12:53PM Friday Oct 30, 2009
Initial reporting on Laws' comments:
Michael Laws, formerly an MP for NZ First and now Mayor of Wanganui as well as a radio talk-back host, is the conservative man that liberals love to hate. If liberals bought dart boards with people's faces on them, his would be a best seller. Laws has been at the forefront of the anti-PC crusade for a number of years, and has recently been villified and pilloried by the media for successfully banning the wearing of gang regalia in Wanganui and for his comments over the 'H' debacle (a blog dedicated to this will be written soon; I am currently awaiting the government's decision on whether to accept or reject the NZ Geographic Board's decision to insert the letter 'h' between the 'W' and the 'a' in 'Wanganui').
The Dominion Post approached Michael Laws for his view on the recent death of two year old Wanganui lad Karl Perigo-Check, whose father is a member of the Mongrel Mob and currently serving a stint in Her Majesty's Correctional Facilities for his role in the murder of Black Power daughter Jhia Te Tua in a drive-by shooting several years ago. (The obvious suggestion that this is karma or divine justice would probably be unfair both to the child and his mother.) Mr Laws, who had not sought out the press but responded to the DomPost's request for an interview, said that "the children of beneficiaries, drug addicts and criminals had little chance in life". Fair enough - I personally have seen first hand from my experience of working in the state schooling system enough evidence to support this view. Laws went on to say:
"If we gave $10,000 to certain people and said 'we'll voluntarily sterilise you' then all of society would be better off. There'd be less dead children and less social problems. Do we really expect these children to become doctors or brain surgeons?"
Well! Anyone would think he'd come out and said "I think we should abuse and kill children" judging by the backlash from civil libetarians and general professional liberal "do-gooders". (I call into question what "good" these people actually "do" but that is beside the point here.)
Janfrie Wakim from the Child Poverty Action Group called the suggestions 'reprehensible' - obviously she would far rather that children live in poverty than allow any intervention which would actually successfully prevent the growth of numbers in this area. Murray Edridge of
Barnardos New Zealand believed the comments were intentionally provocative and went on to indirectly blame a lack of community support for why such children may not be able to become doctors or brain surgeons. The Child Commissioner, John Angus, described the comments as being unrealistic and unhelpful, saying that
"many children who grew up on benefits became good citizens. Wider family members often ensured children were well cared for if their parents suffered from substance abuse or mental illness".
Even (now former) MP Sue Bradford called the 'Laws solution' draconian and totalitarian and one which would never be considered by Parliament, suggesting that instead more money needs to be poured into solving the problem of dysfunctional families and abused kids.
Once again we see the blatant attempts of a liberal media to villify conservatives by putting words in their mouths. Laws suggests that there is an underclass in NZ society (which there is) and that perhaps some could be paid to undergo voluntary sterilisation - all at once the liberals pounce and claim that Laws wants to sterilise all beneficiaries! Where do they get this from? Like Laws, I take issue with the liberal association of 'beneficiary' with 'underclass'. Many beneficiaries are there out of compulsion rather than choice, and doing everything they can to make their dependence on the state as short lived as possible. Their children, by and large, are raised with love and values and will grow up to be honest and productive members of society.
BUT here is the point that these blindly liberal commentators just cannot see. We DO have an underclass in NZ, one which is composed of people who have performed little or any legitimate work in their lives. Their parents have been dependent on the state, as have, in some cases, their grandparents, and as will be their children. For this underclass, welfare is a right, not a privilege, and accepting welfare is an acceptable long term alternative to working. Their children grow up in households where no adult has a work history - and there are often a large number of adults in these households, pooling their welfare payments so as to be able to afford Sky TV, flash new mobile phones, i-pods, and stereo systems etc. They learn that if they get pregnant at 15 they can get the DPB; if they drop out of school at 16 they can get a youth allowance and, later, the dole. Essentially, they learn how to function as a parasite, the perennial calf sucking on nanny-state's tit. As a tax payer, that's my tit they're sucking on too - and yours!
Our society has been in a rapid state of flux for some years. Many things deemed irresponsible, sinful, or just plain unthinkable even 50 years ago are now commonplace - divorce, abortion, homosexuality, prostitution, drug use, to name just a few. It is not my place (and certainly not in this article) to pass judgement on this state of change; certainly, society 50 years ago was a lot more conservative and less tolerant of difference, some flexibilty is required if we are to function as a tolerant and respecting society. But for some reason the 'right' to bear children is still sacrosanct. Civil libertarians are all too eager to support the right to terminate a pregnancy (although interestingly most are more eager to kill an unborn child than to kill a convicted mass murderer or serial rapist...), and yet they also support the right of Mrs Smith having 25 children to 14 different fathers and claiming child support for all of them. In a world which is overpopulated as it is, where the people more likely to be breeding more often are also the ones least likely to be able to support their children, this is something that MUST change. Having a child is a responsibility, not a right. If you cannot support one, you should not have one. And if giving people $10,000 to have their tubes tied or cut or whatever helps alleviate social problems 15 or 20 years down the track, then I say it is a much more effective use of tax-payers money than having to pay for more benefits to pay the bludgers and more prisons to house the delinquents.
And that's my two cents to sense.