Sue Bradford launched the Green Party policy on children - because you need a policy on everything (where is the dance policy?).
It represents the explicit desire to collectivise responsibility (if not rewards) for the raising, care, protection and development of children by everyone of everyone else's kids. This isn't the village to raise a child, it is the nation state.
This policy statement says so much that, on the face of it seems innocuous, but the use of the word "we" means "you should be forced to pay for this and feel guilty if you don't agree":
They are our future, so we must give them the best possible start to life.
It represents the explicit desire to collectivise responsibility (if not rewards) for the raising, care, protection and development of children by everyone of everyone else's kids. This isn't the village to raise a child, it is the nation state.
This policy statement says so much that, on the face of it seems innocuous, but the use of the word "we" means "you should be forced to pay for this and feel guilty if you don't agree":
They are our future, so we must give them the best possible start to life.
Each child should have the opportunity to grow with joy, be fully supported by their family and be an integral part of our society. Each child deserves a secure base from which they can express their creativity and discover life as an adventure.
Who is this we? Why must you give other people's children the best possible start in life? Who is responsible? Not the parents no - this is Sue Bradford nationalising the responsibility of children to everyone, through the warm embrace of the state.
Why should every child be "an integral part of our society"? What the hell does that mean? When are you NOT? What is "our society"? I don't want any kids I have to have anything to do with this work shy, union worshipping, state welfare supporting socialist!
Now the policy has 130 points! Yes 130 - this is nanny state par excellence. So what do these measures really mean? Well...
- dozens are about essentially removing barriers to get compulsorily funded state welfare, as the Greens embrace welfare benefits as a way of helping kids.
- Some are about making people work less, a 35 hour week and more leave, essentially saying that the magic Green money tree will find a way to produce more by doing less. It doesn't occur to this control freaks that cutting the size of the state would enable more people to CHOOSE to spend more time with their children. No. Nanny State must tell you to work less.
- there is talk about promoting a non-violent culture, whilst at the same time embracing the violent nanny state that takes money from its citizens, prosecutes fines and imprisons those who break its laws. The Greens positively love violence, as long as it is velvet fist of the Nanny state they embrace.
- It wants kids to watch more TV! The Greens want to make you pay to produce TV programmes for children to watch, locally made of course (can't have those culturally inappropriate foreign shows can we now? Not with "our" children). Why have any subsidies for kids TV? Encourage them to go outside!!
- It wants to make you pay for "culturally appropriate care and treatment" for Maori, Pacific Island and other ethnic children, which isn't as important as making sure they are healthy. Looking forward to witch doctors being funded then, though one may wonder if it could ever be culturally appropriate for children of parents who want world class cutting edge science applied to healthcare.
- The obsession with GE continues, banning NZ production of GE food, on the implicit assumption it is unsafe for children - which is hysterical nonsense.
- Regulations on labelling of takeaway food, because its voters are too damned stupid to know that deep fried chicken is high in fat!
- Support diversity and choices in education, EXCEPT when it means funding following students. No mention of religious schools of course, just Steiner, correspondence, home schooling and Kura - the ones the Greens like.
- "Incorporate environmental education into the core curriculum at all levels from pre-school to secondary school" code for brainwashing Green ideology. I'd argue education in economics, education in freedom and individual rights, but if that happened kids wouldn't grow up appreciating the multi-leader Green party Nanny State.
- "increasing access for all children, including children in rural areas, to art, music and drama" Yes the state subsidised and nationalised childrens' plays, bands and art exhibitions. Yes lovely, Nanny helps you play.
It goes on and on. It is a disturbing vision of state subsidies, bureaucracies and rules, but most disconcertingly a philosophy that parents are not primarily responsible for their children, and that parents don't get punished for failing to be responsible. Nobody is to blame! Negligent, lazy, alcoholic, criminal parents all need "help and assistance" - forcibly funded by you, whilst you try to pay to responsibly raise your kids.
There are odd statements like "Recognise that in the context of Pacific families, definitions of children and youth are made by parents and families as opposed to an age specific status" oh so does that mean that when a girl is 13 she's an adult and can have children then by some distant relative twice her age?
Naturally the Greens use the phrase "adequately resource" often, which means give the bureaucracy a blank cheque to make it happy - they love the Office of the Childrens' Commissioner, which has done virtually nothing to improve the lives of any children- except those of the people working there.
Children do not belong to the state, nation, society or everyone. Children are nobody's property, but they are the responsibility of their parents and guardians first and foremost. The role of the state regarding children should be as a last resort to intervene in cases of abuse and profound neglect - not to mollycoddle and provide for everything that might be nice for kids to have, funded by force through taxes.
The Green vision of a childrens' policy is the Greens wanting to expand the state to do virtually everything other than physically feed, clothe and bathe the kids (even then they want to control food). It is statist, childish and downright terrifying. It offers no vision to save those kids from the subculture of violent, abusive, negligent lowlife who brutalise them - it wants to pay them more.
It's absurd, immoral and bankrupt.
Why should every child be "an integral part of our society"? What the hell does that mean? When are you NOT? What is "our society"? I don't want any kids I have to have anything to do with this work shy, union worshipping, state welfare supporting socialist!
Now the policy has 130 points! Yes 130 - this is nanny state par excellence. So what do these measures really mean? Well...
- dozens are about essentially removing barriers to get compulsorily funded state welfare, as the Greens embrace welfare benefits as a way of helping kids.
- Some are about making people work less, a 35 hour week and more leave, essentially saying that the magic Green money tree will find a way to produce more by doing less. It doesn't occur to this control freaks that cutting the size of the state would enable more people to CHOOSE to spend more time with their children. No. Nanny State must tell you to work less.
- there is talk about promoting a non-violent culture, whilst at the same time embracing the violent nanny state that takes money from its citizens, prosecutes fines and imprisons those who break its laws. The Greens positively love violence, as long as it is velvet fist of the Nanny state they embrace.
- It wants kids to watch more TV! The Greens want to make you pay to produce TV programmes for children to watch, locally made of course (can't have those culturally inappropriate foreign shows can we now? Not with "our" children). Why have any subsidies for kids TV? Encourage them to go outside!!
- It wants to make you pay for "culturally appropriate care and treatment" for Maori, Pacific Island and other ethnic children, which isn't as important as making sure they are healthy. Looking forward to witch doctors being funded then, though one may wonder if it could ever be culturally appropriate for children of parents who want world class cutting edge science applied to healthcare.
- The obsession with GE continues, banning NZ production of GE food, on the implicit assumption it is unsafe for children - which is hysterical nonsense.
- Regulations on labelling of takeaway food, because its voters are too damned stupid to know that deep fried chicken is high in fat!
- Support diversity and choices in education, EXCEPT when it means funding following students. No mention of religious schools of course, just Steiner, correspondence, home schooling and Kura - the ones the Greens like.
- "Incorporate environmental education into the core curriculum at all levels from pre-school to secondary school" code for brainwashing Green ideology. I'd argue education in economics, education in freedom and individual rights, but if that happened kids wouldn't grow up appreciating the multi-leader Green party Nanny State.
- "increasing access for all children, including children in rural areas, to art, music and drama" Yes the state subsidised and nationalised childrens' plays, bands and art exhibitions. Yes lovely, Nanny helps you play.
It goes on and on. It is a disturbing vision of state subsidies, bureaucracies and rules, but most disconcertingly a philosophy that parents are not primarily responsible for their children, and that parents don't get punished for failing to be responsible. Nobody is to blame! Negligent, lazy, alcoholic, criminal parents all need "help and assistance" - forcibly funded by you, whilst you try to pay to responsibly raise your kids.
There are odd statements like "Recognise that in the context of Pacific families, definitions of children and youth are made by parents and families as opposed to an age specific status" oh so does that mean that when a girl is 13 she's an adult and can have children then by some distant relative twice her age?
Naturally the Greens use the phrase "adequately resource" often, which means give the bureaucracy a blank cheque to make it happy - they love the Office of the Childrens' Commissioner, which has done virtually nothing to improve the lives of any children- except those of the people working there.
Children do not belong to the state, nation, society or everyone. Children are nobody's property, but they are the responsibility of their parents and guardians first and foremost. The role of the state regarding children should be as a last resort to intervene in cases of abuse and profound neglect - not to mollycoddle and provide for everything that might be nice for kids to have, funded by force through taxes.
The Green vision of a childrens' policy is the Greens wanting to expand the state to do virtually everything other than physically feed, clothe and bathe the kids (even then they want to control food). It is statist, childish and downright terrifying. It offers no vision to save those kids from the subculture of violent, abusive, negligent lowlife who brutalise them - it wants to pay them more.
It's absurd, immoral and bankrupt.
4 comments:
Good analysis. They are obviously sincere and well-intentioned, but overall it is a very worrying policy.
They support strong broadcasting standards. Now the Family Party is a fan of broadcasting standards too. But their entire focus is on violence and there is no mention of sexually explicit material - you get the feeling that they don't care whether children are watching blatant pornography so long as it isn't violent. As a relation used to say, "you can pretend to be violent but you can't pretend to take your clothes off". Just one more example of the strange priorities in the policy.
"He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future."
Adolf Hitler
And the other one!
When an opponent declares, "I will not come over to your side," I calmly say, "Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community."
Adolf Hitler.
Speech November 1933, quoted in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer
Oswald, unfortunately your analogies seem to be containing increasing amounts of grist.
Post a Comment