We have posted recently on some of the characteristics of the Liberal Mind. Dr Cindy Kiro, the Commissioner for Children for most of the years of the previous Labour Government, has recently announced her retirement from the position. No doubt there will be a collective sigh of relief in many quarters.
In so many ways, Dr Kiro has been a walking epitome of the Liberal Mind. She conceived of her role and office as a spokesperson for children to be one of advocating the removal of restraints and controls, training and discipline which inhibit the natural and intrinsic goodness of children. Therefore, while families were sometimes good, they were certainly not necessary to the proper raising of children. They could be replaced at any time, and relatively easily, by the organs and committees of the State. All that was needed was more state funding to do the task.
True to the Liberal Mind, Kiro had only a one-dimensional, simplistic response to family violence, breakdown, and abuse: a massive increase in state regulation, control, and supervision of families to remove the conditions of abuse and create a conducive environment for rearing children. If only that were done, the intrinsic goodness of parents and children would shine forth.
Family Integrity has provided a trenchant summary of the symptoms of Kiro's incompetence, inconsistency, and naive superficiality.
Cindy Kiro’s term ending!
Herald on Sunday 25 January 2009
Controversial Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro will finish her five-year term in April. The Ministry of Social Development has advertised the high-profile role, with an annual salary of $195,100 . Critics have accused Kiro as being a toothless figurehead, but she has defended her record as an independent voice for children.
Family First Comment : Cindy Kiro has been openly hostile towards Family First, and in fact to any people who may have a Christian faith - no matter how qualified they are to speak up.
Apart from completely misrepresenting the facts in the smacking debate and mispresenting Family First’s position, last February she attempted to discredit the 300,000+ NZ’ers who had signed the petitions on the anti-smacking law by saying that previous generations of parents didn’t parent as positively and were less qualified in knowing how to raise their children than parents of today !!
We also would like to know why she was
- silent after the pathetic sentence handed down to the caregivers of Ngatikauri Ngati who abused the little 3 year old to death
- silent during the Trevor Mallard incident during the “It’s Never OK” Violence Campaign funded by the government.
- silent when the prostitution report from South Auckland was released last year highlighting the number of young teenagers prostituting themselves
- silent when Police refused to prosecute a 21 year old who got a 13 year old pregnant (after starting the relationship when she was 11)
- silent over the recent cancelling of the sentence for a woman who pleaded guilty to infanticide
- silent over the ultimate child abuse of abortion
….yet is more interested in the rights of children to be able to purchase spray cans of paint for the purposes of tagging, and wanting to monitor every child with a social worker as soon as they are born!!!
The problem is not just with Dr Kiro but with the office itself. Children’s interests are best served in the context of their own family . Government support for children must be through their families, not apart from families. Any office or structure which even appears to separate children from their parents and families will be destructive in the long run - no matter how well intentioned. Laws are already in place which protect children in seriously dysfunctional families.
If the National government is serious about doing away with unnecessary governmental spending , this would be a good place to start - rather than just cancelling a few conferences. So why are they advertising for a new Commissioner?????
The question is worthy of being put: Why have a Commissioner for Children at all? The assumption of an "independent" voice for children--that is, independent of their parents, or considering the needs of children outside of the context of family, is an oxymoron. Far better, we would suggest to change the Office to a Commission for Parents and Families. But better still do away with the Children's Commission and the Families Commission entirely.
At best they are an irresponsible and inevitably ineffectual waste of people's money. At worst, they inevitably undermine and suborn the institution of the Family itself to perpetual dependence upon the State.
No comments:
Post a Comment