Evil Little Bastard Filter
May 18, 2007 5:44 AM   Subscribe

How Could He? After the (who else but) Murdoch owned Sydney telegraph splashed the headline “How Could She” in response to the mother’s abandonment of her new born baby outside a hospital in depressed outer Melbourne suburb of Dandenong, Australia’s Prime Minister Howard leaped to the paper's defence saying that’s how most Australian’s would feel- Is it really how most of us would feel? Or is it just “dog whistle politics” from this past master, or a bad idea to criticise the ‘Tele’ in an election year?
posted by mattoxic (34 comments total)
 
So, this Murdoch dude is into sensational news? Who knew?

Hmmm, I suspect the point of my post is not Murdoch, rather the Australian PM.
posted by mattoxic at 6:12 AM on May 18, 2007


Howard's a little bitch. What do you expect from him? And the Australian press publishes all sorts of stupid shit you could never get away with elsewhere in the world. Australian's don't seem to bothered by it.
posted by chunking express at 6:12 AM on May 18, 2007


Y'know, I'm sure that we all know that it's bad to abandon a child. But where's the father in all of this? Parthenogenesis?

How Could He?
posted by beelzbubba at 6:14 AM on May 18, 2007


Are you kidding chunking express? Australia has some of the strongest libel laws in the world. We have excellent press really, far better than most countries. The Age and Sydney Morning Herald and Financial Review are very good - non Murdoch papers, we have the excellent ABC, non commercial radio and television, we also have SBS, akin to Britain's channel 4.
posted by mattoxic at 6:17 AM on May 18, 2007


Australia de facto has the best newspapers in the world because Rugby League dominates the sports pages, which is as it should be. If this isn't the case where you live your local rag fails minimum newspaper standards.
posted by vbfg at 6:20 AM on May 18, 2007


Am I missing something? What is the appropriate response to someone leaving a baby in a cardboard box outside and just walking away and assuming it will be found before anything bad happens?

From this article (I don't know the newspaper from Adam):

The newborn was found blue with cold and suffering hypothermia after being left in a cardboard fruit box outside Dandenong’s psychiatric wing early on Sunday.

I'm all for new parents being able to responsibly give up a baby, but this wasn't (or appears not to be) that. So, if most Australians would not be thinking "how could you do that to a newborn baby" what are they thinking?
posted by obfusciatrist at 6:23 AM on May 18, 2007


Here in California there has been a big PSA campaign to encourage women to leave their babies at hospitals -- No Shame, No Blame, No Names (pdf). Some people thought that if women who could not care for their babies and needed secrecy could leave their babies at hospitals without being arrested, they might be less likely to leave them in dumpsters. So far, that seems to be the case.

Here, we have shame and blame -- all they need is to find the mother and print her name (and I am sure they are working on it). Then the desperate young mothers of Australia will have a clear, unequivocal message: Leave your baby in a dumpster, we don't want it. And throw yourself in there while you're at it.
posted by Methylviolet at 6:26 AM on May 18, 2007 [4 favorites]


mattoxic, i'm thinking more along the lines of the sorts of racist stuff I'd read and see whenever I visit Sydney. OH NOES THE LEBANESE WILL RAPE U, ASIANS WANT TO BUY MELBORNE, stuff like that you know.
posted by chunking express at 6:29 AM on May 18, 2007


Yea, I'm not really getting the outrage against the paper or the politician for this. "How could she?" seems like a reasonable question to ask of someone who would abandon a baby in a cardboard box on the sidewalk.
posted by octothorpe at 6:29 AM on May 18, 2007


Sounds like a failed social safety net system.

How could John Howard and Rupert?!

But then, it wasn't a fetus so there's no "compassionate christian" caring for the "culture of life."
Out of the womb? On your own!
posted by nofundy at 6:30 AM on May 18, 2007


chunking express, I hear you. There is a particularly rabid "shock jock" by the name of Alan Jones. He is evil incarnate. He tends to be able to say what he likes because governments of all ilks are scared shitless of him.

octothorpe and obfusciatrist, Dandenong is a "dumping ground" for new migrants. Pretty much all social services have dried up, the area is very depressed. For a new mum to be forced to leave her baby probably means some pretty nasty stuff is going on in her life. Stories that the baby was blue with cold need to be taken with a grain of Murdochian salt. The baby was fine and well when found.
posted by mattoxic at 6:37 AM on May 18, 2007


But then, it wasn't a fetus so there's no "compassionate christian" caring for the "culture of life."

remember moses? he was set adrift in a basket on a river.

how could she?
posted by saulgoodman at 6:54 AM on May 18, 2007


Well, in the Moses story, certain death was being replaced with probable death so I don't know that it is really parallel.

I agree on doing without the pronoun. And yes, it would be great if there were a way to anonymously give up an unwanted child (and if Australia doesn't have that then they should) but the absence of such a system doesn't make the willful endangerment of a newborn child less shame worthy. Whoever left that baby in those conditions (whether male, female, or both) should face criminal consequences.
posted by obfusciatrist at 7:12 AM on May 18, 2007


Whoever left that baby in those conditions (whether male, female, or both) should face criminal consequences. It is a criminal offense to leave a minor without care. But do we really know what prompted the mum to abandon the baby? What cultural pressure was she under?
Was there violence at home? Was the pregnancy a secret? Was she a kid and shit scared? Probably all. But I bet she wasn't as callous as you think.
posted by mattoxic at 7:20 AM on May 18, 2007


Whoever left that baby in those conditions (whether male, female, or both) should face criminal consequences.

Have you people really never heard stories of people leaving infants on the front steps of churches and orphanages? I mean, there seems to be the sense these days that acts like this are completely new, unheard of violations of the mother-child trust, and yet, young mothers in troubled circumstances have been abandoning their babies on doorsteps since the beginning of time. What the hell makes this the special case that's suddenly worthy of extra scrutiny and a heftier dose of moral outrage?

And how do you know the child's life wasn't in imminent danger had he/she remained with the birth mother? Maybe that's exactly why the baby was abandoned--as an alternative to "certain death". You act like the only party who could possibly have played any part in the harm done to this child was the mother, without any knowledge of the actual circumstances. Why all the assumptions about the circumstances and the moral character of the mother? My bet is because they make it easy to adopt a self-righteous and sanctimonious posture?
posted by saulgoodman at 7:21 AM on May 18, 2007 [2 favorites]


Similar to the program Methyviolet mentioned in California- here in Japan, Kumamoto prefecture just started a similar test program where there is an anonymous baby "drop box" at a hospital for mothers to give up babies (another incentive here is the struggling birth rate as well). Anyways, just after opening the first arrival in the box was a 3 year old boy!?! Authorities are still trying to make sense of this, and the boy was apparently left there by his father, who told the boy to play hide and seek.

Not sure how that relates directly to the original post, but apparently baby dumping is an issue just about everywhere lately.
posted by p3t3 at 7:21 AM on May 18, 2007 [1 favorite]


The point of the post was not actually arguing the merits or not of baby dumping, rather Prime Minister Howard's race to defend the Sydney Daily Telegraph's rabid headline.

How Could She? There are a myriad of reasons, why she did so, and I think most compassionate people would understand, rather than leap to condemn someone who is in a distressed, desperate situation merely for political point scoring. The baby was not dumped in a dumpster, church door, or orphanage. The baby was placed, in a box, wrapped in towels at the front door of a large metropolitan hospital.
posted by mattoxic at 7:36 AM on May 18, 2007


But do we really know what prompted the mum to abandon the baby? What cultural pressure was she under?
Was there violence at home? Was the pregnancy a secret? Was she a kid and shit scared? Probably all. But I bet she wasn't as callous as you think.


Aren't these all just different versions of "how could she?"?
posted by DU at 7:43 AM on May 18, 2007


I don't care if she had reasons for abandoning the baby. She could have done so in a way that didn't leave the child at risk of death from exposure.

So no, for the way the abandonment was done, I don't really care what the abandoners story was. It may explain how the person reached that point but does not excuse the result.

The baby was not placed at the front door of a large metropolitan hospital according to what I've been reading. But rather outside a rarely used one and the baby almost died of exposure (suffering hypothermia) before being found. If that is incorrect then I'll revise my reaction.

I can understand the need to get rid of the baby and again there should be programs to make doing so easy, but that does not excuse a person from the responsibility to make sure it was done safely. I can simultaneously feel compassion for the horrible life story of a person and that they should be punished for the stupid decisions they make because of it.
posted by obfusciatrist at 7:50 AM on May 18, 2007


Aren't these all just different versions of "how could she?"?

Syntactically yes, semantically, no.
posted by delmoi at 7:53 AM on May 18, 2007


Perhaps she was just getting rid of dead weight, tightening her belt and being fiscally responsible so she could compete in the global economy?
posted by srboisvert at 7:58 AM on May 18, 2007


I think I can sum up:

CONSERVATIVES: poor people are pure evil and should be gassed!

LIBERALS: society did it and there's no such thing as personal responsibility for anything ever (except Bush)!

Carry on.
posted by drjimmy11 at 7:59 AM on May 18, 2007


Here's a more accurate summary:

Conservatives: I understand the situation completely at a glance and it's obviously another example of people behaving in a morally reprehensible way.

Liberals: Uh, uh, I don't know--it's all so complicated... Can't we just hold a vegan pot luck and donate some money to charity.

Independents: You're all a bunch of nimrods who have no idea how incredibly narrow your perspective is.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:14 AM on May 18, 2007


mattoxic: sorry for perpetuating this derail. that's the last i'll say on this dead-end side rail.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:17 AM on May 18, 2007


Thank God no dingo was involved!
posted by ericb at 8:27 AM on May 18, 2007


Aren't these all just different versions of "how could she?"?

No, I think in this context it means, "there is no good enough reason" which just isn't true.
posted by peep at 8:48 AM on May 18, 2007


"Liberal" and "conservative" as defined in the US are probably not terribly descriptive of Australian political sentiments... but that's just my guess as a Canadian.

From an academic perspective, what I notice about Howard's statements are his comments about how this is a "natural" reaction that people have. Critics have long pointed out that claiming something is "natural" puts it beyond the reach of policy. Thus, by claiming that moral outrage is the natural reaction to child abandonment (and implicitly that child abandonment is itself unnatural), as well as by endorsing the individualistic implications of the statement, Howard builds an emotional/moral position that it is not the government's job to address or alleviate the potential social causes of child abandonment. His statements support the position that since child-abandonment is "unnatural", this can only be the work of a sick or morally deranged individual. At the same time, his statements make invisible the possibility that a normal individual in trying circumstances might perform such an action.

This is highly problematic since, as a few people in the thread have pointed out, there are policy-based ways of addressing child abandonment such that the harm to children is minimized. There are also, arguably, policy-based ways to minimize the number of parents choosing abandonment as a strategy. These, however, cost money, and Howard is notorious (or famous, I suppose, depending on your orientation) for his neo-liberal approach to social programs.
posted by carmen at 9:05 AM on May 18, 2007


> I think in this context it means, "there is no good enough reason" which just isn't true.

Yep, if you abandon your baby because you're dead that's a good understandable reason. Can't think of any others, though.
posted by jfuller at 9:05 AM on May 18, 2007


jfuller: as a mother yourself, i'm sure you know all about it.

& what carmen said.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:32 AM on May 18, 2007


If they didn’t see the person making the drop, how can they assume it’s the mom?
Having said that, I wish here in the US we could have a presidential scandal so benign. This wouldn’t make Bush’s top 5 horrendous acts of the week, let alone get any air time.
posted by BostonJake at 11:06 AM on May 18, 2007


John Howard trying to score cheap political points.

Whoa, stop the presses.
posted by blucevalo at 11:15 AM on May 18, 2007


We have excellent press really, far better than most countries.

Just pointing out that the bar for "excellent press" has been set pretty low in the world - and in no objective sense is Australia that great (at least as I have seen here in the last two years).

SBS is the closest thing to impartial and non-sensational journalism.

Just thought I should point that out.

Oh, and Howard is a wanker. Carry on!
posted by qwip at 4:21 PM on May 18, 2007


This seems to be a continuation of a longstanding feud between two Australian conservative politicians, the Australian Prime Minister John Howard & the former Premier of Victoria, Jeff Kennett.

They absolutely loathe each other - I seem to remember a major media kerfuffle a few years ago where Kennett was accused of calling Howard a 'dirty little rat' in an intercepted cellphone conversation.

And oh yes, Howard is a wanker.
posted by Nasty Canasta at 7:23 PM on May 18, 2007


I don't think you have created the post you were aiming for. As constructive criticism: avoid run-on sentences that go for three lines, and if the real point of your post is 'Howard sux' or 'there is an unhealthy relationship between Australian media and politicians' or whatever, then find a good website that says that, and point it out to us without the editorialising. If I had to pick out the point of your post on my own, I would have gone with the abandoned baby (at least, until I saw that you'd only linked to a soon-to-be useless google news feed for it).

There's so few posts relevant to Australia that it seems a pity to do one poorly. This is nothing to do with best of the web - it's not even breaking news filter, it's just a random event that you've picked as your excuse to get on a soapbox. If this was about Bush, it would be deleted for 'Bush sux amirite?'.
posted by jacalata at 7:16 AM on May 19, 2007


« Older some Tuvan throat singers.   |   Ancient Chinese Wall Inscriptions Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments