Kiwi Polemicist

August 6, 2009

• MP Nikki Kaye wants to interfere with your life

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?

~~~~~~~~~~

• How to run a referendum in a banana republic

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

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

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.

~~~~~~~~~~

August 1, 2009

• John Key’s hypocrisy and arrogance regarding the anti-smacking law

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.

~~~~~~~~~~

July 31, 2009

• Sue Bradford is a liar

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.

~~~~~~~~~~

July 18, 2009

• Why do people object to smacking?

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)

~~~~~~~~~~

Older Posts »

The Shocking Blue Green Theme Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.