The provision ‘state’ makes for children, even Pacific and Maori, IS significant. I feel we have talked about this before. Parental responsibility is the key here. There are centres and provision for children within each community, parents need to ‘go ask’ and ‘go look’.
Perhaps that should be the slogan for the next Ad campaign ‘GO ASK, GO LOOK’
There were two comments under the article that struck a chord with me. With no way of getting in touch with the commentators I simply reference the article they are associated with and the name they left.
Brazil's "Statue for the Rights of the Child and Adolescent" law was based on this woolly line of international PC reasoning, and sets the age of criminal responsibility at 18. The results of this brilliant piece of legislation were predictable and immediate - as teenagers became more and more involved in the gangs and serious criminal activities, the murder of minors in Rio de Janeiro state more than doubled in the five years after the 1990 introduction of the law compared to the five years before. Now the megacities such as Rio and São Paulo are literally being terrorised by youngsters to whom the law affords a privileged status - such as the 14 year old boy who was recently arrested in São Paulo for car theft - for the 16th time (his parents begged the state to intervene when he was aged eleven, after his ninth offence, but the law would not allow it). Paul Cull#16
In Mexico, they decided that the best way to move people out of lower groups was education. So they made part of the benefit dependent on your child achieving at least 85% attendence at school for the year. As well as this, mothers got more cash for going to pre-natal and post-natal doctors visits.What do you think the answer to solving the child provety issue is?
Both of these have led to an increase in health and education amongst the poor in Mexico. So why not do it here? Lee #13
Tweet
No comments:
Post a Comment