This is from the NZ Herald:

Prime Minister John Key has reiterated his belief no change is needed to the anti-smacking law after a new review found cases were being dealt with properly.
[...]
“Lightly smacking a child will be in the course of parenting for some parents and I think that’s acceptable,” Mr Key said.

Asked if he had just said it was acceptable to lightly smack a child, Mr Key replied “Yes, I think so” and said the law was clear that such matters should not be treated as a criminal offence [that is only true if the smack is not for the 'purpose of correction' and is given for one of the permitted reasons].

“It’s up to individual parents to decide how they’re going to parent their children. My view is that it will depend on the circumstances and how you want to raise your child,” Mr Key said.

“Some people will continue to lightly smack their child for correction, some will not. It is up to them to decide.”

Let’s get this straight: Key is endorsing a law that specifically makes it illegal to smack a child ‘for the purpose of correction’ whilst also saying the following:

• “Lightly smacking a child will be in the course of parenting for some parents and I think that’s acceptable”
• “It’s up to individual parents to decide how they’re going to parent their children”
• “Some people will continue to lightly smack their child for correction, some will not. It is up to them to decide”

Mr Key, I am very glad to hear that you agree that light smacking is acceptable, and that you think it is up to parents to make a choice about smacking for the purposes of correction. Please tell me why you continue to support a law that is contrary to what you say you believe, because I and, I suspect, a great many other New Zealanders are confused about the difference between your beliefs and your actions. I urge you to put your beliefs into action and change this law; this would also be a great way of showing respect to the 1,470,755 Kiwis who voted against the anti-smacking law in the recent referendum.

Related post:
Referendum on anti-smacking law: John Key gives the finger

~~~~~~~~~~

Here’s the full text of section 59 of the Crimes Act:

Parental State control

(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—

(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or

(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or

(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or

(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.

(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).

(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.

~~~~~~~~~~

Today Bob McCoskrie of Family First has sent out a letter titled “A personal note from Bob McCoskrie“, where he states why he is going on The March For Democracy this Saturday (the background to all this is explained in my earlier post).

In his letter Bob shows how governments have repeatedly ignored the results of citizen-initiated referenda, including the latest one on the anti-smacking law. 1.57 million people voted against that law, while Peter Dunne (who voted for the anti-smacking law) says that a petition signed by 45,000 people who wanted daylight saving extended is ‘overwhelming support’. If 45,000 is overwhelming support, what on earth is 1,570,000?

After showing how the various referenda with strong results have been ignored, Bob says

I want NZ to be a place of DEMOCRACY not DICTATORSHIP

I do not wish to criticise Bob in any way, but apparently he, like 99.99% of people, does not realise that democracy is dictatorship by the majority. Allow me to explain.

87.4% of a representative sample of the population have voted against the anti-smacking law. If they have their way and the anti-smacking law is repealed (or amended) then that 87.4% of the population will be imposing their will upon the 12.6% of the population who want the anti-smacking law retained as it is. That is dictatorship by the majority.

Presently the government is in favour of retaining the anti-smacking law without changes, so it is ignoring what is commonly called the will of the people. That is dictatorship by the minority, i.e. the 122 politicians in parliament who think that they know best.

My point is this: democracy is always a dictatorship. The real question today is this: which dictator will decide what happens to the anti-smacking law? Presently Mr Minority (the government) is deciding. I believe that it is a lesser evil when Mr Majority (the 87.4%) decides what happens to the anti-smacking law, and that is why I will be marching on Saturday.

~~~~~

Have you ever wondered why this country is a mess and why we always have dishonest politicians? When you realise which majority is ruling NZ and appointing the politicians it will all make sense. The answers are in my post The problem with democracy – Part One.

~~~~~~~~~~

The NZ Herald is reporting that

Child abuse alerts are to be placed on a national health database, so that doctors will know if there are past concerns about a family.

The little-known Medical Warning System, run by the Ministry of Health, has been traditionally used by doctors to check for patients’ allergies to drugs. But as part of an upgrade, doctors and officials plan to add notes about any record of child abuse.

So, you take little Jonny to the doctor for an ear infection and the doctor sees an alert, therefore he takes a close look at your child for signs of abuse. This is simply a means of turning doctors into unpaid policemen, if they aren’t that already: Big Brother is watching you. To put it another way, your family doctor is the eyes of Big Brother. This is a classic example of what civil rights activists call ‘function creep’, i.e. something helpful is turned into something harmful. This database plan shows that the government will take any opportunity that allows it to increase its control of citizens.

What’s the definition of abuse, the threshold for putting a child on this database? No one is sure yet, but the NZ Herald says

Starship hospital paediatrician Dr Patrick Kelly said a working group was still discussing the criteria to be used. He believed the minimum threshold would have to be a notification (a complaint about abuse or neglect) to Child Youth and Family.

If the definition of abuse is a complaint then thousands of children will be on the database without good reason, because many complaints are made when no abuse has occurred. Even if the definition of abuse was a so-called proven case of abuse we would have a major problem. Why so?  Because we live in a country where smacking ‘for the purposes of correction’ is illegal, and therefore constitutes child abuse in the state’s twisted view of the world.

So, if you give little Jonny a swat on the rump steak to teach him that flushing the cat down the toilet is a naughty deed and then Child, Youth & Family find out about it, your family doctor will be told that you’re a child abuser.

Do you, Joe Public, get any say in any of this? Of course not.

Less government, more freedom I say.

The government ignored overwhelming public opposition to the anti-smacking law.

Join the March For Democracy on November 21.

~~~~~~~~~~

Garth George’s column this week has the nauseating title “We Should All Salute Our Wonderful PM“, and it goes downhill from there. It’s what is known as a hagiography, a biography of a saint.

Go and fetch a bucket, then read this extract:

He is a man of the people, as yet unspoiled by the poisonous atmosphere of power politics, and in spite of his position and spectacular wealth remains one of us.

He is every bit at home in the company of a class of primary schoolkids as he is with the man and woman in the street, or in the company of the world’s high and mighty. He is amiable, engaging, good-natured, highly intelligent, humorous and, most of all, unaffected.

Now for a dose of reality. Recently we had a referendum where 87.4% of a representative sample of the population showed their opposition to the anti-smacking law. As I said in my earlier post, John Key’s response was thus:

I don’t care how amiable, engaging, good-natured, highly intelligent, humorous and unaffected John Key appears to be: what I do care about are his actions, and his actions show that he is not a man of the people. His actions show that he is a man who wants to rule the people.

Sociopaths are some of the most dangerous people around, and they can be engaging, good-natured, unaffected, and humorous when they want to be – that’s part of what makes them so dangerous. I’m not saying that John Key is a sociopath, but I am saying don’t judge a book by its cover.

~~~~~~~~~~

Family First NZ is repeating a call for a Commission of Enquiry into child abuse following the 18th child death since the ‘anti-smacking’ law was introduced. Read more

It just ain’t right.  The people of New Zealand have spoken and we want the right to beat the crap out of our kids.  89% of the voting Kiwis decided that “When I was nipper and did something wrong I got the crack, and it didn’t do me no harm”.  But the gutless Government who we voted in, cause we didn’t like the last lot, have caved.  Given in to the bleeding heart liberals, whale-saving tree-huggers, and those sheila’s who don’t shave their good bits.  It just ain’t right.

So what’s wrong with trying to cure the little shits of a bad attitude?  If you don’t beat it out of them when young, with love in your hand. Somebody else will later in life with a fist or something harder.  That attitude adjustment will have not a bit of love in it, I’m sure.

The ones I feel sorry for the most are the teachers.  First we tell them that can’t beat on the tykes in school, and now they can’t even do it to their own brats.  To tell the truth a teacher leaving her hand print on my arse cheek was the furthest I got with a woman for many a year.

But this raises a very serious issue of how do we control today’s sawn-off snot-noses.  Because “smacking” a child is not just about giving them what they had coming.  It is also about making sure the little bastards don’t do it again.  It’s like an animal learning the joys of the electric fence.  If it tries to get out it gets zapped; and so learns to stay where it’s dammed well told.

So if you can’t use an electric fence on a kid these days what can you use?  It may seem that they now have the run of the place and can do what they bloody well like.  But that’s not so.  They have been brought low and are more controllable than any other child since the dawn of human existence. The answer to our problem is simple and none other than “Technology”.  When I was a kid and my Mum (always my Mum) would yell and scream at me the one thing that drove fear into my heart more than “Where’s an electric fence when you need one”.  Would be “You are not watching TV”.  Thinking of those few words still brings tears to my eyes and an unfortunate accident to me trousers.  While we may have moved on since then the same principle applies.

The world has more mobile cellular telephones than there are guns in the US.  You know what the Yanks are like so you know that’s a lot.  Kids make up a huge piece of this group and their lives seem to revolve around them.  What kind of reaction would you get if instead of smacking or electrocuting, you simply took away their phone?  How are they going call their mates or send “nudie” pics to all in sundry?  Sure in the US the kid would just pull out a gun, but for the rest of us this would be a great deterrent for misbehaviour.

Of course this does not end with taking the phone.  If you want to up the torture then take away their internet access and they will be putty in your hands.  No access to Facebook or Twitter so they can’t moon over that bloody vampire boy and they will soon step into line.

There is one final level of punishment.  But it’s only to be used on those wee mites who have seen all the “Saw” films and found them either cute or hilarious.  This final act will either cure them or send them downward into a spiralling psychotic state from which there is no return.  But then again if they are causing you that much grief, what’s the harm.  Take away there MP3 players or iPods.  There I said it and I’m not ashamed.  Call me a monster or call the cops. Go call those unshaven sheila’s at child protection services. I don’t care.  I believe in tough love, and if the kids don’t like it then tough.

So that’s my solution for getting the little monsters under control.  If this fails to work the only other solution is to go online and take a “smacking” contract out on them.  The cops can’t touch you then.  Just make sure you use anonymous proxy servers, and delete the browser history, and stuff like that to cover your tracks.  You might want to ask your ten year old neighbour to check that you done it right.  Those little blighters know what their doing when it comes to computers and setting the clock on your VCR..

I caught a story a few days ago about a 14 year old girl who got on a school bus in Yazoo City, Mississippi and pulled a gun.  It was widely reported with particular attention applied to the bravery of the boy who disarmed her and defused a situation that could have been tragic.  But what I have failed to find in any of the reports is why the girl did it.  It was reported, somebody “…on the bus was either messing with her or picking on her.”  But that’s not a reason to pull a loaded gun on someone; well at least I don’t think so.

The online edition of the New Zealand Herald has been reporting a lot of violence, the last couple of days, involving children.  A YouTube fight, in-class beatings, school “invasions” and that’s just from one article.  Let’s not forget last month’s rugby field incident.  Then there’s a report from the US of a man slapping a toddler to shut her up.  Then we have the horror of what two brothers (aged 10 and 12) in the UK did to two boys aged 9 and 11.  So we go from one extreme of kids having a “punch up” to dropping a sink on a child’s head, with a gun somewhere in between.

The fact that I am only paying more attention to this now reflects as poorly on me as the actual incidents.  This happens every day in some part of the world, and worse.  It is reported; we voice our obligatory outrage and then wait for the next time.  What has raised this issue above the “general” evils of the world for me was the attention paid to the “Anti-smacking” law.  I did not vote as I felt it had no real effect on me, having no kids.  But it did make me read, enquire and think.

The crux of the matter is that on one hand, you have parents saying that they have the right to discipline their children any way they see fit.  On the other side are the rights of the child to enjoy the same legal protection, to be free of violence, afforded to any adult in this country.  After thinking about this I have to side with the second and support the law as it is now.

Violence involving children, whether on, by, or between is a virus.  I use the term virus because we may try to kill it off, but it still seems to be here.  Maybe the “Anti-smacking” law, as a law, isn’t the point.  Maybe it’s simply a symbol, “a line in the sand” or a big red “Stop” sign that says violence isn’t the answer and should not be tolerated in a civilised society no matter who is dishing it out, or who is receiving it.

If I remember my literary references correctly, the “Augustans” believed that we were born with sin and it had to be beaten out of us.  The “Romantics” on the other hand believed we were born pure and that it was the world around us that corrupted us.  I’m certainly not saying that smacking or non-smacking are either cause or the cure for what ails the world.  But those people in the above stories learnt somewhere that violence, to some degree or another was the answer to their problems.  Those fights reported in the Herald had instances where bats were being brought to the fight.  Violence begets violence and it usually escalates.  Where they learnt it from I don’t know but I doubt it could be attributed to a single incident. If we start young and teach them that all forms of violence are wrong no matter the person, situation, or provocation, then maybe we can do some good and not have to read the same terrible headlines again and again.  Maybe the law will not cure the world’s ills.  But it is time to give it more than just lip service and a chance to change our behaviour and give the kids a better future.

The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.

Deborah Coddington is supposedly a libertarian, a person “passionately advocating individual liberty”, according to the cover of her 1998 book Liberty Belle. Now she says this:

Here’s a question for the Act Party: If its leader would sacrifice his ministerial portfolio for his “one law for all” policy, why does this party of principle advocate a different law for children when someone accused of perpetrating violence against a child comes before the court?

I cringe when I read overseas headlines proclaiming that despite New Zealand’s dreadful reputation for child abuse, we want to defy international trends and bring back pro-smacking legislation [1].

How to explain why we’d do this, especially if you talk about child murders like James Whakaruru or Nia Glassie? [2]

Commentators who sneer Sue Bradford’s law change hasn’t saved a child from death miss the point.

It’s illegal to hit an adult but that doesn’t stop adults from murdering each other. [3] (source)

That is not a libertarian position. A libertarian does not support a law which restricts personal liberty by making it illegal for parents to use force for “the purposes of correction”. A libertarian does not support a law by which a totalitarian nanny state controls how parents respond when their children misbehave. As for calling a smack – usually a swat on the rump steak or similar – “violence”, that is a gross distortion of the truth befitting a Marxist like Sue Bradford and conduct unbecoming for a libertarian.

Deborah Coddington has lost the plot and I cannot consider someone who holds her views to be a libertarian or a passionate advocate for individual liberty. Perhaps she’s headed back to her left wing roots.

~~~~~~~~~

1. Coddington has fallen for the fallacy/lie which says that outlawing smacking will reduce child abuse, and making smacking legal again will lead to a rise in child abuse.

2. This argument is specious in the extreme because it’s pretty obvious that the people who murdered these children won’t be bothered by an anti-smacking law.

3. They don’t miss the point, but Coddington does here. People point out (“sneer”) that the anti-smacking law doesn’t save lives because for a long time Bradford said that the anti-smacking law was about reducing child abuse. When she announced her anti-smacking bill she said “Section 59 [of the Crimes Act, which then permitted smacking] adds to the whole culture of abuse of children that is still so rampant in New Zealand society”. Several years later she said “the epidemic of child abuse and child violence in this country continues. My bill was never intended to solve this problem” (source). As I said in my earlier post, Sue Bradford Is A Liar.

~~~~~~~~~~

The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.

So, 87% of those who sent in a referendum response said that smacking should not be a criminal offence. Then John Key said:

"Up Yours"

John Key also said

“The referendum result reinforces the message that New Zealand parents do not want to see themselves criminalised for a light smack” (source)

Ten out of ten John. For your information, section 59 of the crimes act does criminalise those parents who give a “light smack” for the “purposes of correction”.  You cannot “give parents comfort” that they will “not be criminalised for lightly smacking their children” unless you repeal the law. When you try to give comfort to parents whilst refusing to repeal the law you are like a fireman who tries to give comfort to a person trapped in a car whilst refusing to attempt to free that person.

87.4% of a representative sample of New Zealanders have sent this message to you. Why are you ignoring the message? Perhaps you have purchased Helen Clark’s jackboots. Perhaps you have forgotten that you are appointed to serve, not to rule.

I see that John Key will kill John Boscawen’s bill which aims to amend the anti-smacking law. Boscawen’s proposal would be a great improvement on the present situation, but it is still totalitarian in so far as it allows the state to control how parents respond when their children misbehave. When the state defines our “rights” it in fact limits our rights, and Boscawen’s bill would have this effect. Consider this: how did people become so dependent on the state that they think that the state must define what is good and acceptable parenting?

As I say, Boscawen’s proposal would be a great improvement on the present situation, but there are a couple of major flaws in it:

1. It would criminalise cruel and degrading punishment. Whilst I am not in favour of this type of punishment, the problem is that these are subjective intangibles and thus the interpretation of the meaning of them is wide open: for example, a judge might decide that was degrading to smack a child in public and send a parent to prison for doing so.
2. It would not allow the use of instruments. A good purpose-built smacking instrument, an example of which I have seen used, delivers trifling and transitory pain with extremely low risk of injury (because only a light swat is required to induce a corrective effect and the design makes it difficult to inflict injury). On the other hand, it is very easy to inflict bruising when smacking with a hand, and if Boscawen’s bill was passed you’d be a criminal for doing so.

The bottom line is this: the state has no right to control how parents respond when a child misbehaves. John Key should heed the message and decriminalise “light smacking”.

What do you think about John Key’s response to the referendum result?

~~~~~~~~~~

With the referendum on smacking at a go and media reporting rather one sided in favor of the so called YES vote. The Vote NO site gives you the other side of the story. The site is understood to be an initiative of Family First, and appears to be supported by the For the Sake of Our Children Trust, FIANZ, the Pasefika Trust, the Fact and Family Trust, the Sensible Sentencing Trust, Unity for Liberty, Focus on the Family, Cross Power and Family Life NZ.

The FAQ page consists of highly condensed yet to the point information in relation to the issues at hand: is the law working, prevention v correction, did this law help stopping child abuse, smacking and minor acts of physical discipline and more. So for those that want to hear the other side of the story as well I recommend you check the site out.

I do recommend you read the pamphlets with real life cases resulting from this law either here >>> or the case descriptions on the Family First website.

In addition to the site itself, you could have a look at the blog, follow this site on twitter or join their facebook group.

Also check out The Yes Vote Fail site for a slightly lighter approach, where I found the videos below.

The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.

Larry Baldock, leader of the Kiwi Party

The Kiwi Party has issued a press release which is full of economic fallacies and is quoted here in blue and in full:

The anti-smacking TV One Colmar Brunton poll released today shows opposition to the law remains strong and consistent at 83% opposed to the criminalisation of good parents who occasionally smack.

Referendum Petition organiser Larry Baldock said the other result from the poll was that 3 out 4 New Zealanders felt the cost of the referendum was a waste of money, and that is not surprising.

“However, since the referendum requires the cost of at least two letters being posted to 3 million registered voters, and the return of the voting papers by prepaid return, NZ Post will be receiving a Government investment of at least $3-4 million,” said Mr Baldock.

It’s not a “government investment” in NZ Post. NZ Post is a SOE (State Owned Enterprise), so the government has taken $9 million from taxpayers at gunpoint for the referendum and given $3-4 million of that to one of its organs. It’s not a “government investment” in NZ Post, it’s a reshuffling of stolen money that the government possesses (I am reminded of those people who rearranged deck chairs on the Titanic).

“This cost could definitely have been avoided if the referendum had been held at the election last year when voters were going to the polls anyway.

Baldock twice describes the referendum as a “cost”, yet he also twice uses the word “investment”. There is an internal contradiction here, because a cost is money down the toilet (not necessarily wasteful, but definitely a reduction in wealth), whereas spending is only an investment if you have a reasonable expectation of receiving back more than you spent (a profit/increase in wealth) in the future.

Also, the cost would not have been “avoided” if the referendum had been held at the election last year, only reduced. The cost of the referendum could only have been avoided if Sue Bradford, Helen Clark, et al had listened to the people instead of imposing their will upon them.

“Given that most of the estimated $9 million cost of the referendum will be spent on postage, printing, advertising and employing staff for counting etc, it cannot be considered a waste. For a start the Government will get some of the money back from its SOEs like NZ Post and TV One, as well as the GST from money spent elsewhere in the economy.

How can the government get money “back” from SOEs, which are part of itself? You don’t put your money on your foot, then pick it up and say “I’ve got my money back”. As for the GST, that’s just government money travelling in circles at great cost to the taxpayers. Baldock is correct in describing the referendum as a “cost”: it’s a cost that taxpayers like yourself have paid at gunpoint.

“If Government spending in infrastructure is an investment in the economy and the future of our country then so is the referendum”.

This sentence and the paragraph before reek of Keynsian socialism, i.e. that government spending on the economy is a good thing. Ludwig von Mises refutes the beliefs of Baldock and Keynes very well:

At the bottom of the interventionist argument there is always the idea that the government or the state is an entity outside and above the social process of production, that it owns something which is not derived from taxing its subjects, and that it can spend this mythical something for definite purposes. This is the Santa Claus fable raised by Lord Keynes to the dignity of an economic doctrine and enthusiastically endorsed by all those who expect personal advantage from government spending. As against these popular fallacies there is need to emphasize the truism that a government can spend or invest only what it takes away from its citizens and that its additional spending and investment curtails the citizens’ spending and investment to the full extent of its quantity. [emphasis added]

Back to Baldock…

In my opinion, the cost benefit ratio of reversing this ill-conceived socially destructive law will far outweigh a similar amount spent on a road.”

I agree with this, but of course the cost should never have arisen in the first place.

“As I have been saying in my radio ads, there are now only two people who can waste this money, the voter who does not vote, and John key if he refuses to listen.”

That’s a nice sound bite, but I believe that the money spent on the referendum was in effect wasted by those who passed a law which was clearly opposed by at least 83% of the population. However, since we are forced to spend the money it is lamentable to avoid voting. Also, if John Key ignores the referendum result he will be endorsing the wastage bought about by those who passed the law.

Keynsian policies are responsible for much of the destruction of private wealth wrought by governments today. I support the Kiwi Party’s opposition to the anti-smacking law, but when it comes to economics the party is somewhere between woeful and pestilential, as shown by the economic nonsense in this press release.

John Key is also a Keynsian socialist and follows the same fallacies.

What do you think about the quote from Mises (in green) and the points that I have made?

~~~~~

Hat tip: Family Integrity

~~~~~~~~~~

Related posts:

Arrant arrogance (read this first)

John Key shows his arrogance (he is the paternalistic enemy now)

If you want to be free to parent then put your money where your mouth is

The anti-smacking law will cause the death of children

Sue Bradford’s arrogance regarding the anti-smacking bill

If you want to read more use the category selector on the right.

The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.

The NZ Herald is continuing its anti-smacking campaign and quotes Member of Parliament Nikki Kaye as saying

New National MP Nikki Kaye said she could not comfortably vote on the [referendum] question.

“My worry is that many people I talk to see a ‘yes’ vote as a vote to reduce family violence and a ‘no’ vote as a vote to stop the Government interfering and telling them how to bring up their kids. I believe in reducing family violence and Government interference in people’s lives.”

“I believe in… Government interference in people’s lives“.

It doesn’t get any plainer than that, and her statement confirms what I’ve been saying since I started this blog. Sorry, but I can’t resist this: I TOLD YOU SO.

~~~~~

Paula Bennett is also a totalitarian, so she and Nikki Kaye should start a club. The details are in my earlier post titled…

Paula Bennett claims ownership of all New Zealand children

How many other National Members of Parliament are eligible to join this evil cabal?

~~~~~~~~~~

The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.

Who's the monkey that's running this referendum?

This is from Sideswipe:

A reader writes: “Doesn’t the TV referendum info-vertisement showing the voting paper being given a tick in the ‘Yes’ box actually contaminate the democratic process?”

I haven’t seen the advertisement, but if that is true it is somewhere between a breach of ethics and outright manipulative corruption. In view of the number of the government’s organs and allies that have come out with pro-smacking opinions lately I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this was a deliberate ploy on the part of the government.

Then there’s the see-through envelopes which are provided for returning your ballot paper. That’s real banana-republic behaviour if ever I saw it. I am 99% certain that mail is read and sorted by machine unless the machines can’t read the address, so we’re reasonably safe.

~~~~~~~~~~

Posted via web from John Dierckx

Posted via web from John Dierckx

I understand that the government wants to crack down on domestic violence against children, who doesn’t, but I don’t think this law is going to target and truly change those specific people:

- One click won’t reveal Who or Where you are. It’s completely anonyms -

Please leave a comment; I’d like to know what your thoughts are.

The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.

In my earlier post I put up videos showing Sue Bradford’s lies and arrogance regarding the anti-smacking law. Now I’ll show you that John Key is no better.

Not long before the anti-smacking law was passed Key said

The Labour Government has shown utter contempt for New Zealanders and the democratic process with its plan to railroad the anti-smacking bill through Parliament…

“The Labour-led Government knows the measure is deeply unpopular, so it plans to act against the wishes of the majority of Kiwis and ram the bill through under urgency.

“This is a deeply cynical abuse of power as Labour tries to clear the decks of this controversial issue.

“Helen Clark has refused to let her MPs vote the way they really think on this bill. To ram it through under the cover of urgency shows just how out of touch her government has become.

“Now, not content with riding over the top of the wishes of some of her MPs, she wants to ride over the top of the wishes of the majority of New Zealanders – while she’s out of the country.

“The Prime Minister also knows that she has been caught out saying one thing about the smacking ban before the election, and giving a different answer afterwards.

“This is arrogant and cynical government at its very worst. This is not about good law, this is about Labour’s political damage control.” (source)

Key then went on to vote for the law, so by his own definition he was and still is

• showing utter contempt for New Zealanders and the democratic process
• supporting a law that he knows is deeply unpopular
• acting against the wishes of the majority of Kiwis
• riding over the top of the wishes of the majority of New Zealanders
• participating in arrogant and cynical government at its very worst
• guilty of saying different things at different times on one subject, just as he accuses of Labour of doing

Later, after after the anti-smacking law was passed, John Key demonstrated his arrogance, just as Sue Bradford did in her video:

[Question from the public] Seeing as both parties went against over 80 per cent of the population to repeal Section 59 (the provision that allowed parents to smack their children) what will they do when the referendum says to reinstate it – will they follow the wishes of the public or think they know best?
Dorothy Brown, Rangiora

[John Key] The purpose of putting up the compromise position that we did was to ensure that the law would be administered as we thought was appropriate, which is to give parents some leeway for lightly smacking a child. Inconsequentially smacking a child was something that the police would not investigate. So our view is as long as the police continue to administer the law as the compromise intended and we don’t see examples where good parents are criminalised for lightly smacking a child, then we think the law’s working. As I have said if we see examples where good parents are criminalised for lightly smacking a child then we will actively seek to change the law but I am confident that the law is working and will continue to work.

We’ll have respect for what the referendum says, but it wouldn’t make us change our mind because there is no point in changing the law if it is working as intended but what it should do I think is give any future Parliament the confidence to know that they should take the steps to change the law if the law isn’t administered in the way that I think this Parliament intended it to be. (Emphasis added. Taken from my earlier post)

Isn’t it wonderful having the internet, which makes it so easy to find out who which hypocritical, arrogant, totalitarian politicians want to tell people how to raise their children. Key has no real respect for public opinion, but we should still make a stand for freedom:

Related posts:

Arrant arrogance (read this first)

The anti-smacking law lets citizens be agents of state terrorism

If you want to be free to parent then put your money where your mouth is

The anti-smacking law will cause the death of children

Sue Bradford’s arrogance regarding the anti-smacking bill

If you want to read more use the category selector on the right.

~~~~~~~~~~

The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.

Freethinker, who comments on Kiwiblog, saw my earlier post that has a video of Sue Bradford telling lies and asked if I had any information regarding her criminal record. Sadly I have only found a broad picture, and that she’s proud of her criminal convictions (maybe that’s why she wants to give parents who smack a criminal record).

In her own words…

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : I am taking the opportunity to speak briefly in the debate tonight because I am aware, as several speakers have already pointed out, that I am one of a select number of MPs who are personally affected by the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act, which resulted from my colleague Nandor Tanczos’ member’s bill. I have had to bite my tongue a few times during this debate, as, in fact, I am one of an even more select few in the House who has no desire to wipe any of my convictions from the public record. My criminal record started when I had just left school and was taking part in anti – Vietnam War demonstrations in Auckland, and there is no question that it hampered my career options earlier on, and later adversely affected applications for bail and sentencing outcomes in court. However, and at the same time, I have never resiled from what my convictions stood for in my personal and political life, whether they arose from the anti-war demos in the 1960s, the 1981 Springbok tour mobilisation, nuclear-free and women’s liberation campaigns, or later on from actions taken with the unemployed workers movement. I have no desire to be clean-slated, and I am just as proud of my convictions as I am of the other parts of my CV, like university degrees or job histories. (source)

So, a person who has sworn to uphold the laws of New Zealand is proud of breaking those laws. Am I imagining things, or that hypocrisy? Hypocrisy and the aforementioned lying are both forms of dishonesty.

On another day Bradford said

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : I stand here in Parliament this evening to make one last plea to my fellow MPs—whatever political party they come from—to consider having the courage to cast a vote in favour of the decriminalisation of prostitution.
[...]
How can the arresting of women empower them? How can putting them through the degrading processes of police custody and a court appearance, followed by the appearance of a conviction on their criminal record—which will dog them for the rest of their lives—free them or empower them? In what way will the arresting of women make it easier for women to exit the sex industry when a prostitution-related conviction is one of the major barriers to future employment or career advancement?

I do not know how many of the feminists and women MPs who oppose this bill have been through multiple experiences of strip-searching, arrest, imprisonment, police violence, and conviction, as I have. I would like to assure them that these are not experiences, in any context, that are likely, in any way, to improve one’s self-esteem or ability to enter straight, upside employment. (source)

“I would like to assure them that these are not experiences, in any context, that are likely, in any way, to improve one’s … ability to enter straight, upside employment.” So that’s why she found employment in parliament.

~~~~~

A democracy is not a meritocracy, and having democracy means having criminals in power. This is explained in my post The problem with democracy – part one.

~~~~~~~~~~

The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.

We’re just about to have a referendum on the anti-smacking law. Here’s a timely reminder of the personal integrity of the lady (please forgive me for the terminological inexactitude) who first put the bill forward:

If her cause was true and just she would have no need to lie.

She lied to bring in the anti-smacking law, and then her arrogance went from obvious to blindingly obvious:

As I said in my earlier post:

Even if a marxist swears that he is telling the truth, don’t believe him. Why not? Because a true marxist will follow the words of Trotsky in Their Morals and Ours: “A means can be justified only by its end.”

In other words, if you’re a marxist whatever you want to do is okay if it aids in achieving your goal. Lying, cheating, stealing, and murder are all fine under this credo. Thus, even if a marxist swears that he’s telling the truth you can’t believe him because breaking an oath is fine under his belief system.

In this case Bradford’s end (goal) was state control of the raising of children, and her means was lies such as this one.

So far she’s been successful: see my post The anti-smacking law lets citizens be agents of state terrorism for details.

Now you have an opportunity to make a stand for freedom:

Related posts:

Arrant arrogance (read this first)

The anti-smacking law lets citizens be agents of state terrorism

John Key shows his arrogance (he is the paternalistic enemy now)

If you want to be free to parent then put your money where your mouth is

The anti-smacking law will cause the death of children

If you want to read more use the category selector on the right.

~~~~~

A democracy is not a meritocracy, and having democracy means having criminals in power. This is explained in my post The problem with democracy – part one.

~~~~~~~~~~

The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.

• “Smacking” here primarily means a swat on the rump steak or similar given for the purposes of correction/training. In some circumstances greater force is reasonable, e.g. when a thirteen year old is smashing up your lounge. Proportionality is the key.

The upcoming referendum has seen the anti-smacking brigade in full voice again, and their strong desire to control how parents respond when children misbehave provokes a question…

Why do people object to smacking? The full answer to that would take thousands of words because there are many reasons why people object to smacking, so today I’m going to concentrate on two of those reasons.

*****Reason 1-> I believe that many people object to smacking because they have been smacked by inconsistent parents. Inconsistent parents will punish the same offence in different ways at different times, so the child does not know that a smack will be the consequence of the offence before he commits the offence. Indeed, he may have breached the parental rules without even knowing that what he was doing was “illegal”. Children need clear boundaries and routine in order to feel safe and secure, so naturally inconsistent parenting will make the child feel anxious: think about what it’s like walking on thin ice or an ice-covered footpath and you don’t know what’s going to happen next. A child raised by inconsistent parents who smack is likely to grow up and have negative associations with smacking.

*****Reason 2-> I believe that many people object to smacking because they have been smacked by angry parents, therefore they understandably associate smacking with a scary – even terrifying – event.

Now, let’s have a very brief look at how things should be done:

*****A-> As I said, children need clear boundaries and routine in order to feel safe and secure, so parents need to tell children what the rules are and the reasoning behind those rules (just explain the rules, you should not attempt to justify them unless you want your children to rule over you. There’s no problem with respectful questions from children who are seeking clarification).

The parents also need to tell the children what the consequences will be for various types of offences. That way a child knows that “If I set fire to the cat I will get a smack” and there’s no surprises, so the kid can feel safe and secure when smacked by a calm parent. Yes, he’ll be distressed, but that’s something different: effective correction/training requires distress (e.g. a fine causes distress, as does “time out”), which is different to the fear caused by an angry parent and the anxiety caused by an inconsistent parent.

*****B-> Smacking should not been done by an angry parent under any circumstances. The parent should be calm and smack with the intention of delivering the consequences of the child’s actions, usually minor and transitory pain (this is consistent with the laws of nature: if a child touches a hot stove he feels pain and learns that touching a hot stove is the wrong thing to do). The smack should be followed by a quick hug or something that signals to the child that his relationship with the parent is intact (not a pity party or a bag of lollies as an apology for the smack).

That is a very simplistic explanation of a very complex topic and I haven’t attempted to look at how things work at the different stages of child development, but I’m sure that you get the general idea.

Although some people have understandable negative associations when it comes to smacking, that does not excuse them when they attempt to control how other people raise their children.

What do you think about the points I have raised here?

How would you answer the question “why do people object to smacking?

~~~~~

Related posts:

The anti-smacking law lets citizens be agents of state terrorism

Update: The anti-smacking law lets citizens be agents of state terrorism

Arrant arrogance (summary of the issues)

John Key shows his arrogance (he is the paternalistic enemy now)

~~~~~~~~~~

The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.

This is an update to my earlier post The anti-smacking law lets citizens be agents of state terrorism.

The NZ Herald is reporting that

The number of minor assaults on children reported to police has jumped by 40 per cent since hitting a child for “correction” became a criminal offence two years ago.

The latest police report on the effects of the law shows reported minor assaults on children went up from an average of 32 a month in the three months before the law changed to 45 a month in the 21 months after the change.

(Note that this refers to reports made to police: you also have to consider the increase in reports made to CFY {Child Youth & Family}. Click here to view a graph of those.)

So, the state’s plan for controlling how parents respond when their children misbehave is working just as I described in my earlier post. When parents know that the they are being watched and that plenty of people are willing to report them to the state authorities those parents modify their parenting methodology in order to avoid trouble. Legally and effectively the state now controls the raising of every child in New Zealand, which is utterly evil.

These citizen-spies are beneath contempt.

~~~~~~~~~~

The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.

• The following is based on an account given to me by the family concerned.

• “Smacking” here primarily refers to a swat on the rump steak or similar used for the purposes of correction (parental training), although there are situations where greater force is reasonable. See also footnote 3.

• Remember that the anti-smacking law was opposed by at least 83% of the population, therefore making smacking illegal was the will of the state, not of the population. Do you still think that the state serves the people? See my earlier post on that. Click here for full background information on the anti-smacking law.

• Terrorise: 1.to coerce or control by violence, fear, threats, etc. 2.to inspire with dread (Collins English Dictionary).

~~~~~~

Last year my friends’ two year old had a very loud tantrum and the neighbour next door heard this, whereupon he (the neighbour) knocked on the door and asked if the child was alright. A legitimate response to this would have been “Leave my property now and mind your own business, you interfering busybody”, but of course that would have been familial suicide: the state storm troopers (police and CYF, Child Youth & Family) would have been around quicker than you can say “Jack Robinson”, probably snatching the children on a presumption of guilt. At best the family would have been on the state surveillance list forever. So my friend produced the child to show the predatory polecat from next door that the child was unharmed and simply crying. Surely she was inspired with dread.

So, what’s happened here?

1. state propaganda has told this neighbour that smacking children is a bad thing (calling this untermensch a “neighbour” is a misuse of the term – a true neighbour helps – but I’ll use that word here despite this).
2. state evil has made smacking illegal and therefore a so-called crime that has to be investigated. Effectively the state has altered the moral code of the nation, albeit with the assistance of those idiots who think that the government knows best.
3. making smacking a crime legitimised investigation and interference by citizens who suspect that a “crime” has been committed, much as someone might intervene in a mugging (which, unlike smacking, is an actual crime against property and person).
4. The neighbour effectively said “Prove to me that your child is ok or I will call the state authorities who can arrest you and take your children away”. So, now the state laws have allowed one citizen to control the actions of and terrorise another citizen (see the definition above). To put it another way, making smacking illegal allowed those pestilential people who want to control how other people raise their children to do so.
5. the neighbour knocked on the door and effectively became a state thug, a spy, a cop, and an agent of state terrorism. If you don’t believe me consider this: would my friend have responded any differently if the police or CYF had knocked on the door? Of course not, because the neighbour had the overwhelming power of the state behind him, so my friend responded just as she would have responded to state thugs with badges. There was no material difference between having the neighbour knocking on the door and the badged ones knocking on the door. The worst part is that this nasty individual chose to enforce the will of the state: he was not under any compulsion to do so.

Therein is the crux of the matter: state terrorism against parents cannot succeed without the willing co-operation of individual citizens, usually those who love to meddle in other people’s affairs and/or need power to make them feel happy and important. Totalitarian systems rely upon citizen-spies who report to the state, and this country is full of citizen-spies, which is why there was an increase of more than 30% in the quantity of reports made by these quislings to CYF in the year following the introduction of the anti-smacking law¹.

Now, let’s go back in time and have a look at another example of the same thing, which will show you that this type of action by citizen-spies is part of a historical pattern and not confined to the era of the anti-smacking law. We’re going to go to the McCarthy epoch (1947-57), when the state  – the USA – whipped up public hysteria and paranoia regarding communists, much as the state has whipped up hysteria and paranoia regarding smacking today: in both cases gullible individuals willingly swallowed the lies and chose to become agents of the state operating against their fellow citizens (may the fleas of a thousand camels infest them).

Tom Watson was the president of IBM during the McCarthy rampage, and in his autobiography he says

…at that point the country was in a terrible state of paranoia because of the Red scare. Senator Joe McCarthy was holding hearings and claiming to find Communists in every crack in the wall. There was a moment when I truly thought IBM was going to lose its shot at defense work because of the type of window blinds I had in my office. Window blinds in those days were almost all horizontal – ordinary Venetian blinds. But vertical blinds had just been developed, and some had been ordered for me. An IBM engineer was in my office one day for a meeting and he was interested in getting the same kind of blinds for his office, so he drew a little diagram of how they were attached to axles on the floor and the ceiling. He put that little piece of paper in his shirt pocket and forget about it. A few days later the man who did the engineer’s laundry was checking the shirt before putting it in the washer, and he found that little slip of paper – just a diagram with no explanation. McCarthy [Sue Bradford] had so spooked this country that everybody thought everybody else was a Red [child beater]. So the laundry man sent the paper to McCarthy, and pretty soon the Senate investigators came and said to the engineer, “We’ve identified this as the plan for a radar antenna, and we want to hear about it. We want to be perfectly fair [yeah right]. But we know it is a radar antenna  and the shirt it was found in belongs to you.”

The guy said, “Oh for Chrissake, those are the blinds in Watson’s office!”

So they asked to see me. When they came to the office they explained what the engineer had told them and I said, “Well, those blinds are right here.” I showed them how the blinds worked. They looked them over very carefully and them left. I thought that I had contained it, but I wasn’t sure, and I was scared [he was inspired with dread, i.e. terrorised]. We were working on a SAGE [a government defence project worth millions to IBM], and it would have been a hell of a way to lose our security clearance².

Clearly, when the government goes on a witch hunt certain reprehensible people turn into citizen-spies with the might of the government behind them. Examples of this can be found in every totalitarian society including, as we have seen, New Zealand. The anti-smacking law contains many evils, and one of those is that it lets citizens be agents of state terrorism³.

Click here to view an update to this post.

What do you think about those people who interfere when they hear a child staging a tantrum?

Remember that the vast majority – 99% or more is my guess – of screaming and crying that is done by children and seen or heard by the public is either a tantrum or childish distress about something harmless (“I’ve dropped my ice cream”). Most children have learnt that they can get whatever they want if they throw a big enough tantrum, so they turn on all the theatrics and fireworks, which tricks a lot of people into thinking that there is an actual problem. A child screaming in a life threatening situation will make make your blood curdle, whereas as a child screaming in a tantrum is simply annoying. The media delivers the government line about rampant child abuse, but in fact serious child abuse is very rare (unless you consider sending a child to a state school to be serious child abuse ).

~~~~~~~~~~

Click here to see other examples of citizen-spies (including children) making false reports of smacking to the state authorities.

There’s a referendum regarding the anti-smacking law coming up: click here to learn more and see a list of related posts.

~~~~~~~~~~

1. source

2. Father Son & Co. by Thomas J Watson Jr and Peter Petre, p234-5

3. Because the anti-smacking law removed the legal justification (defence) of using reasonable force (usually smacking) for the purposes of correction and defined the permissible uses of force the way is now wide open for the public and state employees to terrorise parents and justify this by claiming that they did so because they suspected that force was used by parents for correction or some other purpose not permitted by the new legislation (click here to view it). You can see this happening in some of these cases.

In military parlance this feature of the law is a force multiplier, i.e. it makes the law more effective from the state’s perspective. The desired effect of the law is of course state control of children, state control of parenting, and state control of the public’s beliefs regarding smacking and parenting in general. State control of families is a goal clearly stated in the Communist Manifesto.

~~~~~~~~~~

ABOUT half the country will be voting in the anti-smacking law referendum – if a street poll carried out by a Newswire team is any indication.

Of 35 asked in the poll in Wellington’s central city, 16 said they would vote, 13 won’t vote and seven said they “didn’t know”.

Some revealed they were confused about the ambiguity of the question and others did not know the referendum was about reinstating the former law.

In an unusual coincidence, one of those polled is the man running the referendum, Murray Wicks.

“I think my answers will be somewhat biased because I’m actually running it,” he told Whitireia NewsWire. “I’m from the Electoral Enrolment Centre.”

Bernadette Edwards believed the Act was: “… turning our kids into criminals because they get away with it without being disciplined…I’ve got two teenage sons and they bribe me with ‘You can’t tell me off or smack me or anything like that.’”

An opposing view from Tania Forrest was that the bill should stay as it is: “… I think it sets a benchmark to society to say that it’s not okay to hit your kids but maybe they should have changed the name to ‘anti-violence’ or something.”

Read the full story here: http://tinyurl.com/nmyjol