• Vote “No” for freedom to parent

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.

• Update: Govt forces folic acid into bread

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

This is an update to my earlier post Govt forces folic acid into bread.

This is from Stuff:

Rules forcing bakers to add folic acid to bread could be scrapped within months of coming into force if the Government secures a review.

Food Safety Minister Kate Wilkinson said yesterday that she could reverse the 2007 decision to make folic acid mandatory in most bread from September regardless of the outcome of the review.

But there is a catch folic acid fortification was agreed under the trans-Tasman food safety treaty and Australian agreement is needed for any review.

That is unlikely before the next ministerial meeting in October, a month after the requirement takes effect.

Ms Wilkinson said New Zealand would lobby for support ahead of the summit and, if agreed, the review could be completed by January.

She believed New Zealand would then be free to take a fresh look at folic acid in bread.

“If the review is in place [completed], then at that stage we think we have the option to opt out, whatever the review says.

“My thoughts at the moment are that I would rather have fortification on a voluntary basis, thereby giving New Zealanders a choice.”

The beneficence of our Food Safety Master knows no bounds, but those are only her thoughts “at the moment” so who knows what they will be when the next moment arrives. We all know that moving lips on a politician indicate that lying is occuring, but let’s hope that Wilkinson does restore a fraction of our freedom.

~~~~~~~~~~

• Sweden wants to outlaw homeschooling done for religious and philosophical reasons

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

This is from Rohus, a Swedish homeschooling organisation. My comments are in blue:

The 16th of June, 2009, the Swedish Government presented its proposal for a new Swedish School Law, that has been in the works for many years.

The position on homeschooling in the suggested law is a return to darkness. It is unbelievable. Homeschooling will NOT be permitted for those referring to philosophical or religious reasons according to the European convention on Human Rights!

The added words used to make home education virtually impossible, are FOUR:

“Education otherwise is allowed if… there exist extraordinary circumstanses.”

“Education otherwise” means education outside the state system. What is the definition of “extraordinary reasons”?

The reason given is:

“…that the education in school should be comprehensive and objective and thereby designed so that all pupils can participate, regardless of what religious or philosophical reasons the pupil or his or her care-takers may have.” (our emphasis)

This is essentially dishonest. State education always has and always will teach the state ideology; after all, the state does write the curriculum. Remember that one of the ten steps for the transition to communism proposed by Marx is free state education. In the Communist Manifesto he also says:

“Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class”.

Thus, the proposed law argues:

“…there is no need for the law to offer the possibility of homeschooling because of religious or philosophical reasons in the family. All together, this means that this proposed change cannot be said to contradict Sweden’s international obligations [i. e. Human Rights Conventions].”

This is Socialism/Marxism with the gloves off, showing it’s true totalitarian arrogance. Personally I don’t give a damn about Sweden’s international obligations, I just want to see Swedish parents free to choose how they educate their children.

A few families homeschool due to distance or medical problems, but I believe that the vast majority do so for religious or philosophical reasons, so this effectively outlawing the vast majority of homeschooling. This also amounts to discriminaton against religions and philosophies. To put it another way, this is persecution of religions and philosophies by the state. Oh, I forgot: the Church of the State is supreme over all, so that makes persecution of the others ok.

The quotes above are my translations from the proposed law on page 584. The proposed law can be downloaded in Swedish from the Swedish Government homepage – here.

The proposal is now out for review and Rohus will submit a very stern review to the government’s proposal. The review closes on October 1st 2009. The re-working of the proposal will be finished by the spring of 2010. The final proposal will then be voted on by Parliament during the spring/summer of 2010 and will take effect in July of 2011. Due to the many changes in the proposal, it will take about a year for all schools to adapt to it. And for home educators… many may emigrate, if the law ends up the way the proposal reads today.

The Swedish Government is making homeschooling illegal, for religious or philosophical reasons, thus showing off its worst totalitarian socialist roots. We need international support to show that Sweden, as a member of the international democratic community, cannot take such a position. As Sweden is often seen as the great social utopia of the world, it is important for Swedish homeschoolers to win this battle. Any and all help is appreciated immeasurably.

Sensible international comments about the new Swedish school law can be sent to: registrator@education.ministry.se

Please, also sign our petition HERE if you want to support us in our work to ensure that home education stays a legal alternative to school. They’re collecting signatures internationally, so go for it.

To add insult to injury, when Swedish homeschoolers go to the government website they read this:

The new Education Act – for knowledge, freedom and security
[...]
The new Education Act includes education from the kindergarten up to adult education. The law is a coherent laws which will form the base of knowledge, choice and security in all kinds of schools and other activities covered by the Education Act.

If that’s not hypocrisy, what is? What about the “freedom” and “choice” of those who wish to homeschool for religious and philosophical reasons?

I wouldn’t be surprised if Sweden becomes like Germany, where homeschooling is illegal and the state persecutes homeschoolers by taking their children into state custody and fining or imprisoning the parents.

Two words describe the situation in Sweden and Germany: evil and totalitarian.

~~~~~

I believe that the state should not be involved in education in any way whatsoever.

What do you think about the Swedish government’s plan to outlaw homeschooling for religious and philosophical reasons?

~~~~~

Hat tip: HEF

Related posts:

Who is responsible for uneducated children? (Part 1)

Paula Bennett claims ownership of all New Zealand children

Does homeschooling impair social skills?

~~~~~~~~~~

• Private parenting matters are public business. Yeah, right.

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

This is from Stuff:

Police are defending the actions of a father who became hopelessly lost with his deaf daughter and asthmatic son, after they went pig hunting in dense Northland bush over the weekend.

George Barbaer, 40, his 13-year-old daughter Trinity and six-year-old son George Junior built their own shelter and survived on chocolate and berries for two days as wild weather pounded the region.

The trio were found safe and well about 2.30pm yesterday, after going into the bush on Friday morning prepared only for a day walk in the Mangamuka Ranges, about 40km southeast of Kaitaia.

They wore light clothes and had very little food with them.

When they were finally found more than 48 hours later, they were doing “remarkably well” despite being very cold, Senior Sergeant Cliff Metcalfe, who led the search team, said today.

“They’re used to living in this environment up here and they sought shelter at night and held it together.”

He did not think the trio were unwise to go into the ranges on Friday morning as the stormy weather was not forecast to hit the region before the evening, he told Radio New Zealand.

“On this occasion they got caught out by the weather.”

He said George Junior was not necessarily too young to be out pig hunting with his dad.

“I believe they teach them very young up this way and that’s quite normal behaviour for rural kids in any environment I believe.”

The area the three were found in was very thick bush and even the most experienced of hunters could become disorientated, Mr Metcalfe said.

I’m curious about the use of the word “defending” in the first line: has someone criticised Barbaer, or is this word just used for dramatic effect?

I’m glad to see some some common sense from the police (rather than calling child welfare because a father took his six year old hunting), but there is a darker, censorious subtext in this article. Barbaer chose to take his children hunting and this is a entirely a private matter between him and the mother of the children. The fact that the reporter considered it important enough to get a police opinion on a private parenting matter shows that in our society it is generally considered permissible, even good, to poke your nose in when it’s supposedly a matter of child welfare. The fact that the policeman was willing to give an opinion on a private parenting matter shows that he considers private parenting matters to be public business.

The reporter and the policeman are no less guilty than the citizen-spies that I wrote about in my earlier posts:

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

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

~~~~~~~~~~

• School Food Trust wants to change the diet of a nation

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

The BBC has an article that begins thus:

Four in ten (39%) primary school pupils in England are eating school meals but only 35% of secondary pupils, figures from the School Food Trust show.

The figures show a small rise in take-up, of less than one percentage point.

A target to increase the take-up of school meals by 10% by this autumn will now be missed, but the School Food Trust called the results “pleasing”.

The figures for this year were based on a much larger sample of local authorities and schools.

Results from those surveyed this year and last show a rise of 0.1% of primary school pupils eating school meals, and a rise of 0.5% of secondary school pupils [probably less than the margin of error].

Take-up of secondary school meals in Scotland has dropped by 10% in the last five years, recent figures show.

Why is the School Food Trust pleased about such an abject failure? Why does the BBC think that four in ten equals 39%? What is the SFT and why do they want to see more children in the UK eating meals supplied by schools?

This is from the SFT website (emphasis added):

The School Food Trust is an independent body with the unique remit of transforming school food and food skills. It was set up as Non Departmental Public Body in 2005 with £15 million of funding from the then Department for Education and Skills (replaced by Department for Children, Schools and Families, DCSF) to promote the education and health of children and young people by improving the quality of food supplied and consumed in schools. In April 2007 the School Food Trust became registered as a Charity.
[...]
The School Food Trust Board and staff believe that eating well during the school day is crucial to a number of government, societal and parental objectives, including improving the health, well being and academic performance of children and young people. The School Food Trust is charged with helping all stakeholders to ensure that young people eat better food at school, and has set for itself four broader objectives to achieve this agenda.

Established at the outset, these are reviewed each year to ensure they remain relevant.

* Ensure all schools meet the food based and nutrient based standards for lunch and non-lunch food.

* Increase the take-up of school meals.

* Reduce diet-related inequalities in childhood through food education and school based initiatives.

* Improve food skills through food education, and school and community initiatives.
[...]
We believe that it is important to engage all parties in such a way that they support and influence changed behaviour in other stakeholders.

Translation: the SFT is an instrument of the nanny state, which assumes that it has the right to oversee the health of every child when in fact children are the sole responsibility of their parents. Their assumption that they are trying to achieve “societal and parental objectives” is grossly arrogant, although they are accurate when they say that they are trying to achieve government objectives. Note the use of the word “inequalities”, which is a sure sign of a Socialist/Marxist agenda.

The title of this post is “School Food Trust wants to change the diet of a nation”. Where did I get that from? Well, in a video that’s part of the BBC article the SFT chair says “You can’t change the diet of a nation in ten minutes”. The state has no business trying to change the diet of a nation, so it should butt out and mind its own business.

What do you think about the agenda of the School Food Trust?

Related posts:

Sue Kedgely can’t force people to live healthy lives

“Food police” on the streets of England (Part 1)

“Food police” on the streets of England (Part 2)

~~~~~~~~~~

• Was Pablo Escobar a danger to the public?

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

Stuff has an article that begins thus:

Drug lord Pablo Escobar’s hippo died the same way he did, hunted down and shot by the authorities for posing a danger to the public.

I do get tired of seeing state propaganda delivered by the media. Escobar may have been a danger to the public when he ordered murders and the like, but that isn’t what the article is referring to: rather, the article means that he was a danger to the public because he supplied drugs. That is dung of bull.

Escobar simply supplied a product that people wanted, just as a baker supplies bread that people want. Yes, the cocaine that Escobar supplied was harmful, but people freely chose to put it into their bodies so Escobar was not responsible for that harm. Each person who freely chose to harm their body with cocaine was responsible for that harm. It’s all about personal responsibility.

I believe that drugs should be legalised because the state has no right to control what people put into their bodies. You can read my full argument in my post titled The pointless death of an undercover policeman.

Related post:

The NZ Herald delivers state propaganda

~~~~~~~~~~