Sunday, August 29, 2004

would you like to know if your daughter is raped?

Do you think that parents have a right to know if their daughter has been raped? Particularly after getting a sexually transmitted infection? One school doesn't. Acting president of the secondary principals' association Graham Young said schools had policies on the process, of which parents should be aware, and all policies appeared to have been followed in this instance. Parents of those 14 and over need not be told of a rape.

If that's the case, something is wrong with the policy. ALl parents should be told.

That will avoid things like this girl going to a birthday outing for a family member at a restaurant where one of the alleged attackers worked. The girl wouldn't eat, was shaking and froze when she saw the man. At least she would be able to explain her feelings to her parents if they knew about the rape.

Rape is more serious than abortion. Rape is a crime.


Anonymous said...

This is the world, mate, everyone's a winner or whiner and that includes kids from the day they are born.
They're all individuals as equal as an adult the UN Tells us and we signed off on it.
Don't blame Labour it was national the wankers.

No parents have rights anymore in the brave new Helengrad, only what the state allows you, so be grateful 'cos we can set CYPS on you.
As Helen said on another matter in The Advocate " One day hopefully people won't think that way".

As long as you feel good and it hurts no one then surely it's the child's right for their parents to not know about it?

Ahh.... Rape you say,
Well strictly speaking having sex with a child is Rape whether forced or not.
But Planned Parenthood both in the USA and NZ won't tell the parents that their child has been raped (forced or otherwise)when they come to them for advice.
This is on the spurious notion that some of the children may have been raped at home.

Some places allow the child to have an abortion without the parents knowing on the same basis.
I'm not sure about the exact legal process that the state or a person takes the parents rights, responsibilies and authority away from them without them knowing about it.
I'm not sure how natural justice fits in here but then I'm not a lawyer.

Then they take it upon themselves and give consent for a possible life threatening invasive procedure, and then hands those same rights and responsibilities back to the parents without disclosure possibly for the rest of the childs life.

This even knowing that every woman (not a child!) has post partum depression of varying degrees after the same procedure.
This for a teenage young girl who's hormones are all over the place anyway.
And the parents aren't to know about it?

Indeed, you can be prosecuted for disclosing that a child has been raped if you don't have permission of the child?

Some Psychiartrists in the APA in the USA published papers last year stating that they didn't necessarily think an adult having sex with a minor was a bad thing if the minor consented.

Welcome to Helengrad.
We have seen the enemy and it is us and has already climbed the ramparts and taken down the flag.
"Woe is me I am .......

Anonymous said...

And if the rapist is the father, stepfather,
mum's boyfriend, uncle, brother or other
family member?

Sorry, Dave. I think 'parental notification'
assumes that *all* parents are rational,
trustworthy and non-dysfunctional people.
We have too many injured kids from child
battery and child sexual abuse at CYPFS
and child protection agencies to believe
that anymore.


Anonymous said...

I Can't agree with taking rights away from parents who are held responsible for their children on three counts

1. Doing it without due legal process and notification state quite clearly they are non persons legaly.

2. It holds the state above the individual

3. It isn't the safest option for the child nor society as the rapist isn't held to account for their behaviour and the parents or other parent doesn't have the option to support their child which they are obligated to do by law.

Your position is untenable in that you assume that the rights of the majority should be abrogated because of the illegal behaviour of a very small % of parents.
Instead of making sure those responsible are held to account.

You also put the rights of the child to proper support at risk because you must know the risk of Depression is enhanced due to the abuse and procedure combined and that child is marginalised by your position as a result.

To claim the many abused kids is a misnomer as one could argue for the case of how many abused in cyps care in the same way.

Morally you aren't even standing on one leg.

Anonymous said...

Dear Craig
I thought of you this morning whilst watching Breakfast and the debate? between the MP and the doctor on this issue.

I sent an email to TVNZ and to all the Parliamentary leaders, thought you'd like to comment on the legal and societal issues I raise.

It was revealing that both your commentators used the term children.
the MP open and clear about it
The doctor corrected herself when she had realised what she had done.

The specious arguement that the present law is all for the safety of the child was shown up clearly to be the canard it is.

Let me get this straight,

an 11 yr old who is pregnant to someone who knows they are 11yrs old
(that person could be an adult, a father, uncle or cousin in their

goes to a doctor for an abortion.
the doctor doesn't want to tell the legal guardians or parents as it
A) breaches a minor patients rights
B) might make things worse if the parents know especially if the abuse
is happening at home.

The police are not called.
The child after said abortion (assuming there are no complications) is
sent home.

To be abused some more.
I got this right didn't I?

1. no adult is held responsible for the rape or rapes.
2. no parent who doesn't know about the rape is informed
3. no parent who does know about it is held accountable
4. the whole family isn't healed through counselling
5. the child can carry the trauma secretly for the rest of their life
incl into their own marriage or relationships & children.
6. the extended family isn't able to counsel the child or other parent
if they don't know about it
7. the teachers don't know why behaviour in school is affected

Please explain the logical good outcomes of the above.
I don't have a medical degree like the good lady doctor so go slow.
I'm just a voter.

a few other questions from an ordinary man, who isn't a lawyer.

1.Where is the natural law in taking away authority & responsibility from someone
and not telling them about it?
Least of all making them pick up the pieces if it all goes wrong.

2. What clear legal process takes place?

3. who takes that authority & responsibility and is then held legally, fiscally and ethically accountable for it?

4. Is this same person (legal entity) available yrs later to be held accountable by the victim in the courts if need be?

5. an invasive medical procedure (with risks) is carried out on a minor without the parents and other extended family knowing about it?

Can you ask all the other MP's there what you actually do in the house when you debate bills and have select committees?
Does the question "what are the unintended consequences if we do this" ever get asked?

And a cop out from the PM as was stated on breakfast TV the other month, "I think this bill has stood the test of time,
we don't intend looking at it at this time" will not be acceptable.
I actually do hold you accountable for occupying the highest court in the land.
I consider it a priveledge and a responsibility, maybe that's why poor law is written.