• Deborah Coddington has lost the plot

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.

~~~~~~~~~~

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

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?

~~~~~~~~~~

Joke of the day: Helen Clark invokes natural justice and fair process

Helen Clark is like a teflon-coated snake who can swim into a cesspit to visit her friends and then come out clean and fresh.

Today she admitted that Owen Glenn told her “pretty much what he said in the letter to the privileges committee”. That letter says that Peters solicited the donation, which Peters has denied. So Helen admits that she has known of a “conflict of evidence” since February, but there is no evidence (yet) to show that she knows who is lying. The snake is clean at this time, but see my warning here.

Glenn has little or nothing to lose by lying, and Peters has much to gain by concealing the truth. That, and Peters’ track record, causes me to think that Peters is lying. Also, Winston and his friends in parliament are clearly trying to cover up the stench of rotten scampi and other foodstuffs.

You will find the audio of Helen’s statement from this morning here. Near the end one of the tame journalists says, in regard to John Key refusing to deal with Peters after the election, “Do you think that was a premature call to make and what’s your response?”. Clark replies “From a natural justice and fair process perspective I think it is not a good approach”. Thankfully I wasn’t drinking coffee when I heard that, otherwise I would have been off to hospital with third degree burns.

This is the woman who made smacking illegal despite the opinion of more than 80% of NZers. It should have been a conscience vote for parliament, but Helen forced her cronies to vote on party lines. What about natural justice and fair process for the parents who have been wrongly accused of assault and separated from their children before conviction? See here, especially cases 11, 15, & 19. This is the woman who said on the radio several years ago that she wouldn’t make smacking illegal.

This is the woman who bought in the Electoral Finance Act to stifle free speech in election year. I can give my opinions here because it is a blog, but if I used any other method of communication I would have to comply with the regulations of the State that I am opposed to.  That is not free speech, that is speech with a ball and chain. Helen justified the EFA by saying that she didn’t want money buying elections: not only does the evidence show that money doesn’t buy elections, the Helen Party (commonly called the Labour Party) and Winston have received very large sums of money from Owen Glenn and others.

Helen’s definition of natural justice and fair process is “Whatever suits me at the time”. I wouldn’t be surprised if she has the words of Engels tattooed on her body somewhere: “A means can be justified only by its end”.

The best way to deal with a snake is to cut its head off; you will find the tools in a ballot booth this year.

Sue Bradford’s arrogance regarding the anti-smacking bill

The story so far:

(see my posts here and here)

- Labour and the Greens rammed through Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill despite the opposition of more than 80% of NZers.

- this has resulted in the persecution of parents: see here

- a petition has gained the signatures of more than 300,000 people, which is enough to trigger a Citizens Initiated Referendum regarding whether or not smacking should be legal

- Helen Clark is trying to delay the referendum

- public opposition to the anti-smacking law is still over 80%

- now, have a look at Sue Bradford’s utter, unabashed, arrogance in the video below. It encapsulates the Marxist attitude of Labour and the Greens so well, i.e. the government knows what is best for you. Don’t forget to stand to attention while she is speaking.

Click here to download the video (AVI 5.9 MB)