Grey Power is red

Lindsay Mitchell has written an excellent piece on "Grey Power" that Muldoonist statist group of greedy grey grizzlers who constantly lobby for the state to give them more, whilst moaning about having to pay for it.

As she says:

Grey Power epitomises the pursuit of privilege. They cleverly cover this by tugging on the heartstrings with cases of elderly people shivering in their cold homes, suffering on hospital waiting lists. All the while thuggishly pulling the guilt lever on those who have not yet reached that lofty position of having 'paid taxes and served their countries all their working lives'.

One of the greatest leaps forward for New Zealand would be to declare that the state WONT provide you with a retirement income if you are currently under a certain age, and in return for that here are your taxes - go forth and save, invest and make provision for yourself if you so choose.

Grey Power is against that - it supports the intergenerational fraud that is PAYE National Superannuation.

Moreso, it has provided succour to that aging purveyor of bigotry Winston Peters, but was too stupid to support him in 1999 after he had implemented the abolition of the superannuation surtax - a cause that WAS worthy because it taxed those who had made provision for themselves and because Jim Bolger promised to abolish it in 1990 but didn't.

Many elderly people live dignified lives that they saved up for, and only expect the state to provide the healthcare they've been forced to pay for. It's too late for them to do anything else, but they could at least stop lobbying for the nanny state that has so overwhelmingly let them down time and time again.

A word to be wary of

"Invest"

You'll see it being used by politicians of all stripes. Labour, National, the Greens, NZ First, Maori Party etc etc. They all want to "invest".

However, when have you ever gained a return from one of their investments better than you would with your own money?

I invest. It involves a simple concept:
- I use my own money;
- I choose where I want to invest it, seeking a return that increases the value of my initial investment;
- I use that return to invest more, or purchase something else;
- If I get it wrong, I lose my own money, learn something and move on.

When politicians say "invest" they mean:
- They use YOUR money;
- They wont ask you before they take it, and will use force to make you pay it;
- They choose where they want to invest it, and they are almost always not seeking a return that increases the value of the initial investment;
- Virtually none of their investments mean you get any of your money back, let alone more;
- If they get it wrong, they don't compensate you, they keep getting paid well above the average wage and face virtually no accountability for it.

Want an examples?

Dr. Cullen buys the Auckland rail network. Treasury valuation at best NZ$20 million, Dr Cullen pays NZ$81 million. Current market valuation? About NZ$20 million.

John Key promises to invest in the Waikato Expressway. Net financial rate of return zero. Economic benefit/cost ratio, 1:1 over 25 years (in other words you - by which I mean everyone on average, will only get your money back after 25 years, except you wont really, some people will save a lot of money on time and fuel, but you - by which I mean you and everyone else - will have paid for those people to get that).

Green party promises to invest in housing. Net financial rate of return zero. If you own a property already it will depress the price. You wont get any money back from that.

So next time you hear a politician talk about investing, ask them what rate of return you'll get from them spending your money.

It isn't an investment to spend someone else's money on something they didn't approve of and which wont see them get any of their investment back.

It's called spending other people's money.

So I am calling for some simple honesty. Don't say invest, when you just mean spend. You are campaigning for people to elect you so you can spend everyone's money on what you think is best for them.

That's not investment. It's being Nanny.

UK acts Nanny on alcohol

According to the Sunday Telegraph the British government is looking to address alcohol abuse in the UK not by requiring those who have accidents due to their own alcohol misuse to face the medical bill, no - by regulating how businesses can sell alcohol.

A government draft code of conduct, which could be made into law includes:
- Requiring wine to be sold in glasses that identify exactly the volumes sold;
- Banning promotions of free drinks to women;
- Restrictions on free samples;
- Bans on promotions that link drinking to "social, sexual, physical, mental, financial or sporting performance";
- Bans on drinking games that relate to speed and volume of drinking.

Yes, Nanny would rather penalise everyone, limit everyone, punish everyone - like children in a school yard, than target those who abuse, those who cost others. No.

There are bigger reasons why so many Brits drink far too much - it wont be fixed by regulation - it is cultural.

Nudity legal all over Wellington?

The Hive notes the story that an old bylaw, that is apparently unenforceable, banning nudity for over 8 yos on the beach has been repealed by Wellington City Council. This follows the same action by Kapiti Coast District Council. I assume Lucyna at NZ Conservative wont say its because Kerry Prendergast is a heterosexual National Party member. Mind you, the old bylaw was never enforced - but the publicity in the media means that people now know they can't be arrested for mere nudity - the question is whether it is indecent exposure.

However, to be serious I don't doubt that conservatives will fear this will result in a bout of flashing, perverted showing off and the like. Certainly people ought to not fear other people at the beach, their children especially shouldn't fear others. It shouldn't be a problem, because such aggressive behaviour will remain summary offences. Most Wellingtonians living on the Miramar Peninsula know only too well that Breaker Bay is an unofficial nudist beach. What will be legal is simply going into the water naked, or sunbathing naked, essentially minding your own business. Nudity is not, per se, sexual. Indeed in some contexts it is abundantly beautiful, it leads one to look at it because it is so - it is the difference between those who see nudity and think "porn" (which admittedly the majority of teenage boys probably think), and those who see it and appreciate it for how the human form can be quite exquisite.

Now having said that I doubt if 90% of those who may be nude on a beach in New Zealand would fit that mould for me - and I expect they also aren't being nude to be admired, just to be comfortable, and rather "laissez faire".

The Dominion Post reports that the legal position is more than just beaches, but any public place in Wellington City. Nudity in a park, nudity walking down Lambton Quay. Quelle Horreur!

Now Section 27 of the Summary Offences Act says that indecent exposure is when someone "intentionally and obscenely exposes any part of his or her genitals".

Simply lying on your back in the Botanical Gardens might not be the case, but certainly showing off and drawing attention to your genitals would. Also interestingly, it means breasts are allowed - regardless - they are not genitals.

However regardless of what you think - this is the tragedy of the commons. As long as peaceful people do not initiate force (or threaten it) against each other, the law should not be concerned. Private property rights mean you can control your land, your park, your mall, your shop - but that is where it ends. The solution to concerns about nudity in public is private property rights. The solution to those who think nudity is an opportunity to threaten is the existing criminal law.

Minto's interdependent fist of statism

John Minto is in the NZ Herald today cheerleading on forcing you to pay for university students to be able to live so they can then pursue their dream jobs.

This economic illiterate assumes its cost wont result in a massive change in behaviour, discouraging students from working and encouraging people to become students, because someone else is forced to pay. He says:

"The cost would be about $700 million per year. It's about the same as Telecom's annual profit or a quarter of the New Zealand profit of our Australian-owned banks. Another reason why the sale of these core assets is such an ongoing disaster."

Yes, because if Telecom had been state owned it would still generate a reasonable profit right John? Because it was bound to be as efficient. Of course you wouldn't want Telecom reinvesting profits in upgrading technology or services, no. The Australian owned banks, except for the BNZ and part of ANZ were never state owned either, but Minto like many socialists doesn't let the facts get in the way of a good myth.

Compulsory student allowances are not the "community working together", it isn't about people caring and choosing to support one another, it is the leviathan state saying "pay us or else" on the one hand and "you get money or you don't" on the other.

Minto has no interest in diving into his own pocket to help students, he wants to get the state to threaten the money out of yours. It isn't interdependent to tax those who don't cost the state very much to pay for those who always do.

Maori Party defends constitutional racism

The Maori Party unsurprisingly condemns the Business Roundtable calling for the abolition of the racially determined Maori seats, because without them, it may not be in Parliament.

It says "A recent Business Round Table report tries to rein in the resurgent political power of tangata whenua. It recommends abolishing the Maori seats out of pure self-interest, and definitely not for the good of Maori"

The Maori Party isn't self interested in defending the Maori seats? It never polls over the 5% threshold for party representation, and would fight to get maybe 1 or 2 electorates if the Maori seats were abolished (Maori votes changing the dimensions of general electorates like East Cape and Northland).

Parliament is not about representing races, it is about representing the views of individuals who vote. It does so in two ways, by representing communities defined by location and by representing parties that people want represented in Parliament. The Maori seats balkanise the country into Maori locations and non-Maori.

They are racist, they have no place in a modern 21st century liberal democracy, and no collectivised mumbo-jumbo can disguise that they are racist. The Maori Party wants to entrench this racism, rather than let Maori stand tall as people, as individuals with a shared national/ethnic identity, that don't need to be treated differently from everyone else. It could embrace the opportunity for electorates with high Maori populations to have Maori MPs, but no - it wins out of the current system, and will defend it to the end, and call anyone opposing it to be selfish and racist - which is so ironic.

Simple way to cut spending

Here you go, don't spend money subsidising the racing industry, for the reasons Sue Bradford says "there will be many others who will feel mortified at the bad name their industry is getting through Government sponsored handouts to the rich". Ignore he call for spending the money on the losers in the racing industry, but hell - how many examples like this can just be dropped? Shouldn't the Nats be fighting this?

A lousy tax cut idea

Idiot Savant at No Right Turn talks of speculation in the Sunday Star Times that Cullen's tax cut might be a "social dividend" flat payout of $1000 per "low income earner" (otherwise known as the Labour core).

He describes this as "a good idea, and certainly far better than anything offered by the "tax cuts for the rich" brigade. It targets support at the needy rather than the greedy,"

Now I'm not one to look a tax cut in the mouth, but he's seriously wrong. He isn't advocating a tax cut after all. A tax cut, you see, means your net income increases as the government takes less of what you earn. You get a steady amount each fortnight or month, can afford to save it, spend it, or do as you wish. It is permanent, sustainable and reduces the size of the state (which I acknowledge isn't important to him, as he sees it as the best way to deliver health, education and social insurance monopolies).

What will happen if people on low incomes get $1000 one off? Well, there will be a lot more big TVs being sold, some fashion trips, a few more new car stereos, some trips to Australia and the rest. In other words, it will be used to buy consumer goods. Now that, in itself, isn't a bad thing, except that this dividend wouldn't be paid to everyone, especially the majority who pay 90% of income tax. Don't forget those on the top tax rates pay the vast majority of income tax, but to argue they don't deserve a dividend is grossly unfair.
.
No, Idiot Savant wants you to keep working 2 days a week for the beloved Nanny State and be grateful that with every extra dollar you earn, you only get to keep 61c of it, even before you give up a 12.5% surcharge of what you buy to the state, be damned grateful we let you keep that you rich thieving bastard (the undertone being "you don't fucking deserve what you earn, just wish the revolution would come one day and you'll get yours you bourgeoisie scum").
.
Far more generous is the Libertarianz policy announced in the weekend of immediately creating a tax free threshold of $10,000 for everyone, which would mean those lowest earners (and students, children and others earning a bit here and there) would be free of income tax, but would also be a boost to all other income earners.

You see cutting taxes does not "disproportionately" benefit the rich, given it was their money in the first place. That is the fundamental difference between statists and libertarians. Statists think taxes are "society's money" or "government money" and getting a tax cut is "taking it from society". Libertarians believe it is your money that the government has taken, and a tax cut is giving you back your own money. No pure tax cut can be disproportionate by definition.

Of course he goes on to advocate a universal basic income, a concept some libertarians advocate as a transitional step to replacing the welfare state, using Milton Friedman's negative income tax concept with a flat tax. That idea, as a transitional measure, has some merit for debate. However he sees it as basically freeing people from work "It would substantially improve the actual, substantive freedom of people to lead their lives how they wish". Well for people who want to not work. You know those useful productive dynamic people who want to live off of the back of everyone else until they decide not to, while we all pay for them. Of course it would reduce the freedom of people for the rest of us having to pay for everyone else.

So there you have it - the left want people to get an income for doing absolutely nothing - their birthright to have everyone else pay for them to live, and not just survive but to be not uncomfortable. They want everyone else to pay for it, because - well they believe once you get above average you owe it to pay for those below - and not only that, if you ask for a tax cut when you are "rich" (above average income) you're selfish and evil.

It's quite despicable.

Labour, National and Jim Anderton - well done

Three words - TOLD YOU SO.

.

The Dominion Post reports:

.

"A dramatic increase in people being admitted to hospital with severe reactions to party pills has experts calling for urgent action... Dozens of new pills flooded the market last month, replacing BZP varieties whose sale was banned from April 1. "BZP really didn't make much of an impact in Wellington, but certainly over the past few weekends we've noticed a change," Dr Quigley said."

.

(Dr Quigley is a Wellington Hospital emergency doctor)

.

Banning BZP worked didn't it? You're all so clever aren't you? However with all three Labour parties (Anderton and Key lead the others) cheerleading prohibition, don't expect a backdown. No. Anderton is already calling for the burden of proof of safety to shift to manufacturers. Of course if it weren't for ACC, they could be sued for negligence, but none of the major parties are going to confront that little reason why New Zealand is a haven for trying out products are they?

You see unlike virtually every other country in the world, with the abolition of the right to sue for personal injury by accident, it makes New Zealand a soft touch for manufacturers. ACC socialises the negligence of others, and undermines an insurance market whereby manufacturers (and the public) would pay according to risk.

.

So banning something creates market demand for something else, which happens to be less safe, no doubt all those pills will be banned now, though it will take another couple of years. Meanwhile shifting the burden of proof to manufacturers will have implications for the vitamin and alternative remedies sector as well.

.

Clint Heine reminds us that Damien O'Connor predicted party pills would disappear, and most of you still trust 30-40% of your income with these people to buy you healthcare, pensions and your kids education?

What government is all about

Yep, I'm not the first to point this out. I first saw it on the Have I Got News For You TV show on BBC TV, and it is also discussed in the Times today with libertarian writer Daniel Finkelstein's blog.
.
British taxpayers paid London branding agency FHD to come up with this logo for the Office of Government Commerce. Of course you need to look at it horizontally to see how it was meant to be read. As Finkelstein quotes:
.
"A spokesman for the OGC said (I kid you not) this:

We concluded that the effect was generic to the particular combination of the letters 'OGC' - and is not inappropriate to an organisation that's looking to have a firm grip on government spend."

The people who think they know how best to spend your money use it to pay for this - it's beautiful.

Joyless bureaucrats regulating fun

Picture the scene. It is the sunny Kapiti Coast. Families have taken a break for the day or the weekend from their working week or school, to enjoy themselves. Some choose to go to the great family experience of the local miniature railway. The kids like the ride, it's good clean fun. Anzac Day after all is a day when, for the morning, shops are required to close to pay respects for those whose lives were lost at war. However, the work doesn't stop for the eager Labour Department bureaucrat. With the clipboard, cellphone and the eager enthusiasm of someone whose sole purpose is to stop people doing things, one was working that day - yes on Anzac Day - and found the Kapiti Miniature Railway operating, allegedly against the law!
.
Half a dozen people were on one of these trains. Trains mind you that don't get a dollar of government subsidy, they are operated by volunteers, people ride it for the purpose of fun, but no... Mr Bureaucrat ordered the railway to shut down.
.
Was it unsafe? No, there was no evidence that it was. Given the railway reportedly carries hundreds of people every weekend, the public seem to be satisfied. The joyless petty little man, who produces nothing, shut it down because "the club had not paid its registration under the Fairground and Amusement Devices Regulation Act".
.
He couldn't wait could he? He couldn't hand the notice to the club President and threaten its closure. No, far more self satisfying to shut down an outfit run and funded by volunteers, and enjoyed by the public. Having got himself off in the only way such bureaucrats can, he can go home wipe himself off, and think about what a good little cog in the wheel of Nanny State he is.
.
The Labour Department spokesman (somehow it's always petty little men who are inadequately endowed who seem most comfortable acting like former East German bureaucrats) said "Amusements are required to be registered and, as part of that, they have to be able to prove it can be operated safely."
.

Of course the law does say that. Heaven help you engage in unregistered amusements!

.

I can hear it now. "What if something happened"? Like what? The train derailed? Some kid ran in front of a train? A kid ran out onto the road? Yes that's what. The purpose of this law is to deal with fairground attractions, to avoid dodgy little men who make a living from driving around the country with rusty equipment throwing kids around with their dated rides (and frankly most look like they've been around since i was a kid). There may be better ways of doing this, but I wont go into it much here (think private property rights, rights to sue, strict liability for accidents attributable to equipment failure)

.

Some of the greatest dangers today are in areas that the state doesn't get too involved in. Kids cross roads all the time, and they are unfenced and their activities are not supervised. Most accidents happen in the home, and there are no home safety inspectors checking if nothing will burn, hit you on the head, trip you up or the like. I don't doubt that poorly endowed Labour Department inspectors will have thought of the merits of this idea. Of course it doesn't help that ACC does away with civil liability for personal injury by accident, or even grant higher or lower premiums for bad or good behaviour.

.

However nothing better exemplifies the joyless bullshit of Nanny State that this little man, on Anzac Day, shutting down a miniature railway while little kids are having fun. No MP betters represents him that Sue Kedgley - the high priestess of Nanny State.

.

Of course Nanny State can't work without the vile little humourless onanists who haven't the ounce of humanity to let kids enjoy a miniature railway ride on a nice day. I bet he thought he was doing them good, I bet he thought the (largely) elderly men who proudly built and maintained the railway were themselves beneath him. Nothing like ruining a day for kids and the elderly is there?

Easter Sunday is for individuals not politicians

As is far too often the case, the Greens show their flagrant hypocrisy regarding their principle of "non violence" . You see, violence is ok for the Greens, as long as it is performed by the state pushing people around the way THEY like it.

My response to Sue Bradford's press release saying "Easter Sunday is for families not finance" is "Easter Sunday is for individuals not politicians".

Sue wants to prosecute shopkeepers, including sole proprietorships, that open on Easter Sunday - because she thinks the shopkeepers should "be with their families". How dare she!

Sue wants Labour Department goons, which taxpayers are forced to pay for, to WORK on a Sunday (what about their families Sue?) to find businesses - private businesses - not ones Sue owns, risks money on, works on - to charge, prosecute and fine. Non-violence? Bullshit!

Of course Sue isn't concerned about businesses, they only create jobs. She pours out concern for employees she claims are "forced" to work on Easter Sunday. How are they forced Sue? Would someone arrest them if they didn't work then? How many employees WANT to work then so they can have a different day off during the week? Doesn't matter to Sue, she knows best.

Here are some simple points Sue, which chop through your weasel words about "community" which are just about you imposing your will on peaceful people:

1. Owning a business means having the right to control when it is open for business and when it is not. That is because owners risk their own money, and don't expect anyone else to bail them out when they lose. It's private property.

2. Nobody forces any businesses to open on Easter Sunday. By contrast, YOU want to force them to be closed.

3. Nobody forces people to be customers for businesses on Easter Sunday. In fact, thousands of people do that. Funnily enough apparently their view of community and what should happen on Easter Sunday isn't yours - but you ignore them, and want to force your view on them indirectly. Nice.

4. Nobody forces people to work on Easter Sunday. Employees take up employment understanding the terms and conditions of that employment.

Sue is apparently at ease letting airline pilots, nurses, police, power station workers, farmers, bus drivers, customs inspectors, service station workers, television presenters etc etc work on Easter Sunday and do business. She is happy for state owned airline Air New Zealand to fly thousands of people across the country on Easter Sunday, but not for a gardening shop to sell some pot plants.

She is a hypocrite, and a bully - and she shouldn't decide what you do on Easter Sunday, either with your business, your family or yourself. You should. It would be nice to have a day a year when politicians just left us all alone.

Fat chance with the likes of socialist Sue.

Thanks Big Sister, we really need you

Big Sister Cindy "Kim Jong" Kiro has spent your money urging you to spend time with the family.

However it isn't YOUR family or YOUR kids, she notably never says that. She does say "our children" in the context of "she's a parent so she's one of us".

It shouldn't fool you. Cindy Kiro wants to nationalise the raising of children, by having a Stalinist style monitoring of every child, and a plan for every child authorised by the state from cradle till whenever. This warm and otherwise benign press release is unnecessary, but paints a picture of the Childrens' Commissioner have a useful role - when she has none. She undoubtedly cares a lot for children and abhors child abuse - hardly controversial. However, she thinks we are ALL responsible for this. This justifies her call for Orwellian monitoring of children including:

Planned assessment at key life stages, including early childhood, primary and secondary school entry, and moving to tertiary education or employment and training opportunities, is a key component of the framework. The assessment will take into account the whole child; their physical, social, educational, emotional, and psychological development.

She is either ignorant of the evils of totalitarianism, or an advocate of it! Simply, how fucking dare she call for children of responsible, loving, non-abusive parents have their kids monitored by the state?

She dilutes the blame by being unable to confront the truth - the problem is abusive families, no others. There are thousands of children barely being parented at all. Their teachers know this, and no doubt also do neighbours, distant family members and the like. THAT is where the state effort should be, as part of the criminal justice system. It is about intervening when there IS abuse, not watching everyone else. Yes, it will mean intervening in a higher proportion of Maori households than others, because it is disproportionately a problem with families of Maori background.

So no Cindy Kiro. Parents will decide what they want to do childrens' day, some will be working to pay taxes to fund your well about average income and the big nanny state you warmly embrace - think how much more time the parents might spend with their kids if they didn't need to work so hard to pay taxes (for you and the state) as well as earn a living. The children living in New Zealand are not "ours", they are not a shared responsibility. They are the responsibility of their parents and guardians, and they should be accountable when they abuse or neglect their children. If you were to do ANY justice to your job you'd stop making blanket statement about everyone, and focus on CYPFS and support efforts to intervene when there is demonstrable abuse and neglect. You would also work to deny custody of children from those who are convicted of abusing kids, permanently. Instead of monitoring all families, how about breaking up the ones that are destructive and stopping those who are from being near kids.

To be fair, Dr. Kiro is not an apologist for child bashing unlike one blogger who wants says "the structural issues which leave people so broken that they torture a three year-old", in other words "capitalism makes people torture a toddler".

Greens Canadaphobic

Sue Kedgley is at it again, hysterically trying to ban something. This time the sale of private shares in Auckland airport to a (wait for it, it is horrifying and disgusting) FOREIGN company. Those wogs (well they are Canadian, but they are foreign, so they must be inferior) can't be allowed to have "our" airport (well actually it is owned by the shareholders, but Sue doesn't understand property rights), I mean after all, think what they could do. They might want it to run efficiently, at a profit, encouraging people to use it and that would NEVER do.

Sue's press release on this says "The Green Party sees no reason why a Canadian pension fund should be allowed to gain control of the gateway to New Zealand"

Well I see no reason why it shouldn't? Why is a Canadian pension fund less of a good owner than a New Zealand pension fund, or local government, or central government (remember Wellington airport when it was majority government owned?)? Sue doesn't say, just apparently as long as the Green Party doesn't see a reason to allow something, it should be banned.

Then she goes on a little to suggest that "New Zealand cannot afford the economic, environmental, biosecurity and security risks of letting control of our main aviation gateway pass into foreign hands"

What are these Sue? Economic risks. Hmmm that it will be efficiently run, will seek to encourage passengers and airlines to operate there. Are you concerned about monopoly pricing? Well apparently not since the Green Party opposes outright Whenuapai being developed as a second airport.

Environmental risks? What are the Canadians going to do Sue? Use the airport as a toxic waste dump? Encourage less fuel efficient planes to fly in? I mean those Canadians are such environmental vandals.

Biosecurity risks? Oh yes, apparently they will take over the MAF role too will they Sue? Or the Canadians will just let it rip on foreign plagues of insects and plants to ravish our countryside.

Security risks? Yes they'll let those Canadian terrorists in to hijack planes, or Canadian thieves to steal luggage.

Not a single rational reason to stop the sale, other than xenophobic hysteria.

Blame Canada, with their evil little eyes and their heads that flap with lies.

Bloody hell Sue, take some pills and get some therapy, it's not nice to discriminate against those from other countries.

Zieg Heil - NZ fashion police

In Iran there are police specifically patrolling matters of apparel, particularly women who show too much flesh. In New Zealand there are also police doing this, because, you see, they already perfected rapid response to your house being burgled, your car being converted and the like. The complete absence of real crimes means the Police can now focus on men wearing the Borat swimsuit.

^

Now we all know it is a fashion crime, and I would question as to how many men could get away with it (women of course are hardly a problem really) and not look vile, but this is all besides the point.

^

Now when the Police don't respond to your demands you know what they are doing - stopping people getting offended.

^

I dare people to do this, wear the swimsuit in public (the stadium can set rules on entry, although it is hardly "private property") and go to court, and see where covering up genitalia is indecent exposure.

^

UPDATE: David Farrar quite rightly calls them the fun police. However, will the National Party confront the culture of lack of cost accountability, and varying performance of the Police? Will it even consider radical reform of the Police (decentralising Police into regional forces would be one step worth serious consideration, and no the Police should not undertake any investigation).

Voting on sex and race is mindless

According to The Times Oprah Winfrey is getting hounded by the US leftwing feminopia for being a "traitor" to her sex for backing Barack Obama. Oh how funny and outright vile and abusive the left can be.

^

Esconsced in their closed circle of ideology, believing that identity politics come first, and competence, reason and achievement come second - they, like the racist nationalists or misogynistic bigots they are first to decry, judge based on sex and race.

^

Hillary Clinton should be supported by women because she shares their genitalia - simple as that. Women who don't support her to be President are "traitors" because it is more important to have a President that shares the same type of organs as you have than one that shares your political philosophy or policies you prefer. Of course I forgot Hillary is a Democrat, which automatically means she is "good". You see nothing is more important to the control-freakery of the left wing feminocrats than to get a woman President. Pakistan had one, and she was a socialist and corrupt, but hey it was more important she was a woman. Therefore, supporting Barack Obama is "wrong" for a woman, because genitalia matters more than politics, or race. Of course they think Hillary wont get votes of too many men because they think men think like they do - that men vote on sex, not policies. They can't comprehend that identity politics is their own little narrow minded cult of bigotry.

^

Here's the rub. Those who claim African-Americans should support Obama because of his race are equally narrow minded. If someone is the same race as you, suddenly you would be more likely to support that candidate. Again, the identity politics practitioners of the left think that race is important to people.

^

Of course I am not entirely right about this. The truth is that the identity politics socialists turn their back on anyone who is a woman or of an ethnic minority if they DON'T support the main party of the left. A Republican woman or African American would be scorned, like Margaret Thatcher was scorned - the ultimate betrayal. The idea that a member of an oppressed group, a (defined by the left as) victim would believe in the politics of racism, sexism and oppression (the turnkey descriptions of the left for any believing in individual liberty) appals them.

^

So to those who call Oprah Winfrey a traitor - look at yourselves, you petty vile little purveyors of bigotry and hatred. Oprah doesn't think with her genitals, or maybe not even with her skin colour - maybe she believes in Obama's politics. Maybe, just maybe, most people don't go for race and sex when they vote - except you and old fashioned (and old) racists and other bigots.

The far left and the far right are all just the same after all.

Why is SHE being charged?

My most popular recent post has been about this woman (warning link from that post is NSFW), who engaged in group sex on a hotel balcony in Latimer Square Christchurch. All consensual of course, but for some reason she has been charged but none of the men involved have been?

^

Now, as I've said before the only crime really is trespass - if the hotel didn't want them all doing this, then they could have told them to leave, it was private property after all. However, it is an outrage that her name is plastered over the media, whilst those men who availed themselves of the openings that she offered are anonymous and don't face legal proceedings? After all "taking part in a 45-minute group-sex session one afternoon" didn't mean masturbation did it?

^

She was arrested last Friday breaching her bail conditions that she not go within 100m of Latimer Square, so what pervy cops were keeping such a close eye on a young woman who, presumably, means nobody any harm (indeed quite the opposite for some)?

^

So:

1. Why was she charged in the first place for doing an "indecent act" which actually is not an offence in and of itself, but is in a public place? Is the balcony of a hotel a private or a public place? Who forced anyone to look?

2. Given she has been charged, what of the the men involved? Are men immune from prosecution if they gangbang a willing teenager?

^

Finally, you might ask why the Police in Christchurch so eagerly jumped upon this case, so to speak, but will be apathetic about burglaries, car conversions and the like when there IS a victim.

^

Nice to know there is so little real crime in Christchurch.

Dear Dr Kiro, most people are not the problem

Dr Cindy Kiro - Children's Commissar (which is a title she will continue to get from me as long as she seeks Orwellian monitoring and surveillance of all families) is, according to Stuff, concerned about a "wall of silence" surrounding child abuse. She cites a rather disconcerting example of a girl of 11 who became pregnant and gave birth at age 12. It isn't clear what has happened in this case, but the girl is not naming the father, and the whole family denies any knowledge.

^

There are two likely explanations for her early pregnancy. Either someone older, influential and threatening within the extended family has effectively raped her (and she is too scared to point the finger because she wont be supported by her family), or she has had a boyfriend - transitory or otherwise - and they did what some adolescents do, without protection, and she is protecting him from prosecution. The family silence is far less likely in the latter category, unless she was often away from home and what she got up to was not monitored or even noticed by the family. Dr. Kiro is betting it's the former because of the wall of silence.

^

Now the concern being shown is laudable, but what does disturb me is how Dr. Kiro paints a broadbrush over everyone with her statements. She makes it everyone's responsibility.

^

For starters she seems to indicate that there is only just now starting to be a cultural change to reject child abuse. Stuff quotes her saying "New Zealand is at a tipping point where communities are making it clear they will not tolerate child abuse and every adult needs to take responsibility for the physical, emotional and sexual abuse and abuse through neglect of our children,". Notice the phrase "communities are making it clear". She likes to collectivise, I tend to think that individuals express themselves, but that is a diversion. The clear implication of this is twofold:

^

1. Up until today, people DID tolerate child abuse. This of course will be remarkable news to the vast majority of parents and adults who are appalled by anyone who abuses children. It is counter-intuitive for almost all adults to inflict harm or hurt children. It's not news, it has been a publicly expressed serious concern for at least a generation, and even before that there is little doubt that most people never tolerated child abuse, for as long as the concept of "children" has really existed in Western civilisation (which really does only go back to the early 19th century).

^

2. There is consensus that EVERYONE has to take responsibility for the abuse and neglect of children. Not just those who commit it, but you who don't. Where did she get this from? Of course if anyone I knew was abusing a child, it would concern me and I would be likely to take steps to intervene - quite simply I couldn't tolerate it. However, the state can't legislate for this, you can't make people talk, and all you can do is have particularly high standards for those cohabiting with children. A mother who repeatedly stands by while her child is abused by another is effectively an accessory to the crime and is grossly negligent by not protecting the child. In such cases, custody should be removed from her.

^

Dr Kiro also said that "New Zealanders had to change their attitudes and behaviour to become more child-focused." Well hold on, most parents do this. Most children are raised in abuse free, loving households. There is a small minority who abuse, and the appropriate response is for the criminal justice system to punish those who do, to protect the victims and to deny welfare (and if necessary custody) from those who commit these offences.

^

Underlying all this is, of course, a serious point. There are families which are large, and not so linked by relations as relationships, and in those circumstances it is convenient/lazy for the real parents to let others perform functions "in loco parentis". In other words, many adults have access to the children. Because the children are being watched over by a whole group, it means no two people are paying inordinate attention towards them, providing an opportunity for abuse through fear to be carried out. The rewards of having many adult role models (although sometimes a lot of those are questionable at best) are outweighed by not having two solid ones who protect, provide and monitor those kids. Indeed such large extended families risk there being nobody a child can turn to, because some bonds between adults are greater than those where families are not so closely interlinked. Children need adults they can turn to, trust and who wont respond erratically if they need to tell them something scary or awful - like how a relative, teacher or family friend has threatened them or sexually abused them. It's clear who Dr. Kiro needs to aim her message at, it is those who share the family raising among many adults. In short, the parents need to watch - and be their children's first defence, AND be prepared to turn against any close relatives who may be abusing their kids. The problem is, clearly, disproportionately Maori. Something else Dr. Kiro wont say.

^

Like I have said before, why not completely deny welfare benefits from anyone who is convicted of brutality or gross negligence against a child? Or indeed, how about denying welfare from anyone convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence (something above common assault or indecent exposure). Permanently. Stop forcing other New Zealanders to pay for those who are violent to survive. Granted, it would save little money, but it would make an important point.

^

and you can watch the socialists whine and defend violent criminals' right to welfare, because they might do it again - so because they will hurt you, you have to be forced to pay for them to live?

Those disgusted by sex are fascinated by it

It started with David Farrar's largely agreeable post about the Department of Internal Affairs supplying lists of known child porn websites to NZ ISPs so they can block access to them. In and of itself this is fine, although the law as it is makes it illegal for anyone to check what this covers - as you risk prosecution yourself. Indeed, censorship laws are strict liability - you can break them without even intending to do so, but I digress.

^

The Society for the Promotion of Community Standards (it even has a blog) has for many many years been at the forefront of advocating the prohibition of any form of publications that depict sexuality or nudity. It is dominated by fundamentalist Christians, has a clear anti-homosexual bent (having waged a campaign against Chief Censor Bill Hastings because of his sexuality showing not the slightest respect for his privacy), and responded to the Kiwiblog post. Not only does it want all "objectionable" content blocked on the internet (which given that NZ bans content which is legal in the USA, most of Europe and Japan, would be an enormous and almost futile task), but it called for:

^

"all New Zealand ISPs (Internet Service Providers) to block ALL overseas based websites that host child pornography AND hard core pornography (NZ-based websites containing “objectionable content” including child porn are illegal under NZ censorship laws)."

^

Hardcore pornography is more than that of course. Material depicting BDSM, groupsex and all sorts of adult consensual fetishes is clearly hardcore. However, objectionable content includes urophilia under the law - which is not an illegal practice. It is not a crime to use urine for sexual purposes, but inexplicably it is a crime to photograph or own a photograph of people doing so.

^

Of course SPCS has a curious view of those who reject this. We're all perverts, but check out the language used - it's almost rabid in a certain obsession about homosexuality:

^

"Gay rights activists, paedophiles, homosexuals wanting to ‘hook up’ with underage school boys or view ‘bare-backing’ films, those addicted to hardcore pornography and all those who make a living from marketing such moral filth, have rubbished the Society’s call for the implementation of such controls to prevent injury to the “public good”."

^

I'm none of those.

^

Libertarianz presented a submission on the censorship laws calling for, at the very least, the laws to only prohibit material which was produced through the commission of a criminal act. In other words, if someone was being murdered, raped, sexually abused and being filmed in the act, then it would be an objectionable publication. However, if people were engaging in consentual legal acts, it is absolutely absurd for it to be a crime to film them or even write an account of what they were doing.

^

You see, it is crime to even possess an erotic story about watersports in New Zealand. It is not in the USA, and it would take little for anyone to find hundreds of such stories. I don't care for watersports myself, but there is something inherently vile about people risking police action because they read a story about something they can legally do!

^

So I responded to the SPCS response with my own concern that proposing child porn sites to be banned is one thing, but extending to all objectionable categories is another - and that SPCS has another agenda. It frankly finds any depictions of nudity and sexuality to be offensive. I simply believe that it is absurd that NZ censorship law bans publications of acts that are legal for adults to participate in. That's my point pure and simple.

^

So SPCS went on its long tirade, talking about "rimming" and "So-called “sexual fetish material” (DVDs, videos etc) involving urination (referred to as “water sports in hardcore porn publications) is imported into New Zealand by homosexuals and other sexual pervets (many heterosexual) via the internet." SPCS knows a lot about pornography, odd for a group which hates it so much. Check out the descriptions in this post. SPCS wondered at my motivation, implying that i might sell porn or get off on watersports. Sorry to disappoint guys, I'm not as obsessed with it as you are - I don't sell porn, and watersports aren't my thing, and I'm not gay. I believe in freedom - you know, leaving peaceful adults to get on with their lives, and not having a psychotic obsession with what other people do with their bodies?

^

SPCS, with some cheerleading from NZ First, would probably imprison homosexuals, would probably cheerlead on the banning of all erotic material visual and written, and would encourage the spread of their own bigotry against those who have a different view of how they want to use their own bodies sexually. I simply want consenting adults to have freedom.

CYFS and Police fascism in 2007 - Cindy Kiro's world

I've reported on incidents like this before, an alleged (and strongly denied) case of adult incest. According to Stuff, a couple living together, he 48 and she 30, are biologically father and daughter, but she was adopted and didn't meet him until she was 19. They became close over time, remember that he wasn't her father throughout her childhood, and he moved from the UK to live with her, although they strongly deny a sexual relationship. Bizarrely, her birth mother found out and decided it was time to wreck vengeance for some reason, she contacted CYFS.

Now let's not forget that CYFS claims constantly it has a backlog of cases of children - as in people under 18 - at risk, and not being properly followed up. I would have thought that a case of alleged incest, between adults in their 30s and 40s, where there is little evidence, no complaint from anyone directly involved, would be bottom of the priority list.

Maybe CYFS CEO can be asked about that?

Then there is the Police response. Again, when you next report a burglary, or car conversion or even an intruder, ask yourself whether it will be quite as important as this. I also wonder if this isn't a case of a bunch of cops thinking that there is something so prurient about this case that they all want to be involved. Two adults have allegedly a criminal sexual relationship that involved nobody else but what do you do?

^

Stuff reports "12 armed police raided their Auckland home just after dawn on Easter Tuesday. The police, wearing bullet-proof vests and accompanied by a Child, Youth and Family officer, arrested the couple, who appeared in court a week later."

^

I guess it's a bit easier than raiding a criminal gang isn't it, big tough cops that they were!

^

CYFS busybodies then questioned the women's children (of a previous relationship) about whether "they had seen us touch in private places", so in other words getting her kids to spy on whether the couple had been sexual.

^

Remind you of anything? Well gay men before 1985 would know of this sort of questioning - it is the sort of questioning that is not out of place in Islamic Iran, and was not out of place in Nazi Germany. The childrens' mother and their biological grandfather were taken from the house at gunpoint, and the biggest concern of CYFS is whether the kids saw them grope - which apparently they did not.

^

So what about Cindy Kiro? Oh well you see, she wants children to be monitored by the state and regularly questioned about family life. I doubt she will stand up for this family to not have armed raids on it for doing nothing wrong.

^

Moreover I doubt whether there will be much outrage from other parties in Parliament.

^

So what is really going on here?

^

1. A couple are living together, aged 30 and 48. Nothing more is known, but they have had her kids questioned by CYFS investigators as to whether they've seen them do anything sexual, and they've had a DNA test each to determine if they are related (as his name is not actually on her birth certificate as the father).

2. There is no allegation of any force involved in this relationship, even if there is anything sexual and certainly no allegation of children being involved. In other words, IT IS NOT ANYONE ELSE'S BUSINESS WHAT THESE TWO ADULTS DO CONSENSUALLY IN THEIR OWN HOME.

3. It is criminal for them to have a sexual relationship if they are related.

4. It is such a high priority for the New Zealand Government, led by Labour (after all they claim credit for building roads, they have to claim credit for this), to send 12 armed cops in to arrest this couple and separate the mother from her kids.

5. It's difficult to get any Police interest in most property crimes, and the Police constantly claim how overstretched they are to cope with serious crime, but enforcing this victimless crime gets the Police interested - I'd hate to think because of a prurient interest in the case.

6. CYFS claims it is also overstretched with a backlog of cases to investigate. A case of an adult couple potentially having consensual incest has priority, and there is a high priority to separate the mother from the children and put them through grilling to help the Police with their enquiries when there are NO allegations of abuse of the children.

^

Disgusting, abhorrent and yes fascist that a peaceful couple that may not even be having sexual relations get arrested and gunpoint and have to face this law.

^

The law is an ass, but what really disturbs me is how the Police and CYFS have not used the discretion they should to treat it more appropriately. What would be wrong to simply send two officers to ask a few questions? What would be wrong to treat it like car conversion, take the details but say unless there is any serious evidence nothing will be done?

^

So what should be done?

^

In this case, the charges should be dropped for lack of evidence and the couple left well alone (in a proper jurisdiction you could sue the cops for the mental anguish caused, but ACC stops all that).

^

The law on incest should be repealed in its entirety (children are protected by age of consent laws) or at least not be applicable when both parties are 18 and over. It is a waste of money to have the state pursue this, and a gross invasion of personal liberty and privacy to give a damn.

^

So WHAT if they fucked each other? So WHAT if it offends you? It isn't a crime to have a gangbang, or to tie consenting adults up and spank, whip and pee on them. Why should THIS be a crime?

^

More importantly, the cops and CYFS need to be held accountable for initiating force and causing harm to this family. They have hurt nobody, including each other (except perhaps the feelings of the woman's birth mother). The cops and CYFS need to learn something about individual rights - oh and Cindy Kiro and her entire office need to be fired and disbanded.