I'm steamed about it. I'm disappointed in my country, my people, and the whole damn situation.
I'm also feeling perversely vindicated - when the Children's Rights Amendment was being pushed in 2012, we got all the trendy lefties (I'm politically and socially conservative, so bias warning in advance: I respect real old-school Labour but not the 'champagne socialists' wing currently in power) like this guy bloviating about how it was "Will nobody think of the children?"
I voted "No" not because I want children to suffer at the hands of abusive parents, but because it was so vague and so broad-reaching and I didn't see anyone giving any firm definitions of when or the limits of being able to remove children from the family home, amongst other things. But of course, any objections meant you were a bad person who wanted to drag us all back to the bad old days of the Church ruling the country. This taking children away from their parents because of suspected moral turpitude didn't happen back in the hungry 50s at the behest of the parish priest beating the courting couples out of the bushes with a blackthorn stick, it happened under the progressive government that is pluming itself on its bravery and forward-looking vision, and who threw its weight behind this amendment to the Constitution on the grounds of "it's for the children".
Well, to quote that article: " By voting yes on Nov10 we can put a hand on the shoulder of every child we know. And they’ll know what it means."
Yes, they'll know: they'll know it doesn't matter a damn if they say 'I don't want to go with you'. They'll know it means anyone for the flimsiest excuse can just ring the cops, who won't even bother to check with social services, they'll take you into care. They'll know the hand on their shoulder is the police dragging them away from their families.
no subject
I'm also feeling perversely vindicated - when the Children's Rights Amendment was being pushed in 2012, we got all the trendy lefties (I'm politically and socially conservative, so bias warning in advance: I respect real old-school Labour but not the 'champagne socialists' wing currently in power) like this guy bloviating about how it was "Will nobody think of the children?"
I voted "No" not because I want children to suffer at the hands of abusive parents, but because it was so vague and so broad-reaching and I didn't see anyone giving any firm definitions of when or the limits of being able to remove children from the family home, amongst other things. But of course, any objections meant you were a bad person who wanted to drag us all back to the bad old days of the Church ruling the country. This taking children away from their parents because of suspected moral turpitude didn't happen back in the hungry 50s at the behest of the parish priest beating the courting couples out of the bushes with a blackthorn stick, it happened under the progressive government that is pluming itself on its bravery and forward-looking vision, and who threw its weight behind this amendment to the Constitution on the grounds of "it's for the children".
Well, to quote that article: " By voting yes on Nov10 we can put a hand on the shoulder of every child we know. And they’ll know what it means."
Yes, they'll know: they'll know it doesn't matter a damn if they say 'I don't want to go with you'. They'll know it means anyone for the flimsiest excuse can just ring the cops, who won't even bother to check with social services, they'll take you into care. They'll know the hand on their shoulder is the police dragging them away from their families.