Swaziland's corrupt dictatorial misogynistic king

The highest rate of HIV per head of population in the world (41%).
70% of its inhabitants live on under NZ$0.61 a day.

So King Mswati, the absolute ruler of Swaziland, with 13 wives, who goes on multi-million pound shopping sprees with them, who suppresses political dissent, who owns helicopters, limousines and palaces, looks pretty vile.

Swazis actually like him, in spite of it all says The Times, or they are too busy to fight, dying or fearful of being arrested.

In 2000 he called for everyone with HIV to be branded and sterilised, which didn't happen. Then he called for a five year ban on sex, which he didn't respect, naturally.

Life expectancy is around 30 years.

You'll notice Bob Geldof, Bono, Madonna, Oxfam and other great advocates for Africa doing their bit to demand this vile corrupt kleptocracy be overthrown and for part of the King's wealth to be used to fund the infrastructure needed to provide some health care, instead of blaming the West.

Fortunately the UK supplies no official bilateral aid to Swaziland. That's a small relief at least.

What the hell is wrong with school choice?

If you're a parent, and your local state school doesn't deliver the education you want, and of course, you're a taxpayer, why is it unreasonable to expect that you should be able to send your child to another school - and for your taxes to follow where you send your child?

Now I'd argue that the parent should get the money back and pay the fees. Many would say "what if it isn't enough", which becomes another argument. I would say that YOU should help that family if you are so concerned, but also that private schools elsewhere often provide scholarships for kids from poorer backgrounds to attend. In the UK some private schools have up to 20% of pupils attending with fees part paid by such scholarships - and that is without anyone getting their taxes back. Imagine if parents had their taxes back, could choose the schools and those who could not afford would be helped by those schools, charities and their families. Yes, that's where Libertarianz aim for things to be.

Far too much for the Nats to contemplate, which is understandable - it couldn't convince people that most are quit generous.

However, there are steps along that path. ACT advocates school choice through vouchers, similar to what Sweden has implemented. The vouchers aren't actual pieces of paper, but each child has taxpayer funding that follows him or her, and the school receives that money, whether the school be state or private. The private schools can even be profit making (I know, and they don't even use the children for slave labour or their organs!).

It would be a simple step forward, schools would need to be attractive to parents - which is predicated on parents knowing what's best for their kids. Schools that succeeded would be funded on a per student basis, those that didn't would need to change or fail or face takeover.

National once had this policy, in 1987. Ancient history now. Parents choosing, schools accountable? Not any more.

A very modest step forward would be bulk funding. Schools funded on a per student basis, but only state schools. At least some accountability for performance. No. National can't even argue that schools should get money per student.

It's going to "plan talks on zoning", you know the law that means schools can only target students from local areas, with some exceptions. According to The Press, Education spokeswoman Anne Tolley said that "zoning "certainly won't go altogether" under National, but "I think there is some tweaking we can do"." So glad your political career is ambitious Anne.

PPTA President Robin Duff, (the PPTA being defenders of the right of teachers to get unified pay increases without any measure of performance or accountability), said "If you juggle things around with zoning, there are winner and loser schools". There already are.

The PPTA has long fought the right of funding to follow pupils, it has long fought teachers being paid according to performance, it fought vouchers and bulk funding. Nothing substantive will change in education until this bastion of old fashioned union monopoly dominance is smashed.

It is time for education to be about what parents want, not what teachers think is good for them.

National's ambitions for education are woeful. It is depressing that it can't even argue for funding for students to go to the school parents choose. Centrally planned education funded Soviet style is the status quo - and that's the education system you will keep getting under National.

Unless you are wealthy and can afford to opt out - which is perhaps why plenty of Nats don't care, why should they give a damn about children from middle class homes?

Teachers can use force to protect other kids

According to the Dominion Post, Police Inspector Chris Graveson says teachers are too cautious about using force to protect children in classrooms even though they are entitled to do so.

Apparently the issue is adolescents, some of whom are being sexually aggressive and violent towards other kids. Teachers, understandably terrified of being accused of being abusers themselves, fear touching kids even to defend others. It's dead wrong.

Inspector Graveson has made it clear that teachers should intervene, which is common sense of course. He points out that if some children are restrained, there is a risk they may bruise, particularly if they remain violent. The choice is simple though - a teacher is morally obliged to protect children from their peers if violence is witnessed.

Of course with a headline "Teachers can use force on kids", the "journalist" Lane Nichols is being deliberately provocative. It is not initiating force, it is using force to defend one child from another.

Teachers, particularly male ones, have been inflicted with a feminist led hysteria against any physical contect between themselves and their pupils, on the implication that it "could" be sexual and abusive. Few deny the seriousness of teachers sexually abusing their pupils, but teachers are well aware of the risks of any such allegations. Children are long taught to report "bad touching". However it has paralysed teachers providing comfort to upset children. I recall being hugged and held by a teacher when I was 10 because I was upset as my grandfather had died. I am grateful for that, I was crying and needed that comfort - it is natural, and this is what has been lost, to a feminist hysteria that has literally thrown out the baby with the bathwater.

Teachers must do the same to protect other pupils.

Of course the reaction of the eminently useless Office of the Children's Commissioner was to say "would be very surprised if it was official police policy to encourage teachers to use a level of force that would leave bruises on primary school children".

That is NOT what it was said. It is NOT encouraged, but accepted that it may be necessary if a child is resisting restraint and it is to protect other adults and children.

You see children are not always innocent.

8 years for fraud, 6 years for rape

Now I'm not privy to all the details of both cases, but if you wanted examples of how the criminal justice systems looks unfair to your average punter then check these two cases out:

- A welfare benefit fraudster is getting 8 years in prison. According to Stuff he defrauded taxpayers of NZ$3.48 million over 3 years, using 123 separate identities (yes he was determined)! An incredible amount. His flat alone contained NZ$868,000 in cash and NZ$355,000 in gold ingots, which of course is now state property (don't expect your share back though). Wayne Thomas Patterson appealed his case all the way to the Supreme Court. 8 years is a hefty sentence, but much of that is deterrent.

- The Waikato Times reports that Joshua Ruatekaumatahi Baker has been sentenced 6 years in prison for repeatedly raping a girl under 16. It was a four to five hour ordeal inflicted upon the victim. He warned her to tell no one, returned two weeks later to her bedroom undoubtedly to repeat his crime when she "alerted family members". We wont know if this lowlife is a family member, but we do know this girl is traumatised and it will last longer than 6 years. We also know that Baker lacked remorse, although he wrote a letter of remorse one wonders if this was following legal advice.

6 years for rape, with an individual who is probably going to pose a threat again. 8 years for benefit fraud. Should the sentences be reversed? Should the rapist be getting the 14 years maximum for sex with someone underage? What happens to both men when they are released?

My view is that criminals should have a points system. The crime you commit earns you "points" which when they go beyond 100 puts you in long term preventative detention. Property offences would earn no more than 20, violent offences could earn up to 100. The lesson would be simple. Criminal justice gives everyone one chance to rehabilitate, if there is genuine remorse and perhaps undiagosed mental illness. Depending on the severity of the crime there may be more chances or no more.

However first and foremost, sentencing should be relative according to the crime and impact on the victim. The taxpayer is less hurt by the thieving actions of a fraudster than a girl is by a rapist.

More girls kissing

Because it is Friday...