Simon Wood, Dominion Post (Wellington), October 30, 2009
Wanganui Mayor Michael Laws says giving the “underclass” money to be sterilised will address our child abuse problem.
Critics last night labelled the suggestion “totalitarian”, “draconian” and “reprehensible”, and questioned his appropriateness as a city leader.
Mr Laws said the children of beneficiaries, drug addicts and criminals had little chance in life. He offered his observations after he was approached for comment on the death of two-year-old Wanganui boy Karl Perigo-Check, the son of a convicted murderer and gang member.
“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?”
Child Poverty Action Group director Janfrie Wakim said she was stunned by the comments. “I just find it such a disgraceful attitude. It’s hard to comprehend that an intelligent man who’s leading a city is making such reprehensible suggestions.”
Barnardos New Zealand chief executive Murray Edridge said the comments were part of a pattern of provocative comments from Mr Laws designed to draw attention. “I can’t believe that he actually believes this.”
Any Kiwi child genuinely could become a doctor or brain surgeon—as long as there was community support for them, he said.
Children’s Commissioner John Angus said Mr Laws’ comments were unrealistic and unhelpful. “Most of the information that I have seen suggests that it is quite hard to predict specific family situations where there might be problems.”
He said 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.
Mr Laws also said “liberal methods” of combating child abuse had failed. He said anti-smacking legislation had not worked because at least 19 children had been murdered by their family since it was passed in 2007.
“It was meant to be conducive to stopping child abuse in the country but no piece of legislation will stop the underclass in New Zealand from beating, battering and killing their children.”
The bill’s sponsor, Green MP Sue Bradford, said no-one had claimed the legislation would eradicate child abuse.
She said Mr Laws’ proposed solution was draconian and totalitarian and would never be considered by Parliament. “People are trying their best to change what has been many generations of violence but a lot of that will need more resourcing.”
Ad Feedback
Karl Perigo-Check was the son of Karl Check, a Mongrel Mob member who was convicted of murdering Wanganui toddler Jhia Te Tua, the daughter of a Black Power member, by organising a drive-by shooting. He is serving life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 15 years.
A service was held to farewell the boy yesterday.
Original article
(Posted on November 5, 2009)
Comments
These people would rather go on caring for abused children and employ armies of social workers just so they can feel good about themselves.
The irony is that these same people likely support abortion on demand but wouldn’t for a moment consider giving people an option not to get pregnant in the first place.
“People are trying their best to change what has been many generations of violence but a lot of that will need more resourcing”
So cliche. Was she shooting for comedy there? Perhaps they really need Michael Laws to shake things up over there. Good luck with that Michael! You may force up the collective IQ of the living over there a point or two. Don’t expect much.
The ‘eugenicists’ have it all wrong. They need to encourage the more intelligent of all classes, underclass, lowerclass, working class, middle class and upper class, to have more children. Just call it ‘affirmative-action’ affecting people of all incomes, equally - affecting all races of people equally, and they may have a shot at improving humanity.
In a time of universal deception, telling the truth is a revolutionary act- Orwell
I think it would be a good idea to offer sterilizaiton to people in third world countries and from chronically depressed societies. It is going to have to be forced eventually or else no one will surive.
perhaps that idea could be adapted… Imagine a new law that would make it illegal for non-White immigrants, to have more than one child?
In China, to control the growth of their population, the¸ir government actually enforced a law allowing couples to have no more than one child. So, perhaps, a White nationalist government could control the growth of non-White numbers in our Western democracies.
Please, fellow Amreners, don’t bite on this proposal. Look into your souls and ask yourselves whether “race realism” requires the state to categorize people as “fit” or “unfit” to reproduce and give them economic incentives to act accordingly. You wanna talk about a slippery slope …
I’m going to guess that productive adults are by now outnumbered by the unproductive, the counterproductive, and their salaried keepers. We who actually sustain the society by our labor have the right to decide ALL matters, including who shall be allowed to bring children into our community. If feral people want to whelp, let them do it in the wilderness, like their cousins the wolves. They have no right dumping their litters on us.
Someone should inform Mr. Laws’ critics that draconian is not an insult. Draco was Sparta’s lawgiver; and Spartans sure acquitted themselves well when the Persians came to batter their city walls. If NZ heeded Laws’ counsel, they would better stifle those who batter their children.
“There are reversible sterilization methods”
There are even birth control shots that last for 3 months - they could simply provide them to those on long term welfare.
Sterilizing people who are willing to consent to this does not bother me. I have seen who has baby after baby after baby they can’t take care of. It’s the same kind of people that have gotten the vast majority of state-funded abortions and cannot seem to behave in a responsible manner with contraceptives that are going to “fail” anyone not using them the way they were intended to be.
I think that we should offer an incentive to people willing to be sterilized to put the brakes on those who believe that having children to get welfare beats working. I think that some of my patients have fit that description.
Have the critics be the sole caregivers of these people and also having to live among them, financially and other wise. Watch them all disappear! These critics will soon stop playing the holier than thou game.
New Zealand’s a funny country. They think everything can be cured by education. They are great environmentalists. Flynn came from NZ.Alcoholism and binge drinking is rife and education is the cure not stopping 16 year olds having access to easy alcohol.
Great idea but it will never happen. Was tried before, Germany sterilized the insane but the media thinks this is awful. How many kids would be saved if we sterilized child sex offenders? Or the habitual rapists? Society would benefit immensely,, but it will never happen. The rights of the criminals, insane, and other societal deviants are more important than the good citizens. Thanks ACLU and democrats!!. Kingfish
Who are these people? Where do they come from? NZ has an immigrant problem from the 3rd world? Dear Lord.
Maybe the solution lies with admitting NO immigrants of color from any 3rd world nation? The same goes for America and all White nations, no more immigrants! It has only compounded the problem!
As for sterilizing it is a good idea after seeing and reading so much about the poor kids who come from these “poor” adults. The world isn’t like it used to be when many poor had children but did not abuse and kill them as they do today. How much longer can Whites the world over support all these people and their proclivities, not to mention their out of control reproduction rates?
11 — T wrote
So it is rumored, was the author of 1890 book “Might Is Right”, or “The Survival of the Fittest.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_is_Right
NZ also produced the likes of … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Hillary
Not bad for a country who had a population of 1.7 million people in 1945, and 4.5 million today.
Maybe stories like this one may make the nay-sayer’s see the positive side of the scheme suggested in this feature story.
‘Police claim dad ‘sold’ girl at McDonald’s’ http://tinyurl.com/ndl9rk
Once equality and democracy came together, it became inevitable that the breeders will inherit it all.
Look what we do here in America. We take the least fit parents and reward them for their poor behavioral choices by giving them a check every month which only in turn swells their numbers and makes the situation worse in the long run. If you don’t have the financial means to raise a child you have no more right to have that child than you do a Mercedes Benz that you can’t afford.
The unspoken premise here is that the right to procreate is a universal human right. As with many things of ages gone by, the premise is becoming more and more quaint, and, unsustainable. It is quaint because it no longer matches reality. With large populations lacking restrictions, many children are unintentionally conceived, often in the worst of circumstances.
It is unsustainable because the world population has already stressed the global structure to the point of breaking, and taxed local structures beyond sustainability. Most of the stress originates in the Third World, where population growth is at once the highest and the least sustainable. These populations impact the developed world directly through migration and trade.
China’s approach to limit that right to one child is one of necessity. To limit the right of those least capable of exercising the right to procreate seems logical in the light of the usual consequences. When does it become necessary? is the question.
To continue to defend this universal right to procreate out of idealism ignores reality. As the developed world continues to experience social and economic decline, the cause becomes ever more apparent: The Third World is moving here and they’re bringing their habits with them, with unrestricted procreation topping their list.
The same is true of formerly indigenous populations in developed countries that share developmental characteristics with Third World populations, such as in New Zealand. There the rationale is that the culture of these populations must be preserved at all cost and the population is given a special status that actually encourages unrestricted procreation through governmental support in various forms.
The United States has perhaps the worst of it, suffering from massive legal immigration and illegal migration as well as a large population of African descent that has been conferred a special status within American society but has failed to complete it integration into that society.
The fact is that individuals from Third World countries or who share origins and developmental characteristics with Third World populations overwhelmingly fail to integrate into a developed world society, challenge its established values and traditions, and often outright violate both values and laws. The result is a balkanization of society and a dramatic deterioration in quality of life, ultimately resulting in the destruction of national identity. The rule of law and the guidance of tradition is replaced by an attitude, “It’s all good.”
Well it isn’t. It is time we stop deluding ourselves that freedom means freedom from responsibility. The act is not free of consequence and thus not free from responsibility. Populations must be reduced where they are highest and most unsustainable. We can safely take the chance that we might prevent the “new messiah” from being born. We have enough of those already anyway.
I agree with Tacitus. I am against any kind of genocide. I might add that Margaret Sanger was a fan of Hitler’s.
I am very much a race realist. I also recognize that everyone, regardless of race, has God-given rights. And having different nations (as opposed to mixing everyone) is Biblical.
Blacks and others can have their own countries, have their own cultures, and rear children as they see fit. And they can deal with miscreants as they see fit.
I believe that child abuse happens in part because children are seen as burdens rather than as blessings. Or they’re seen as meal tickets for welfare and something to put up with until they’re 18 and can be tossed out the door.
Alexandra:
Many are bounced out well before they turn 18. I read numerous stories from St. Louis and other black cities where mothers throw their teenage sons out of the house at ages as young as 12. The reason is that momma has a new “boo,” and “boo” doesn’t want any other serious male competition in the house. It’s straight from the leonite world, where new males that take over a pride kick out adolescent males to reduce competition. They also kill the young cubs of the pride’s females, to get their attention on him and his sex drive. (That behavior also shows up in humans. When an infant child is a victim of a murder, it is almost always at the hands of the child’s mother’s new boyfriend).
I don’t know if New Zealand ever embraced the eugenics movement of the early 20th century as widely as the US did. But there was was a time in this country when it was considered completely sensible and humane to sterlize criminals, alcholics and those who were cronically dependant on others as way of reducing social problems. Even the US Supreme Court in the 1920s ruled 8-1 in favor of sterilization for those deemed ‘unfit’ for parenthood. Justics Holmes writing for the majority said that it is better to sterlize those who were congentitally prone to bad behavior than to execute their “degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility.” In fact, over 30 states by the early 1930s had sterlization laws on their books (remember there were only 48 states then too). And most eugenicists were NOT the swastika-wearing Nazi cranks in jackboots but some of the most progressive, mainstream and highly regarded figures of their time. In addition to Justice Holmes, Teddy Roosevelt, Margaret Sanger, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie and Alexander Graham Bell were just a few of the illustrious figures that supported eugenics. And it wasn’t supposedly ‘racist’ states like Alabama and Mississippi that sterlized in large numbers to reduce social problems, but places like California and Vermont. It’s depressing to know that there once was a time when our leaders were so enlighted about human nature. instead now they find anything that even remotely smacks of eugenics as ‘reprehensible’ and ‘pseudo-science’
Michael Laws’ suggestion seems perfectly sensible to me. But of course everyone has been indoctrinated to believe that the right thing to do is to pay the most incompetent and dissolute people to have more children. It’s utter madness, but we live in a time of universal insanity.
This is to Alexandra:
I am agnostic, so I do not know if coloured peoples from the Third World have God-given rights, to be honest… I think it’s possible (I do believe in some things), but then, when I see my race being displaced in the countries it founded, I tend to think we should do what is necessary to keep our countries. I am prepared to do what is required; I will accept the judgement of God later.
The problem about eugenics as a theory and sterilization as a reality is that every so often wires got crossed:
TRUE STORY:
Yes, go-ahead Social-Democratic unionized Sweden was doing this well within living memory!
I read a story about a relatively wealthy woman who was giving money to crack-addicted women to get their tubes tied so they wouldn’t get pregnant and give birth to a physically deformed child AKA a “crack baby.” Many of the addicted testified to how grateful they were that this woman helped them avoid making their problem that of a future generations. But of course, the NAACP complained that this woman was a eugenicist and a racist. People who don’t want to help themselves sometimes need the help forced upon them. Its truly sad.
I see nothing wrong with insisting on foolproof birth control for welfare dependents. It is completely fair - the low-IQ NAM gets public assistance to compensate for being genetically shortchanged in life in return for a binding agreement not to inflict his genes on future generations.
It’s a shame that an otherwise healthy Swedish girl got sterilized. But it’s fine with me if any Black or other unwanted person in my country gets sterilized. Any program of eugenics simply needs to be more careful where Whites are concerned.
I don’t know how people on this forum started talking about Hitler and eugenics, etc. But I think this really is not about eugenics, or the fantasy of creating a master race of superhumans through the sterilisation of the underclass…
I think this is simply about controlling the birth rates of non-Whites in our western democracies, so that we aren’t someday overrun by Third World hordes in our own countries. I think that’s legitimate.
28 Francois: there are plenty of loathsome Whites who have no business reproducing. I don’t mean just silly wigger kids or something, there are Whites who are lifelong habitual liars, for example. There are Whites who will steal your prized baseball glove or the fishing reel you gave your father for his birthday, or live off student loans and food stamps for a decade without a twinge of guilt. They are moral defectives, outcasts from decent society, and keeping them out of the gene pool is a valid interest of any community.
