A famously rude Kiwi politician has proposed a new solution to the country’s dire child abuse problem – sterilise the “underclass”.
Michael Laws – who stirred up contempt by calling the late Tongan King a “bloated brown slug” – has again hit headlines for the wrong reasons.
The regional mayor claimed that the children of beneficiaries, drug addicts and criminals had little chance in life and were prime targets for child abuse.
Sterilising their parents was the best solution, he brazenly suggested.
“If we gave $10,000 to certain people and said ‘we’ll voluntarily sterilise you’ then all of society would be better off,” he told the Dominion Post newspaper.
“There’d be less dead children and less social problems.”
He was commenting on the latest death of a toddler, two-year-old Karl Perigo-Check, who was the son of a convicted murderer and gang member.
The little nation, which prides itself on its clean, green image and liberal social policy, is placed third among OECD nations for child deaths due to maltreatment, four spots ahead of Australia, according to UNICEF.
It is ranked fifth for both child beatings and sexual abuse, again several places ahead of its antipodean neighbour.
Laws argued that “liberal methods” of beating the problem had failed.
But his “solution” has been branded “draconian” and “totalitarian” by the country’s child health advocates who are calling for him to stand down as a city mayor.
“I just find it such a disgraceful attitude,” said Child Poverty Action Group director Janfrie Wakim.
“It’s hard to comprehend that an intelligent man who’s leading a city is making such reprehensible suggestions.”
This is just the latest controversy for Laws, who last month hit headlines for bullying primary school children.
The indigenous children had written to the mayor to express annoyance that he refused to make a subtle spelling change to the name of the North Island town, Wanganui, to make it historically correct.
But Laws, a fierce critic of the name change, took exception to the letters, replying: “There are so many deficiencies of both fact and logic in your letters that I barely know where to start”.
He told them they should sack their teacher for suggesting they write to him.
By: old shape - 3rd November 2009 at 20:13
The other day on the radio, a very sincere guy was talking about the “real possibility” of abolishing poverty and that it wasn’t some wild pipe dream.
But….As long as there are people who think its more fun to drop out of school, do drugs, have children at 14, etc, etc. there will be poor people.
In a free society we can’t dictate common sense any more than we can involuntarily serilise people. And the real shame is that many of these parents spread their (lack of) values onto their children. My wife has friends who teach remedial reading…and they say many kids come from familes where kids are set in front of TVs by parents and reading, education are never stressed. Its a safe bet that many/most of these kids will grow up like their parents…and pass these traits onto their kids.So we have an “underclasss”. They whine that they live in govt housing and can’t afford nice cars because they ‘re on the dole. I’d ask them “what do you want, taxpayers to buy you a nice semi-detached and a new Jag because you messed up your life”? I’ve seen single women on welfare on TV say they can’t work because they want to stay at home with their pre-school kids. Trouble is, the tax money they get for doing that comes from a lot of working moms and families who must pay for others to sit around.
I’m sure some of them would rather have the luxury of being a “stay at home” mom.Moral of the story…if you don’t want to be poor…stay in school, get a job, don’t give your life to drink or drugs.
If you want nice things…work. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
On that bit, I support the fact that a woman should be at home with pre-schools. The spongers are another problem (There are plenty that get pregnant on purpose not to work, I don’t mean these). No matter how sexist it sounds, but mum should be nursing and loving the pre school kids. It not only helps the kids but also invests true values of love and family etc. This further assists in kids concentration at school and so on. Trouble is, the cost of a house is now such that it reflects a double income. The 2nd earner has to have a decent job, “Pin money” has gone. This is actually a self fulfilling mistake. When all mortgages were calculated on the “Main earner” income only, the house prices reflected this. Mum could afford to stay at home WITHOUT sponging the dole. But, the rip off Britain / rip off Gov’t will not allow people to have too much money. Propensity to spend on “None tax” stuff is bad for government (Good for industry). And, in a society that we choose, there should be provision for those less fortunate, but not the extent it is presently raped by the pikey chavs that have no intention of working. There, politics sorted.
By: Arabella-Cox - 3rd November 2009 at 17:34
Unless you pick the other sort of parents i.e. those with money !!!! Mind you, they will likely be the ones who motivate their offspring to work………etc.
Planemike
By: J Boyle - 3rd November 2009 at 17:16
The other day on the radio, a very sincere guy was talking about the “real possibility” of abolishing poverty and that it wasn’t some wild pipe dream.
But….As long as there are people who think its more fun to drop out of school, do drugs, have children at 14, etc, etc. there will be poor people.
In a free society we can’t dictate common sense any more than we can involuntarily serilise people. And the real shame is that many of these parents spread their (lack of) values onto their children. My wife has friends who teach remedial reading…and they say many kids come from familes where kids are set in front of TVs by parents and reading, education are never stressed. Its a safe bet that many/most of these kids will grow up like their parents…and pass these traits onto their kids.
So we have an “underclasss”. They whine that they live in govt housing and can’t afford nice cars because they ‘re on the dole. I’d ask them “what do you want, taxpayers to buy you a nice semi-detached and a new Jag because you messed up your life”? I’ve seen single women on welfare on TV say they can’t work because they want to stay at home with their pre-school kids. Trouble is, the tax money they get for doing that comes from a lot of working moms and families who must pay for others to sit around.
I’m sure some of them would rather have the luxury of being a “stay at home” mom.
Moral of the story…if you don’t want to be poor…stay in school, get a job, don’t give your life to drink or drugs.
If you want nice things…work. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
By: old shape - 1st November 2009 at 21:24
The thing is, he’s right.
But, we don’t do that sort of thing, so have to think of other ways.
Sign In
October 30, 2009 at 1:38 am