Kiwi Polemicist

July 11, 2009

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

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

This is an update to my earlier post The anti-smacking law lets citizens be agents of state terrorism.

The NZ Herald is reporting that

The number of minor assaults on children reported to police has jumped by 40 per cent since hitting a child for “correction” became a criminal offence two years ago.

The latest police report on the effects of the law shows reported minor assaults on children went up from an average of 32 a month in the three months before the law changed to 45 a month in the 21 months after the change.

(Note that this refers to reports made to police: you also have to consider the increase in reports made to CFY {Child Youth & Family}. Click here to view a graph of those.)

So, the state’s plan for controlling how parents respond when their children misbehave is working just as I described in my earlier post. When parents know that the they are being watched and that plenty of people are willing to report them to the state authorities those parents modify their parenting methodology in order to avoid trouble. Legally and effectively the state now controls the raising of every child in New Zealand, which is utterly evil.

These citizen-spies are beneath contempt.



July 9, 2009

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

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

• The following is based on an account given to me by the family concerned.

• “Smacking” here primarily refers to a swat on the rump steak or similar used for the purposes of correction (parental training), although there are situations where greater force is reasonable. See also footnote 3.

• Remember that the anti-smacking law was opposed by at least 83% of the population, therefore making smacking illegal was the will of the state, not of the population. Do you still think that the state serves the people? See my earlier post on that. Click here for full background information on the anti-smacking law.

• Terrorise: coerce or control by violence, fear, threats, etc. inspire with dread (Collins English Dictionary).


Last year my friends’ two year old had a very loud tantrum and the neighbour next door heard this, whereupon he (the neighbour) knocked on the door and asked if the child was alright. A legitimate response to this would have been “Leave my property now and mind your own business, you interfering busybody”, but of course that would have been familial suicide: the state storm troopers (police and CYF, Child Youth & Family) would have been around quicker than you can say “Jack Robinson”, probably snatching the children on a presumption of guilt. At best the family would have been on the state surveillance list forever. So my friend produced the child to show the predatory polecat from next door that the child was unharmed and simply crying. Surely she was inspired with dread.

So, what’s happened here?

  1. state propaganda has told this neighbour that smacking children is a bad thing (calling this untermensch a “neighbour” is a misuse of the term – a true neighbour helps – but I’ll use that word here despite this).
  2. state evil has made smacking illegal and therefore a so-called crime that has to be investigated. Effectively the state has altered the moral code of the nation, albeit with the assistance of those idiots who think that the government knows best.
  3. making smacking a crime legitimised investigation and interference by citizens who suspect that a “crime” has been committed, much as someone might intervene in a mugging (which, unlike smacking, is an actual crime against property and person).
  4. The neighbour effectively said “Prove to me that your child is ok or I will call the state authorities who can arrest you and take your children away”. So, now the state laws have allowed one citizen to control the actions of and terrorise another citizen (see the definition above). To put it another way, making smacking illegal allowed those pestilential people who want to control how other people raise their children to do so.
  5. the neighbour knocked on the door and effectively became a state thug, a spy, a cop, and an agent of state terrorism. If you don’t believe me consider this: would my friend have responded any differently if the police or CYF had knocked on the door? Of course not, because the neighbour had the overwhelming power of the state behind him, so my friend responded just as she would have responded to state thugs with badges. There was no material difference between having the neighbour knocking on the door and the badged ones knocking on the door. The worst part is that this nasty individual chose to enforce the will of the state: he was not under any compulsion to do so.

Therein is the crux of the matter: state terrorism against parents cannot succeed without the willing co-operation of individual citizens, usually those who love to meddle in other people’s affairs and/or need power to make them feel happy and important. Totalitarian systems rely upon citizen-spies who report to the state, and this country is full of citizen-spies, which is why there was an increase of more than 30% in the quantity of reports made by these quislings to CYF in the year following the introduction of the anti-smacking law¹.

Now, let’s go back in time and have a look at another example of the same thing, which will show you that this type of action by citizen-spies is part of a historical pattern and not confined to the era of the anti-smacking law. We’re going to go to the McCarthy epoch (1947-57), when the state  – the USA – whipped up public hysteria and paranoia regarding communists, much as the state has whipped up hysteria and paranoia regarding smacking today: in both cases gullible individuals willingly swallowed the lies and chose to become agents of the state operating against their fellow citizens (may the fleas of a thousand camels infest them).

Tom Watson was the president of IBM during the McCarthy rampage, and in his autobiography he says

…at that point the country was in a terrible state of paranoia because of the Red scare. Senator Joe McCarthy was holding hearings and claiming to find Communists in every crack in the wall. There was a moment when I truly thought IBM was going to lose its shot at defense work because of the type of window blinds I had in my office. Window blinds in those days were almost all horizontal – ordinary Venetian blinds. But vertical blinds had just been developed, and some had been ordered for me. An IBM engineer was in my office one day for a meeting and he was interested in getting the same kind of blinds for his office, so he drew a little diagram of how they were attached to axles on the floor and the ceiling. He put that little piece of paper in his shirt pocket and forget about it. A few days later the man who did the engineer’s laundry was checking the shirt before putting it in the washer, and he found that little slip of paper – just a diagram with no explanation. McCarthy [Sue Bradford] had so spooked this country that everybody thought everybody else was a Red [child beater]. So the laundry man sent the paper to McCarthy, and pretty soon the Senate investigators came and said to the engineer, “We’ve identified this as the plan for a radar antenna, and we want to hear about it. We want to be perfectly fair [yeah right]. But we know it is a radar antenna  and the shirt it was found in belongs to you.”

The guy said, “Oh for Chrissake, those are the blinds in Watson’s office!”

So they asked to see me. When they came to the office they explained what the engineer had told them and I said, “Well, those blinds are right here.” I showed them how the blinds worked. They looked them over very carefully and them left. I thought that I had contained it, but I wasn’t sure, and I was scared [he was inspired with dread, i.e. terrorised]. We were working on a SAGE [a government defence project worth millions to IBM], and it would have been a hell of a way to lose our security clearance².

Clearly, when the government goes on a witch hunt certain reprehensible people turn into citizen-spies with the might of the government behind them. Examples of this can be found in every totalitarian society including, as we have seen, New Zealand. The anti-smacking law contains many evils, and one of those is that it lets citizens be agents of state terrorism³.

Click here to view an update to this post.

What do you think about those people who interfere when they hear a child staging a tantrum?

Remember that the vast majority – 99% or more is my guess – of screaming and crying that is done by children and seen or heard by the public is either a tantrum or childish distress about something harmless (“I’ve dropped my ice cream”). Most children have learnt that they can get whatever they want if they throw a big enough tantrum, so they turn on all the theatrics and fireworks, which tricks a lot of people into thinking that there is an actual problem. A child screaming in a life threatening situation will make make your blood curdle, whereas as a child screaming in a tantrum is simply annoying. The media delivers the government line about rampant child abuse, but in fact serious child abuse is very rare (unless you consider sending a child to a state school to be serious child abuse 🙂 ).


Click here to see other examples of citizen-spies (including children) making false reports of smacking to the state authorities.

There’s a referendum regarding the anti-smacking law coming up: click here to learn more and see a list of related posts.


1. source

2. Father Son & Co. by Thomas J Watson Jr and Peter Petre, p234-5

3. Because the anti-smacking law removed the legal justification (defence) of using reasonable force (usually smacking) for the purposes of correction and defined the permissible uses of force the way is now wide open for the public and state employees to terrorise parents and justify this by claiming that they did so because they suspected that force was used by parents for correction or some other purpose not permitted by the new legislation (click here to view it). You can see this happening in some of these cases.

In military parlance this feature of the law is a force multiplier, i.e. it makes the law more effective from the state’s perspective. The desired effect of the law is of course state control of children, state control of parenting, and state control of the public’s beliefs regarding smacking and parenting in general. State control of families is a goal clearly stated in the Communist Manifesto.


November 4, 2008

• There is no such thing as “human rights”: a classical liberal perspective on the Electoral Finance Act

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

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”. Therefore I do not consider the evil Electoral Finance Act to be a breach of “human rights”*. Allow me to explain.

The fundamental principle of classical liberalism is the non-aggression axiom:

It is illicit to initiate or threaten invasive violence against a man or his legitimately owned property.

This covers personal rights and property rights, and what is usually called “the right to freedom of speech” is actually property rights, because I have the right to say whatever I like when I am using my own property. Three illustrations of this:

1) I have the right to print political pamphlets and give them away or sell them without hindrance because the pamphlets are my property.

2) I have the right to buy a hall and state my political opinions to whoever is in the hall because the hall is my property. I can also do the same in a rented hall if the rental contract allows this because I have purchased the right to use the hall for a period of time.

3) I have the right to purchase radio or television time and state my political beliefs. Naturally the station owners have the right to refuse to sell the time to me and listeners/viewers have the right to turn off their sets if they do not want to listen to me.

The EFA is not a breach of “human rights”, rather it is a breach of property rights. My money, or at least what is left after the State has stolen a good part of it, is my property, yet the State tells me what I can and cannot do with that money during election year. If I print a billboard that billboard is my property, but the State tells me that I must put an authorisation notice on the billboard, so the State is interfering with my property rights and putting words into my mouth.

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.

I am a classical liberalist and I believe that there is no such thing as “human rights”, but I am passionate about property and personal rights.


Related post:
Insane rules for election day

The other day I spotted this egregious piece of hypocrisy from the Labour government – even if we do vote the same thing happens. Click on the picture for a full size view.


*I have previously said that the EFA is an attack on the right to freedom of speech, which was a phenomenonological description given for clarity and brevity. Translation: I was describing the visible effect of the EFA, rather than the underlying mechanics of what the EFA does. It’s like saying “the sun has risen” rather than “the Earth has rotated and the Sun is now within my line of sight”; both are true, but one is simpler.


November 3, 2008

John Key on families

National has been delivering a pamphlet entitled “Families”, which features three photos of Key with cute kids and plenty of Socialist/Marxist welfare, health and education policies. One particular statement from Key jumped out at me:

I’m not judgemental about the shape a family may take but I do know that families provide the best foundation for the future of our young people.

Here Key is putting a bob each way, trying to appeal to both social liberals and social conservatives. From this I draw three conclusions:

1) social liberals need not fear voting National, because Key is a social liberal

2) social conservatives should not expect a pro-family stance from Key, however it is reasonable to assume 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 that the Family Party has a good chance in Mangere, East Coast Bays and Manukau East, so social conservatives in those electorates should consider using their electorate vote to bring a pro-family voice into parliament. Those in Epsom should vote for Rodney Hide.

3) the National Party has shed its principles; these days National is a left wing party and will say whatever it takes to get votes.

The bottom line is that having John Key as Prime Minister would be a lesser evil than having the Witch Witch (a.k.a Helen Clark) in control.

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?

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Blog at