Self Righteous Arrogance

Extraordinary Chutzpah 

Every so often folk unveil and uncloak themselves.  Green politician, Jan Logie has just done so.  The occasion was a debate over whether the State has a right to demand of single women receiving state payments for their children that they name the biological father.  Under New Zealand law sole mothers have their child support state welfare benefits docked if they refuse to name the father(s) of their children.  

Logie believes this is unjust.  It's none of the State's business to fossick around in someone's private life, requiring them to reveal the identity of the father(s) of their children.

The law requires women to name the father to apply for child support or face sanctions of up to $28 a week per child off their benefit.  [Green MP] Logie said about 15,000 women had their benefits docked for refusing to do so.  "Is it appropriate to deprive women of essential income when the reasons people don't name a father are personal, private and, frankly, none of the state's business?"

Beneficiary groups have called for the clause to be dropped altogether.  [NZ Herald]

So, let's get this right.  Logie asserts that it is the business and responsibility of the State indirectly to support the children of sole parents, by providing weekly funding to their mother.    This income is essential: taxpayers are duty bound and obligated to provide it.  Therefore, it is irrelevant (and none of the State's business) to know the identity of the father of any particular child.

To what higher law or power is Jan Logie appealing to warrant this State obligation, on the one hand, and deny the State's right to know the identity of the father, on the other?
 Might she be appealing to some deity or other?  Of course not.  Might she be invoking some fundamental human right.  Probably.  But it's just a "made up" one.  It's not a real human right.  Human rights are merely, these days, a wax nose to be twisted into whatever shape one desires.  There is no higher law defining such rights--at least none that is grounded in any true truth.  It's all just fashion, fad, whim, or will of the moment.

Logie has a bunch of sky hooks which she apparently believes can be used to hang her prejudices, preferences, and wishful thinking upon.  Her sky hooks are of no force or power.  Therefore, to assert that the state has no business requiring the identification of the father of children of sole mothers is just wishful thinking, a waste of hot air.   The State has its own particular set of sky hooks upon which it hangs its particular prejudices regarding human rights.  Too bad.  So there.  Never mind.

No disclosure, no welfare payment.  Sounds reasonable.  At least the majority of citizens think so--since these rules and practices has been in place during the tenure of several governments now.  Logie had better find a new skyhook.