Mail playing politics with paedophile allegations

In an impressive new low, the Daily Mail has resorted to using the investigation into a allegations of child abuse by MPs and other powerful individuals to attack Tom Watson, one of the people who has pushed the issue into the light.

In a long-on-fulmination-but-short-on-credibility piece penned by Guy Adams and Stephen Wright, they accuse Watson of selectively targeting Conservative MPs in his campaign.

Their 'smoking gun' is that Watson refrained from putting his name to a letter calling on police to invesigate Lord Janner, a Labour peer and Britain's second least convincing victim of dementia after Ernest Saunders, and echoes claims made in the Telegraph that Watson is singling out Conservative MPs for his attention:

In April, for example, he called the Daily Telegraph a ‘disingenuous, lazy’ and ‘failing’ newspaper.

Its crime? To have published an editorial suggesting that party politics meant Watson was not pursuing (Labour’s) Lord Janner with the same vigour as he had gone after the (Conservative) Lord Brittan.

Watson denied double standards. He claimed his differing levels of activity with regard to the two cases were down to a simple fact: ‘I have spoken directly to survivors of Leon Brittan. I have not spoken directly to any survivors of Lord Janner.’ A fair explanation. Or at least, it would be if it were true. But it isn’t. For, as Watson revealed in an interview with the Guardian newspaper last year, he very much has met Exaro’s witness ‘Nick’, in what he called a ‘very, very traumatic and difficult conversation’.

This is important because ‘Nick’ claims to be a former victim of Lord Janner. Earlier this year, Exaro reported: ‘Janner, now 86, sexually assaulted him at several unidentified venues in London between 1979 and 1982.’ It is possible, of course, that ‘Nick’ and Watson never discussed Janner during their meeting, and that Watson was unaware of ‘Nick’s’ allegation against Janner. But still, Watson has met one of Janner’s alleged victims.

Dates are important here.

The Guardian interview took place in 2014, when he refers to talking to Nick.  It can be read here.

The exchange between Watson and the Telegraph took place in April 2015.  The Telegraph editorial is dated 17th of April, 2015.  Watson's response is dated the same day and can be read here.  Amusingly, Watson highlights a tweet he issued on the 16th of April, about the Janner case that makes a joke of the Telegraph's claim that "There was a strange silence in some quarters yesterday".

Only, there wasn't, and the Telegraph would have known this if they'd had the sense to look at Watson's tweets.

Like the man said, a lazy newspaper.

 Nick's claim that he was abused by Lord Janner appears in an Exaro piece by Mark Conrad, published on the 18th of April, 2015.

So the Mail's damning evidence of double standards is that Tom Watson didn't know, six months before the story broke, that 'Nick' was going to implicate a Labour peer.  Tom Watson's statement, when he made it, was absolutely true as far as he was aware.  It's pathetic stuff, essentially a tarted-up version of yelling,  "Tom Watson is a big fat discredited LIAR because he can't see into the future."

The Mail is trying to destroy Watson's reputation, for a political purpose - the very crime it accuses him of.

There are oddities in the column.  It describes a woman who accused Leon Brittan as 'discredited':

The discredited testimony of ‘Jane’ was among the matters detailed in a sensational BBC Panorama documentary entitled ‘The VIP Paedophile Ring’.

In fact, Jane was not 'dscredited,' at least not as a result of any information provided by the Mail. Her claims were not substantiated - not surprising, given the incident was alleged to have taken place in 1967.

'Nick' also described the murder of a school friend that had been staged to look like a hit and run accident.  The Mail blandly advises that, "And no public murder of that nature was reported in the media at the time."

Obviously, the incident would not be described as a murder!

I assume Adams and Wright are intelligent people.  So why are they making such obvious efforts to mislead and confuse readers?

They say they are sceptical of the stories being put out by the likes of 'Jane' and 'Nick'.  Fine.  Then examine their stories carefully and judiciously.  Don't make laughable tenuous aspersions based on Tom Watson's lack of precognitive powers, or attack a claim on false grounds such as their deliberate murder / man slaughter mix-up,

I am also very concerned about some of these stories, and expect that some of them will turn out to be false.  Unlike the Mail, I am less concerned about the reputations of a few MPs than I am about the likely impact it will have on genuine victims of child abuse.

And the Mail's politically motivated attacks isn't making things any easier for them.

Some thoughts on the mass abuse of children in England

We're all roughly familiar with the the horrible story of persistent mass abuse of vulnerable teenage girls and the shameful failure by the police and social services to help the victims of the notorious 'street grooming' gangs that have been operating in towns in England for over a decade.  In Rotherham, according to a serious report into the issue, over 1,400 girls were abused by heartless predators, who compounded their wickedness by terrifying their victims into keeping silent with threats of violence and death, even dousing girls in petrol and pretending to be about to immolate them, and saying they were going to throw them over cliffs.  And when some of these girls or their families still had the courage to complain, they were sneered at and ignored by a police force that did not seem to interested in what seemed to be perceived as the misfortunes of slags and sluts who should not expect to be treated differently and why waste time with them?

It's a ghastly story.

But here are some observations and comments about the matter, which I can't help worrying about, in spite of the near overwhelming revulsion the story provokes.  I feel I have to say that nothing that follows is intended to excuse or exculpate the offenders - both the rapists and the police and social workers and others who failed in their duty.  Nor is it meant to minimise, nor dismiss, the offending that took place.  These brutes molested naive, foolish, weak or helpless girls.  They abused them with unspeakable cruelty and selfish, perverted wickedness.  They deserve to rot in jail forever.

But, first of all, we need to keep a sense of perspective here.  There is no acceptable level of rape, child abuse or sexual crime.  None.  But in the blaring headlines of the newspapers - which are quick to trumpet the number of victims as 1,400 - it is easy to lose sight of the time scale over which these crimes took place.  The report specified the number was a conservative estimate of the number of victims abused between 1997 and 2013; a period of 15 years.

(Again, I must repeat: there is no acceptable level of rape, child abuse or sexual crime.  None.)

That means roughly one hundred offences a year over that period.  That's one hundred too many, for those still not getting it.  But it is important to keep that fact in mind.  There are some people who want us to get carried away, lose perspective and give in to the rage and revulsion, which is why they keep repeating the total, without the time scale.  Keep them both in mind, otherwise we are doing yet another disservice to the victims - a minor on, perhaps, but real for all that - by allowing their suffering and neglect to be used as propaganda.

For what it is worth, I looked to see how many children are in danger of sexual abuse in Britain.  These figures are, of course, very hard to verify, for all the usual reasons surrounding sexual crime and particularly sexual crime against children - the reluctance of victims to speak out, the difficultly in gathering evidence and so on.  The NSPCC advises that 23,000 children were victims of sexual offending in a year.  Obviously, there is a lot we don't know about those 23,000 victims: like how severe the offences were; whether it was a typical year or not; or how many of the offenders were themselves children.  But it does suggest that the offending that is being screamed about in such garish terms by the newspapers and blaring from our televisions is, tragically, just a small part of a massive and terrible war against children by perverts and deviants and paedophiles.

This is important because it is hard - probably impossible - to gauge how much higher than 'average' the offending described in Rotherham is compared to the 'background' rate of offending.  Which isn't to say we shouldn't be incensed about it.  We should always be incensed by paedophiles, child molesters, rapists and sexual offenders.  But it isn't clear that we always are.

Randeep Ramesh, writing in the Guardian, has a go at extrapolating a bigger picture:

This level of abuse appears to make Rotherham the nation's child sex exploitation capital. If the town's experience was replicated across the country, England would have 19,000 children criminally abused by gangs every year. The children's commissioner thinks that at the moment the figure is about 2,000.

Again, there are a multitude of questions raised by this analysis. I think he has simply based it on the population of Rotherham (250,000) and an offending rate of about 100 incidents per year, and then factored in the population of England (about 55 million), which gives you a similar enough figure.

Though interesting, the analysis falls apart as it assumes that the offences attributed to the rapists in Rotherham were the only sexual offences against children reported there - which is, unfortunately, probably not the case. But it is interesting to note that the figure he arrives at isn't too far off the NSPCC figure given earlier. Which might, in turn, suggest the rate offending by these scum in Rotherham is actually similar to the rate of offending by scum in other places.

So, that's one conclusion, if you could call it that.  I don't know what it means, so conclusion is probably entirely the wrong word.  That's one thought - that the offending described in the Jay report might, unfortunately, not be at all atypical or extreme.  That people with similar predilections are committing similar acts against the  seemingly endless number of neglected children who aresuch easy prey for remorseless predators.

Which might prompt us to wonder, why are these crimes so deeply shocking and so very newsworthy?

I don't think we can escape the racial / cultural angle here so we might as well be honest about it.  We have a situation where men of Pakistani / Muslim heritage were deliberately targeting predominantly white and certainly non-Muslim girls.  It is easy to give into the atavistic reaction that this is some sort of cultural war; that they were abusing and degrading these girls because they were white (predominantly) and non-Muslim and thus less than human.  I think it is simpler than that, and they targeted the girls the targeted because they were available.  Men inclined to abuse and degrade girls are not necessarily stupid; they are simply evil.  That doesn't mean they are so foolish as to target vulnerable children within their own community, however, where the risk of being caught is high, and the risk of suffering brutal summary justice even higher.  Why bother, when there is a legion of vulnerable and neglected white girls running wild in the street, so starved of affection and lacking in self esteem or self preservation instincts that they will naively believe the crude advances and empty promises of an exotic stranger in a flash car, proffering tacky gifts?  After all, British society had clearly shown they had little interest in what happened to these girls.  They were raised in neglect, schooled in neglect, and - if they had been given a few more years - would have been left to eke out whatever pitiful existence they could on benefits, through prostitution, petty crime or meagre, insecure work.  It was abundantly clear that Britain did not care for these girls.  The newspapers didn't care, the six o'clock news did not care.  Not until after they had become victims.

So perhaps part of the violence of our reaction, the visceral sickness these crimes make us feel, is the guilty knowledge that decades of selfishness and individualism and neglect of the poorest, the weakest and most vulnerable has contributed to this.  The predators simply picked off the ones that we had decided didn't matter enough to care for and protect.

Whic, I repeat, is not intended to excuse or exculpate the offenders.  Nor is it meant to minimise, nor dismiss, the offending that took place.  These brutes molested naive, foolish, weak or helpless girls.  They abused them with unspeakable cruelty and selfish, perverted wickedness.  They deserve to rot in jail forever.

But there is plenty of blame and guilt to go round.

Which brings us to the other strange phenomenon of the coverage of this case - the way the papers have been quick to blame the failure of the police and social services on 'political correctness' and the fear of being accused of 'racism.'  This is a strange idea indeed.  The British police force is many things, but it is not noted for being overly sensitive to the feelings or needs of minority ethnic individuals or groups.  It's hard to give much credence to that suggestion that same institution which brought you stop and search campaigns that disproportionately targeted black people, which could barely bring itself to investigate the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence, and which shot dead Charles de Menezes for the crime of looking a bit foreign, would be very concerned about hurting the feelings of the local Muslim population.

(Though even a moments reflection would lead any sane mind to the conclusion that the local Muslim population would probably approve of sexual offenders in its midst being arrested and tried.  There have not, after all, been mass riots following the breaking up of the multiple rings of sexual offenders.  Guess what - Muslims, like the rest of us, are repelled by child abusers!)

It's far more likely that the police are guilty of misogyny, not over sensitivity to racial sensibility.  When incidents were reported, they were not properly investigated.  The most likely reasons being that the police did not care too much about the misfortunes of a few girls who had been stupid enough to get themselves into trouble with some nasty thugs.  After all, as I pointed out a few paragraphs ago, Britain as a whole had basically shrugged its collective shoulders and decided not to bother too much about these girls.  The negligence of the police was just another example of the negligence they had experienced through out their young lives.

(This is not to condemn all police equally, however - many individuals may have tried to follow up complaints, before being warned off or told not to waste their time or simply been swamped by the number of other cases they had to deal with.  And some forces did take steps - like Operation Engage - to combat street grooming.  And it must be remembered that it is inevitably someone in the police who brings these monsters to justice.  They can feel a bit less guilty than the rest of us.)

Ultimately, however, it comes down to the same problem that investigations into allegations of sexual abuse always face - the reluctance of victims to come forwards, the difficulty in gaining strong testimony and sound evidence.  These are compounded massively when the victims are children.  So it isn't too surprising to me that these offenders were able to continue to offend for years.  Many paedophiles and sexual offenders have benefited from this.  Jimmy Saville being one recent, startling example.  His methodology was strikingly similar to the street grooming gangs being considered here - enticements, abuse and threats to intimidate the victims.  And his offending was carried out over decades.  And when some of his victims dared to complain to the police they were dismissed, because of the same scepticism that so many rape victims have to confront.  And he was allowed to carry on abusing.

Without being a Muslim, or Pakistani, of course.

Or consider this paedophile ring, which operated for three decades.  Again, without featuring Muslims or Pakistanis.

It's outlandish and strange to suggest that fear of being called racist or undue deference to 'political correctness' led to these scum being able to continue to offend when so many other examples can be found of other long lived paedophile and child abuse rings.  It is, simply, how it goes.

So why the strange fixation on the racial aspect, the alleged political correctness and the fear of causing offence?  I think this takes us back to where we started.  This is not about the reporting of facts.  This is news as propaganda.  There is a purpose here, to strengthen those who seek to sow division and strife.  The response of Muslim communities to the revelation of child abusers in their midst has been the same as as that of any other community experiencing a similar discovery - shock, revulsion and guilt.  But that has not satisfied the clamouring voices of the UKIP backing, Labour hating tabloids.  They must have known, the line goes.  It's impossible that they could have been as ignorant of the monsters among them as we are to the monsters that walk our streets.  even though no one ever demands the white British community (of which I am part) apologises or accounts for the depredation of Jimmy Saville, Fred West, the Yorkshire Ripper, or any of the vermin that we somehow too frequently produce, it is demanded of Muslims.

Because hen we are faced with our own guilt in this atrocity - our own shameful neglect of swathes of our population that has been abandoned to perdition - it is easier to blame someone else.  Yes, the predators deserve every iota of blame available to them, but they did not create the situation where so many girls were left vulnerable to them.  They 'merely' took advantage of it.  We allowed ourselves to believe the glib promises of politicians that social services could somehow operate on thin air, without us having to pay for it.

Any when we see the results, a system in collapse and a list of victim that defies comprehension, abused over years with apparently impunity, it is a Hell of a lot easier to blame anyone other than ourselves.  Especially abstract concepts like 'political correctness' or 'anti-racism.'

But repeating comforting lies and shibboleths won't help make us feel better, really.

And it certainly wont help the thousands of children being abused by evil predators right now.

Wail Watch

Today's prize for Just Weird Journalism goes to The Daily Mail (as is the case most other days).  In a story headlined, "Sex gangs report 'will play down threat of Pakistani men targeting white girls'" the Mail goes on to claim,

A major report into child abuse will trigger controversy next week when it plays down the significance of Pakistani men targeting white girls. 

It is claimed England’s deputy children’s commissioner Sue Berelowitz will avoid saying there is a specific problem, fearing it might appear politically incorrect.

Which is an interesting interpretation, given that the Mail is basing it's claim on the words of an anonymous "Whitehall source" who is quoted as saying that the report will not take the 'politcally correct' option of pretending there isn't a problem:

A Whitehall source said: ‘It’s important we don’t take a politically-correct approach and pretend there is not a real problem here. 

‘Obviously abuse has been carried out by men from all sorts of ethnic background,' the source told The Sun. 

‘But that doesn’t mean we cannot say there is an issue about groups of Pakistani men systematically targeting young white girls.’

How do you get from that to "Sex gangs report 'will play down threat of Pakistani men targeting white girls'"? Only in the Daily Mail is that sort of 'logical' leap possible.

Daily Mail plumbs new depths

The Daily Mail really is a horrible rag, isn't it? A deranged woman murders her child, and the Mail fixates on the fact that she happens to be a Muslim (1).

Must have been a major dilemma for the Mail though, horrible case like this. Do they go with the Muzzie bashing angle, or run the "Where were Social Services" routine. Obviously, in this case, they went for the first option. Mad people do terrible things. That she was listening to the Koran isn't relevant at all, any more than the fact that Mark Chapman was clutching a copy of The Catcher In The Rye when he shot John Lennon.

This really does mark stupendous depths of venal, hate raking for the Mail.

1 - "'Mother cuts out the heart of her daughter, four, as she listens to recording of Koran in ritual killing'," unattributed article. Published in The Daily Mail, 18th of December, 2010. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339665/Mother-cuts-heart-daughter-4-listens-recording-Koran-ritual-killing.html)

This is why Section 59 was repealed ...

John Harry Lagataua of Timaru, has been jailed for nine months after a string of five assaults on his partner and children (1).

The defence counsel argued that he was using 'old fashioned discipline' to correct bad behaviour from a 'challenging' child. Previously, this defence might have worked. Thankfully this is no longer the case.

Obviously, it is not the defence lawyers job to ponder questions such as, if Mr Lagataua endured corporal punishment himself as a child, what can we surmise about its effectiveness by looking at what he has become? Or what has made the 'challenging' child so difficult, if not the parenting and discipline of Mr Lagataua?

This is a tragedy for the whole family. A woman and children have endured years of physical intimidation and violence. A man has lost his children and his partner because he was raised to think that violence was an acceptable means of dealing with problems. The self satisfied behind the Family Party (2), Family First (3), Family Integrity (4) and the other pressure groups that are trying to allow people like Mr Lagataua continue to use subjective 'reasonable force' when they beat their children.

1 - "Dad jailed for 'old fashioned discipline' on child," unattributed article from The Timaru Herald, reproduced on stuff.co.nz, 3rd of February, 2009. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/4836081a11.html)
2 - Website of The Family Party, outlining their intention to "Fix the smacking law" by reinstating Section 59 of the Crimes Act, as of 3rd of February, 2009. (http://www.familyparty.org.nz/policy/the-family-policy)
3 - Website of Family First, outlining the groups desire to decriminalise "parents who use light smacking for correction of children," as of 3rd of February, 2009. (http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Policy_Watch_08)
4 - Website of Family Integrity, a group which states the "organisation’s focus at present is the bill to repeal Section 59, Sue Bradford’s Crimes Amendment Bill," which is either indicative of a lapse in interest or a truly unswerving mania. (http://familyintegrity.org.nz/about-us/)

More bilge from the Mail

I shouldn't be surprised by the Mail's vehement prosecution of its war on truth, because its a nasty little conservative rag just a couple of steps shy of BNP territory. Still, I have to confess to beingimpressed by the effontry with which they try to twist and manipulate information to create some weird little illusion that suits their jaundiced Little Englander world view.

Take this, for example:

Bring back the cane in schools, say one in five teachers
By Sarah Harris
Last updated at 1:50 AM on 03rd October 2008

One in five teachers would like to see the cane brought back in schools to help discipline unruly children, a survey has revealed.

They would back the return of corporal punishment because they have had enough of deteriorating pupil behaviour.

The research comes amid rising concern about poorly behaved children who routinely flout authority both in school and out.

The Times Educational Supplement (TES) survey of 6,162 teachers found that overall, 20.3 per cent backed 'the right to use corporal punishment in extreme cases'. (1)

So, one in five teachers support the return of caning? Which means four in five don't. 80% of those surveyed were absolutely opposed to the idea of beating children. But the Mail tries to emphasise the minority who yearn for the good old days of state sanctioned child abuse.

Bear in mind that teaching is a profession where people don't naturally progress upwards - you can start as a classroom teacher when you are twenty five, and still be a classroom teacher in forty years when you retire. This ensues conservatism is ingrained in the profession, contrary to the popular (i.e. Daily Mail) image of trendy teachers trying to teach five year olds to be gay (2).

It's more than likely that that 20% who support violence against children are - how can I say this - old, reactionary farts. It is noticeable that the Mail interviews one teacher and signally fails to give her age, even though it is almost unheard of in tabloid journalism to omit a woman's age. That's pretty telling.

1 - "Bring back the cane in schools, say one in five teachers," by Sarah Harris, published in the Daily Mail, 3rd of October,
2008. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1066786/Bring-cane-schools-say-teachers.html)
2 - "Teach 'the pleasure of gay sex' to children as young as five, say researchers," by Steve Doughty, published in the Daily Mail, 16th of September, 2008. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1056415/Teach-pleasure-gay-sex-children-young-say-researchers.html)

Pope misses the point

In his address in Sydney, the Pope made the point of apologizing for the sexual abuse of minors. However, his carefully chosen words avoided admitting any responsibility by the Church over failure to act to protect children from sexual predators in the church:

Here I would like to pause to acknowledge the shame which we have all felt as a result of the sexual abuse of minors by some clergy and religious in this country. Indeed, I am deeply sorry for the pain and suffering the victims have endured and I assure them that as their pastor I too share in their suffering. (1)

I'm not even going to bother with the Pope's patronising claim that he has a "share in their suffering." That isn't the issue.

Nor, surprisingly, is the issue the fact that a few priests committted terrible crimes against children. Wicked people do horrible things. Some of them wear priestly garb, some of them don't. I don't expect the Pope to apologise for the sins of any individual, priest or otherwise, any more than I expect any given Maori to apologise over the Kahui killings or any random German to apologise for the Holocaust.

But the Catholic church, as an institution, acted to protect itself first, instead of the victims of the abuse. Rather than expose the predators, the church chose to sheild them, allowing them to continue to abuse. That is what the Pope should apologise for. But, at least on this occasion, he failed refused to do so. Like Bill Clinton, he is more than ready to feel the pain of whoever he is trying to reach out to (2). But he isn't going to admit that his church's inaction and hypocrisy contributed to that pain.

Without acknowledging that the church shares the guilt for the abuse, the shame remains, and his words are empty.

1 - "Text of Pope's apology for sexual abuse in Australia," unattributed translation of the address given by the Pope, published by Reuters and reproduced on ONE News, 19th of July, 2008. (http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425822/1920111).
2 - This piece of Clintonesque emphatic vacuity occurred on the campaign traill in 1992, apparently. Tragically, it probably marks a high point for Clinton's sincerity in that decade. (http://www.actupny.org/campaign96/rafsky-clinton.html)

21,000 dead babies

[Hat-tip: No Right Turn (1)]

Reading (2) about the political manouvers of the religious right in the USA, particulalry about how issues like abortion, evolution and feminism were used to divert working- and middle-class voters' attention away from economic issues, I was sickened to read about the consequences of this rightwing hypocrisy.

This report (3) highlights on jaw dropping statistic - that 21,000 babies under one year of age die every year, needlessly. We know these are avoidable deaths because they represent the difference between the infant mortality rate in the USA, and the infant mortality rate in Sweden. If the Swedes can save those tiny lives, then there is no reason why the Americans can not.

The fact is that they choose not to. While abortion is a massive issue in American politics, one that motivates hundreds of thousands of radical Republicans and Christians, it seems that the 'Right to Life' stops at the moment of birth. Rather than provide the social care and health services these new-borns need, they imediately fall off the radar. And 21,000 - twenty one thousand - die needlessly.

The reason for this holocaust is that saving their lives would mean raising taxes, building up a welfare state and strong public institutions to protect and nurture these children. Instead, they are espendable, the youngest and most pathetic child-soldiers in the new-right's war on taxes, government and 'collectivism.'

Where-ever you go on the internet, you trip over pictures of dismembered fetuses, images of dismembered partial-birth abortions and the like. They are distressing. But the 21,000 invisible casualties of Americas culture wars do not appear. The hypocrisy and inhumanity of the American right glories in the rescuing of unborn children - and gladly sacrifices 21,000 babies under a year old.

1 - Posted on No Right Turn, by Idiot/Savant, 18th of July, 2008. (http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2008/07/staggering.html)
2 - As described previously on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2008/07/rightwing-victimhood.html
3 - 'The Measure of America: American Human Development Report 2008-2009 ,' published by the American Human Development Project, (http://www.measureofamerica.org/).
The information about infant mortality is found on page 4 of the Executive Summary (http://measureofamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/ahdr-execsumm.pdf).

Spielberg quits Olympic post

Steven Spielberg has walked out of his post as 'artistic advisor' for the Beijing Olympics, because the government of the PRC supplies arms and oil to the government forces in Darfur (1). It is a principled thing to do, but he's doing it far too late. He should never have been involved in the Beijing Olympics in the first place.

That Durfur has been a tipping point is surprising - the Beijing regime has committed, and commits, for worse atrocities in its own territory. Any action that draws attention to the wickedness of the bastards of Beijing is good, but at the same time I can't get my head around Spielberg's myopia. Didn't he know that the Chinese government is one of the most hateful and despicable on the planet? If yes, why did he ever take up a post with them. If not, where on Earth has he been all this time?

The suggestion that working with the Beijing regime will somehow make things better, by promoting 'international contacts through which awareness of human rights in China can be increased' is outlandishly niave, particularly since it comes from a spokesperson of a human rights organisation (2). Anyone unaware of the nature of the regime in Beijing is either stupid or wilfully ignorant and neither condition will be resolved by holding the Olympic games there. I don't think Spielberg is either of these things. Which leaves us with a third option, complicity in evil. He's not alone in that, of course. We all are, to a greater or lesser extent.

Of course, our glorious leaders, having allowed our industrial base to relocate to the PRC, where practices such as slavery, indentured service and child labour are still permitted by a government that hates free speech and any criticism of its evil policies, don't really give a damn (3). They are more interested in maintaining their own hold on power, and the politician who tries to stem the flow of cheap goods is going to find himself very unpopular with his or her electorate, and (consequent to this) maintaining good relations with Beijing, who have control on that flow.

1 - 'No 'genocide games' for Spielberg,' by Perro De Jong, news report by Radio Netherlands Worldwide, 13th of February, 2008. (http://www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/080213-spielberg-olympics-mc)
2 - ibid.
3 - As described presviously on lefthandpalm: (http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2008/02/beijing-arrests-hu-jia.html)

Good on Aussie

Kevin Rudd's apology (1) and talk about 'closing the gap' beleween white and black Australia is good start. Rudd's done what the Liberals didn't manage to do in over a decade - apologise for a greivous wrong.

Where it goes from here will need a lot of hard work, but for the moment, good on you, Australia.

1 - 'Cheers, tears, as Rudd says "Sorry",' unattributed article on ABC News, 13th of February, 2008. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/13/2161309.htm)

Marching against child abuse, but to what end?

Christine Rankin, speaking at the Silent Voices (1) rally against child abuse, branded Children's Commisioner Cindy Kiro "a waste of space" (2), along with comments about her courage and ineffectiveness. Her hunger not sated, she then laid into the government, claiming "this government just turns away," (3), which is just so stupidly demagogic that it doesn't really need further refutation (4).

First, it is good to Christine showing her self-proclaimed leadership skills (5). Nothing like badmouthing the governemnt, agencies working to prevent child abuse and hence the people you might be working with to dispell an lingering notions that you are serious about addressing the issue, and not simply raising your own profile and building a platform for your own ends. But it turns out that Judith Collins, Nationals spokesperson on welfare and family affairs, spoke at the rally as well (6). Surely, an innocent coincidence?

Kiro apparently had a bit of a go in reply (7), telling Rankin to leave it up to the experts. Which struck a fabulously patritician tone, but will probably not endear her to the crowd of non-experts gathered to make their ineffectual protest against child abuse. it is unlikely that someone so warped in their world view that they could beat a child to death is going to give a damn how many people march up and down Queen Street. What is needed is the resources and - YES - expertise to deal with the problem. Things are getting better. It would be nice if they were getting better more quickly, but almost halving the number of Maori child murders in a decade (8) is something.

The worst thing that could happen now is that the country gets dragged back to the right, and the swinging economic policies plunges whole communities and sections of society back into the abyss. It would be a bitter irony if that lurch to the right was brought about by a National government elected - at least in part - on the back of the outrage stoked up by the mendacity of Christine Rankin and her ilk.

1 - http://www.silentvoices.co.nz/
2 - "Rankin slams Children's Commissioner," by Jenny MacIntyre in the Sunday Star Times, 26th of August, 2007. Reproduced on stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/4178661a11.html)
3 - ibid.
4 - As described at an earlier time on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2007/08/sdsds.html
5 - As descibed at an earlier time on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2007/08/christine-rankin-in-nz-herald.html
6 - MacIntyre, op. cit.
7 - "Commissioner strikes back,"
unattributed newstalkZB story, 26th of August, 2007. (http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=123192)
8 - As described earlier on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2007/08/sdsds.html

TVNZ sack security guard for confronting bigot

There's no justice in the world. Time was, if you stood up to the big man and told the truth to power you got the Pulitzer Prize or some such. Nowadays, you get booted out of a job you've held for 24 years. This man deserves some sort of award for telling Christine "we have got a problem with Maori" (1) Rankin she's out of line, rather than getting sacked:

The Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union says it is shocked by claims a
TVNZ security guard was sacked for criticising the comments of Christine Rankin.

Louis Rawnsley has worked as a security guard for the state broadcaster for 24 years. He says he was dismissed after telling Ms Rankin her comments on Breakfast about Maori and child abuse were "over the top". (2)

Unsurprisingly, this was the lead story on TV3's late news. Can't imagine it got *much* coverage on the other side ...

TVNZ have claimed Rawnsley

used a raised voice and the exchange was not polite and private as claimed ... he was representing the company and was charged with greeting guests and making them feel safe ... it is unacceptable for someone in that position to berate a guest and Mr Rawnsley should not have expressed his opinion. (3)

None-the-less, how the Hell do justify sacking someone over an offense like this. The EPMU National Secretary stated

There are two problems with TVNZ’s actions. Firstly, people like Christine Rankin can’t expect to express controversial views without alternative views also being expressed. Secondly, TVNZ has to understand that its employees are citizens, too, and must be allowed to express views, especially in important national debates like this. (4)

Which is all true but missed the essential point - it isn't to do with freedom of speech or having the right to reply. It is to do with the rights of a working man being trashed by his employer. At most, Rawnsley's actions would have deserved a reprimand. Whatever censure he might have deserved (though I still say he performed a service to the people of New Zealand), there are proceedures that should be followed. To dismiss someone out of hand, for objecting to a whole segement of society being written off as a 'problem,' is disgusting.

1 - Direct quotation from the lovely Christine, in "Urgent calls for abuse inquiry," unattributed One News / NewstalkZB article reproduced by TVNZ, 30th of July, 2007. She repeated the exact phrase in the interview that sparked the debate / confrontation with Rawnsley - http://tvnz.co.nz/view/video_popup_windows_skin/1259020?bandwidth=56k.
2 - "Union investigating TVNZ guard sacking," unattributed article from NewstalkZB, 8th of August, 2007. (http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=122178
3 - "TVNZ defends decision to sack guard over remarks to guest," unattributed Radio New Zealand article, 8th of August, 2007. (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/latest/200708081402/tvnz_defends_decision_to_sack_guard_over_remarks_to_guest)
4 - "TVNZ sacking over Rankin comments 'shocking': EPMU ," unattributed press release by the EMPU, reproduced on Scoop, 8th of August, 2007. (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0708/S00105.htm)

Keeping Silent on Child Abuse

Today, at twelve minutes past midday, a three minute silence will be observed to show opposition to child abuse (1). It has been promoted by Sensible Sentencing Trust, Family First, and For the Sake of Our Children Trust. Three minutes, one minute for each year of Nia Glassie's life.

The groups have said "We are sick and tired of doing nothing while our babies and children are being beaten and murdered" (2) (my emphasis) but advocate just that - a silence,` the most futile and pointless of symbolic gestures.

Someone so warped that they would hurt or kill their own child isn't going to notice people standing about doing nothing for three minutes. It isn't going to make a whit of difference, except to the consciences of those who take part, who might feel that they've done something.

Uncomfortable truth time: doing nothing changes nothing. By all means, take part in the demonstration, but at the same time make a phone call to Barnados to make an automatic donation of $20 - 0900 4 0900.

Or visit the website (3), to make a donation of a different amount - how about $30, that's just $10 for each year of Nia's life?

1 - "'Three minute silence' call against child abuse," unattirbuted NZPA story, in the New Zealand Herald, 6th of August 2007. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10456105&ref=rss)
2 - ibid.
3 - Barnado's website, (http://www.barnardos.org.nz/Donate/MakeADonation.asp)

Michael Laws spews crap, unsurprisingly

I suppose it was too much to hope that Michael Laws would spare us his opinions (1) on the Nia Glassie killing. Perhaps someone should have pre-empted him and written his column for him - perhaps someone could even write a program to throw together some of his standard phrases about what ever issue is of moment.

Laws is absolutely predictable, even down to the mistakes he makes. First, he claims that the victims of child abuse are "predominantly Maori" (2). Wrong. Predominantly means "mostly or mainly"(3) and those who commit violence against children will be predominantly Pakeha, for thwe simple reason that Pakeha make up the majority of the population. What Laws means, of course, is 'disproportionately Maori' - Pita Sharples, on Eye to Eye, acknowledged this, stating that Maori make up 15% of the population and account for 40% of instances of child abuse (4). This might sound like nit-picking, but small mistakes like that have a way of replicating themselves and fixing themselves in people's minds.

Laws then claims that "Literally thousands of New Zealand kids now live in the above Paradise [of abuse, neglect and violence]. Soon it will be tens of thousands"(5). Obviously, even one child living in fear is too many, but Laws's claim isn't borne out by the statistics that things are, slowly, improving. 2.4 deaths per 100,000 Maori children per year in the 90s, 1.34 in this last few years. Of course it is too many and of course it isn't a good thing that 1.34 Maori children out of every 100,000 die by violence, but it is better than 2.4 (6). Things need to improve more quickly, but I'll hazard that the sort of measures that the right would write off as politically correct, pandering to special interests, or (worst of all) socialistic, are starting to turn things around.

Then Laws claims that "Quite why Maori are grossly over-represented in all these worst statistics, no one can really say" (7). Nonsense. Only someone blinded by ideological refusal to acknowledge facts could argue this. Maori are disproportionately over represented in child violence statistics because of the same economic and social circumstances that lead to Maori being disproportionately over-represented in most other crimes, familial break down, alcoholism, lack of education, low literacy, drug use and so on. Ultimately, it comes down to Maori being disproportionately over-represented at the lowest end of the socio-economic spectrum. Poverty, unemployment, lack of prospects, alienation are the root causes. Anyone who doesn't admit this is lying, conciously or not, and is part of the problem.

After this general raving, and having declared, absurdly, "the time for talk is over" (8), Laws carries on talking, or at least writing, for several hundred words as he lays out WHAT SHOULD BE DONE. This is WHAT SHOULD BE DONE:

First, you "profile and match all the ... wasters and losers and you place them on a central register. That you don't provide them any government-funded benefit - DPB or state house - unless and until they are discharging defined obligations to the State"(9). This is interesting as he claimed a few lines earlier that these wasters and losers "don't give a shit what any government official or law-enforcement agency thinks. They'll look after their kids their ways, f--k off"(10). He was more right then than when he started pontificating on social policy - faced with the sort of sanctions Laws suggests, people will simply vanish so we'll have no idea what-so-ever is happening to thses families and they will substitute their lost income with crime. Congratualtions, Michael, you just made the problem that much worse.

Then, we're told not to "give second chances. One conviction and they automatically forfeit their chances to have children again. That they must prove their fitness, their sobriety, their changed attitude or every child they produce is whisked away for adoption"(11). Again, this polemic is fatally flawed because people will uproot themselves and disappear rather than have their children taken away from them. Then whatever limited access the authorities had, will be gone, and the family - AND HENCE THE KIDS, MICHAEL - will be worse off than before. Also, children have mothers and fathers. We are talking about two people, not just one. If the mother is generally sound, but the father somewhat feckless ("One conviction ..."), why punish her by taking her children from her? And does Laws's really believe there are enough potential adoptive parents out there to absorb the thousands of children that will suddenly be wrenched away from their families? Or will he rely on Madonna and Angelina Jolie to care for them all?

In fact, Laws hints at more sinister ideas. Until would be parents have cleaned up their act, "children have the right not to be born to them and not to be killed by them"(12). What is he getting at here? Free condoms and a harsh lecture on the importance of not making babies? Literal castration, which is a bit difficult to reverse once the parents come up to scratch? Chemical castration, which is temporary and has to be topped up, and so requires the consent of the victim to be effective?(13) Or forced abortion for any woman impregnated by an unworthy male?

Or could it be that Michael Laws simply spews crap? I think so. And I think he knows it is crap, the sort that plays well with his talk back audience, and spews it anyway.

1 - "One strike, you're out," by Michael Laws in the Sunday Star Times, reproduced on Stuff.co.nz, 5th August 2007.
(http://www.stuff.co.nz/sundaystartimes/4153195a22678.html)
2 - ibid.
3 - as per the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, http://dictionary.cambridge.org/
4- Eye to Eye with Willie Jackson, broadcast 4th August 2007. Might be available here: http://tvnzondemand.co.nz/content/eye_to_eye/ondemand_video_skin
5 - Laws, op. cit.
6 - See my previous post on this, "The Unspeakable Truth About Child Killing," 5th August 2007. http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2007/08/sdsds.html
7 - Laws, op. cit.
8 - ibid.
9 - ibid.
10 - ibid.
11 - ibid.
12 - ibid.
13 - "Chemical Castration in the United States," wikipedia article, viewed 6th of August 2007. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_castration#Chemical_castration_in_the_United_States)

The unspeakable truth about child killing

Some figures from an article in the New Zealand Herald, based on the work of Mike Doolan at Canterbury University, back up Chris Trotter's argument about the socio-economic factors underlying child abuse.

In summary:

• The rate of children killed rose from 0.94 killings a year per 100,000 in the decade up to 1987, to 1.07 in the 1990s, but fell to 0.79 in the first five years of this decade.
• For non-Maori children, the rate fell 0.92 in the thirty years up to 1987, to 0.67 in the 1990s, and to 0.60 in the latest period.
• For Maori children, the rate more than doubled from a rate comparable to the rest of the population, (prior to 1987, rate for Non-Maori - 0.92, for Maori - 1.05), to a peak of 2.4 in the 1990s. In this decade the rate has dropped to 1.34.
• The number of Maori people in paid work dropped by 15 per cent between 1986 and 1991, when total employment fell by only 6 per cent.
• Maori unemployment peaked at 26 per cent in 1991, when the non-Maori rate was only 9 per cent. (1)

Inspite of the Peter Dunne's clunkingly predictable claim that this is a "Maori issue" (2), it clearly isn't. It's the ecomony, stupid. People were cut adrtift and left to rot, so that mainstream (read pakeha) New Zealand could get wealthier and more enterprising. And now it looks dangerously like we're going to elect people who think there wasn't enough of that sort of stuff last time. Ironically, National will thump the law and order drum at every opportunity. There might even be some talk about the good old days.

The good old days? There is nothing good that you can say about a situation where 1.34 children in every 100,000 is killed, except that it is better than 2.4 in every 100,000.

1 - "Gap narrowing in child killings," by Simon Collins, in the New Zealand Herald, 31st July, 2007. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10454811&ref=rss)
2 - ibid.

Chris Trotter - Broken children our hideous toll

New 'From the Left' column by Trotter, Broken Children our Hideous Toll (1).

One quotation from the article:

Locate on a map of New Zealand those communities where "Rogernomics" and
"Ruthanasia" bit hardest, and you will discover an alarming correspondence with
the communities experiencing domestic violence, child abuse, gang affiliations and crime at their worst.

Entirely unsurprisingly, in this colonial society, they are also the communities with the highest concentration of Maori New Zealanders.

People react with rage and revulsion when they hear stories like the killing of Nia Glassie. The idea that the social and political choices New Zealand has made might have contributed to her death, and the long line of battered, killed children, is easy to deny, by calling the perpetrators animals or brutes. And so they were, but how did they become such? It is easy for white New Zealand to write it off as a Maori issue, conveniently overlooking the correlation between poverty, alcohol, drugs, lack of education, unemployment, crime, family break up and violence that distorts the picture.

Yes, Maori are over-represented in the stats. They are over-represented in a lot of stats, all bad. Why is that? Of course we don't want to think we're responsible, however indirectly, for horrible, violent, tragedies like Nia Glassie's. Saying it all comes down to the thugs who hurt these children is, essentially, to say that there is something wrong or sick in Maori culture or Maori genes. That sits a lot more comfortably with white New Zealand, as it saves us from having to entertain the notion - unbearable - that it might be something wrong or sick in the choices we made.

1- "Broken Children our Hideous Toll," by Chris Tortter, in The Dominion
Post, 3rd August 2007. Reproduced on http://www.stuff.co.nz/4151629a1861.html