Ugly priorities

David Garrett's proposal to sterilise the poor is all over the media this morning, and has attracted condemnation from Labour and a solid rejection from the government. It's also attracted a lot of commentary, and of those, Colin Espiner's really caught my eye. Here's the first reason he gives for opposing the idea:

Hmmmm. Unless King wasn't planning on having any more kids, in which case it would actually cost the taxpayer money. Why should the state pay out thousands of dollars to people for a sterilisation procedure that only costs around $500? I'd resent any more money going to the Kahui family, personally.

Also, who decides who's eligible? What's to stop middle-class capture here? Claim you've beaten your children and line up to collect. If anyone out there's contemplating a vascectomy, get in quick.

There's also the distinct possibility that some low-lifes might actually decide to commit assault on a child to collect the five grand.

So, the first reason that springs to Espiner's mind for opposing this monstrous plan is not because its, well, monstrous, a gross abuse of human rights with some very icky historical precedents, but because it would cost money and poor "low-lifes" would get some of it (and backed up by the sort of fantasies we normally see about the DPB, to boot). To be fair, he does eventually get around to some of those other reasons ("I mean, isn't it just a bit - well - Fascist?") - but it is extremely telling about his ugly personal priorities. In Espiner's book, fundamental human rights come a distant second to lower taxes and screwing the poor. What a wanker.

"Middle-class capture"? It happened to our newsrooms long ago - and Espiner is its ugly, ugly face.