I need a new word

I've been using the word "paedophobia" - fear of children - to describe National's policies. Though I suppose technically its "ephebiphobia" - fear of teenagers. But these policies are going beyond phobos, fear, and into misos, hate.

So, Ancient Greek speakers and classics majors, how do I combine misos and ephebos? What's the children and young person's equivalent of "misogyny"? Misepheby? Misopaedy?

Pandering to the paedophobes

So, National has released its core election policy. No, not fixing the economy. No, not getting people into jobs. No, not even more tax cuts for John Key and his rich mates. Instead, they've decided to pander to the paedophobes by cracking down on teenage welfare recipients.

In the minds of National's sherry-drenched paedophobic older voting demographic, these people are young, shiftless, and fecklessly spend all their money on booze and drugs, while popping out kids to get more. Oh, and they probably drive a big car with a loud engine at night too, and don't show "proper respect" to their elders by giving up their seats on the bus, and stand around on street corners in groups wearing hoodies. Clearly, they are in need of a stern stick-shaking and a loud and clear message to get off someone's lawn.

Meanwhile, in reality, things are rather different. Those targeted are those on the Independent Youth Benefit. You get this benefit by being 16 or 17 years old and unable to live with your parents - which means they must either be dead, or physically or sexually abusive. In addition you must not be able to rely on anyone for support - meaning that you have no-one in the world to look out for you. In other words, National is going to be putting the boot into orphans and sexual abuse victims. Classy.

Obviously, these are desirable circumstances to be in, which is why the number of people on this benefit has been declining for years.

And the "solution"? They used up "stick 'em all in the army" last election (and it didn't work), so instead they're going for rather unpleasant paternalism, with bonus stigmatisation and humiliation. Apparently, having the government spend your money for you will teach you the value of budgeting. And apparently having to spend the pittance remaining after automatic deductions via a special card, while being sneered in the supermarket and having your privatised social worker going through the receipts and questioning how much toilet paper you're using will teach you to spend carefully. Instead, I think it will teach people the arbitrariness and cruelty of power, and provide a valuable grounding in basic money-laundering techniques.

Oh, and if you try and escape this by getting a (non-existent) job? Youth rates. That'll teach 'em. Which leaves crime as the only way of getting out from under this abuse. If you're a good kid in awful circumstances, that is a terrible incentive to set.

And for what? This doesn't target a pressing social problem. We're not facing an explosion of IYB recipients, and I'm not seeing a lot of evidence that National's prejudices on their spending is true. Instead, this is being pushed solely to prop up National's support in an election year, by stigmatising and demonising and humiliating an already powerless group (who, as a bonus, can't even fucking vote). Its the ultimate triumph of spin over substance. And for the kids who will be victimised by this? Sorry, guys, National has an election to win.

Its cruel, its vicious, its divisive, and its based on myths rather than evidence. But its so very, very National, isn't it?

Reported back

The Law and Order Committee has reported back [PDF] on the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill. Naturally, they recommend that it be passed. But worse, they've decided to reinsert a clause criminalising the posession of "graffiti implements" - meaning anything capable of being used to mark a surface. So, carrying a ballpoint pen without reasonable excuse (and remember, that an "excuse" that seems "reasonable" to a police officer) is now a criminal offence with a penalty of community work or a fine of up to $500. It's absurd, it's overkill, and it will almost certainly be law before the election.

Paedophobia plumbs new depths

The public reaction to the murder of a teenage tagger by an elderly businessman over the weekend has been pretty disturbing, with several groups blaming the victim and expressing support for the accused's brutal crime. But it's now reached its nadir with Christchurch City Councillor Barry Corbett saying that he supports the murder of teenage taggers:

"If I was on the jury, I would let [the accused] get away with it, but that is just me,"

So, minor crimes by children, bad. Murder by adults, fine. What a hypocritical creep.

John Key chooses his target

In 2005, Don Brash tried to win an election by waging a divisive campaign of hate targeted at Maori. Fortunately for New Zealand, it didn't work. Unfortunately, John Key seems to have decided to use the same tactic, and now he's chosen his target: young New Zealanders, a group conveniently unable to vote and hence unable to defend themselves at the ballot box. His speech today was dripping with paedophobia, portraying an us vs. them scenario of New Zealand against its own children, and promising brutal solutions to protect "us" ("people like you and me" - older, white, New Zealanders) from "them" ("teenage parents", "illiterate and innumerate school leavers", and other young people). Harsher sentences, electronic tagging, parenting orders, plus of course the old conservative chestnut, boot camps. "Send 'em all to the army to learn some discipline, that'll sort 'em out". But in case someone forgot to tell granddad, they're not actually allowed to beat people in the army anymore like they were in his day. And no, Key hasn't forgotten National's uber-policy of looting the state - these camps will be contracted out to private providers, meaning that we will effectively get private youth prisons (with all the evil that entails) in New Zealand.

But we shouldn't think that Key isn't compassionate: he's also promising to cut off benefits for young people who are not in work (in which case they don't need them) or in training. But as Russell points out, Key's nightmare of "16- and 17-year-olds being able to leave school and drift along aimlessly while being financially supported by the Government" is a fantasy. Young people are only eligible for benefits if they are partnered with children, or genuinely unable to fall back on their parents for support (for example, because they have fled an abusive family). Government support seems well-justified in both cases, and Key's preferred tactic of threatening starvation doesn't seem like a good solution to either.

In short, this is the same old National Party: divisive, punitive, vicious, and bullying those unable to defend themselves. And I'm glad Key has finally made it clear to the public.