Journalist Katie Bradford asks Anne Tolley why she thinks women who’ve had their children removed keep having babies – her answer is unbelievable

35
0

The madness over proposals to push sterilisation programs as a way to stop children being violently abused in State care has just reached a new low, Journalist Katie Bradford asked Anne Tolley why she thinks women who’ve had their children removed keep having babies – her answer is unbelievable…

Screen Shot 2015-09-28 at 4.55.40 pm

 

…”I think they like having sex”.

So to stop children being abused in state care, we should crack down on woman who like having sex?

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Can we all accept that this is just another pointless diversion after the flag debate and pandas failed?

This can’t be a serious discussion on children being damaged in state care when the Minister’s thoughts on why the problem continues is because the women enjoy having sex, this is a diversion as NZ inches closer to signing the TPPA.

There are not enough words of contempt to express at the Minister’s utterly out of touch thinking.

Sterilising the poor as a response to kids abused in State Care is like telling people not to go to Church to stop sexual abuse by priests

35 COMMENTS

    • More like ‘1984’ politics. Orwell’s ‘1984’ is being used as a blueprint for this NACT dictatorship:

      http://msxnet.org/orwell/print/1984.pdf Control F search “orgasm”

      “But in the future there will be no wives and no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card.

      We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it
      now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no more need of science.

      There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed.

      But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless.

      If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — for ever.’

      ‘1984’ was a warning against totalitariansim, said Orwell, “Don’t let it happen” In the hands of National, ‘1984’ has become an instruction manual for dictatorship, not a warning about how to avoid it.

      • Let’s hope the National Party don’t read my forebear’s “A MODEST PROPOSAL” – For preventing the children of poor people in Ireland, from being a burden on their parents or country, and for making them beneficial to the publick, which he wrote in 1729.

        http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm

        If the National Party are prepared to eat pandas, and abolish sex, then where’s the next line in the moral sand?

    • Her reply has sent shockwaves around the motu. I saw this interview with Kate Bradford and I could not help but wonder aimlessly at her callous reply to that question. She needs removing from her portfolio if not parliament on the grounds that her genocidal agenda was more important to her, than the mere problems that arise from the chaos and inconsistencies in policies affecting children in and out of State care. Those policies (whatever they are) are not reflective of the realities for many affected by them. There is still a tendency to sweep the real issues under the carpet and let that pile up. So in conclusion, the way to clean up the mess under the carpet is firstly sack those who swept it their in the first place.

  1. If it’s diversion then it’s her only skill. The answer is quite believable … and in full keeping with what to expect from a callous, incompetent, ‘Stepford-wife’ style politician without a rehearsed script to recite.

  2. Out of touch, Martin, but completely in keeping with the world view of those who choose not to look beyond their sanctuary.

  3. Martyn…stupid utterances from politicians aside….could you perhaps desist from drawing a direct line between State (foster) care and “children being violently abused”.

    Most children in foster care are not being violently abused, neglected or otherwise “damaged”.

    Many children are in foster care because they have been violently abused and neglected…”damaged”, by their parent/s.

    Foster parents, on the whole, do their best.

    Some do an excellent job despite the pressures and lack of support from cyfs.

    Without them….the system would be even more fucked up than it already is.

    So go easy on those who are trying to give practical help.

    • Rosemary, either you haven’t read Martyn’s post properly or you’re being somewhat disingenuous. To remind you, Martyn stated;

      “This can’t be a serious discussion on children being damaged in state care when the Minister’s thoughts on why the problem continues is because the women enjoy having sex, this is a diversion as NZ inches closer to signing the TPPA. “

      I fail to see how you can see that statement as being an attack on foster parents or on “those who are trying to give practical help”.

      You’ve either misinterpreted what Martyn has written – or wilfully misrepresenting it.

      • Martyn said….

        “The madness over proposals to push sterilisation programs as a way to stop children being violently abused in State care has just reached a new low – ”

        He could have said…

        “The madness over proposals to push sterilisation programs as a way to stop children being violently abused by their parents and ending up in State care has just reached a new low – ”

        He appears to be saying that the problem is primarily children being abused in State care, rather than children being abused by their parents …hence the contraception theme.

        Generally, cyfs do not remove children unless they are at real risk.

        Do we really need to link to the tragic outcomes for children when cyfs has failed to to their job and take those children to a place of safety?

        • During the 1950’s, the CYFS of the day removed children from low income families to place them in well-to-do families. Unfortunately, this mentality still lingers . . . as I have witnessed situations where CFYS HAVE removed children for no reason whatsoever.

        • Rosemary, have you really taken in what Martyn has said? I don’t think so. You seem to be attributing sentiments to him he never made.

          Perhaps you should read what people say more carefully.

          Unless you’re deliberately misrepresenting his position? I hope not. That would be a new low for Act trolls.

  4. Maybe we should have politicians sterilised to reduce the likelihood of more of them . . . . any suggestions for who’s first?

    • Given the age of most of them, many will have already fulfilled their biological function so sterilisation is not really an option. I wonder though how many of them enjoyed the sex, or is that no longer acceptable to Dear Leader?

  5. I note that this kind of conversation almost always revolves around women and their sexuality.

    The thing that is missing almost always is any comment on the fathers. No comment on forced vasectomies, or forced use of condoms etc. Nope.

    Quite telling really.

    Last time I checked it needs a female AND a male to make a baby.

    • Too true, I fear. But sadly, it’s nothing new. Helen Clark had a healthy (or unhealthy) dislike for mothers . . . which leads one to wonder how some people arrive into this world . . .

  6. Am I missing something here? Was this part of a longer extended interview in which Tolley brought up sterilization? Because from what I can see there’s no link between saying “because women like having sex” and endorsing/proposing sterilization. Saying “women like to have sex” sounds like a true statement to me.. Can someone show me how it is not?

    This is from a person who HATES Anne Tolley, by the way. So I’m not trying to defend her, I just don’t understand the connection that is being drawn here, and wonder if it is because there is no connection, or because Martyn hasn’t included enough information for readers to actually grasp what’s going on here. Maybe there’s a blog or two I’ve missed I need to go back and read?..

    • Daniel, this follows comments Tolley made the previous day, saying that women who had a child removed from them by CYFS kept having children and should be made to use birth control. I believe she stopped short of using the “sterilisation” word, as she would know it would create an outcry, but it was obviously the thought behind the words. Fuhrerin Tolley speaks!

  7. To: Anne Tolley – do you really think that we believe all that you affirm ?
    Do you really want to continue to defend your train wreck of a govt. that is out of touch with those in NZ who are needy ? We can not trust or believe anyone who denies the truths and defends the offenders.

    Our country is so far worse off these past years and we are very confused as to why there are still asleep voters who continue to believe that the Natz will change course. The Natz are beholding to the powerful and back scratching lobbyists and those greedy international corporations that own most govts. Wake up NZ and do some homework and get informed about the truths behind this govt. and its unhealthy connections and alliances.

  8. Well, I mean when it comes down to it that is the problem. Both Men and Women having unprotected sex when they cannot support a child.

    • Jers, or, conversely, incomes being insufficient to raise families? It’s not just beneficiaries who are finding it hard to meet committments and raise children.

      In effect, what this debate has become from some individuals usually on the Right, as usual, is that only the rich should breed, and the poor should be sterilised.

      A kind of Final Solution to poverty.

  9. Apparently politics & the politicians involved in NZ are no different than the circus clowns here in the US competing for Bozo’s Big Top Ring Leader position. The mentality of middle age to older adults is most pathetically shallow and unconcerned with reality beyond their time here on earth. The younger generation has been shoveled a generation of unchecked self-centered greed & injustice due to the wide spread corruption money protects. Rights, liberty and justice is no longer for all; you have to be able to afford these luxuries. Anyone who believes the agency in place to protect children under a cloak of secrecy choose irresponsible ignorance over facts. This agency has embraced their ability to invent cases that don’t exist. I have the proof to support what I state. I don’t need to lead anyone around the block in an attempt to avoid addressing the issue of blatant corruption allowing for the kidnapping of children from loving parents for financial gain of your tax dollars. Pull the cloak from the daily business as usual tactical case invention process this agency has gotten away with. Get a big jolt of reality. Revolution is what we have passed on for our kids to take on so their kids have opportunity for a better life. Stop the ignorance in politics; don’t settle for the better of the worse!

  10. I’ll support the sterilisation of some humans as soon as we design a time-machine and agree to go back and sterilise Anne Tolley’s mother.

    It’s for the good of humanity.

  11. I must admit I saw the interview yesterday and could not believe that she actually said that! This discussion is still a blaming one. The implication is that women have babies because they like sex and can’t cope with the birth control aspect. Apparently in the government mind men are not part of the baby equation.

  12. I’m not sure what I am reading here.

    What was the question? What Anne Tolley thinks is the reason that “women who’ve had their children removed [to State care] keep having babies”?

    Fair question. Why do these women, who are apparently recidivistic in their lack of proper care for their children, why do they have more babies if they cant look after the ones they have already had?

    It is probably a fair answer as well. Its not like these people seem to have any thought of the repercussions of their actions if they keep having their children removed form their care.

    But then the article leaps to another topic completely and is ranting on about the abuse of children in State care. What does this have to do with the question asked and the answer given?

    Unless I am missing something?

    The author here seems to attribute Tolleys answer to the original question above as the answer to some unasked question, some question like “How do we stop the abuse of children who end up in State care”?

    He says:
    “The madness over proposals to push sterilization [sic] programs as a way to stop children being violently abused in State care has just reached a new low”

    wat?

    The question wasn’t “How do we stop children in State care keep from getting abused”.

    And the answer wasn’t, “We should sterilize the types of women who have their babies removed by the State so that they don’t have babies for the State to remove and therefore they wont get abused while in State care ‘cause they wont be born in the first place”.

    These are two separate issues.

    1: Parental neglect and why these women “keep having children”.
    2: The abuse of children (removed from the people in 1 above) who are in the care of the State (foster care).

    In the context of the initial Bradford question, I am lost on why the jump from bad parenting to bad State care.

    The question was:
    “Journalist Katie Bradford asked Anne Tolley why she thinks women who’ve had their children removed keep having babies”

    What is your answer? Why do you think these women, who according to Bradford, “keep having babies removed”?

    And then again:
    “Sterilising [sic] the poor as a response to kids abused in State Care is like telling people not to go to Church to stop sexual abuse by priests”

    But where was this brought up in the question?
    How was Tolleys answer to Bradfords question her answer to this problem?

    I don’t understand this article.

  13. I got the impression from watching the interview that she was caught out by the question and gave the first answer that came into her head. A revealing insight into her prejudices and lack of information.

    She should have been prepared for exactly this question. If she had been briefed by officials her response would have been more pc.

    Not a whisper in the Herald or on stuff. I thought they liked sex stories.

Comments are closed.