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

Here’s the latest letter from Family First: Bob has an excellent point about your money being used against you. Isn’t it wonderful to be paying for your oppression. The government continues to ignore the opinion of the 80%+ of Kiwis who want to be free to smack (not “beat”, as the opposition propaganda says) their children and they need to be given a clear message. The state thinks that it owns your children. DO YOUR BIT IF YOU VALUE FREEDOM

Related posts:

Arrant arrogance (read this first: full background info)

The anti-smacking law will cause the death of children

Sue Bradford’s arrogance regarding the anti-smacking bill

John Key shows his arrogance (National also believes that you should not be free to parent as you see fit)

To find more posts use the category selector on the right and choose “Anti-smacking law”.

HOW MUCH IS IT WORTH?
We need your help!

Anti-Smacking Postal Referendum
July 31 – August 21 2009

In the first three weeks of August, NZ’ers will finally have a chance to have their say on Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking law.

It’s taken two years , the booting out of the previous government (which many commentators – even within the Labour party – attribute to this law), more than 300,000 signatures , and far too many good families who have been investigated, children disrupted and traumatised, and some parents even prosecuted because of the law.

This law treats a smack on the bottom from a loving parent equal to child abuse of the worst kind, and has put good parents raising law-abiding and responsible kids in the same category as rotten abusive parents.

Green MP Sue Bradford admitted

that the law was never intended to solve the problem of child abuse. Only yesterday, the Law Society admitted

that the anti-smacking law has made no difference to NZ’s unacceptable rate of child abuse.

Well, I want the problem of child abuse tackled – and I’m sure you do too .

Now there is the chance to tell the politicians to change the anti-smacking law so that we have laws that acknowledge and value the important role of good parents – but also demand that the real causes of child abuse are targeted.

Family First will be one of the groups speaking up and encouraging NZ’ers to vote NO
“Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in NZ.”

Even Labour leader Phil Goff says

the answer is NO !

Our plan:
* web-based and media-based
* networking by email
* media interviews
* simply presenting the facts

Our need?
Simple really. We need your financial support .

The ‘opposition’ has no difficulty with funding .
Groups like Barnardos, Plunket, Parents Centre, Families Commission, Children’s Commissioner, and other government-funded organisations are well funded thanks to you – the taxpayer .

And they’ve been busy running seminars and websites

, sending out briefing sheets to MP’s, publishing newsletters, employing staff especially for this issue,  and sending out social workers far and wide pushing their message.

Only last week, we received an email saying:
“I’m a counsellor working for a  parenting community organisation – funded by CYFS etc so the organisation is for the YES vote. I find myself within the network of forwarded emails. Most people take it for granted I’m on the ’same side’. To keep my job – I am unable to make a huge noise about it ! – however I am entitled to my personal opinion right! The whole anti- smacking was so ill aimed – and I cannot see (and in my line of work I’m better placed than most) how it has made any difference to those that ‘abuse’ their children.”

A social worker from Barnados told us
“I opposed the anti-smacking bill but my view was not taken into account. I was told to follow the organisation’s view – but there was no discussion. There was no gauging of the views of the workers who are working with these families.”

How do they really view kiwi parents?
If you oppose the anti-smacking law as so many NZ’ers do, you’re demonised as ‘violent’, and a parent who supports ‘bashing’ and ‘assaulting’ children. These groups should hang their head in shame for labelling kiwi parents in such a way. Only yesterday in a debate on National Radio, former Children’s Commissioner Ian Hassell referred to opponents to the anti-smacking law as the ‘child-beating lobby ‘ LISTEN HERE

(starts at 4′11″) - a disgraceful misrepresentation of the views of a huge majority of parents.

WOULD YOU CONSIDER INVESTING IN OUR voteNO CAMPAIGN?

We will not get a single cent from the government in this Referendum – unlike the opposing argument. Every donation – large and small – will enable us to get the facts out there, and to promote the important role of parents, the welfare of children, and the real issues of child abuse.

Thanks for your consideration. Together, we can bring some sanity to this debate and demand that the real causes

of child abuse are confronted.

Kind regards

Bob McCoskrie
National Director

www.familyfirst.org.nz

| About us

| Media Centre

| Contact Us

| Support Us

|

• Auckland gets Super City, govt cleans blood off jackboots

So, the government has rammed a jackboot up the the collective rectum of Aucklanders and passed a law bringing in the so-called Super City, under urgency no less (see my earlier post on that). Shortly before that the law banning gang patches in Wanganui was passed (yep, I covered that as well). Wanganui got a referendum on the spelling of their name, and Auckland got “bend over”.

When Herr Helen Clark was ousted last year I was hoping that we might have some relief from the dictatorial style of government. But National has clearly purchased Clark’s jackboots, and ACT has purchased her spare pair. I am particularly disappointed in ACT, who theoretically stand for freedom and choice.

The New Zealand government has absolute sovereignty and is no way accountable to the citizens. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

• David Garrett gives Helen Clark a digital salute

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

The Wombles of Wellington gave Herr Helen Clark a standing ovation in Parliament yesterday, in view of the fact that she’s been given a job at the UN a position beside the UN trough.

David Garrett refused to join in. That’s a laudable stance, but it is somewhat hypocritical because Garrett is like Clark insofar as he is willing to trample on human rights when it suits him: this is what Garrett said in regard to the three strikes law:

Mr Garrett is a hardliner who this week told the Herald that if three strikes was found to breach fundamental human rights, the solution was to change the Bill of Rights.

That quote is from an earlier post, which gives more details. When it comes to human rights, the only difference between Garrett and Clark is in their ability to impose their beliefs upon other people.

Related post:

• There is no such thing as “human rights”: a classical liberal perspective on the Electoral Finance Act

What do you think about Garrett hypocritically giving Clark the digital salute?

~~~~~~~~~~

• Helen Clark gets UN job

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

Herr Helen has got the job and will now be the head of the UN Development Programme. This is from the UNDP website:

UNDP is the UN’s global development network, advocating for change and connecting countries to knowledge, experience and resources to help people build a better life.

We are on the ground in 166 countries, supporting their own solutions to development challenges and developing national and local capacities that will help them achieve human development and the Millennium Development Goals. Our work is concentrated on four main focus areas:

* Democratic Governance
* Poverty Reduction and Achievement of the MDGs [Millenium Development Goals]
* Crisis Prevention and Recovery
* Environment and Energy for Sustainable Development

As I said in my earlier post, Helen doesn’t know the first thing about democratic governance so she is clearly unqualified for the job.

The UNDP is in for a real shock, because they have no idea what Helen looks like. Here’s a screen shot from their website ↓

If a picture says a thousand words then this photo is a thousand-word lie. It’s her 2005 campaign photo, which in an earlier post I compared with the real thing.

Mind you, it’s closer to the truth than the 2008 campaign photo.

I’m sure that Helen will be in hog heaven at the UN, with a bottomless taxpayer-funded trough to feed from an ivory tower to proclaim to the proletariat from.

A highly placed source has sent me a copy of what will be Helen’s first press release as head of the UNDP:

“If the peasants cannot eat bread then let them eat cake”.

What do you think about Helen getting this job and using fake photos?

~~~~~~~~~~

• NZ Govt supports Helen Clark for United Nations role

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

Dangerous animals should be kept in strong cages

A government press release says that

The New Zealand Government is providing strong support for the candidacy of Helen Clark for the position of Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

After Herr Helen get a taste of her own jackboot in the last election I thought that she’d get a Comintern/UN job. However, I was hoping that the UN had a post on Mars that they could send her to; they could send Heather Simpson (H2) as well and call the place Sappho.

Helen is clearly the wrong person for the UNDP job. Have a look at this from the press release:

Established in 1965 the UNDP is the most broadly focussed development agency in the UN system. By its mandate, UNDP has programmes in all developing countries, including those in the Pacific and is the largest provider of development assistance in the UN system. UNDP’s work focuses on democratic governance, poverty reduction, crisis prevention and recovery, energy and environment, and HIV/AIDS.

What would the woman who bought in the Electoral Finance Act* and who gave herself much more control over the police and courts know about “democratic governance”?

On the other hand, she’s probably an expert on HIV/AIDS in view of the fact that so many of her friends are homosexuals. Also, she’s definitely an expert on corruption and that is an essential qualification for anyone who wants to work at the UN.

Helen is all for one world government and I’m sure that the job will feed her lust for power. Birds of a feather flock together and I’m sure that she’ll be happy as a pig in muck when mixing with a bunch of totalitarian bureaucrats, handing out crackers to the unwashed proletariat whilst getting paid handsomely with money stolen from taxpayers.

I just wish that the White Witch would vanish into obscurity, or (preferably) vanish altogether. New Zealand should not elevate dangerous animals to positions of power.

What do you think about the idea of Helen working at the UNDP?

**********

* see my post There is no such thing as “human rights”: a classical liberal perspective on the Electoral Finance Act. That post a contains a link to a summary of the law.

~~~~~~~~~~