Te Puke Teacher Stabbing - Bullying To Blame

The family of a 13 year old youth, who stabbed his teacher multiple times with a kitchen knife on 10 May, say that the boy had suffered in a school that had a “culture of bullying” – Te Puke High School.

This comes as no surprise since most of us know that “Kiwis are worst in the world for bullying” which was confirmed by a Massey University study in April of this year.

Furthermore it is known within the country that “New Zealand’s schools lead the world in bullying”, according to a major international study in December 2008 which showed that three quarters of primary school children had been bullied during one month.

Auckland paediatrician and former Children’s Commissioner Ian Hassall said the high rates of bullying reflected a “punitive culture”(source):

“It’s not just children who are bullied; adults bully as well,” Hassall said. “We do have a punitive society that rather believes in punishing people and threatening them, so it’s not surprising that children pick up on this and go punishing one another.”

Peter Dunne, leader of the Unite Future political party, was once quoted as saying:

“anti-bullying, and “character education” programmes were needed in primary and intermediate schools.
“The culture of brutality that we have tolerated for too long has to stop,”

New Zealand’s Human Rights Commission released a report in which it identified significant human rights issues in relation to violence in New Zealand Schools.(more here)

One of the manifestations of that culture of brutality is the escalation of violence in New Zealand’s schools with attacks on both pupils and students. 777 teachers were assaulted at work during 2008-2009 .

And unfortunately it may have been a factor in the attack on Steve Hose on 10 May.
According to a Herald report:

“…A close whanau member told the Herald the family were still in shock, saying the attack was “completely out of character” for the Year 9 pupil.
The man said the boy was “little and placid” and a “quiet thinker” who, because of his size, had been a target for bullies.

He had been suspended from school this year for about three days after he apparently fought older students who he claimed had been picking on him.
The man said the school had a culture of bullying and people would write affidavits in support of his claim.

“There were a number of occasions where [the boy] was bullied. I am of the opinion this is what led him to do what he did.

“Still, this is completely out of character … we don’t condone what has happened but we need to know what could have triggered him to do something like this.”

The school principal, Alan Liddle, said the school had no formal record or allegations of the boy being bullied.

He said an internal investigation would deal with all circumstances surrounding the attack.

The boy had been in the care of his grandmother at her home in Manoeka on the outskirts of Te Puke after his parents split when he was a few months old.
He apparently had asthma, but enjoyed playing rugby league.

His relative said he was kindhearted and would help prepare his younger cousins for school and could be seen helping his elderly neighbours with their gardens and lawns.

“You could say he has had it pretty rough but things could have been worse if he had stayed with his parents.”

The report went on to say that security guards had been brought into the school but didn’t say if they were to be a permanent feature:

“Six security guards patrolled the school grounds yesterday. They said they were there for the students’ protection and to prevent them from being harassed.

Students the Herald spoke to gave mixed reports of the incident. A Year 9 pupil said the attacker had been “annoyed” by Mr Hose immediately before stabbing him.

Another student said the attack was completely unprovoked, and the boy had stabbed Mr Hose from behind while the teacher was sitting at his desk.”

Will it take the death of a teacher, or student, to make people take this issue seriously and make the government take the lead in combating New Zealand’s culture of brutality?

Today's posts - click here

UN Criticises NZ On Rights Of Iindigenous Peoples, Treatment Of Youth Offenders And Asylum-seekers

At long last New Zealand has had its arm twisted into signing the United Nation’s Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples without any caveats according to the Maori Party.

143 countries have already signed the declaration, New Zealand is one of the last remaining UN member states (NZ, Canada and USA) to reverse their opposition to the declaration.

The declaration is a non-binding text and sets out the individual and collective rights of indigenous peoples, as well as their rights to culture, identity, language, employment, health, education and other issues.

Prime Minister, John Key, has already said the signing will have no practical effect, according to the New Zealand Herald:

“A United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous people that New Zealand signed up to overnight will have no practical effect, Prime Minister John Key said this morning.”

The leader of the opposition, Phil Goff, was quoted as saying he saw no reason for the government signing up to something they had no intention of fulfilling:

“Why would you sign up to something you never intended to act on and you don’t actually believe in… They are signing up to something they don’t believe in and never intend to implement. The Maori Party has been duped again.”

Mr Key said for a long time the Government had made it clear it wanted to affirm the declaration and there had been “no secret” about that

Dr Sharples, also a Maori Party co-leader, said after negotiation his party and the Government had come to a position they could both accept. He previously expressed concerns about the number of caveats the Government wanted to attach but today seemed happy with the final outcome and was pleased with the standing ovation his speech received at the UN…

…Mr Key said the idea of including Treaty into a written constitution was something the government was “a long way away” from considering.”

A month ago the UN Human Rights Committee finished their consideration and published their 5th NZ Rights Report.

The committee expressed its concerns about possible breaches of the rights of Maori people, expressed its alarm that the country’s age for criminal responsibility was 10 and that a militarization of juvenile offenders wasn’t a great way for a country to treat its youth!

From a UN press release:

“Several experts took exception to the New Zealand delegation’s claim that consideration of the Waitangi Treaty of 1840 was built into the country’s law-making process, underlining that the Treaty’s translations – and, thus, its very meaning — remained unsettled, even contentious. To that end, Hellen Keller, expert from Switzerland, stressed that a “consultation process” regarding land and water rights legislation was not the same as seriously integrating the views and concerns of the Maori in the decision-making process.

A few experts expressed concern that the age of criminal responsibility — which was set at 10 for murder and manslaughter — was quite low. Saying “this was a knife that cuts both ways”, Rajsoomer Lallah, expert from Mauritius, suggested that if — as the delegation indicated — there were so few young offenders, the age could be raised. While he understood its consideration of the seriousness of the offence compelled New Zealand to set the age at 10, he believed the maturity of the person should be the primary factor in making such a determination.

On a related note, he expressed concern over reports from non-governmental organizations in New Zealand that there was a “militarization” of juvenile offenders, suggesting this was not a “salutary” way for a country to treat its youth.”

The report then went on to criticise New Zealand’s treatment of asylum seekers, the victims of human trafficking and prostitution.

We have the impression that New Zealand was backed into a corner by the committee’s report, released on 18 March 2010. Within a month NZ had signed on the dotted line (in secret) and announced its acquiescence

It remains to be seen if Key will be challenged by both the Maori Party and the UN on his assertion that his government has no intention of implementing the agreement, which was made without any of the caveats the government had tried to introduce. If that’s the case the UN must continue to pressure New Zealand into living up to it’s claims that it is a country with a strong commitment to human rights, by insisting on hard evidence not weasel words.


Today's posts - click here

Another Pregnant Woman Told To Leave New Zealand: Pregnancy Now Equated To Sickness In Human Rights Abuse

Another pregnant woman, Virginie Breuzard (photo above) has been told to leave New Zealand. Earlier in the year a number of other women were also told to leave, among them Sun Won Kim and Jurga Skiauteris who would not be allowed to have their babies in NZ, even though the latter had complications that would've made travelling dangerous for her. After the press got hold of their stories the government backtracked and allowed them to stay.

Human Rights Abuses
The Human Rights Act 1993 prohibits "discrimination due to pregnancy", but there is a specific provision to exempt immigration matters. But within the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are provisions for protection based on gender. If throwing out a woman because she's pregnant isn't a contravention of that what is - is the 1993 Act contrary to international conventions?
According to Kerry Williamson in the Dominion Post:

"Virginie Breuzard will be forced to return to France in three weeks, have her baby in her home country, then return to Nelson to finish her studies.

She feels she is being discriminated against because she is not sick – just pregnant. "I'm not sick, not at all. It's because I am pregnant that they are kicking me out."

Ms Breuzard, 28, came to New Zealand in September to complete an NZQA-registered aromatherapy course in Nelson, the only one of its kind available in the Asia-Pacific region, after a year of distance learning from Indonesia, where her husband ran a company.

She admits she was pregnant when she arrived in the country on a visitor's visa, but was unaware that it would be a problem. As part of her application to Immigration New Zealand, she sent a letter from her insurer and Nelson Hospital stating that her medical costs would be met.

Her school, Aromaflex, also wrote to Immigration telling them she needed to be in the country for six months to complete the course and sit an exam.

Seven weeks later, Immigration wrote telling her she had been refused a study visa because she did not meet health requirements and that she would need to leave the country to give birth. Ms Breuzard must leave by November 24, because doctors say she should not fly after that due to her pregnancy.

"I'm very angry," she said. "And because I've told the truth about being pregnant, they are kicking me out. They have told me, `You give birth somewhere else and then you come back.' It's discrimination."

The Immigration website states pregnant visitors to New Zealand "are not considered to have an acceptable standard of health as it is likely you will impose significant costs and demands on New Zealand's health services."

An Immigration spokesman said that whether a person had health insurance was irrelevant, and that the policy was in place to limit demand on hospitals.

"Aligned to this there have been regional shortages of antenatal care in New Zealand in recent years."

Are the provisions for ante natal care really so tight that even privately funded births can't be accommodated? and what about the thousands of New Zealand women who give birth every year in countries overseas, thereby relieving pressure on their own health service? What would happen if they were all sent home?

I'm sure that in an ideal situation Ms Breuzard would far prefer to have her baby in France but had made the trip to New Zealand to study a very specialised course, her baby won't have NZ citizenship either so there's probably no 'agenda' here, there appears to have been no intention to deceive on her part.

It's time to improve the maternity provision for all women in New Zealand if it hasn't even got the capacity to accommodate privately funded women such as Ms Breuzard.

See also:
Pregnant women ordered out of New Zealand 

NZ Human Rights Record Under UN Microscope


Today's posts - click here