Peter Jackson, editor, The Northland Age
WHAT a pity it is that we don't do moral outrage in this country. Well, some do, but it is usually short-lived, often wrongly targeted and generally ineffective.
Take last week's images of a Hamilton boy celebrating his ninth birthday with eight cans of bourbon and cola and a couple of liqueur chasers, reducing him to a shambling drunk who had lost the ability to stand. If that wasn't enough to launch an on-going groundswell of public opinion against the circumstances that allowed this to happen nothing will be, but the signs aren't promising.
The boy's father has expressed concerns about their mother's parenting skills, and has promised to go to their rescue, one day, while Mum reckons she does a good job, and that this could happen to any nine-year-old. She's stuck to that story after the emergence of a photo showing two more of her children posing with bottles of beer, a photo supposedly taken at a friend's place without her knowledge. The toddler in that photo, also armed with a bottle of beer, apparently wasn't hers.
At the very least she should choose her friends with more care, but the reaction of a high-ranking policeman to the birthday bash that went wrong was the real worry. His view was that posting the images of the drunk on YouTube had revictimised him, while the new laws regarding the supplying of alcohol to minors, that came into effect last month, had not been framed with nine-year-olds in mind.
The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 decrees that no one may supply alcohol to any person under the age of 18 without the express permission of a parent or guardian of the recipient. Given that a nine-year-old boy is clearly under the age of 18, it is difficult to see how there might be any confusion. In fact, what we seem to have here is a cop who, presented with clear evidence of an offence, doesn't know what to do. Someone needs to tell him.
He did say, a little more reassuringly, that the police would be looking for the person or persons who provided the booze. Given that the identity of the culprit/s doesn't seem to be a secret, we might reasonably expect results in the very near future, at which point we will find out how effective the amendments to the law will be. If all goes according to Hoyle the punishment will be at the lower end of the scale, thereby setting a precedent that will render the legislation useless.
Meanwhile some of the outrage generated by this incident was directed at the individual who posted the images of the boy on YouTube. He said he did it to raise awareness of a problem that people didn't seem to know or care about. He also publicly identified himself, instantly setting himself apart from most of those who feed YouTube. Far from revictimising this boy, he might have saved his life. We will probably never know, but those who have vented their spleen in his direction have missed the point.
The point is that we don't have to take this rubbish from second-rate parents, from people who make and administer the law, and those who profit from the foolishness of youth. And we wouldn't have to take it if we directed our ire at those who should be doing better.
Parents who don't have a clue about raising their children might be a challenge, but the minds of politicians and bureaucrats can be focused if enough people demand a better performance, and crucially, continue demanding it until there is some improvement.
There appears to be a common philosophy in this country that ordinary people can't change anything. The people who make and administer the rules are in charge, and while we might grumble occasionally we can't do anything about that. Wrong. The fact that nothing ever seems to change has more to do with the fact that politicians and bureaucrats know that we have a short attention span. If they put their heads down and weather the storm, it will go away, because most people worry more about paying their mortgage than they do about enforcing the liquor laws. Or simply because something else will take its place. Those of us who do get angry about the likes of juvenile drunks don't stay angry enough long enough to effect change.
In fact power rests not with politicians and bureaucrats but with the people of this country. We shouldn't give up because politicians don't do what they say they will/should do and civil servants, the people who actually run the country, are beyond our ability to influence. We should refuse to accept the rubbish that is so often served up, the platitudes designed to calm us down so we forget what we were complaining about, the empty promises and inability or unwillingness to do the job that needs to be done.
As alcohol continues to wreak havoc in this country, not least amongst young people who, legally entitled to drink or not, clearly can't do so sensibly, we are witnessing the advent of another scourge, packaged vodka, unashamedly aimed at the young, to enable them to boost the alcohol content of whatever they might be drinking.
The fact that these condom packet-sized boosters are called Sneakies and Cheekies betrays the corporate thinking behind them - the customer can ramp up the kick of whatever is in their glass with no one knowing.
Brilliant. And what do we do? Nothing, apart from shaking our heads when we see a paralytic teenager vomiting on a city street or read of another victim of violence being hospitalised, or buried.
And have you noticed that so-called legal highs are still with us? For all the promises and tough talk of 2013, what has changed? Another scourge prospers, unmolested by the law, and the general public seem to have given up. We have resigned ourselves to the fact that these dreadful substances are here to stay. And they're here to stay because we are allowing them to remain on the market. We wait in vain for 'someone' to do something. They never will. At least not unless they get some encouragement from us.
If we refused to accept this, it might be different. We don't have to accept politicians' assurances that they are working on it, that they are as concerned as we are but we must be patient. Bollocks. We have enough laws in this country to sink a battleship. What we need is politicians and civil servants with the guts to enforce them.
Unless a parent or guardian says otherwise, it is illegal to supply alcohol to any person under the age of 18. End of story.
How often, in Kaitaia and elsewhere, do the police go hunting the source of the alcohol when a drunk kid turns up? As an educated guess, never. To be fair, kids who drink aren't always the most forthcoming with the information they need. Will that change with last month's amendments to the law? No it won't.
All sorts of people in this country need to pull their fingers out if we are going to slow, let alone halt, our descent into anarchy. But they won't do it without some incentive. It is up to us to provide that incentive, and to continue providing it until we see some results.
Cheers.