Why the Green Paper will fail

The Green Paper on child abuse will fail for the following reasons:

* the response of Labour and Greens to the Green Paper on abuse released by the government today proves that politicians must be removed from the process. The petty party politics is destroying any progress in solving the cancer of child abuse that is destroying our country. Politicians are not part of the solution with all their green and white papers, reports, and conferences

* They have also shown that they are out of touch with mainstream NZ’ers on this issue with their criminalizing of good parents with the flawed and clumsy anti-smacking law, and laws which give the right to silence and privacy concerns paramountcy over the rights of children to be protected

* the Green Paper has ignored an  ‘elephant in the room’ – FAMILY STRUCTURE. Marriage is one of the greatest weapons against child abuse. Yet no where in the Green Paper is the concept of family structure or the dreaded ‘M’ word mentioned. But here’s the evidence that the safest place for a child to be is living with their married biological parents.

* We have had Commission of Inquiries this year into the Pike river tragedy, the collapse of buildings and consequent loss of life in the Christchurch earthquake, and previous inquiries into police conduct (2004), genetic modification (2000–2001), and Auckland governance (2007-2009) – yet no inquiry into one of the greatest social problems facing the country. The issue of child abuse deserves a high priority total focus which a non-political Commission would give

See www.stoptheabuse.org.nz (since 2006) for real solutions!

 

Share

7 comments for “Why the Green Paper will fail

  1. Ruth
    28 July 2011 at 4:08 pm

    Bob, no matter how heinous the crime, the right to silence must remain in force.

    It is up to the prosecutors to prove guilt. If they cannot do so, the case must be dropped.

  2. Jane
    28 July 2011 at 5:28 pm

    Bob I agree with you they need to focus on the factors causing the breakdowns in the famalies and invest in those. Instead of paying people money on the benefit give food stamps instead so the grocery money goes to food for the children not alcohol or smokes (this also promotes them to get a job if they want those other things), address the huge youth drinking problem which results in young parents, higher the drinking age, make it illigal for anyone to give alcohol to a minor, educate the children in school consequences to drinking, don’t glamorise the party life style, and break the cycle of intergenerational dependency on the benefit by promoting education for those past high school years. Family is the key to the whole mess. The older children they will be taking funding from unless taught properly will continue the cycle by having babies and then it all just starts again. I’m all for the Nana revolution your speaker spoke about at the forum.

  3. Jane
    28 July 2011 at 5:33 pm

    Sorry forgot the biggest to Promote Marriage! My Nan always said abstinence’s best now that I’m older and lived a little life I see that she was right all along how much heart break it does save.

  4. 29 July 2011 at 1:44 am

    They have also shown that they are out of touch with mainstream NZ’ers on this issue with their criminalizing of good parents with the flawed and clumsy anti-smacking law, and laws which give the right to silence and privacy concerns paramountcy over the rights of children to be protected

    There’s a bit of an odd dichotomy here: the right to silence protects parents charged with smacking from being convicted.

    And the anti-smacking law was a law aimed at increasing the rights of children, at the expense of parents’ and families’ privacy rights.

  5. Jane
    29 July 2011 at 1:50 am

    All the more reason to vote them out since they won’t listen to be honest I don’t really know who I would want in their places. So far my vote is for Mickey Mouse he is pro family and the kids love him:) All kidding aside though after hearing Keys and Goff both speak and their answers pretty much leaning the same way I don’t have much confidence.

  6. Bob
    29 July 2011 at 10:53 pm

    Show me a parent who has benefitted from a conviction for smacking by invoking their right to silence. I’ll show you families like the Kahuis and others who actually have abused their children – and hidden behind the right to silence.

    The anti-smacking law doesn’t increase the rights of children – that’s a myth. If it was about increasing the rights of children, there would be calls for banning time out, telling offs, chores and doing homework. Oh wait, they are calling for that 🙂

    The anti-smacking law was a cop-out by politicians who can’t figure out what to do about our child abuse rates

  7. 29 July 2011 at 11:40 pm

    1. The Kahuis didn’t invoke the right to silence. They *all* spoke to police within 24 hours of the start of the investigation.

    2. I can’t show you are parent who has benefited from a conviction for smacking because, first, it’s not a benefit to be convicted, and second, the benefit in invoking the right to silence might be not be charged at all.

    3. Of course the anti-smacking law increases the rights of children. I happen to believe it did so unwisely, but previously children could be smacked and now they have a right not be smacked. And just because it only grants one right to children, and not others, doesn’t mean it doesn’t grant rights to children, it just means it doesn’t grant as many as it could have.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *