source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080724/ap_on_re_au_an/new_zealand_bizarre_names lol at "Yeah Detroit", "Number 16 Bus Shelter" and "Sex Fruit". a relevant xkcd:
lol ppl are just so weird these days when it comes to naming kids haha "Talula Does The Hula From Hawaii"
that's so dumb!!! didn't this happen in malaysia too or something?... the parents must have hated their kids *sheesh!*
I was reading this in the news as well the worse one is Sex Fruit, why the hell would you wana name your kid that....
-bowroflarms @ Yeah Detroit & Sex Fruit. lol these names are so crazy I don't think some of them can even be nicknames. LOL so funnyyy. I'm gonna name my kid Ugg. Ugg Li -tongue2
read about this in newspaper... some of the parents are just so clueless or plain foolish when it comes to naming their children... but the number 16 one isnt so bad...cos i know in some chinese families...they name their kids after like numbers...or sumfin.. eg....yeh my uncles and aunties got their own names but i call them uncle 3,4,5 etc...if ya get what i mean...
Often, when parent themselves are immature, they think that by naming their child something strange and unique, that it would be a "cool" thing that they could then show off to their friends. So, why not tattoo a political statement; or decorate the child with the latest face hardware too; or do to the child whatever foolish whimsy that would render it a nice conversation starter for the next gathering of friends? -unsure Why not? Because children are human beings too. I think that the judge ruled correctly and courageously in stopping a form of Child Abuse in which the girl's whole sense of self was yoked to a biting emotional ridicule every time someone spoke her name. Its been said that just because people can make babies, it doesn't mean that they're smart enough to have them. In this case, its rather plain to see the truth in that. The parents should have "I am stupid" tattooed to their faces. Then maybe they may better appreciate the art of proper social labeling. Stupidity isn't illegal, but it should be painful. Ralph
On the surface, your statement seems like its no brainer correct, that is, naming a child should obviously be the rightful purview or sole domain of its parents. This line of thinking has traditionally had its basis on two codependent ideas or principles of law and society; namely, (1) the age old idea that children are only a form of property; and (2) that a parent will have the child's best interests at heart (that is, not to do anything that would bring the child harm). However, in society as we know it, the second principle is easily acknowledged to be the primary guiding factor and almost always overrides the effect of the first principle. Clearly, custody (or if you will, ownership) of a child is wholly dependent on society's trust that one strictly adheres to the tenets of the second principle of fostering the child's best interests. In the case at issue, the parents have clearly demonstrated that they had lost focus of that second principle. By doing that, they abrogated or gave up their claim to the first principle (of ownership). Hence, the judge removed the child from their legal custody. Once that happened, they lost their (if you will) property rights to the child, and as such, no longer had the right to name her (or have any other say so). By legally declaring her as a ward of the court, the judge effectively made the sovereign state of New Zealand her parents. Thus, New Zealand now has the parental right to name her "anything" it wants, so long as it has her best interests at heart. Some people may disagree with this, but the majority of people in society agree with it (this system of law and adjudication), and as do I. Imperfect as it is, it nonetheless serves as a guide post towards protecting children from parents who may otherwise be the child's worst enemy. Ralph
