Some of the discussion on yesterday's post on bullying has gotten me thinking; not just the things people said in the comments but the sorts of things people often say on the subject of bullying and in general, to my call for zero tolerance to it.

I recognise that with a policy of zero tolerance the black and white components - what is and is not bullying - are easy to identify and apply the policy to but the grey is where it gets messy. Is name calling bullying? How much name calling? At what point does it move from within the realm of the sort of negative social discourse one has to get over to bullying? People claim that the grey renders a policy of zero tolerance hopeless to interpret and enforce.

I submit that this problem is not a reason to reject a policy of zero tolerance; far from it. This objection would pretty much apply to any type of behaviour we might want to form a hard line policy around. What is and is not harassment? What is and is not stalking? What is and is not assault? What is and is not drunk driving? What is the point the line is crossed in each variation and form that these types of offence come in? Like bullying, these issues have complex grey areas yet this problem does not prevent us forming policies to answer these questions.

A general framework, of what bullying is and what sort of zero tolerance response should apply accordingly, can be laid down as a lens and common sense and consistency in how the behaviour to hand is viewed in accord with the lens can provide a workable policy for a school's management to administer. Central records could be kept, defences to bullying formed and precedents could be created and followed. You could even go so far as to set up a bullying tribunal or court run by the ministry to ensure consistency and fairness and prevent arbitrariness. There are all sorts of ways around the problem. Zero tolerance to bullying could be implemented and nothing would send a clearer message and act as a better deterrent than knowing if you crossed that line you would face serious consequences.

Bullying in the real world is assault, is harassment/stalking, is theft. In the real world these things have real consequences. Why do adults get proper protection from them but not our children? This inequality in the most basic of civil rights the state owes all is not ok. [trying hard to not sound like Sue Bradford]

I am not talking jail or periodic detention or hefty fines for these kids or even criminal records, simply remove them from the situation. Make them be the ones that have to deal with making new friends and adjusting to new schools instead of the victims. Make them have to face up to what they are doing by the social ostracisation that comes with being stood down, suspended or expelled. Then maybe they will reflect on why they do what they do, why they think it is ok to treat people like that.

That latter point is another thing that bugs me about the standard approach to the bullying problem. If I was subjected to the kinds of things my son has gone through this year at my place of work my employers would not stand for it and would not call me in to meetings to talk about strategies or commission reports as to why my co-workers were acting that way.

If someone got a group of their friends together and pulled my pants down at work and someone else filmed it on their cellphone camera, those responsible would be immediately suspended pending investigation and on investigation would be fired; even in this politically correct employment environment where it is virtually impossible to fire anyone.

We expect children to put up with things that adults would never tolerate in their equivalent social setting; things that society deems abhorrent; things that are often far more hurtful to them at their age than they are to a grownup. I really don't care if the cool people at work don't like my haircut or my handbag; I don't go to work to make friends. Provided they don't get in my face, I can happily work in an environment where I am not that popular or even that liked. For a teenager, however, that sort of thing is much harder to handle because they are going through the very process of separating their identity from their family's and working out who they are. They are in the process of learning self-acceptance whereas I, in my mid 30's, worked that out years ago.

Worse, we send children back into environments where they are treated like this, where they have to face their abuser before they are ready to. Matt was assaulted a few months back by a nut-bar parent of one of our other kids friends (the guy turned out to be being investigated by CYFS). The assault was really minor but it took Matt some months to stop freaking out that he might run into the guy if we happened to be in situations where he might be - a pretty normal response from someone who does not regularly engage in violence. Kids who get assaulted at school are regularly sent back to classes where the people who have hurt and humiliated them are sitting in the next row, usually the next day. Any time off to allow the victim to get over the bullying and prepare for seeing the bully again is truancy or even if the school graciously permits this time off, it is the victim getting behind in the school work. The injustice is outrageous.

The final objection offered to the zero tolerance approach is that even bullies need an education and if you kick them out of school you are denying them this basic right. While this is true, I don't get the problem. Everyone is entitled to liberty yet if an adult commits assault, theft or serially and criminally harasses someone they voluntarily risk their liberty. That's their problem. They knew the consequences, they chose to engage in the action. Ditto with the bully. If you have to choose who gets an education then the guilty part loses over the innocent.

There are other schools and if they mess that up by bullying some more there is correspondence, boarding schools for bad kids, home education. It is not like removing them from one school is going to ensure they don't ever get an education but it sure is hell going to bring it home to them that if they want one they better not wreck another kid's.

Bullying is something so pervasive in our society that almost everyone has some experience with it. As such, I was not surprised to read a Family First release claiming that New Zealand kids almost top the world in the most bullied stats, suffering bullying at a rate of almost 50 per cent above the international average. The release refers to a Herald article on the report at the source of the stats and touches on some of the strategies schools are adopting to overcome bullying and the criticisms the new government minister, Anne Tolley, has made of them;

The previous Government has made half-hearted attempts at addressing the issue, with a series of checklist cards released last year. But it's action we need. And holding up a card while you're being bullied - well, that's not going to work.

All year we have battled bullying as our 13 year old son, Christian, has completed his first year in high school. Christian has Aspergers Syndrome and has a very high IQ when it comes to analytical and spatial reasoning, genius level - he is amazing, but struggles with what he calls "the irrational and inconsistent way adults relate to each other." The textbooks say he has a 'social disability so struggles with social issues' but having raised Christian I am not sure that "disability" is the right term, I would say he is just more perceptive than most of us.

When he was 4 he asked me why adults lie to each other so often. I asked him what he meant and he said that they say they like someone's dress or their cooking but they don't really. He explained, that when someone gives him a present for Christmas and they ask him if he likes it he gets in trouble if he tells them he doesn't, that it is a dumb present.

Further, when you go to someone's house for dinner you always ask what you can bring even though you know that they will answer they don't want you to bring anything. When you get to dinner you offer to clear away the dishes and to wash them but you know when you offer that they will tell you not to. Your offers are token gestures that you don't really mean and worse than that, every adult you say them to also knows you don't really mean them because they know that you know that the correct answer is to refuse the offers of help but if you don't offer you are not a good guest. Why is it good manners to lie and pretend to be sincere? Isn't telling the truth more important than hurting someone's feelings or not being a good guest?

Christian gets bullied because he is different and at times annoying to the other teenage boys he goes to school with; he finds teenagers as frustrating to understand as most adults do and often says things deliberately designed to expose the stupidity of their reasoning and he still has not mastered a good way to express frustration publicly, so he can make irritating noises at times when he is not sure how to respond appropriately.

His take on the anti-bullying strategies the ministry has in place is perceptive. During children's programming after school there are TV commercials about bullying put out by whichever government Anne Tolley was referring to. Christian says of them:

The ads on TV tell you what bullying is and that you should not have to put up with it, but what they should be doing is telling people not to bully in the first place. Their focus is wrong.

Christian has made the same observation and criticism of his school's attempts to manage the bullying he has suffered all year. The school's focus was all about what Christian could do to minimise the bullying. Yes, he is annoying and he should work on that and yes strategies should cut both ways; Christian accepted all this but he still felt that the primary focus should be on the unacceptability of the behaviour.

Christian was not bullied as horrifically as the cases that make the news but this year he has been hit, shoved, knocked to the ground, attacked with a screw driver, shoved into a wall, been surrounded by a group of kids unable to escape, had his property taken, been made the butt of school jokes and filmed on someone's cell phone camera having his pants pulled down which led him to weeks of internet searching after school for the footage. He has come home with cuts, bruises and has lived in fear of returning to school and with self-doubt. Yet no one got stood down or expelled for hurting him all year and to our knowledge, no one's parents were contacted over their treatment of him. There were very few repeat offenders over the year, it was more there was a culture of bullying that many kids engaged in.

The school, following the ministry's guidelines, instead had multiple meetings with us and worked hard with their staff putting strategies to protect Christian in place - they even waived their policy of waiting for a year of knowing the child and put him in one of the top streams mid-year after I suggested that the brighter kids might not respond with their fists so readily. The kids did get detentions, were talked to and told off and made to apologise and most did not re-offend against Christian but none of these, we and Christian felt, were sufficient consequences as none of them countered the culture problem the school and Christian faced.

What we want is an end to the focus on what the victim should be doing and the need to understand the bully and a return to the message that bullying is unnaceptable and will not be tolerated. Zero tolerance sends a very loud and clear message but zero tolerance is not govt approved. Let's hope that that changes under National.

The picketers outside Pak'n'Save are at it again. Horns began tooting and shouts began infiltrating our home so I popped my head out the door and sure enough there they all are.

So far no siren or chanting or megaphone though. Thanks for that guys :-)

UPDATE: I take that back. The chanting just began and someone has a megaphone.

UPDATE: The siren has been let off too but not as continually as last time.

Chants include:

Whose got the power?

We've got the power?

What power do you have?

[Something something something]

Whose got the power?...

And

When I say Power you say?

Union

When I say power you say?

Union

[over and over] then:

What do we have?

Union Power

When I say power you say?

Then of course there is the tried and true:

What do we want?

[Something something]

When do we want it?

[Something something - presumably 'now']

After a rather intense 10 days or so following my surgery I am today going to attempt a return to the blogosphere.

Thanks everyone who left messages, sent emails and prayed for us and those who didn't because they don't but like PC, sent well wishes instead; the support was really appreciated. Matt read me your comments when I was in hospital and it was really cool.


My head feels a lot clearer now but it is still not 100%. I am still in a lot of pain though and I think that's going to take a while but the drugs do their thing so it is manageable. Apparently I am supposed to feel well enough to return to full time work in 3 weeks time. It seems hard to believe but if I could be pain free soon that would be great.

[Written from my laptop after being infuriated by an article in the Herald - not really back yet] [No, neither should you be - Matt]

He's only been Prime Minister for a month but John Key is already putting up with multiple protests at his home; most of which occur when he is away so his wife, children and neighbours bear the brunt.

According to the Herald, Unite Union are the main culprits with the Father's Union doing the weekends outside his Auckland residence. Though the Workers Party Blog seems to be taking the credit for the most recent protest - see here for their own pictures and report of the protest outside Key’s house where they gloat about the fact that they were asked to keep their protest away from neighborhood children but instead allowed the children, too young too understand the issues, to participate.

I have little respect for unions. In my experience those running them are all about the power they wield. They get off on all the attention they gather from disgruntled workers, media, the public; very little of their motivation seems to be about compassion for other people and they have no regard for other people’s civil rights (or other people’s children).

We have had to endure protesting outside our home for the last few weeks led by unionists and they are largely a bunch of rude, inconsiderate pricks.

We live opposite a Pak'N'Save supermarket on a fairly busy road; immediately opposite our lounge and living areas is apparently the ideal spot to attract attention from passing traffic. Every few days we have had to endure chants of "What do we want?” "Better pay." "When do we want it?" "In time for Christmas." "What do we want..." etc. Then all the passing cars honk their horns in response to the "toot to show your support" placards. But worst of all is the guy with the megaphone and the wailing siren. At the close of each round of the chant we have to endure the siren being let off through the megaphone. You can read all about it on the Workers Party blog [yep, them again], see Pay up Pak'n'Save.

Now I have some sympathy for the Pak'N'Save workers. Foodstuffs are not known for their rank at the top of the best places to work list and when Matt had a brief stint as a merchandiser it was the Pak'N'Save stores he most hated having to work in because of how they treated their staff (and the merchandisers). We shop at the Pak'N'Save over the road and the staff there are by and large helpful and friendly and I have no doubt that they are paid pretty lousily so I feel for them.

That said, striking and protesting is akin to throwing a tantrum and is certainly not how I conduct myself if I am asking for a pay rise.

Anyway, last week, going insane from the chanting, tooting and sirens, I mean, I was trying to blog and I couldn't think straight, I kept typing the same words over and over, the kids were getting frustrated trying to read and play and at that point, I was still waiting for surgery on my neck and needed to rest, so I finally walked up my driveway towards the protesters, a couple of my kids in tow.

Smiling nicely I called across the road, in a pleasant tone of voice, "I get wanting to be paid more and I wish you all the best with that, but is there any chance you could tone the megaphone and the siren down? This is a family home [our house used to be a vintner's so people understandably mistake it for a shop] we have kids, the noise is really getting irritating day after day and its kind of wrecking our Saturday afternoon."

The guy with the megaphone and the siren began mocking me. He rolled his eyes, and put his hand on his hip and made a quacking motion at me with his hands and then let three rounds of the siren off laughing at me. I wondered if he had misunderstood, so I pointed out that I was not suggesting they cease protesting or that they put up with lousy pay, just asking if they could keep it down just a little, particularly the megaphone and the siren which really did come right into our home. The megaphone guy continued his mockery and laughing and got a couple of other flunkies to join in and let the siren off repeatedly. I gave up in disgust.

See, inconsiderate pricks.

They were not for one minute concerned that innocent people, children, were caught in the cross fire of their protest. They have no clue about appropriate boundaries or where to draw the line or how to conduct themselves like normal people when confronted with a reasonable request at all.

Their protesting of John Key's private residence exemplifies this. If they really feel the need why not protest his office? Why go after his wife and kids and neighbours?

Simple, if these people go after innocent third parties it’s all the better for them trying to blackmail other people into meeting their demands. There is a word for this; at its extreme end it is called terrorism. In principle, what they are doing is the same as a person who high-jacks a train and makes demands.

I picked Madeleine up from hospital this morning. She is doing ok but has had severe migraines from a combination of the drugs and the stiffness in her neck.

Her neck wound is healing well and appears to be smaller than we thought it would be which is good. None-the-less she wants to send me scarf shopping anyway (she wants to cover up the dressing/scar on her neck from the surgery) .... where does a man go scarf shopping without anyone noticing?

Madeleine has had her surgery. It appears to have gone well though we don’t see the surgeon until latter today to hear the official verdict. Thanks for all the supportive comments and e-mails.

UPDATE: The surgeon informed us yesturday that the proceedure was 'text book' Madeleine is already feeling some improvement in her neck. She is however very tired and will be in hospital recovering for the next couple of days.

This is my last post before Cervical Arthroplasty surgery tomorrow to remove two discs in my neck and replace them with artificial metal ones. My surgeon says it is a straight-forward procedure and there is nothing to worry about; he also said "We make an incision in the front of your neck and we cut the damaged discs away from your spinal cord, possible side effects include death, nerve damage and paralysis." Easy for him to say don't worry.

Whilst I am not looking forward to tomorrow at all I am looking forward to the hope that by this time tomorrow the corner will have been turned on the pain, the drugs and all the hassles I have lived with since my car accident back in March; I will finally be able to begin moving forward.

Going on the log flume ride at Rainbow's end last week and being struck with pain and feeling like bone was scraping on bone in my neck, as the boat jerked after the ride pulled it up to the next level (I was fine on the slides), reinforced that I have to do this; the log flume ride is hardly adventurous and yet when I got off it I was shaken, I had an instant headache and my neck was mad at me.

I do not know when I will be up to blogging again, it will all depend on the success of the surgery and my pain levels post-op. I do intend to take the laptop with me into hospital but it has no internet connection and who knows if I will be able to type or think - mostly I am taking it to be able to watch DVD's.

I do not know how much blogging Matt will be able to do since I won't be able to edit his posts (he has a typing impairment) and he will be holding the fort at home but rest assured we will be back.

I have been involved in a discussion over at MacDoctor Moments on various aspects of the abortion debate, though in this post I don't want to talk about that issue. In the course of this discussion Chuck advocated for a policy of direct democracy to decide moral issues and it is this that I want to explore.

Before addressing direct democracy I want to look at the term "moral issue." Which issues are moral issues and which are not? What do people mean when they say this? Every piece of legislation is a moral issue to some extent. When legislators pass laws they have the power to restrict people's freedoms or impose obligations and they have the state to back up these expectations with force for non-compliance. The question as to whether or not they should pass such laws is always a moral one because prima facie it is wrong to coerce others by force. Of course there may be instances were the state is justified in making a particular legislative move but to say that the state is justified is to make a moral claim.

Those who refer to some issues as moral ones and others not, tacitly assume that unless one is talking about sex or something typically associated with moral conservatism the legislation the state passes is not moral. This is a very truncated view of what a person's moral obligations are.

Parliament has a standing practice of not using whips and allowing conscience votes on matters of "moral legislation." There is something almost machiavellian about this because it suggests that governing is an a-moral exercise; that on most issues either an MP's conscience has nothing to say or that an MP has no duty to do what is right but is rather obligatied to follow their peers. Proof positive that MP's have a lot in common with teenagers.

The arbitrary nature of this distinction can be seen in Chuck's examples, he cites the "anti-smacking bill" and "abortion" as moral issues. However, why is smacking a moral issue and assault not? Why is abortion a moral issue and not homicide (or appendectomies if you are pro-abortion)?

I think it is outrageous that any militant group can force legislation that is opposed by 80% of the people whether it is to do with smacking or abortion.
...
If we had direct democracy on moral issues instead of allowing these issues to be determined by fanatical pressure groups we would have better law.

...

If they [MP's] had a conscience they would support direct democracy and not be so arrogant.

Note the assumption that if the majority support something then it is unjust for any government to pass a law contrary to it. This is clearly false. If the majority supported looting Asian stores on Thursdays the legislature would have an obligation to refuse to legalise this. The government owes a duty to protect the property and liberty of Asian store owners, even if they are a minority, even if the majority demand it. However, Chuck says that it is arrogant for people to suggest that the majority might be wrong.

Now Chuck may seem like a colourful example who takes the whole concept slightly further than most but I think he is a good example of the inherent flaws in the binding referendum movement and his reasoning follows from their basic line of argument. Those who support binding referenda believe that if 51% of the population vote for something then the state is obligated to pass that directive into law. Further, the fact they want it binding is evidence that they think that any legislator who does not do what the majority wants is arrogant and above the people, they just don't phrase it like Chuck but the assumption remains.

However, the whole point of having a legislature is to ensure that justice prevails, not popularity or mob rule. The state has an obligation to protect the rights of all citizens, even unpopular minorities.

Democracy has its problems but it remains the best option. As Wolff argued in his adaptation of Plato's Republic (Plato was much more familiar with direct democracy than any of us are) if you had a medical problem you would consult someone with a degree of expertise in medicine, a doctor; you would not organise a vote on what the public think the appropriate diagnosis is. Likewise, why should those without a degree of expertise, the general populace, vote on matters of state when they are as ill informed about them as they are about medicine?

Of course power corrupts and anyone in a position of power must be subject to checks and balances. The doctor has to answer to the medical council and is ultimately answerable to the Minister of Health. In the same way the MP has to answer to the public and the public has the power to vote them out of office. However, one must be careful to not confuse the right to participate in choosing who will govern with a right to choose which specific acts of government will be passed.