Wednesday, August 14, 2013


I had initial reservations on the GCSB Bill but only in as far as how it might deliver opportunity to a shallow manipulator of the political process in the future but it will need modification.

I have lived under administrations of Frazer through to Key and there has not been a single elected leader of our nation that I feared would use the 'state and it's powers' to threaten me.

So I accept the current GCSB legislation as I understand it merely legalises what was always intended but due to poor drafting and review did not support such actions within the law, those who employed it, including the now seemingly "Road to Damascus" enlightened flyboy and darling of the left Fergusson who was head honcho of those who used it in ignorance or in hope but as it turns out illegally.
As I understand things it is now legal along with being more transparent and is to work under more intensive and broader oversight and review protocols.

Minister Bennett's latest foray into doing something meaningful on the appalling stats around the safety of our youngest citizens also challenges my suspicions of the bureaucratic cure being more damaging than the problem being addressed
Initial reaction on the suggestion that without any conviction, parents may face sanction for gaining access to their child in defiance of a court order gives rise to an immediate  negative reaction.

In a world where we need an official approval status to do almost everything that confronts us in life, it is almost beyond comprehension that to create and rear children requires nothing more than a temporary dive into pleasure in response to the cunning biological energy created by lust that is within every living thing.

Once fertilized that egg has no state created obstacle on the journey of life, needing protection, sustenance, health, shelter, and safety, that has a potential to go so bad at every turn. Oh there are many beliefs, customs, and mores that might attempt interference but whether the child is wanted or not, loved or not, nurtured or not, its progress is in the hands of the parents, qualified (unlikely) or not and sadly in present times only one of them will stay on track, an outcome that seems to increasingly attract danger rather than safety.

Yesterday on a "splatter chatter" streaming within my consciousness, a very earnest young female tried to mount an attack on Ms Bennett's suggestions, not from any legal, moral grounds on the possible interference into the efforts of the parents but that the proposals to force information sharing, notification of suspicions or a concerted effort to ascertain risk status by our employees to prevent tragedy would impinge on her status as a TRAINED SOCIAL WORKER.
Ms Bennett's proposals were just a joke she shilled.
Sadly much of the resulting incompetent activity  by some social workers is exposed as the disaster it is but only when an investigation into yet another tragedy occurs.

To be safe on the motorway, the state says:
I need to be healthy with suitable motor, awareness, sight and consciousness status,
To hold a current licence,
To have a licenced vehicle,
It must have a current mechanical certificate of fitness,
I must be restrained by a seatbelt,
I am not to be adversely affected by any substance legal or not,
By law my speed is controlled,
I should also have a lawful reason to travel,
I must comply with road markings and signage,
I must comply with directional instructions,
I must indicate my intentions to change direction.

Any failure to comply will cause loss of permission to continue, a time constraint solely at the whim of enforcement authority and ultimately may result in loss of my freedom.

The laws and rules around child care have very few permissions that might improve the safety for that child, so for now Paula make the calls and we can all see where it leads.
Much of my inherent suspicion emanates from the secrecy and garbage decision making around the Family Court system.
A rusty car can be stickered, a rotten parent has little similar sanction, they have "rights"

1 comment:

Marc said...

Similar long list of requirements to be met to be able to own a dog too.