Kiwi Polemicist

October 25, 2008

John Key shows his arrogance

Stuff has an article where John Key is answering readers’ questions, and I quote his reply to a question regarding the anti-smacking law in full:

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

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]

I have three responses to this:

1) As I said in my earlier post “The transcendent issue is this: the government is telling parents what they can and cannot do whilst raising their children.” No government has the right to tell parents how to raise their children, and here Key is clearly saying that he has the right to tell parents how to raise their children.

2) parents clearly are being criminalised for lightly smacking their children, so Key should keep his word and take action. However, even if he thinks the law isn’t working he won’t repeal it, he’ll just “change” it. If ever a law needed repealing, this is it.

3) Key is demonstrating the same arrogance as Sue Bradford when he says “We’ll have respect for what the referendum says, but it wouldn’t make us change our mind”. In other words, he’s just like Bradford and saying “Parliament knows best”. John, if that is your attitude you are not fit to be Prime Minister. Taxpayers pay your wages and you are supposed to a servant of the citizens, not a ruler of the citizens. More than 80% of New Zealanders object to the anti-smacking law and you should heed their opinion and restore section 59 of the Crimes Act to what it was before the White Witch and Sue Bradford altered it.

Key is a Socialist and the only reason I want him as PM after the election is that he’s a lesser evil than Helen Clark, by a whisker. However, statements such as this show that he’s really just as arrogant as she is and that the enemy is always the State.

What do you think about Key’s position on the anti-smacking law?

Advertisements

16 Comments »

  1. It is not true that governments never have a right to tell people how to raise their children. If parents fail to feed their children, fail to shelter them or beat them or kill them then the state should intervene.

    It is probably more correct to qualify parent as ‘good parent’ to make the distinction. A smack is something the state should butt out of, a beating is something the state should butt into.

    Comment by mandmnz — October 26, 2008 @ 12:40 pm

  2. mandmnz, the difficulty with allowing or expecting the State to intervene, as you do, is that the State will always try to take more control than you are willing to give. In New Zealand we have an illegitimate government with absolute power (they stole sovereignty from the citizens and there is no citizen-approved constitution to control the government) so the State always wins. A useful article can be found here: http://mises.org/story/2967

    As I described in an earlier post (https://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2008/08/31/the-motives-of-the-liberal-left/), Sue Bradford and other Marxists attack the family – using child abuse as an excuse – as part of their agenda of undermining traditional Western values and giving themselves more control. Coercive Socialism/Marxism is all about power and control.

    You may also find this post interesting: https://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/arrant-arrogance/

    Comment by kiwipolemicist — October 26, 2008 @ 7:30 pm

  3. Firstly, I argued against the state interfering in the parenting of good parents, those not abusing or neglecting their children

    I live in New Zealand and I am a liberatarian. I am against state interference in good families however if a family puts their kid in a drier or kills them by dunking their head in boiling water or throws their baby out the window of their car whilst driving down the motorway I am very comfortable with the state intervening, trying them and enacting the death penalty against them.

    So did you miss my distinction or are you saying that the state should not prosecute parents who abuse, beat and kill their children?

    Should what happened to Nia Glassie for example be something the state ignores because the state should stay out of the lives of families?

    Comment by Madeleine — October 26, 2008 @ 8:09 pm

  4. Madeleine, I did understand the distinction that you made (my apologies for not addressing that), and I agree that since we are stuck with a Statist system the State should prosecute parents who violate the personal rights of their children (in the sense of the non-aggression axiom). However, I also believe that in doing so the State is attempting to usurp the Higher Authority that abusive parents are answerable to.

    A Statist system poses intractable problems. E.g. you say that “good parents” should not be prosecuted. Who decides what is good parenting? I, along with more than 80% of New Zealanders, believe that smacking should be legal, but the State believes that parents who smack are bad parents so it made smacking illegal (which proves that the State is a ruler not a servant). If a parent who smacks resists State interference in their parental dominion the State will employ force against that parent and, if the parent provides sufficient resistance, will use lethal force against that parent.Thus, the State *always* decides who is a “good parent” because parents cannot resist the overwhelming power of the State. Do you want the State deciding who is a good parent and who is a bad parent? Do you want a State ruled by a Marxist woman who is pro-abortion, pro-paedophilia, pro-homosexuality and anti-marriage deciding who is a good parent and who is a bad parent?

    My “About KP” page may illuminate my comments.

    Comment by kiwipolemicist — October 26, 2008 @ 10:57 pm

  5. […] that he will not have the aggressive anti-family stance of Labour and the Greens. Having said that, Key’s stance on the anti-smacking law is of serious concern even for those people who don’t have children. Samuel Dennis believes […]

    Pingback by John Key on families « Kiwi Polemicist — November 3, 2008 @ 7:31 am

  6. […] 5) When asked what moved her or raised her pulse, Clark referred to the election of Barack Obama, thoughts of war veterans, Nelson Mandela and people succeeding against the odds: to put it crudely, she is turned on by aggressive change. When asked the same question Key refers to the “ability to make change for the better” and to his visit to Timaru Hospice. Both are socialists who want to impose their version of “better” upon people, but in my opinion Clark is militaristic whilst Key has a genuine – albeit misguided – desire to help others. Unfortunately he is as guilty of arrogance as Clark is. […]

    Pingback by Key and Clark on abortion and religion « CCL: Christian Classical Liberalist — November 7, 2008 @ 5:30 pm

  7. […] arm says a lot I don’t agree with John Key’s political and economic ideology, and his stance on the anti-smacking law is despicable at best, but I will say this for him: he comes across as a nice […]

    Pingback by John Key’s response to his broken arm says a lot « Kiwi Polemicist — February 6, 2009 @ 10:56 am

  8. […] “child abuse” to whatever will allow it to steal children (for examples click here and here. For an egregious example of state theft of children click […]

    Pingback by How to deal with child abuse: Part 2 « Kiwi Polemicist — February 13, 2009 @ 9:22 am

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

    Pingback by If you want to be free to parent then put your money where your mouth is « Kiwi Polemicist — May 22, 2009 @ 9:10 am

  10. […] John Key shows his arrogance (he is the paternalistic enemy now) […]

    Pingback by Kiwi Polemicist — July 4, 2009 @ 2:34 pm

  11. […] John Key shows his arrogance (he is the paternalistic enemy now) […]

    Pingback by • Vote “No” for freedom to parent « Kiwi Polemicist — July 4, 2009 @ 3:30 pm

  12. […] a look at John Key’s beliefs regarding the anti-smacking law and you’ll see that National doesn’t give a damn about personal choice. Key is a commie […]

    Pingback by Govt forces folate into bread « Kiwi Polemicist — July 9, 2009 @ 12:21 pm

  13. […] a look at John Key’s beliefs regarding the anti-smacking law and you’ll see that National doesn’t give a damn about personal choice. Key is a commie […]

    Pingback by • Govt forces folic acid into bread « Kiwi Polemicist — July 9, 2009 @ 12:25 pm

  14. […] John Key shows his arrogance (he is the paternalistic enemy now) […]

    Pingback by • Why do people object to smacking? « Kiwi Polemicist — July 18, 2009 @ 11:44 am

  15. […] John Key shows his arrogance (he is the paternalistic enemy now) […]

    Pingback by • Sue Bradford is a liar « Kiwi Polemicist — July 31, 2009 @ 10:51 am

  16. […] 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) […]

    Pingback by • John Key’s hypocrisy and arrogance regarding the anti-smacking law « Kiwi Polemicist — August 1, 2009 @ 10:12 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: