Kiwi Polemicist

January 13, 2010

• Bar owner’s property rights wrecked by human rights

In my earlier post titled There is no such thing as “human rights”: a classical liberal perspective on the Electoral Finance Act (you have to love a snappy title like that) I said

I am a classical liberalist and you’re probably thinking that I’m strong on human rights, but that is not true: I believe that there is no such thing as “human rights”.
The present definition of “human rights” is subjective and invites such evils as the EFA, the anti-smacking law and hate-speech laws. Only when “human rights” are redefined as property rights and personal rights in accordance with the non-aggression axiom can we have a consistent, logical and objective set of rights.

Let’s have a look at another injustice inflicted in the name of human rights:

The Human Rights Commission has warned a newly-opened Kapiti Coast bar over its ban on admitting under 20-year-olds, after young drinkers ruined the drinking establishment’s opening night with bad behaviour.

The commission told Jamie Williams, owner of the $2 million Monteith’s Brewery Bar’ at Paraparaumu, he could not discriminate against which customers he chose to let into his bar based on their age, the Dominion Post reported.

“While bars have the right to refuse entry they should be careful not to do so on the grounds of age, sex or ethnicity,” commission spokesman Gilbert Wong said. (source)

Can you see what is happening here? That bar is private property, but the state is forcing the owner to allow people aged under 20 to enter, even if he doesn’t want them on his property.

The Human Rights Commission website has a prominent piece of fiction:

The Commission works for a fair, safe and just society, where diversity is valued and human rights are respected.

What is ‘fair’ and ‘just’ about using legislation to take away this bar owner’s property rights? Diversity is valued by the state, but only that diversity which is considered acceptable by the state: banning bar patrons under 20 is a form of diversity, but it is not considered acceptable by the state and therefore it is illegal. How is society ‘safe’ when bar owners are forced to admit people that they know are likely to turn violent?

In my earlier post titled I am Pakeha and I am oppressed I said

Socialism/Marxism creates two groups in society: the victims, who are “oppressed”, [in this case, people under 20] and the “oppressors” [the bar owner]. The Socialists then set about righting these (usually imaginary) wrongs by oppressing the “oppressors”, thereby doing just what they accused the “oppressors” of doing [the bar owner is being oppressed by the socialist state].

Laws prohibiting sexual and racial discrimination, as well as other types of discrimination, are nonsensical because everyone discriminates. No one objects if a black American man is a looking for a black wife, but he is discriminating against white women*. He wants a female partner, so he is discriminating against men. He wants a good looking wife, so he is discriminating against people who aren’t good looking. He wants a young woman, so he is discriminating against older people. He wants a wife who can bear children, so he is discriminating against infertile women: the list goes on and on.

Homosexual men discriminate against women by wanting only male sexual partners. Lesbians discriminate against men by only wanting female sexual partners. All heterosexuals discriminate against half of the population, the half that shares their gender.

Section 21 of the Human Rights Act forbids discrimination against sexual orientation, and if this is taken to its logical conclusion homosexuality and heterosexuality are illegal; only bisexual people are in compliance with the law, so bisexuality should be made compulsory. Either that or we can get rid of ridiculous laws which deny the reality of the fact that everyone discriminates.

If you take away the politically correct terminology, “discrimination” is in fact “choice”.

My position is simple: that bar is private property and, as part of his property rights, the owner should be free to make a choice about who can and cannot enter his property. The route to a fair and just society is not a complicated one: just restore everyone’s freedom to do whatever they want, and punish them if they violate the personal and property rights of others.

What do you think about the bar owner being forced to allow people under 20 into his bar?

Related post:

Property rights are a part of human nature



May 28, 2009

• Maori seats are undemocratic

I know that the hikoi a few days ago is old news, but I forgot to write about it at the time so I’m writing about it now.

The Maori were demanding Maori seats on the new Super City council. Why on earth should Maori get special representation? Democracy gives them the opportunity to get Maori representation: e.g., if Maori comprise 20% of the population then, in theory at least, they can influence the composition of 20% of the council. There is every opportunity for candidates to stand on a Maori issues platform.

To give Maori special seats on the council is simply undemocratic and political correctness gone mad, and the same goes for Maori seats in parliament. This is Marxist ideology in action: the Marxists declare one group to be victims of oppression, so they try and right that supposed wrong by force, and in doing so oppress another group (click here for another example). According to Ian Wishart, there are plenty of Marxists among the radical Maori groups and like all Marxists they’re only interested in power and control, so they use the victim ideology while it’s convenient for them to do so.

In this free and enlightened age it’s not permissible to speak the truth but I don’t give a damn.

Post a comment and tell me what you think of special seats for Maori (and read my comments policy before you get abusive).

Related post:

I am Pakeha and I am oppressed


January 31, 2009

Update to “Pure evil: social workers give children to gay couple for adoption despite wishes of grandparents”

Here’s another quote from Peter Harris which didn’t fit well in the earlier post:

The policy clearly set out in the Children Act 1989 is that wherever possible, and unless it is contrary to a child’s best interests, a child should be kept within its natural family, and social services have a duty to provide support to children in need in order to achieve this.

The Adoption and Children Act 2002 goes even further in spelling out the intention of Parliament, and the duty of social services, about adoption decisions. An adoption agency (social services coming to a decision about adoption) must consider the relationship which a child has with relatives, and their willingness and ability to care for him.

It goes on to prohibit a court or adoption agency from making a decision that a child should be adopted, unless it considers that to do so would be better for the child than not to do so.

With such clear legal pointers in place it is devastating for grandparents (and the child) when social workers ignore them and work to their own agenda.

Translation: the social workers are a law unto themselves.

Click here to read about similar injustices against grandparents and children in the UK.

What do you think about these social workers ignoring clear policy?

January 30, 2009

Pure evil: social workers give children to gay couple for adoption despite wishes of grandparents

The Daily Mail is reporting that social workers destroyers in Edinburgh have given a five-year-old boy and his four-year-old sister to a male homosexual couple for adoption, despite the children’s grandparents wishing to adopt them:

The couple, who cannot be named, wanted to give the five-year-old boy and his four-year-old sister a loving home themselves. But they were ruled to be too old – at 46 and 59.

For two years they fought for their rights to care for the children, whose 26-year- old mother is a recovering heroin addict.

They agreed to an adoption only after they faced being financially crippled by legal bills.

The final blow came when they were told the children were going to a gay household, even though several heterosexual couples wanted them.

When the grandfather protested, he was told: ‘You can either accept it, and there’s a chance you’ll see the children twice a year, or you can take that stance and never see them again.’ *

Then there’s the illness excuse:

But council social workers became worried that the grandparents’ ages and health problems meant they would also be unable to care for the children properly.

The 59-year-old grandfather, a farm worker, has angina while his wife is receiving medication for diabetes.

There are so many issue here that it’s hard to know where to start. I’ll confine myself to four points, based on the assumption that you don’t want to read a 10,000 word essay:

1) First and foremost: the state has no right to steal these children

By taking control of what happens to these children the state has stolen them. Even if the children were given to a heterosexual couple despite the grandparents wishing to adopt them I would describe that action as evil and totalitarian.

2) Children need and want stability

It would appear that those grandparents are the only stable thing in the lives of these children. Children who do not have stability are far more prone to mental health problems.

3) Children need one male parent and one female parent

In case you’re thinking that I’m just a fuddy-duddy christian I’ll quote two people who have commented on this case.

Melanie Philips says

The reason why adoption is so successful at raising healthy, well-adjusted children is that it replicates as far as possible the biological mother and father whose presence in the family is so crucial to the well-being of their children. * [She’s hit the nail on the head there]

The prevailing argument that all types of family are as good as each other as far as the children are concerned simply isn’t true. While some children emerge relatively unscathed from irregular households, children need to be brought up by the two people ‘who made me’ – or, in adoptive households, in a family which closely replicates that arrangement.

Where that does not happen, the child’s deepest sense of his or her identity as a human being is at some level damaged.

A child needs a mother and father because their roles in bringing that child up, and the way the child sees each of them, are not interchangeable. They are different and complementary, which is why if one of them is absent the child suffers, in many cases very badly indeed.

For very young children the absence of a mother, whose nurturing role cannot be replicated even by the most loving and attentive of fathers, is particularly tragic.

Therefore to say that depriving children of a mother figure is in their best interests – as the Edinburgh social workers have said – is clearly ridiculous.

Amanda Platell says

It appears that social services, despite all the evidence to the contrary, still believe that all relationships are equal when it comes to raising children. Indeed, in this case they seem to have decided that a gay relationship is preferable to a couple of opposite sex.

This is simply not true. They are not equal when it comes to the things children need most – commitment and stability. Yet is is regarded as heretical even to state the facts: which are that marriages last longer than cohabiting heterosexual relationships and they both last longer than gay relationships.

Those are the cold, bare truths. It is too soon to know the statistics on same-sex marriages as there has not been enough time to assess the trends and many same sex couples enjoy enduring and truly fulfilling relationships.

But if commitment and stability matter most to children’s happiness and success, the least suitable place for them to be raised is by a gay couple. That’s not homophobia, that’s not bigotry, that’s a fact – unpalatable as it might be to the Left consensus.

4) Social workers are hypocrites

Peter Harris of the Grandparents’ Association in the UK says

Lynn Chesterman, the Chief Executive of the Grandparents’ Association, and I have both, when talking to audiences of social workers, undertaken the following exercise.

We asked our audiences to say whether they would ask a family member, in particular a grandparent, to look after their children if they became incapable of doing so themselves. Almost universally they raised their hands in assent.

When asked whether they would prefer social services to do so – guess how many of their hands went up!

I’ll bet you a chocolate fish that they don’t put their hands up the second time because to do so would mark them as opponents of the liberal left/feminist agenda that is a loose in their departments like a fox among chickens. These two children are in the mouth of that fox.


The traditional extended family structure is one that contains multiple layers of redundancy, e.g. if the parents of a child die in a car crash there are potentially four grandparents (and other relatives) able to step in: this is the most natural order of events. Indeed, before rest home care was common many grandparents lived with their families and earned their keep by caring for grandchildren and doing other jobs around the house. If anything happened to the parents the transition to care by the grandparents was easier for the child because they were already familiar with the grandparents (that’s stability, point 2 above). Yes, there were plenty of families with problems, but there were also plenty of families akin to what I have described; sadly this traditional family structure has largely disappeared in Western cultures.

Strong family units are essential to a healthy society, so totalitarian, politically correct and evil actions by social workers will only hasten the Left’s plan to destroy the foundations of our society.

What do you think about the state forcing these children to go to a gay couple against the wishes of their grandparents?

Click here for an update to this post.

Hat tip: Samuel Dennis

* emphasis added

January 17, 2009

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

The average human has one breast and one testicle.

Des McHale

In my earlier post I told you about the “food police” who are on the streets of England telling people what meal sizes they should prepare and how to reduce food wastage. This act of totalitarianism is perpetrated by a state-funded company called WRAP (Waste and Resources Action Programme). In their publications CRAP WRAP trumpets a number of statistics. These are from the Impact Review (PDF 283kb) for 2006-08 :

  1. 2 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent greenhouse gases saved each year
  2. 4.8 million tonnes less waste going to landfill each year
  3. 1.5 million households now committed to reducing their household waste
  4. 3.9 million more committed recyclers
  5. 10% growth in the recycling sector
  6. New build for the 2012 London Olympics to contain at least 20% recycled content

As the quote at the top of this post shows, statistics can be numerically correct nonsense. Also, as I read the Impact Review I was concerned to see that there were no footnotes to back up the figures; however on p15 an Evaluation Methodology Statement (PDF 1443kb, EMS henceforth) was mentioned as the source for the statistics. In my humble opinion this is a shonky methodology designed to encourage people to accept the figures without question.

So, lets have a look at how WRAP arrives at two of its statistics in the list above:

Statistic #4 3.9 million more committed recyclers

Page 49 of the EMS says that the target was

A further substantial increase in the level of public
commitment to recycling, delivering at least four million
additional ‘committed recyclers’ representing a further
10% of the adult population
[in 2006-08].

Page 49 of the EMS says that

The target will be measured through a national tracking survey. A nationally representative sample of households in England will be surveyed periodically (at least six times over the two-year
business planning cycle). The survey will measure the public’s
commitment to recycling through the ‘committed recycler’
measure. A person is currently classified as a ‘committed recycler’ if they state that:

* They believe that recycling household waste is very or
fairly important to them; AND
* They recycle even if it requires additional effort; AND
* They recycle ‘everything’ or ‘a lot but not everything that
can be recycled’.

I can’t find the raw survey data so there’s no way of evaluating the survey methodology. However, we can that the definition of “committed recycler” is very broad. If I make an “additional effort” to recycle by thrice annually putting a newspaper into a recycling bin rather than a rubbish bin then I’m a committed recycler. It’s easy to hit a target the size of a small building when you’re shooting from five paces.

Statistic #3 1.5 million households now committed to reducing their household waste

This isn’t even mentioned in the EMS, but it is mentioned in a press release:

Since the launch of the Love Food Hate Waste campaign in 2007, research shows that 1.8 million more UK households are now taking steps to cut back on the amount of food they throw away…

and the footnote says…

The impact of the campaign to date is calculated using data from WRAP’s Love Food Hate Waste “Tracker” research from the last 12 months, in conjunction with data from The Food We Waste report ( Other behavioural insights and statistics are taken from the most recent wave of Tracker research (September 2008).

The trail ends there, because I cannot find any further explanation of this statistic. It is impossible to prove a negative, i.e. “the data is not readily available to the public”, but it is reasonable to assume that WRAP is keeping the data behind this claim well wrapped up (sorry). I also believe that this statistic has about as much substance as a sheet of unbleached toilet paper.


The EMS puts several goals in the “Behavioral Change” category, which is a refreshing piece of honesty from the Green Police. Never forget that the state wants to modify your behaviour to its own ends.

What do you think about the statistical methodology of WRAP?

Older Posts »

Blog at