Kiwi Polemicist

January 4, 2010

• Haircuts justify illegal behaviour by politicians

Police car blocking parking for disabled people

Police car blocking parking for disabled people

This is from Stuff:

Wellington City Council will not issue parking tickets to drivers of Bill English’s convoy for parking on yellow lines and across a mobility area while he was getting a trim [haircut].

The council initially said it would issue tickets to Mr English’s security detail but, after discussions with its lawyers and the diplomatic protection squad, it concluded that Mr English’s drivers were within the law.
Council chief executive Garry Poole said police could park anywhere, as long as it was in the course of their duties. And a haircut for the acting PM is a valid excuse.

“While we do have the legal right to issue infringement notices to any vehicle parked unlawfully, police vehicles are exempt from parking restrictions if they are used by officers in the course of their duties.

“We have examined the circumstances of this particular case and I am satisfied that the exemption applies.”

Mr English had his haircut at the upmarket Haight Ashbury salon in Johnston St, in the city centre, on November 26. His BMW Crown limo was parked on yellow lines and a Holden Commodore used by members of the DPS [police Diplomatic Protection Squad] was parked partially across a mobility zone.
The cars were parked for about 45 minutes, until a freshly trimmed Mr English emerged from the salon.

“In this case, I am satisfied that the diplomatic protection squad were using their judgment and that no road user was inconvenienced,” Mr Poole said. “They are aware of the need to stay clear of mobility parks unless strictly necessary for operational reasons.”

Despite the fact that a cop car was blocking a space reserved for disabled people Poole the council man is “satisfied…that no road user was inconvenienced”. How exactly does he know that not one disabled person wanted to park there during those 45 minutes?

From this episode we can conclude that…

  1. Haircuts for politicians are “strictly necessary for operational reasons” and a “valid excuse” for illegal behaviour (style before substance is their motto, which is a good thing because if politicians had any substance you and I would be completely stuffed).
  2. Politicians can’t be bothered with parking legally and walking to a salon.
  3. Those who write the laws are above the laws.

What do you think about blocking mobility parking and parking on yellow lines for the sake of a haircut?



December 7, 2009

• Anti-smacking law: Key’s words don’t match his actions

Filed under: Anti-smacking Law, Politics — Tags: , , , — Kiwi Polemicist @ 8:13 pm

This is from the NZ Herald:

Prime Minister John Key has reiterated his belief no change is needed to the anti-smacking law after a new review found cases were being dealt with properly.
“Lightly smacking a child will be in the course of parenting for some parents and I think that’s acceptable,” Mr Key said.

Asked if he had just said it was acceptable to lightly smack a child, Mr Key replied “Yes, I think so” and said the law was clear that such matters should not be treated as a criminal offence [that is only true if the smack is not for the ‘purpose of correction’ and is given for one of the permitted reasons].

“It’s up to individual parents to decide how they’re going to parent their children. My view is that it will depend on the circumstances and how you want to raise your child,” Mr Key said.

“Some people will continue to lightly smack their child for correction, some will not. It is up to them to decide.”

Let’s get this straight: Key is endorsing a law that specifically makes it illegal to smack a child ‘for the purpose of correction’ whilst also saying the following:

  • “Lightly smacking a child will be in the course of parenting for some parents and I think that’s acceptable”
  • “It’s up to individual parents to decide how they’re going to parent their children”
  • “Some people will continue to lightly smack their child for correction, some will not. It is up to them to decide”

Mr Key, I am very glad to hear that you agree that light smacking is acceptable, and that you think it is up to parents to make a choice about smacking for the purposes of correction. Please tell me why you continue to support a law that is contrary to what you say you believe, because I and, I suspect, a great many other New Zealanders are confused about the difference between your beliefs and your actions. I urge you to put your beliefs into action and change this law; this would also be a great way of showing respect to the 1,470,755 Kiwis who voted against the anti-smacking law in the recent referendum.

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


Here’s the full text of section 59 of the Crimes Act:

Parental State control

(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—

(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or

(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or

(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or

(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.

(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).

(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.


November 19, 2009

• Democracy is dictatorship: a response to Bob McCoskrie’s letter

Today Bob McCoskrie of Family First has sent out a letter titled “A personal note from Bob McCoskrie“, where he states why he is going on The March For Democracy this Saturday (the background to all this is explained in my earlier post).

In his letter Bob shows how governments have repeatedly ignored the results of citizen-initiated referenda, including the latest one on the anti-smacking law. 1.57 million people voted against that law, while Peter Dunne (who voted for the anti-smacking law) says that a petition signed by 45,000 people who wanted daylight saving extended is ‘overwhelming support’. If 45,000 is overwhelming support, what on earth is 1,570,000?

After showing how the various referenda with strong results have been ignored, Bob says

I want NZ to be a place of DEMOCRACY not DICTATORSHIP

I do not wish to criticise Bob in any way, but apparently he, like 99.99% of people, does not realise that democracy is dictatorship by the majority. Allow me to explain.

87.4% of a representative sample of the population have voted against the anti-smacking law. If they have their way and the anti-smacking law is repealed (or amended) then that 87.4% of the population will be imposing their will upon the 12.6% of the population who want the anti-smacking law retained as it is. That is dictatorship by the majority.

Presently the government is in favour of retaining the anti-smacking law without changes, so it is ignoring what is commonly called the will of the people. That is dictatorship by the minority, i.e. the 122 politicians in parliament who think that they know best.

My point is this: democracy is always a dictatorship. The real question today is this: which dictator will decide what happens to the anti-smacking law? Presently Mr Minority (the government) is deciding. I believe that it is a lesser evil when Mr Majority (the 87.4%) decides what happens to the anti-smacking law, and that is why I will be marching on Saturday.


Have you ever wondered why this country is a mess and why we always have dishonest politicians? When you realise which majority is ruling NZ and appointing the politicians it will all make sense. The answers are in my post The problem with democracy – Part One.


November 5, 2009

• Garth George thinks that John Key is wonderful

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , , — Kiwi Polemicist @ 6:47 am

Garth George’s column this week has the nauseating title “We Should All Salute Our Wonderful PM“, and it goes downhill from there. It’s what is known as a hagiography, a biography of a saint.

Go and fetch a bucket, then read this extract:

He is a man of the people, as yet unspoiled by the poisonous atmosphere of power politics, and in spite of his position and spectacular wealth remains one of us.

He is every bit at home in the company of a class of primary schoolkids as he is with the man and woman in the street, or in the company of the world’s high and mighty. He is amiable, engaging, good-natured, highly intelligent, humorous and, most of all, unaffected.

Now for a dose of reality. Recently we had a referendum where 87.4% of a representative sample of the population showed their opposition to the anti-smacking law. As I said in my earlier post, John Key’s response was thus:

giving-the-finger gorilla

I don’t care how amiable, engaging, good-natured, highly intelligent, humorous and unaffected John Key appears to be: what I do care about are his actions, and his actions show that he is not a man of the people. His actions show that he is a man who wants to rule the people.

Sociopaths are some of the most dangerous people around, and they can be engaging, good-natured, unaffected, and humorous when they want to be – that’s part of what makes them so dangerous. I’m not saying that John Key is a sociopath, but I am saying don’t judge a book by its cover.


September 5, 2009

• John Key Wants an emissions trading scheme (ETS)

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

This is from the NZ Herald:

Prime Minister John Key said today the Government was “now effectively in negotiation”.

“There’s an ETS on the books, it’s a very expensive one under Labour, it would mean that quite a number of business in our view would close down. There would be a high price for consumers to pay.

“We want to amend that. Our preferred option is an ETS,”

So, according to Key, an ETS is a good thing if he thinks that it is affordable.

I find the notion of an emissions trading scheme quite bizarre: the government wants to create a tradable commodity out of thin air, based on the false premise of anthropogenic (man-created) climate change. Who wins out of this? The state of course, because there will be GST on every trade. Also, the International Monetary Fund has admitted that carbon trading is a tax and will take money away from wealthy countries, giving it to poor ones.

I say that there should be no Emissions Taxation Scam.


Older Posts »

Blog at