some socialist countries in the 1990s. The US-led imperialists took the opportunity to focus the arrow of attack on the DPRK. The Korean people were compelled to undergo the "Arduous March" and forced march due to the unprecedented moves of the imperialists to isolate and stifle the DPRK and the natural disasters for successive years. "

^

oh it wasn't because Soviet aid dried up, the entire socialist system is bankrupt and stifling the population, and the refusal of the regime to let aid agencies to operate freely?

^

Maybe Winston will tell us what he really thinks of the place when he returns? He can tell us about how he gave honour to Kim Il Sung by visiting his Mausoleum as he is planned to do.

^

Yes, the New Zealand Minister of Foreign Affairs is going to pay respects to the tomb of one of the most Orwellian dictators of the 20th century. How can Peters ever look RSA veterans of the Korean War in the face again? Kim Il Sung's record is one of being an elaborate liar about his revolutionary past, of ruthlessly suppressing all dissent, of running Stalinist gulags which exist to this day and placing half of the Korean peninsula in virtual imprisonment. Then HE led an attack on South Korea, sparking the Korean War.

^

Nice one Winston. I know you can't refuse the visit to the mausoleum if you go to North Korea, but why did you have to go? Is the nuclear moral fetish of the government that important that you have to bow to murderers, operators of gulags with children in them and visit the tomb of one of the most bloodthirsty warmongering dictators of the 20th century?

Those disgusted by sex are fascinated by it

It started with David Farrar's largely agreeable post about the Department of Internal Affairs supplying lists of known child porn websites to NZ ISPs so they can block access to them. In and of itself this is fine, although the law as it is makes it illegal for anyone to check what this covers - as you risk prosecution yourself. Indeed, censorship laws are strict liability - you can break them without even intending to do so, but I digress.

^

The Society for the Promotion of Community Standards (it even has a blog) has for many many years been at the forefront of advocating the prohibition of any form of publications that depict sexuality or nudity. It is dominated by fundamentalist Christians, has a clear anti-homosexual bent (having waged a campaign against Chief Censor Bill Hastings because of his sexuality showing not the slightest respect for his privacy), and responded to the Kiwiblog post. Not only does it want all "objectionable" content blocked on the internet (which given that NZ bans content which is legal in the USA, most of Europe and Japan, would be an enormous and almost futile task), but it called for:

^

"all New Zealand ISPs (Internet Service Providers) to block ALL overseas based websites that host child pornography AND hard core pornography (NZ-based websites containing “objectionable content” including child porn are illegal under NZ censorship laws)."

^

Hardcore pornography is more than that of course. Material depicting BDSM, groupsex and all sorts of adult consensual fetishes is clearly hardcore. However, objectionable content includes urophilia under the law - which is not an illegal practice. It is not a crime to use urine for sexual purposes, but inexplicably it is a crime to photograph or own a photograph of people doing so.

^

Of course SPCS has a curious view of those who reject this. We're all perverts, but check out the language used - it's almost rabid in a certain obsession about homosexuality:

^

"Gay rights activists, paedophiles, homosexuals wanting to ‘hook up’ with underage school boys or view ‘bare-backing’ films, those addicted to hardcore pornography and all those who make a living from marketing such moral filth, have rubbished the Society’s call for the implementation of such controls to prevent injury to the “public good”."

^

I'm none of those.

^

Libertarianz presented a submission on the censorship laws calling for, at the very least, the laws to only prohibit material which was produced through the commission of a criminal act. In other words, if someone was being murdered, raped, sexually abused and being filmed in the act, then it would be an objectionable publication. However, if people were engaging in consentual legal acts, it is absolutely absurd for it to be a crime to film them or even write an account of what they were doing.

^

You see, it is crime to even possess an erotic story about watersports in New Zealand. It is not in the USA, and it would take little for anyone to find hundreds of such stories. I don't care for watersports myself, but there is something inherently vile about people risking police action because they read a story about something they can legally do!

^

So I responded to the SPCS response with my own concern that proposing child porn sites to be banned is one thing, but extending to all objectionable categories is another - and that SPCS has another agenda. It frankly finds any depictions of nudity and sexuality to be offensive. I simply believe that it is absurd that NZ censorship law bans publications of acts that are legal for adults to participate in. That's my point pure and simple.

^

So SPCS went on its long tirade, talking about "rimming" and "So-called “sexual fetish material” (DVDs, videos etc) involving urination (referred to as “water sports in hardcore porn publications) is imported into New Zealand by homosexuals and other sexual pervets (many heterosexual) via the internet." SPCS knows a lot about pornography, odd for a group which hates it so much. Check out the descriptions in this post. SPCS wondered at my motivation, implying that i might sell porn or get off on watersports. Sorry to disappoint guys, I'm not as obsessed with it as you are - I don't sell porn, and watersports aren't my thing, and I'm not gay. I believe in freedom - you know, leaving peaceful adults to get on with their lives, and not having a psychotic obsession with what other people do with their bodies?

^

SPCS, with some cheerleading from NZ First, would probably imprison homosexuals, would probably cheerlead on the banning of all erotic material visual and written, and would encourage the spread of their own bigotry against those who have a different view of how they want to use their own bodies sexually. I simply want consenting adults to have freedom.