Paul Holmes is in the Herald today, fusing his not-irreconcilable roles as most respected journalist in the New Zealand and dumbest person in the world, to muse about the scourge of beneficiaries . . .
Yes, and they give the kids these absurd names like Serrendipity Ragamuffin Sunshine or Thus Spake Zarathustra, names we hear when the kids arrive at Starship with their heads stoved in by a recent boyfriend who can’t stand their screaming.
But that’s another issue entirely. That’s where you start to mull upon sterilisation. That’s where you start to mull on granting certificates before pregnancies can proceed. And God knows, parenting is the hardest thing.
This is way beyond Holmes’ paygrade, but taking a minute to think about those suggestions from a policy perspective – how you’d implement and enforce state-mandated sterilisation and abortion regimes and what our society would look like when you did – is most illumination.
“I’ve been gifted with good health over the years, on the whole, so I have real difficulty understanding, for example, chronic sickness and ill health. I don’t understand how someone can continue to be sick year in year out. ”
He’s saying what we’re all thinking! (Same as Deaker and Henry, right?)
Comment by BenLW — June 11, 2011 @ 3:12 pm
He, of all people, should show some circumspection.
Meanwhile, elsewhere in the Serious Paper, Michelle Hewitson is vaginally-fixated, and Simon Collins writes an in-depth piece about youth unemployment in the north. Giovanni notes that they’ve made it the lead story on their website, as if proud of actual journalism. Perhaps they’re trying to balance out their embarrassment.
Comment by George D — June 11, 2011 @ 3:24 pm
And if your child grows up to have a drug problem and associate with gang members, should you have been granted a parental certificate?
More seriously, how can Holmes purport to conduct neutral interviews with the likes of Paula Bennett and Christine Rankin and Q and A when he’s been so clear about his biases?
Comment by the dude abides — June 11, 2011 @ 3:26 pm
Let’s say we make it to this hypothetical future, and I get robbed…
Can I sue the state for allowing the thief to be born?
Comment by Repton — June 11, 2011 @ 3:33 pm
Isn’t that Hewitson column drivel?
Comment by the dude abides — June 11, 2011 @ 3:51 pm
Sterilisation of Der Untermensch.
This is good news for the shade on Adolf Eichmann!
Comment by Gregor W — June 11, 2011 @ 3:54 pm
It’s cool how he is careful to say that the problem is that there is a perception of all these ne’er do wells doing well enough, thank you very much, with their sponging from the wealth producers.
This perception is what leads good folk to have these uncomfortable sterilisn day dreams; it’s a real problem.
Comment by Pascal's bookie — June 11, 2011 @ 4:10 pm
Why beneficiaries? Why not the usual bugbears, rapists and murderers?
I think the work of the Welfare Working Group is done when New Zealand’s Most Prominent Commentator, host of New Zealand’s Major Political Television Show, and former host of New Zealand’s Most Successful News Television Show suggests that we eugenicise those who do not work.
Comment by George D — June 11, 2011 @ 4:18 pm
Holmes is a Moron. If he wants to criticise poor parenting he need look no further than his own doorstep. Maybe one day he’ll develop the self awareness to ponder the possibility that his daughter’s life may have been more positive if she didn’t have a self obsessed narcissist for a father.
Comment by The Fox — June 11, 2011 @ 5:36 pm
You would not mandate sterilisation. You would more likely create a Handmaid’s Tale-like Gilead and determine the worthiness of each mother – you then strip ‘bad’ mothers (as defined by a council of upstanding citizens; Christine Rankin, Michelle Boag etc) of their children and give them to good, upstanding, pure parents to raise. You know, parents like Paul and Hine. People with proven track records. Then you send the ‘bad’ mother to the colonies to die a slow painful death.
It is really quite simple. I am surprised Holmes did not suggest this as an alternative to those awful DPB bludging women.
Comment by Tim — June 11, 2011 @ 6:08 pm
Also, surely if you sterilized on the basis of silly names then many of our best and brightest celebrities would only be allowed one child called Apple (etc) before the state stepped in.
Comment by Amy — June 11, 2011 @ 6:12 pm
you then strip ‘bad’ mothers (as defined by a council of upstanding citizens; Christine Rankin, Michelle Boag etc) of their children and give them to good, upstanding, pure parents to raise.
That only works when the children are young. By the time they’re 7 or so they’ve been sufficiently tainted by their non-working parent that they’re irredeemable. Those children should be sent to isolated labour camps.
Comment by George D — June 11, 2011 @ 6:13 pm
That’s what happens when you make abortion and sterilisation cheap and readily accessible (as testified by 17,000 abortions a year in NZ). You encourage those like Paul Holmes who are pro-choice, to rethink who should have that choice about making an abortion or sterilising the parents.
After all, if a foetus is just a ‘blob of cells’, or a ‘cancer’, to a pro-choicer, then is it really such a big deal to forcibly remove such a ‘harmful growth’ from the mother? Would a doctor allow a patient to keep a cancer in her kidney or lungs? Or have her certified and remove the cancer. Just a shift in who gets to choose – mother or doctor/state.
Of course, if you see the foetus as an unborn baby, then what Holmes suggests is horrific. But Holmes’ position is entirely consistent with the ethnic cleansing through eugenics that Margaret Sanger – the US founder of the modern abortion movement – consistently advocated for.
The acceptance of abortion in NZ has seen a rise in people like Holmes pushing for ‘mandatory’ abortion for those they attribute societies problems to. Perhaps the problem is the lack of funding and support we give to prospective and new parents and their children? More intensive intervention programs. But that will cost more than a quick vacuum eh?
Comment by bob — June 11, 2011 @ 6:34 pm
“The acceptance of abortion in NZ has seen a rise in people like Holmes pushing for ‘mandatory’ abortion for those they attribute societies problems to.”
That would be an AMAZING argument, if it actually reflected what Holmes said: “That’s where you start to mull upon sterilisation. That’s where you start to mull on granting certificates before pregnancies can proceed.”
You do realise the difference between forcing people not to get pregnant and forcibly teminating a pregnancy once commenced, right? But don’t let my inconvenient facts get in the way of a good ideological rant …
Comment by Andrew Geddis — June 11, 2011 @ 6:46 pm
Those children should be sent to isolated labour camps.
Maybe Shirtcliffe and co. can finally present the long-awaited ‘Promotion of Indentured Servitude to address Our Social Ills’ and the ‘Redscindment of the Franchise for those on less than Two Thousand Guineas a Year’ referenda when we next pay a visit to the polls, assuming I can beat all the grubby panhandlers off with my horse-whip, b’gad!
Comment by Gregor W — June 11, 2011 @ 6:46 pm
bob, not sure you’re getting the whole ‘pro-choice’ thing.
But to turn it around some, in the hope you might understand the positions a little better, if you think the state has the right to force people to carry pregnancies against their will, then why should you object to it telling them they can’t. See, it’s the ongoing rhetoric of the pro-life lobby that is causing this outpouring of belief that some people just aren’t good enough to reproduce.
Comment by Pascal's bookie — June 11, 2011 @ 6:50 pm
Andy G – thank holy fucking christ you stepped in – (we’re way to “east” here in WN for any coherent,/ascerbic reply to that silly man.)
Comment by k.jones — June 11, 2011 @ 7:04 pm
Bob said “wibble, wibble, wobble, I tithe thee Bishop Tamaki”
Or summint like that.
Comment by abel the amish — June 11, 2011 @ 7:10 pm
I wonder if Holmes is referring to people like his P addiict daughter when it comes to compulsory sterilization – methinks not.
Comment by Squirrel — June 11, 2011 @ 7:15 pm
“You do realise the difference between forcing people not to get pregnant and forcibly terminating a pregnancy once commenced, right?”
I think where bob is coming from is the similarity, neither case leaves a woman completely in charge of her own body. Fair enough to call him out on choice if he wants it to go one way, but surely he gets to call it for the other, in the context of what Holmes is writing? Someone feeling uncharitable to Mr Holmes could take “That’s where you start to mull on granting certificates before pregnancies can proceed.” as a certificate being pre or post pregnancy, I thought.
If you are part of a group that gets vilified for making the choice to have a child, as teenage solo mums are – despite being a minority of those on the DPB, then how is your right to choose being respected?
Comment by Michael — June 11, 2011 @ 9:40 pm
Michael,
While I’m happy to be proved wrong, I suspect bob ain’t in the “right to choose” camp … .
Comment by Andrew Geddis — June 11, 2011 @ 11:23 pm
Oh, but Paul isn’t a young poor woman, you see, so it completely excuses him from terrible parenting. Or something.
Comment by PJ — June 12, 2011 @ 12:57 am
Thanks Michael – you got it pretty close! I too read Holmes saying “granting certificates before pregnancies can proceed” as meaning he would “mull” imposing abortions on ‘unsuitable’ mothers.
But…. I would hate to disappoint our good liberal brethren of Andy G and Pascal’s B, not to mention the coherently challenged Abel and k.jones. I am pro-life, and I was making the point that we have seen a rise in the likes of Holmes and Michael Laws and others (always tories strange to say) keen to ponder the use of abortion and sterilisation as tools to rid society of those they don’t like. Which is exactly what Margaret Sanger was all about (google her).
Just to clarify – I was not suggesting ALL (or even many) pro-choicers were in favour of Holmes’ ideas of mandatory abortions or sterilisation. Most would be horrified at the thought.
But the pro-choice position is that the mother has power to choose the fate of the foetus (to survive and grow and be born, or be ‘terminated’). Now what if – as Holmes was alluding – he/the state considers the mother to be ‘unfit’? (for whatever reason – drug addict, alcoholic, violence to other kids, etc). Does the state intervene and CYFS take other kids away, removing the mum’s choice as to how they are raised? Yes. Then would Holmes and chums not be able to have the state intervene earlier and remove the mum’s choice as to whether to have the child born at all? The state acts in place of the mother, and exercises her choice. That appears to be the consequence of not valuing the unborn child’s life – if Holmes valued the unborn, he would never suggest what he has.
Pascal’s B – yours is a clever argument – “if you think the state has the right to force people to carry pregnancies against their will, then why should you object to it telling them they can’t.” All depends on when you see life as starting – if at conception, then the state has the right and responsibility to defend all life, born and unborn. Irrespective of what I or any mother of father or anyone else thinks. Life is the first and most fundamental human right – without it, all our other rights become kinda redundant.
For the skim-readers – I do not agree with Paul Holmes.
Whew! Sorry about length Danyl.
Comment by bob — June 12, 2011 @ 3:50 am
I don’t like term ‘pro-life’. I prefer ‘anti-choice’. It’s more accurate.
But I think the one issue that hasn’t been brought up yet: why would the ‘morons’ Holmes refers to (read: creates) use the name ‘Thus Spake Zarathustra’? I thought his point is that they weren’t educated.
Oh and that article is kind of scary. Do you think Paul Holmes understands that there aren’t enough jobs for the 13% of working age New Zealanders on some form of benefit? When there aren’t jobs it’s pretty tough to work.
If he wants to get everyone off welfare maybe he should consider full employment. Having massive public works schemes during depressions, and overemployment in the railways etc, seemed to work pretty well historically for keeping people off the dole. But somehow I don’t think that would really go down that well with him
Comment by AHD — June 12, 2011 @ 7:27 am
Give it time and the IMF will sort out NZ’s welfare issues.
Comment by Simon — June 12, 2011 @ 8:48 am
If people on the dole are naming their children after Strauss tone poems then the state’s work is done.
Comment by So very tired. — June 12, 2011 @ 11:00 am
Of course, if you see the
foetusmother as an unborn babyhuman being, then what Holmes suggests is horrific.There. Fixed that for you.
Comment by Trouble — June 12, 2011 @ 11:40 am
Maybe what Holmes *really really* meant was ‘lets get rid of religious nutjobs trying to force their puritanical stoneage superstition onto the rest of society’
Comment by will — June 12, 2011 @ 11:49 am
All depends on when you see life as starting – if at conception, then the state has the right and responsibility to defend all life, born and unborn.
This doesn’t explain why the state shouldn’t have the right to prevent conception in the first place through involuntary sterilisation. Pro-choice logic rules it out on first principle. It’s in the title, if you like.
Comment by Pascal's bookie — June 12, 2011 @ 12:24 pm
Holmes is a moron of the first water. Always intrigues me how so called celebrities become experts in all things. They (he) really should take heed of Chopper and STFU.
Comment by Ray — June 12, 2011 @ 6:32 pm
What happened to journos remaining impartial? Or at least pretending to. How can his tv producers allow him to interview any politicians when he holds such insane, extremist views. Or is he merely trying to be entertaining with his polarisms? (it would be called trolling if it were a comment in a blog). clearly he’s noticed that Michael (with a silent H) Laws is the only columnist to survive the recent clean out at SST and is giving the readers what the news managers want.
Why bother putting yourself through the pain of reading it? It’s cynical, irrelevant, toxic righting from a sad, deluded childless imbecile who’s lost touch with the world, life, his family and himself.
I once met the twat and asked him what it felt like to be a celebrity. He said “what does that mean? There’s no such thing as a celebrity.” he took a large swig on his wine and stared profoundly towards the toilets. He hasn’t made much sense since.
Comment by Myles thomas — June 12, 2011 @ 9:57 pm
And remember when Gordon Ramsay visited NZ, and Holmes tried to outdo him? Well, Ramsay called bullshit on it.
What Holmes needs now is some foul-mouthed punk rockers to take him to pieces and turn his career to mud.
Comment by DeepRed — June 13, 2011 @ 12:21 am
@ Pascal’s Bookie – yup, you are correct. But both positions are logically consistent. Being pro-choice rules out state mandated abortion, as it is the mother’s choice; being pro-life rules out state mandated abortion as being murder of the unborn baby. Problem is, Holmes (devil?) advocates our state take a ‘middle’ position that it can both override the mother’s choice and kill the foetus.
@ Trouble – thanks for the arrogant rewrite of my opinion – I’m clearly too daft to correctly type what I meant. But your liberal concern for the mother and not her unborn child was duly noted.
@ will – see, notice how my comments stayed on the topic of Homes’ article (any my view of it’s relation to abortion), and didn’t thread-jack onto the topic of abortion alone. But if you were to do so, you would find the pro-life position is about defending scientific realities, not “religious nutjobs trying to force their puritanical stoneage superstition onto the rest of society”. Think about when a foetus gets blood type that is usually distinct, and DNA that is always unique from both parents – hint, it’s at conception. Which is pretty strong evidence you have a living human being distinct from the mother in her womb.
Comment by bob — June 13, 2011 @ 1:14 am
bob: Holmes’ column didn’t mention abortion, but to forced sterilisation. In the former, the abortion never occurs, because conception is impossible. Your link between abortion and sterilisation is specious (both are cheap?), and you have no evidence that Holmes is pro-choice. As Pascal’s Bookie points out, the concept of forced sterilisation is specifically anti-”choice”, because the choice is forestalled by the state. The rest of your argument conflates forced sterilisation (which Holmes did suggest) with state-mandated abortion (which he did not). Again, you give us no reason to see these things as the same, and they are not, in fact the same. You do manage to make a reductio ad absurdum argument out of Holmes’ already ridiculous non-argument with the analogy about CYFS, though, and for that I salute you.
In conclusion, you’re off-topic, and the fact that you chose to make this thread about abortion when there is no reasonable link between pro-choice arguments and forced sterilisation arguments suggests that this is, in fact, a threadjack.
Comment by Orlando Figes' ghost-writer — June 13, 2011 @ 9:55 am
That’s where you start to mull on granting certificates before pregnancies can proceed.
I think ‘before pregnancies can proceed’ implies forcible, state-mandated abortion.
Comment by Paul Rowe — June 13, 2011 @ 11:16 am
“fusing his not-irreconcilable roles as most respected journalist in the New Zealand and dumbest person in the world,” – Great writing. You sum the absurdity of the idiot perfectly and his bizarre self awarding small minded industry. Holmes is basically a bewildered man of limited education, he has had 20 years to grow a brain yet unlike thousands of hardworking school children he seems to be too lazy to even do basic reading on the subjects he professes to be so concerned about.
He is a waste of taxpayers money , tvnz should demand his million dollars wages back for incompetence and lazyness.
Comment by J — June 13, 2011 @ 1:09 pm
No one’s denying welfare, crime and child abuse are elephants in the room. But the current debate is bordering on neo-McCarthyist. What Holmes – and Lhaws – have said is getting dangerously close to inciting angry mobs to smash proles’ windows, or even worse.
Comment by DeepRed — June 13, 2011 @ 1:48 pm