A Case of Officer Safety

One-Child Policy Enforcer Crushes Baby To Death After Parents Refuse To Pay “Fine”

Jurriaan Maessen
Prison Planet.com
Feb 6, 2013

A Chinese official from Wenzhou, China, crushed a 13-month old baby-boy to death by driving over him after the parents refused to pay a fine for violating China’s one-child policy.

According to AFP, a state official working to enforce China’s one-child policy drove over a 13-month old baby-boy, resulting in the infant’s death.

A news item issued by PhuketNews relates that the official had an argument with the parents as, presumably, they “violated” the one-child policy by refusing to pay a fine. The reports goes on to say that the parents acted “agitated” in response to the official’s request.

The spokesman stated that the parents of the murdered baby were “agitated” as a result of the disagreement with the one-child policy enforcer, after which the official in question drove his car over the baby. PhuketNews however reports that Wenzhou authorities were quick to label the murder as an unfortunate accident:

“After starting the car to bring the family to the office to discuss the matter, the official discovered the child had been crushed underneath the car.”

Tragically the baby died soon as a result of his wounds shortly after he was rushed to the hospital: yet another victim of China’s draconian one-child policy. The Global Post goes into more detail in regards to the fine mentioned in the AFP report:

“Under China’s population controls, instituted more than 30 years ago, couples who have more than one child must pay a “social upbringing” fine, while in some cases mothers have been forced to undergo abortions.”

….

The Global Post article also brings into memory that China’s population control policies have been increasingly subject to criticism, both from outside China and within.

“There was widespread outrage last year after a woman who had been forced to abort seven months into her pregnancy was pictured with the bloody foetus.”

On March 29, 2012, Paul Joseph Watson brought attention to the brutal face of China’s one-child policy, describing how a 9-month old baby was forcibly aborted, after which it was thrown in a bucket. Watson writes:

“Because the parents of the baby already had a child, they were hunted down and forced to comply with China’s draconian one child policy.

The mother was injected with a poison that induced an abortion, but after the baby was “pulled out inhumanly like a piece of meat,” it was still alive and began to cry before doctors slung the defenseless child into a bucket and left it to die.”

Although some may try to comfort themselves by imagining these one-child ideas are limited to China, the fact is these ideas and policies are widely held and promulgated by politicians and scientists all over the world. In 2010, Business Insider featured a post by geography professor Gary L. Peters under the headerPopulation Growth Is Still The Biggest Problem Facing Humanity.

After channeling armchair-eugenicist Alan Weisman, who stated: “The intelligent solution (to the problem of population growth) would require the courage and the wisdom to put our knowledge to the test. It would henceforth limit every human female on Earth capable of bearing children to one”, the professor added:

“Started now, such a policy would reduce Earth’s population down to around 1.6 billion by 2100, about the same as the world population in 1900. Had we kept Earth’s population at that level we would not be having this conversation.”

Who is the “we” Peters mentions that would be assigned to keep the earth’s population at any level? As John P. Holdren, Obama’s science czar, wrote in his monstrosity Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment:

“(…) a Planetary Regime- sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. (…). The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”

Such an agency exists. It is called the United Nations. After all, only a global government with a system-wide, coordinated eugenics-agenda would have the power necessary to impose such laws upon all the peoples of the world. There’s no other way to make it so.

“We can no longer wait for increasing wealth to bring down fertility in remaining high fertility nations; we need policies and incentives to stop growth now”, Peters stated in his article.

“Population growth on earth must cease”, Peters argues again. Citing eugenics-front-man Paul Ehrlich and his equation of death (I = PAT), he attempts to disarm critics of the overpopulation mantra with this spell:

“(…) I represents our impact on the Earth, P equals population, A equals affluence (hence consumption), and T stands for technology.”

Let’s not forget it’s not just professors that advocate global one child policies. CNN founder Ted Turner, who has openly stated the earth would be better off when 95% of the human population would vanish, has also professed his admiration for the Chinese (read: UN) policies. In 2010 the Globe and Mail quoted Turner as saying:

“the environmental stress on the Earth requires radical solutions, suggesting countries should follow China’s lead in instituting a one-child policy to reduce global population over time. He added that fertility rights could be sold so that poor people could profit from their decision not to reproduce.”