Log in

Geek is good for you
doesn't it feel much better when you've had a better day than yesterday?
Recent Entries 
23rd-Oct-2030 08:21 am - Friends only

...but I like friends. Comment and I'll add you.
10th-Jan-2012 10:24 pm - Writer's Block: Poetry Break
Write a poem or share one that you like.

How the bloom leaves the rose

don't send


--Andre Segui
27th-Nov-2011 10:48 pm - Writer's Block: Background players
What is your computer wallpaper right now?

Brendon Small

You're welcome.
3rd-Sep-2009 03:56 pm - Hope
So a little while ago over here, the government removed a clause from a law that permitted parents to use "reasonable force" in physically disciplining children. It was a horrible, horrible clause. It resulted juries letting people off for unreasonable behaviour because they could understand the frustration - like the man who got away with beating his 14 year old daughter (too old for a "smack" by anyone's reckoning) with a piece of hose, leaving welts all over her buttocks and thighs.

Alarmingly, a massive number of New Zealanders had a knee-jerk reaction to this. They demanded the right to hit their children, using arguments like "if I have to choose between giving my child a smack and seeing them run on the road and get killed, see you in court!", completely ignoring the fact that the current wording allows a parent to use physical force to prevent a child from harming themselves. Or from harming others. Or from disruptive or offensive behaviour, or pretty much any of the examples thrown about in justification of outrage. These people got together and demanded a referendum, which cost the country around nine million dollars in a recession, despite the current government saying they were not going to change the law.

The referendum was held. Around 87% of New Zealanders who voted used their vote to say that deliberately striking a child should not be a criminal offence, and I spent about three days ashamed to be a Kiwi for the first time in my life.

Today, as I was coming home on the bus, there was a young Maori mother with two young children. I mention her race because child abuse is at a horrible level in NZ, and unfortunately it is highest reported in Maori and Pacific Island families. I mention her race because whenever I made the mistake of looking at letters to the editor or blogs about the subject, there would be someone claiming that making "smacking" illegal would not stop people from beating their kids, and that child abuse is a problem for brown people, not good law-abiding white folks. This young mother looked at her wits end for a moment as her two young children bickered with each other, threw their bus tickets around and yelled. Then she took a breath and you know what she did?

She sang.

She sang a song that no late teens/early twenties woman would want to be seen singing in public. She sang complete with animal sounds and hand gestures, and in three lines or so her little girls had climbed back into their seats and started singing along, and when I realised what she was doing I nearly cried. She didn't shout, she didn't threaten, and the only time she raised her hand was to mime an elephant's trunk. I wish I'd said something to her, wish there was a way to tell her what an awesome thing she was doing without embarrassing the hell out of both of us. Most of all, I wish that everyone who voted no in the referendum - everyone who voted for the right of grown adults to assault the smallest, most vulnerable members of our community - could have seen her.
6th-Jul-2009 10:09 am - In which I continue to hate people
In the Sunday Star Times there's an interview with one of the frontmen for the anti-"anti-smacking bill" dipshits. They asked him if he regrets the $9m cost of their proposed referendum in sight of the fact that the government have already stated they won't be putting the "you can beat your children as long as you don't beat the little buggers too hard" clause back into law. Here's what he said:

"Nine million dollars sounds like a lot, but really it's about three bucks a voter. Now, if you were hacked off with the government, would you spend three bucks to get a message to the government?"

I would, yes. Will it cost more or less than three dollars to have a package of dog shit delivered to this guy? I would not, however, presume to spend the three dollars of everybody else, including a lot of people who were perfectly satisfied with what I was objecting to and did not want their three dollars spent on making a fuss over it.

These people piss me off so much. The removal of this ridiculous, archaic clause is not about sending "good parents" to jail, no matter how much I would like to argue that anyone who has to hit their child to get their attention is far from a good parent. It's about changing attitudes, turning this country into one where people fell that they can speak up, that it's not meddling or stickybeaking to call the police when you see your neighbour beat their kid. James Mason, the man that the pro-smacking lobby were touting as a "test case", proves the point exactly. Everyone was all excited about whether he would be the first man to go to jail under what is popularly but incorrectly know as "the anti-smacking bill". Here's the thing: James Mason was found guilty of PUNCHING HIS CHILD IN THE HEAD. Which would have been a criminal offence even before the changes to law. Would the woman who witnessed this and called the police have felt able to do so before the changes? I guess she's the only person who knows, but that's what this is REALLY about. It's about making people feel able to stand up and say this shit is not okay, so that when we do have idiots who punch their children in public, tell the police officer confronting them "that's what I do and she" (the woman who reported him) "needs to mind her business", and then claim not to be aware of the charge they were convicted of (they read them out, James, try listening), we can punish them appropriately.
4th-Apr-2009 07:18 pm(no subject)
I honestly believe there is a point at which you are responsible for your own hurt in a situation. If something happened more than six months ago and you dig and you prod and pick at it, you seek out what or who* you blame for you hurt and you persist in dragging the whole mess back to the surface, then you are more to blame for the way you feel than the person who wronged you in the first place.

That, and you seriously need to get either a life, a hobby, or some professional help.

* it's not me.
22nd-Feb-2009 08:15 pm - in which my bubble is burst
geeksicle says: i just made 2 batches of chocolate peanut butter cupcakes and an apple and blackberry pie
geeksicle says: while dancing around the kitchen to AC/DC, wearing a frilly apron, beer in hand
geeksicle says: how am i still single?
that which we desire says: uh
that which we desire says: you know Dean Winchester isn't real, right?
17th-Feb-2009 10:12 pm(no subject)
Just did a pretty major f-list cut, a lot of writing/icon etc. journals I added a long while ago and some people I've simply lost touch with. Nothing personal, I'm just sort of paring things back. ♥
21st-Jan-2009 10:52 pm - fic rec
the_afterlight and I got chatting about Catherine Tate and specifically Donna Noble today, and he linked me to this beautiful, beautiful set of ficlets. If you were as displeased with Journey's End as I was - which was EXTREMELY, Donna is my favourite companion yet - please take a peek at Nine ways Donna Noble had a fantastic life by butterflykiki. It's wonderful, and she deserves every single one. Yes, all of them.
This page was loaded Feb 28th 2017, 10:15 am GMT.