A letter to Chen Guangcheng
Chen Guangcheng the Chinese blind dissident objects to the China
One Child Policy and Forced Abortions.
I am led to believe that a Chinese family can have more children if they choose but pay more tax as a deterrent. Your country has long been aware that this planet has limited resources and can ill afford to support a population explosion. If the father, and/or mother is unable to pay the tax then the mother will, under the rule of law, require an abortion. Is it the misuse of this law that you object to? ie. the deliberate killing of female babies.
Are you aware Chen that In NZ and most countries of “the free world” children are ripped away from their fathers immediately the mother and father no longer live together?”¦”¦. “¦”¦.Rather than to have equal shared care of the children where possible, the family Court, with very few exceptions, grants day to day care to the mother, achieving this under the law through a small bit of detail stating, “meeting the best interests of the child”. The injustice of this pernicious and sexist ruling has driven many men to suicide, depression and cast a deep wound in many fatherless children. You may ask why you don’t see many articles in the media regarding these matters. This is due to the way the justification of “ the best interests of the child”, is laid out in the court ruling. Because it is always connected to personal details of the parties, which often is where the gender bias reasoning is apparent, a Judge has the right to become the editor, (unbiased of course), of any journalistic article created. However, there is no rule stopping a journalist attending a hearing and attempting to report on it, much in the same way a Chinese journalist is ‘free’ to report on any topic in Chinese society.
If you come to live in the West Chen, you will see that the purpose of policy is not always transparent and social injustice survives even here if it is driven by fundamentalist ideology. The Political philosopher John Rawls asks what principles of social justice would be chosen by parties thoroughly knowledgeable about human affairs in general but wholly deprived-by the “veil of ignorance”-of information about the particular person or persons they represent? On that theory, what mother or child would possible accept policy that could deprive them, should they have been a father, the right to live with their child for half of the time where possible? The main criterion laid down for the day to day care of the child is a simplistic term , so simplistic that you could drive a truck through it and Judges have proved themselves bloody good truck drivers.
In coming to the West you will face much heartache should you become a solo father my friend.