Kiwi Polemicist

November 14, 2009

• So-called abused children to go onto database

The NZ Herald is reporting that

Child abuse alerts are to be placed on a national health database, so that doctors will know if there are past concerns about a family.

The little-known Medical Warning System, run by the Ministry of Health, has been traditionally used by doctors to check for patients’ allergies to drugs. But as part of an upgrade, doctors and officials plan to add notes about any record of child abuse.

So, you take little Jonny to the doctor for an ear infection and the doctor sees an alert, therefore he takes a close look at your child for signs of abuse. This is simply a means of turning doctors into unpaid policemen, if they aren’t that already: Big Brother is watching you. To put it another way, your family doctor is the eyes of Big Brother. This is a classic example of what civil rights activists call ‘function creep’, i.e. something helpful is turned into something harmful. This database plan shows that the government will take any opportunity that allows it to increase its control of citizens.

What’s the definition of abuse, the threshold for putting a child on this database? No one is sure yet, but the NZ Herald says

Starship hospital paediatrician Dr Patrick Kelly said a working group was still discussing the criteria to be used. He believed the minimum threshold would have to be a notification (a complaint about abuse or neglect) to Child Youth and Family.

If the definition of abuse is a complaint then thousands of children will be on the database without good reason, because many complaints are made when no abuse has occurred. Even if the definition of abuse was a so-called proven case of abuse we would have a major problem. Why so?  Because we live in a country where smacking ‘for the purposes of correction’ is illegal, and therefore constitutes child abuse in the state’s twisted view of the world.

So, if you give little Jonny a swat on the rump steak to teach him that flushing the cat down the toilet is a naughty deed and then Child, Youth & Family find out about it, your family doctor will be told that you’re a child abuser.

Do you, Joe Public, get any say in any of this? Of course not.

Less government, more freedom I say.

The government ignored overwhelming public opposition to the anti-smacking law.

Join the March For Democracy on November 21.

~~~~~~~~~~

Advertisements

August 6, 2009

• MP Nikki Kaye wants to interfere with your life

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

The NZ Herald is continuing its anti-smacking campaign and quotes Member of Parliament Nikki Kaye as saying

New National MP Nikki Kaye said she could not comfortably vote on the [referendum] question.

“My worry is that many people I talk to see a ‘yes’ vote as a vote to reduce family violence and a ‘no’ vote as a vote to stop the Government interfering and telling them how to bring up their kids. I believe in reducing family violence and Government interference in people’s lives.”

I believe in… Government interference in people’s lives“.

It doesn’t get any plainer than that, and her statement confirms what I’ve been saying since I started this blog. Sorry, but I can’t resist this: I TOLD YOU SO.

~~~~~

Paula Bennett is also a totalitarian, so she and Nikki Kaye should start a club. The details are in my earlier post titled…

Paula Bennett claims ownership of all New Zealand children

How many other National Members of Parliament are eligible to join this evil cabal?

~~~~~~~~~~

July 23, 2009

• Thinking about state schools

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

I’ve been thinking about two current features of state schools and the implications of them…

Feature #1 – nurses

Approximately 75% of secondary (high) schools have nurses now. I haven’t been able to find the figures for lower schools, but I’m guessing that it’s similar. In my humble opinion this is another form of nanny-statism, and another way of teaching children to rely on the state for all their needs. When kids go to school they don’t just have teachers, they have guidance counsellors and nurses: it’s clear that the state isn’t just interested in education, it’s interested in the whole person (i.e. it wishes to be a parent), and the children of today go to school to get their every need met (including, in some cases, food).

There’s also a subtle cotton-wool effect arising from the fact that children grow up expecting to have medical care nearby. Children who are raised by parents that wrap them in cotton wool – remember that the state wishes to be a parent – turn out to be fearful weaklings that are excessively risk-averse. To put it another way, they tend to be wimps who are forever looking for more cotton wool to hide in, and these types are often happy to accept the poisonous ministrations of Nanny State.

School nurses are also agents of state surveillance and state control of parents. Think about it: almost every child in New Zealand goes to school, and a great many of those schools have medical personnel who are watching over the children. Those nurses can spot things that teachers often wouldn’t and, unlike teachers, their time is devoted to monitoring the health of children. They also have plenty of excuses for examining children in intimate ways. Parents know that if they send Johnny to school with a lot of bruises and/or hungry and/or dirty and/or poorly dressed they might get unwelcome attention from the state authorities, so the mere presence of a school nurse pressures parents into caring for their children in a way that meets with the state’s approval. On the other hand, you deserve what you get when you deliver your children into the state’s cruel hands.

Twenty years ago school nurses were virtually unknown and schools functioned perfectly well without them. On second thoughts, “perfectly well” is the wrong term: it would be more accurate to say that schools without nurses functioned as well as any morally bankrupt state brainwashing apparatus can function. In my humble opinion there is no need for them now and they are a waste of taxpayer’s money.

Feature #2 – ID cards

big-brother-is-watching-you-218x320As far as I can tell all children of intermediate age (11 years) and above have school ID cards with a photo. Once again, schools used to function as well as any school can without them, so why are they necessary now?

We have photo drivers licences – a de facto ID card bought in for spurious road safety reasons – and now schools have photo ID cards. Do you detect a pattern?

If the state ever does bring in a compulsory ID card (according to Ian Wishart this has been on the agenda since 1987) they will face less resistance if they do it when a large portion of the population is already desensitised (comfortable with the idea) by having had ID cards at school. To put it another way, the state is ensuring that the children of today are used to Big Brother policies such as ID cards.

As an aside, what is the purpose of state ID cards? Look at it this way: if you’re running a wholesale business and wish to be efficient you need to know exactly what’s in your warehouse, the location of each item, and the specifications of each item. In the eyes of those who rule the state you and I are simply goods in the warehouse, i.e. we exist for their benefit, and an ID card system makes it easy for the state to put everything it knows about you in one place. For example, a lot of people have an IRD number (tax), a WINZ number (welfare), a drivers licence number, and a National Health Index number. With an ID card system it is theoretically possible to collate all that information under one National Identification Number, although they’ll probably give it a cutsie name like Kiwi Care Number. It is also theoretically possible for a policeman to stop you in the street, scan a barcode on your ID card, and read all your personal data right there and then: income, criminal history, medical records, place of residence, welfare assistance received, and so on*. The purpose of state ID cards is collation and control: collation of information to aid in the control of individuals.

If they did something like this they’d justify it by saying that we should be willing to give up our right to privacy in order to allow the state to maintain social order – read more about that in my post What is a social contract?.

Thankfully the state has a history of being grossly incompetent when it comes to implementing massive computer projects, such as the one that would be required to collate all your personal data under a national ID number. Many people curse the ineptitude of governments but I am thankful for it, because the incompetence of our enemy is what keeps us safe.

Back to schools: I believe that nurses and ID cards in schools are simply examples of the state’s efforts to infiltrate and control every area of our lives. State education has always been about teaching the state religion, and state control of individuals is part of that religion so it is taught to children in a subtle way.

What are your thoughts regarding nurses and ID cards in schools?

What other implications of these things can you see?

I believe that the state should not be involved in education in any way whatsoever.

~~~~~

Related posts:

The anti-smacking law lets citizens be agents of state terrorism

The problem with democracy – Part One

The New Zealand government is holding 2.1 million blood samples taken from citizens

A biblical perspective on home schooling and state schooling

* the UK government wanted to make ID cards compulsory for everyone but faced opposition. Now the cards are voluntary for most people, but compulsory for permanent residents who come from a country outside the EU. Click here to see what data is stored on the UK ID card: I believe that this is the thin end of the wedge and that more data will be stored when the opposition has gone quiet.

~~~~~~~~~~

May 28, 2009

• Police want to track cellphone locations

According to Stuff, the police want to bring in a new system that will allow people to call for police help using text messages. But there’s a kicker: the police want to “help locate people by tracking their cellphone signal”.

I’ve had a look on the web and I can’t find any more specific information (let me know if you can find anything), but giving police the ability to track cellphone locations is very bad news if you value freedom.

For this system to be effective in rendering help it’s going to have to give a pretty accurate location and cellphone technology isn’t good at that. I’ll bet that one day having GPS in cellphones will be compulsory, for your own good naturally, and before you know it the police will be able to accurately track any cellphone at will.

The state thugs in blue are employing a Trojan Horse (i.e. calling for help via text messages) in order to increase their surveillance abilities.

1984-was-not-supposed-to-be-an-instruction-manual

April 30, 2009

• Advertisers should be free to tell lies

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

Lindsay Mitchell has a very interesting advertisement from 1865, where the makers of Holloways Ointment claim that their potion can cure, amongst many other things, cancers and fistulas. These lies show how much freedom people had in 1865, and sadly it also shows how much freedom we have lost today.

I believe that advertisers should be free to tell lies. Why so? An advertisement is a communication between a seller and a potential purchaser, and it is no business of the state’s. The state should butt out and mind it’s own business. State control of what advertisers say is no different to having Big Brother listening to every word I say to you in order to ensure that what I say is truthful. Furthermore, a false advertisement does not in and of itself cause loss to anyone.

State censorship of advertisements is also:

  1. interference in the free market: businesses that are free to lie in their ads and do so get their just desserts and go broke. Fear of a bad reputation regulates behaviour because a bad reputation equals a bad bottom line, and it’s an article of faith in business circles that an unhappy customer will tell far more people of their experience than a happy one will. Despite what the Communist Manifesto says, the desire for profit is a good thing because it keeps businesses honest
  2. paternalism: it assumes that people are incapable of checking the claims of advertisers themselves
  3. fostering dependence on the state: the state loves having people dependent upon it (because this gives power to the state), and censoring advertisements feeds the delusion of those people who think that the state is their parent and protector
  4. preventing the learning that comes from experiencing consequences of actions: if someone bought Holloways Ointment and it didn’t cure their bunions as claimed, they’d think “That was a waste of money, I’ll be more careful next time”. That person has suffered the consequences of their failure to check the claim, i.e. a loss of money, and learnt a lesson. When people are shielded from the consequences of their actions they become stupid and soft, and they’re unable to cope with life because they expect life to be fair and easy. That’s exactly what we see today: many people who are stupid and soft because the state and their parents have shielded them from the consequences of the actions (click here for more on that).

Note that I said I believe that advertisers should be free to tell lies. I also believe that is wrong for advertisers to tell lies, but (1) that is not a justification for censorship, and (2) it is not the state’s job to impose morality upon advertisers. Better a few fictional advertisements than a nanny state/police state. We don’t need the state to “protect” us when private organisations such as the Consumers Institute do a splendid job of that.

By now you’re probably throwing your hands up in horror and thinking that Bad Big Business will rip off everyone if my scheme is followed: that’s a Socialist/Marxist notion. I am not proposing open season for advertisers: when a consumer has suffered loss as a result of false advertising he should be able to obtain redress of four or five times the loss. Once again, the profit motive keeps businesses honest.

Caveat emptor: buyer beware.

~~~~~~~~~~

Older Posts »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.