The support we choose

The case of children /young women using their school councillors as a resource to source options for an unwanted pregnancy has had a lot of time in the media. One of the trends in comments from pro-choice and pro “support in schools for all options” has been the concept that teens use the school because home is not a safe environment.
I balked at that, because my own experience of using school support networks was in preference to admitting to my parents that I was not coping. It was my first experience with depression and the first thing the councillor did was hold my hand while I called my mother and admitted I couldn’t do this alone.
I still count my blessings that my parents’ response was one of support, and my family stood by me while I made decisions around staying in school or not, remaining a prefect or not, continuing competitive activities or not.
So while I realise that many, many young people struggle to find safe places and supportive people in their lives, withholding information is not necessarily a sign of dysfunction or abuse.

So when we discuss children requiring the notification of parents before accessing an abortion I have to ask...
Why?
If it is so the parents can have a say, then no. No, no, NO!
I say no for so many reasons, and most of them have been expressed beautifully elsewhere.

Take a peek at Boganette

Or Anthea

Or Luddite journo

Or Ideologically impure


Or over on life is a feminist issue

There is a lot of murmur on the blogosphere around this topic and I don’t need to rehash it.

The other logical (and not unreasonable) reason is that young people going through an experience like pregnancy/ abortion/ adoption should have support.
This I support, but not in the form of “concern trolling” where people act like they are being concerned about someone’s well being in order to maintain control (would any one like to quote some patronising pro-slavery quotes here?).

If taken at face value the key element of support can be provided by any adult in a child’s life.
I’m a support to several young people who are family friends and I really hope that they would feel safe and free from risk of judgement if they came to me.

So why not require an adult (by all means legislate the age if needed) chosen BY THE YOUNG PERSON to be notified? (Not the sexual partner of the youth if under age).
This seems to fulfil all the needs of the group.
The young person is able to access all healthcare options available.
They have a support person to assist them through the process.
There is an adult in this process.

There are SO MANY massive issues with this.
Young people may not choose the most ‘responsible’ person around.
That person may not have the young person’s best interests at heart.
That person may be involved in the relationship that led to the pregnancy.
The person may be covering for a rape that occurred.
The person may use their influence to pressure the youth to make a decision that the youth is not fully comfortable with.

Like I said; a lot of issues.
The problem is that all of the above issues apply to parents as well.

So we are back to square one...

Anyone got any good ideas?

Margaret owed us nothing.

A “K-Rd Icon” has gone.
Every single time I walked along K-Rd, Margaret was there.

Some days I walked lost in my own thoughts.
Sometimes I was angry about something in my life, sometimes filled with joy.
Margaret was just as much a person as I and her moods fluctuated also.
She and I had a tentative understanding (dependant on how her day was going as to how well she remembered) that I never had any cigarettes, but I was sometimes good for cake, if I was coming back from a cafe.
She never did seem particularly interested in the cake itself, but gave me her time and respect when I greeted her with it. Not that I expected it. Goodness knows how she got to where she was, but she sure as hell didn’t owe me anything.

I went to her memorial page on face book and was surprised by the comments.
Not by the number, because when you hang out in the same place every day asking for something, chatting to people, smoking and occasionally yelling, people will remember you.
I was surprised by the Shit quality of remembering.
The number of people who didn’t know her name in spite of the fact it was the first thing she told anyone.
Her identity was as important to her, as mine is to me.

The number of people who said she was ‘rude’ and in the next sentence explained it was because she didn’t thank them for cigarettes they gave her.
What was she to you? A performing monkey? If she MUST thank you for a cigarette, what MUST she do for food, shelter, or your transient interest in her?

The number of people that seemed to think that if you give someone something they owe you their time and respect baffled me. Not because I don’t agree that respect and good manners are important, but these are the same people who would quite happily accept a free drink at a bar and get pissy if the offer came with conditions.
So why don’t THEY owe others anything for gestures of kindness, yet our underprivileged community are expected to bow and scrape like serfs to their overlords.

Tomorrow, when you are around town smile at your transient/homeless/addict neighbour.
Learn their name.
Find out how their day was.
Give them something and don’t pause for them to feel like they owe you thanks.

And any time - If you give, give from your heart.
Without asking in return.

Insights from a crappy Tuesday Part 1/2

He’s a nice guy really...

My second revelation from a crappy Tuesday:
My friends are not as nice as I thought, and there is a disturbing undercurrent of racism in my beautiful country.

I’m sick of being attacked for my opinions this week.
I’ve had person after person either insinuate, or out and out say to my face that I am “too PC”, “soft”, am “being petty”, getting involved in something that doesn’t affect me, am letting “negativity win by getting involved in arguments, and have got too much time on my hands due to me;

1) Openly showing my stance against a prominent media personality who has repeatedly denigrated his guests on the show and viewers based on their sex, appearance, race, income, sexuality and appearance.
2) Signing a petition with regards to the above
3) Joining a Face book group to show support for the appropriate and lawful dismissal of said “personality.”

First and foremost, none of those things took much time at all.
I work a full 8 hour day, and am volunteering for a community theatre job 5-6 shows a week in the evenings, so I’m not just sitting around waiting for something to get all up in arms about.
I’ve taken my precious time to make these statements because I care deeply and this behaviour concerns me greatly. Do not undermine me by implying that I’m somehow not leading a fulfilling life because I took the time to take a stand.

Secondly, I pride myself of being a rather positive person. Those who know me personally will attest to a rather sick sense of humour and a strong awareness of the power of positivity.
I’m more worried about my job review this week, a speech I have to give tomorrow and the fact I won’t be at the theatre tonight (did I train my replacement well enough?).
Being able to vent real frustration in an appropriate fashion to make positive change in a genuine outlet is wonderful, therapeutic, and totally functional.
Don’t tell me what I can and cannot handle.

Thirdly... what the hell is “Too P.C?”
I understand that being “P.C.” can go too far. Where is too far?
No derogatory or defamatory terms in court?
No derogatory or defamatory terms in parliament?
No derogatory or defamatory terms on the news?
No derogatory or defamatory terms on news based television?
No derogatory or defamatory terms on the radio?
No derogatory or defamatory terms by lecturers or teachers in schools and universities?
No derogatory or defamatory terms in workplaces?
No derogatory or defamatory terms in restaurants?
No derogatory or defamatory terms in your own home?

Where is your cut off?
Where is the cut off for what is “too PC”
Chances are they are the same place. It is an opinion based judgement.

Be very careful of using the terms “too PC “, or “PC gone mad”.

“Political correctness is one of the brilliant tools that the American Right developed in the mid-1980s, as part of its demolition of American liberalism. . . . What the sharpest thinkers on the American Right saw quickly was that by declaring war on the cultural manifestations of liberalism — by leveling the charge of "political correctness" against its exponents — they could discredit the whole political project”
Hutton W, “Words really are important, Mr Blunkett” The Observer, Sunday December 16, 2001


The only statement you are making is that you aren’t willing to actually debate the topic, just discredit my reasoning with a blanket statement that I can’t argue because there is no basis in fact, only opinion.

Insights from a crappy Tuesday Part 2/2

As for my awesome pettiness...
When did caring about racism become petty? What about equal rights for all people regardless of their colour, creed, sexuality, beliefs or appearance?
Petty?
PETTY?
Are you KIDDING ME?
Ok that was not functional, or appropriate.
Sorry.

Again, petty is an opinion based judgement.
My Grandmother happily assumes that anyone Pacific island or Maori in the Hawkes Bay must be unemployed, and wouldn’t question that statement on national television.
My parents aren’t too concerned when people make comments about Asian drivers.
Both of these make me cringe and yet I have my own inappropriate judgements – I assume that if a white man has an Afrikaans accent he will be both sexist and racist.
This is both incorrect and totally inappropriate for us to talk about these views in a professional or large public forum.
Is it petty for someone to criticise us if we do?

Once you have these ingrained beliefs, with no factual basis what you do with them is important.
Would it cause me to discriminate?
Would I hire a South African?
Marry one?
Vote one into a parliamentary position?
Pay one less than I would a New Zealander?
Assume a judgement of guilty if I was on a jury?
Would I use my beliefs as an excuse to hurt, or harm someone emotionally or physically?

The importance of what our prominent figures are saying comes in here.
Because people are abusing and marginalising every day, and if someone is being devalued due to their sex, race, income, sexuality or appearance I do not want that behaviour being backed up by the mainstream media.

I am getting involved in this because it DOES involve me. I take great pride in living in a country with free speech, equal rights, and the first place in the western world to give women the vote.
These are things that we have earned due to people speaking up when it was hard to. Going against the grain and believing in a better reality.
Expecting more than what we already have is the path to better things.

Think about why you have or haven’t bothered to take a stand on something recently and think again about the accusations I’ve had levelled at me the last few days.
“Too PC”, “soft”, am “being petty”, getting involved in something that doesn’t affect me, letting “negativity win by getting involved in the arguments, and have got too much time on my hands.

These are the same accusations that were put to those people who got involved in the Civil rights movement in the USA.

And that was a cause worth fighting for.

Hijack!

I had a few scary insights yesterday.
For ease of reading they will be split into different posts.

Number one was when I rocked up to the “Fire Paul Henry” demonstration outside TVNZ yesterday.
I was confronted with a medium sized (there were more people reporting, than in the protest) group of men frothing at the mouth, and occasionally into their beards yelling aggressive slogans into loud-speakers.
Most of them were carrying placards; few of them were related to the actual cause.
They were socialist union protesters and the boards varied from focused comments on the topic “Fire Paul Henry Now!”
To bizarre mixes of other campaigns. “Unions unite NZ; Ban racism.”
The slogans being yelled were loud, enraged, and frankly a bit scary.
There was plenty of spit flying through the air as aggression rang strong.
I leaned against a lamp post beside the media and eavesdropped.

“Good god, it’s the same banners and nutters from the protest last month, they just stuck 'fire Paul Henry' at the bottom”.
“Where are the normal people?”
“Clearly its only people who do this shit for fun that are enjoying getting up in arms about it”.

I watched and counted for around 30 minutes.
Over THIRTY FIVE people arrived in the area, stood on the outskirts, looked sad and left.
Most of them were wearing NZ t Shirts (as I was) and I suspect had planned to join the protest.
That would have not only doubled the numbers but also given it some credibility with Jo Public.

I suspect, like me, that they had no intention of standing by and allowing PH get away with marginalising yet another group of people and were making the most of the sway of public opinion to make their point.

To arrive and find that what you had thought was a human rights protest had three people from a human rights organisation (thanks to Global Peace and Justice Auckland) and a loud majority of angry, red faced, purple nosed, politically motivated men.

I don’t mean to undermine what they were doing. Every protest needs someone with a loud voice and a solid chant, but it was just too much to cope with, and it came across as them getting their rocks off being angry about something (could have been anything?) and undermined the fact that the issue is one affecting a wide range of Kiwis, not just the usual campaigners.

I was too scared to go and stand in the group.
One- I’m not a biggy for blatant aggression and you could smell the testosterone coming off the man nearest to me.
Two – I had no intention of being photographed or filmed by the media under a “socialist NZ” banner. I don’t like to parade my politics, and certainly don’t want to parade someone else’s!!

So after thirty minutes I admitted I was a coward, and fled.
Dinner did not taste good and I suspect the bitter regret flavour in my mouth was impacting on the butter chicken.

In case you were wondering, the insight was...
Im a coward.

Homocide victims are not the only people who suffer.

The reason I have chosen to write about the issue of support for the families of homicide victims is that the mother of Liberty Templeman is raising the fact that the family members of homicide victims have even more to deal with than the usual grief and funereal logistics that tie up your life when you lose a family member to natural causes, or even accidental death.
She would like to see up to three months paid leave for those family members effected by violent loss.

I am not undermining the overwhelming grief that accompanies the loss of a friend or loved one, but I want to highlight how much more complex the process of “getting over it” must be when people have to also navigate the farce we like to call our Justice system.

Goodness knows they could use a helping hand to support them through the extra time needed.
This is not just me being a bleeding heart liberal; the logistics of a suspicious death are complex.
• Waiting for the body to be released so you can have the funeral.
• Bereavement being interrupted for questioning.
• The court process, time needed for the case, and preparation for the case.
• The possibility of it being a family member or friend under investigation (Nearly half of all homicides in New Zealand are family violence.)

On that note, would the paid leave still be given for those people whos partner had caused the death if they were not technically an accomplice? eg abused children.
This is a heavy and heated topic and as a Paediatic nurse I had to fight the RAGE that surged through me watching a family praying over the battered body of a baby beaten by one of them.

Please read on for what we are currently doing for the families of victims, and feel free to leave messages, I like to hear different opinions when voiced politely.

In 1985 NZ signed the united nations signed the UN Declaration of Basic Principles of justice for Victims of crime and abuse of power which urged member states to reconsider the victim and casting new light on the victims’ perspective.

The declaration identified four areas of assistance.
• Access to justice and fair treatment, where judicial and administrative process insures victims are kept informed and proceedings are heard appropriately and expeditiously.
• Ensure victims have adequate information and access to services, requiring the appropriate training of personnel.
• Restitution to individuals and families, restoration of the environment and restitution by governments.
• Compensation to individuals and/or families for bodily injury or impairment to physical and mental health.

The four tenants of the declaration form the basis of the victim support mission statement: Victims of crime, accident and emergency are well supported, safe and in control of restoring their lives.

NZ played an important role in the UN declaration- yet we currently don’t fulfill the international obligations towards the victims that we signed up to.

Since then, moves have been made in the right direction.
On 16 October 2009, Hon Simon Power, Minister of Justice announced eight new initiatives that will provide additional support to victims of serious crime. These initiatives are funded from revenue generated from the offender levy and funding from the disestablished Sentencing Council. Below is a summary of the initiatives taken from the NZ courts website.
Additional support for families of homicide victims
Four of the initiatives provide additional support to families of homicide victims.

Funeral grant top-up
The first initiative provides an additional amount of up to $4,570.08 to families of homicide victims to help pay for costs associated with their family member's funeral. This additional amount is on top of the $5,429.92 that these families can currently claim from ACC for funeral costs. This initiative began in November 2009 and is administered by a subsidiary of ACC on behalf of the Ministry of Justice.

Assistance to attend High Court
The second initiative provides financial assistance to support families of homicide victims to attend High Court proceedings. The grant supports up to five adult family members of a homicide victim to attend High Court proceedings involving the alleged offender at a rate of $124 per day, per person. This initiative began in January 2010 and is administered by the Victim Support service.

Homicide support service
The third initiative establishes a homicide support service. This service provides practical and emotional support to families of homicide victims throughout the criminal justice process. The service began in July 2010 and will be managed by Victim Support.

Increase in discretionary grant
The fourth initiative increases the 'discretionary grant for families of homicide victims suffering financial difficulties' from $1,500 to $5,000. The eligibility criteria for the grant was also expanded. Victim Support continues to administer the grant and the funding increase began in November 2009.

Website blocking a rights violation? Not in USA apparently!

I was a wee bit disturbed by some news that I read this morning on my tea break.
The article revealed a clear breach of church-state separation in the USA, within Indianapolis schools. They are banning students from viewing the websites of certain religions, as well as atheist and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) sites.

Some quotes that I pulled from the offending document regarding banned sites...

"Sites that promote and provide information on religions such as Wicca, Witchcraft or Satanism. Occult Practices, atheistic views, voodoo rituals or other forms of mysticism, [...] the use of spells, incantations, curses, and magic powers. This category includes sites which discuss or deal with paranormal or unexplained events."

Pardon? How on EARTH have they popped Atheism in with occult and witch-craft? It is one of the very few theologies that DONT subscribe to “magic.”
And how was a man who rose again after death, walked on water, turned water into wine and hung out with hookers NOT part of this ban?

The ban of LGBT sites says that sites can't "cater to one's one's sexual orientation or gender identity including, but not limited to, lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender sites".

At first sight this appears to simply be directed toward parental concerns that their children may be exposed to adult themes or content that they shouldn’t be at school. I can’t condemn them for protecting children from unsafe or dangerous sites.
However there is also a section specifically stating that adult content is banned.

So it appears that this LGBT section is banning the kids from viewing anything other than heterosexual Christian, Jewish and Muslim role-models.
How dismal that children sent to a public school in a country founded on the separatism of church and state are being exposed to absolutely no variety of role models involving consenting adults in healthy relationships with each other and their gods.
The real world waiting for them has plenty of variety of relationships, both healthy and unhealthy in the straight and LGBT community. I see no reason for age appropriate sites to be banned to children and young adults questioning their sexuality or belief systems.

So that was distressing but I already had a dismal view of the American public school system, thanks to my exposure while working with young people in the New York state.

Upon further research it appears that the problem began in 2009 but is still current.
The Freedom from religion foundation hit on it when it first started, and have this week reposted the issue – clearly still a problem that has not been addressed.

What I was not aware of is that this is a more widely spread problem than just Indianapolis.

The American 'Children's Internet Protection Act' requires that all schools seeking federal funds through the E-Rate program and Title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, install a "technology protection measure" to protect against access to obscene material, child pornography, and material that is harmful to minors.

Many public school districts in the U.S. have or will be installing filtering software that functions by blocking access to sites that the filtering company has determined are inappropriate.
Some of the companies that are the focus of this report were active in the efforts to ensure the passage of this legislation through the efforts of a trade association called the Internet Safety Association(ISA) and through testimony provided to Congress.
The other major champions of this legislation were conservative religious organizations.

According to Cyberbully.org
“The open secret about content filters, besides the fact that they can be easily hacked, is that many of the site lists used in these filters had their genesis with conservative Christian organizations”

“Some of the filtering companies appear to have partnership relationships with conservative religious organizations. Some filtering companies have been functioning as conservative religious ISPs and have recently established new divisions that are marketing services to schools. Most of the companies have filtering categories in which they are blocking web sites presenting information known to be of concern to people with conservative religious values -- such as non-traditional religions and sexual orientation -- in the same category as material that no responsible adult would consider appropriate for young people. “

“Because filtering software companies protect the actual list of blocked sites, searching and blocking key words, blocking criteria, and blocking processes as confidential, proprietary trade secret information it is not possible to prove or disprove the hypothesis that the companies may be blocking access to material based on religious or other inappropriate bias. This situation raises concerns related to student's constitutionally-protected rights of access to information and excessive entanglement of religion with schools.”

So in summary, if your provider of filters origionated from a religious organisation you may find more that just objectionable material being blocked from your kids.

I would hope that even if my teenage son or daughter was in the grumps with me, that at the very least they could go to school and use the computers to look up something they needed to know – rates of homosexuality in young NZ men for example.

The internet has a lot of flaws and filth within it, but its major strength is that no one should feel alone with the variety of the world at their fingertips.



I would be VERY interested to know what programmes are used in New Zealand schools.
Does anyone have a way of finding out? I would hope that our public school system has a stronger level of freedom to it, but there is only one way to find out...