New Zealand election 2011 - party vote options

Whilst I traditionally write about the political parties and their relative interest in freedom, that might read a bit like a cracked record.  It's obvious Libertarianz is the party most committed to individual liberty, private property rights and economic liberty, setting aside that the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party would leave everything the way it is, except for legalising cannabis.  If freedom matters to you, your vote will really only be a debate between whether you support Libertarianz or ACT (or ALCP if cannabis is all you care about), which is a matter of whether you support a pure vision of individual freedom or a diluted vision, which has a reasonable chance of getting MPs elected.

That decision is one for another post.  For now, I want to quickly go through the parties that are standing lists, with a summary of my view on what they all mean, and their chances, in alphabetical order:

ACT - Most have forgotten that ACT stands for the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers, and I suspect most forget ACT was spawned by defectors from the Labour Party.  As much as the angry left might seek to ex.communicate them all, the simple fact is that Roger Douglas convinced more than David Lange and Richard Prebble of the wisdom of free market reforms.  Stan Rodger, Koro Wetere and yes Phil Goff, along with David Caygill, Michael Bassett and Bill Jefferies all bought into it.  Helen Clark willingly entered Cabinet and supported the reforms at the time.   Since then, ACT has picked up political refugees from National and most recently has been remodelled after a coup against Rodney Hide. 

The decidedly mostly libertarian Don Brash (his remarks on cannabis are notable) faces tension from the more conservative wing of the party in a final dash to make a real difference, given that the past three years have been disappointing (indeed was the greatest achievement voluntary membership of student unions?).   A party vote for ACT is, first and foremost, a vote for Don Brash to help keep the Nats from going backwards (John Banks is not first on the list, but rather fourth), with Catherine Isaac deservedly in second place (notwithstanding the late Roger Kerr's passing), and Federated Farmers' ex.leader Don Nicolson in third.   ACT is finally with a leader who is unafraid to talk publicly about personal freedom (and with considerable personal integrity). An honourable vote for the freedom lover, if you can hold your nose regarding John Banks and the odd policy about Fiji.   My prediction is ACT will scrape through, with three seats, one being Banks.

Alliance - Oh how the mighty have long fallen, and the true believers keep the faith.  Again, I am sure few remember the Alliance was a merger between Jim Anderton's New Labour Party, the Greens, the Democrats (followers of the wacky "Social Credit" faith) and the "original Maori party" Mana Motuhake.  The so-called "Liberal Party" of the erstwhile Gilbert Myles also joined in.  Of course it was the Jim Anderton party, and in 1993 Jim won his seat, along with Maori radical Sandra Lee, and the party gained its highest ever support that year - when those who voted Alliance knew it wouldn't mean the party getting into a position of power with 18.2% of the vote in a First Past the Post election.   The Alliance dropped to 10.1% in 1996 under MMP with 13 seats (including such intellectual giants as Pam Corkery, Liz Gordon and Alamein Kopu), in 1999 it dropped to around 7.7% and 10 seats having lost the Greens in the first divorce - but gaining coalition with Labour.   However, then the solidly socialist ideals proved too much.  In 2002, there was a second divorce, with Jim Anderton setting up his own personality cult party taking his seat with him, leaving the Alliance to the power crazed Laila Harre (that's another story) who failed to get the workers excited enough to do more than steal her billboards, with only 1.3% of the vote.  2005 and 2008 have been disasters. 

The Alliance faces too much competition on the left, with the Greens and now the Mana Maori Party both likely to get elected, why vote Alliance if you're a socialist, unless you're neither a radical environmentalist nor a Maori ultra-nationalist?  Still there is buckets of force and state violence in the manifesto, with much more tax, renationalisation of Telecom, airports and power companies, bans on any serious foreign investment, compulsory wage rises to match inflation and masses of new regulation and massive expansion of welfare.  Hilarious to think people believe this.  However, with the competition it faces, I predict the Alliance will have its worst ever showing and wont manage 1,000 votes this time.  The party list and leadership says it all really.

Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party - Michael Appleby perenially standing for legalising cannabis.  No other policies.  Yes, it is one I agree with, so yes if for you freedom just means legalising cannabis, then tick the leaf.  Honourable mention to Richard Goode, number 9 on the list, former Libertarianz candidate and a principled man.  However, the ALCP peaked in 1996 with 1.66% of the vote, since then the Greens have cannibalised the cannabis liberalisation vote, although there was a minor gain in 2008 given the departure of Nandor Tanczos.  As sympathetic as I am to the single issue, I think having MPs who will spend three years on one issue as a waste, and I'm unconvinced that there is any point voting ALCP.  I expect ALCP might pick up a few more votes this time, given Labour has little chance of being in government and the Greens are ignoring the cannabis vote, but the impact will be zero. Yet if ALCP members joined ACT or Libertarianz? (but then they would have to reject the welfare state)

Conservative Party - Effectively the successor to the Christian Heritage Party, Family Party and the Kiwi Party, without the disconcerting branding (and hypocritical leader).  Besides the second party with a Kevin Campbell as candidate (the Alliance has one), and the unremarkable ex. United Future MP Larry Baldock on the list, it has not much of note.  To be fair, I agree with some of what it says, some useful points on welfare and law and order, and there is a distinct lack of much to do with religion, abortion and sex.  However, the war on drugs is on as far as this lot is concerned.  On top of that, Colin Craig's intellectually lazy press release in response to independent candidate Stephen Berry says a lot - a new bunch of control freaks who want to criminalise alcohol consumption.  There is nothing new here.   The law and order emphasis already sits with ACT, along with being tough on welfare and repealing ETS.  What's left is smacking kids and toughening the law on alcohol.  Given the Kiwi Party gained 12,000 or so votes last time, this party may well get quite a few votes, but it wont come near getting a seat in Parliament.  Frankly, unless telling people what to do with their lives is your thing, I can't really see the point of voting Conservative.  I estimate it will pull in about 10,000 votes though as it reaches through churches and with a lot of money to spend on electioneering (and because there are easily that many frustrated busybodies around).

Democrats for Social Credit - Not to be confused with fascists for Social Credit of course.  It is an oddity that New Zealand has sustained a movement based on the bizarre ravings of the vaguely anti-semitic Major Douglas (if you haven't heard of them, don't worry, he only got a following in parts of New Zealand and Canada).  If you study the "A+B theorem" long enough you will go mad.   So are the policies of this lot.  It include some heavy handed xenophobia (foreign investors beware, except this lot have no chance), and yes it is funny money.  You'd have to believe in conspiracies to think this all makes sense and that the only reason it doesn't happen is that there are forces out there stopping it.  It's an embarrassment of New Zealand's political history that doesn't die and was only sustained because nobody else could be bothered sustaining a third party during the hey day of First Past the Post, other than these "true believers".   Ironically, the global financial crisis will have given this lot some backbone, so expect another 1,000 votes or so to be thrown at this, truly one of the religious based parties.  If you encounter one of this lot, try debating and see how far you get before he or she resorts to conspiracy based arguments.

Green Party - The most successful big government, pro-state violence party, which is getting a boost as leftwing statist voters abandon Labour and go for what they really want.  The Greens benefit from a friendly cuddly brand that suggests panda bears, trees, clean air and oceans, whereas behind that is a rampant series of policies designed to tax and regulate, including state supervision of whether newspapers are acting "in the public interest".  If that doesn't send a chill down the spine of any human rights advocate or believer in freedom, what does?  The Greens have advocated nationalisation of children as promoted by neo-Stalinist Cindy Kiro ("cradle to grave monitoring of people"), includes the obnoxious prick Russel Norman, the woolly headed lunatic Catherine Delahunty and with Marxist Keith Locke and control freak Sue Kedgley retiring, adds new lovers of big government such as Eugenie Sage (environmental radical), Sue Bradford acolyte Jan Logie, anti-American Steffan Browning, unionist Denise Roche and spin advisor Holly Walker.  Not a long list of achievers, but certainly a bunch to support the Marxist "we know best" policies the Greens promote.   I suspect the Greens might pull off around 8% of the vote this time, a record amount, but will only do better if they aren't seriously confronted and Mana doesn't siphon off votes on the left (along with ALCP now the Greens are quiet on cannabis).  It will largely depend on how much of a free ride they get from a docile sympathetic media.  There is nothing honourable about voting Green, unless you get a thrill out of pushing other people around and feeling self-satisfied.

Labour Party - The government in waiting, which will still be waiting.  A solidly centre left-wing party, believing in government providing solutions, led by a man who isn't too unsympathetic about ACT, but who has hoisted himself to a career that he probably suspects, has reached its nadir.  Andrew Little, an annoying little leftwing unionist, is the highest placed non-MP on the list.  Labour may claim to be more frugal, but is trying to sell capital gains tax, which will be one of its downfalls.  Still, it has a chance of governing, if a coalition of perhaps the Greens, Maori Party, NZ First (!), Mana and Peter Dunne might be cobbled together.  Labour is partly dependent on unionised civil servants and on welfare beneficiaries who want to keep the tap.  It does have an honourable history of reform.  Let's be honest, Labour makes more reform than National when in power.  However, only in 1984-1990 did it largely do any good on that front, and the results were mixed.   Labour has a large tribal vote, by that I mean hundreds of thousands who vote Labour because it's in the family and because they think the alternative means National - a party they instinctively think is "for the rich" and "against them".  If only many of them started to realise that the only person they can rely on is not a politician, and certainly not a political party that says it will "do things for them", but themselves.  Yet, I think Labour will be lucky to reach 30% this time round, although Helen Clark survived getting 28.2% in 1996, Phil Goff must know his role is almost certainly to be the fall guy.

Libertarianz - Still surviving, still declaring the unabashed belief in the freedom of the individual, private property rights and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and private property.  I need not say more, as I've been a member for 13 or so years.  Still the only choice for those who believe in much much smaller government, so government exists to protect people from the initiation of force, not being the chief perpetrator.  Libertarianz face the challenge of ACT led by Don Brash, but the opportunity presented by National looking like a sure thing is for freedom lovers to see they can vote for what they really want.  Indeed, ACT voters who can't stomach John Banks have a natural home in Libertarianz.   Of course I'd like Libertarianz to get 12,000 votes, a 10 fold improvement on 2008 - it would only take a small fraction of past ACT voters to give the tick to freedom.  However, I suspect the actual result will be closer to 1,200 than 12,000.   And no, it is NOT a wasted vote to vote for what you believe in.

Mana - The new far-left party, making the Greens look centrist and the Maori Party look not so racist.  This is Maori nationalist socialism, with massive state transfers from the successful to the not so successful, serious controls on tobacco and alcohol, and if you claim Maori ancestry, expect the state to smile upon you more than others.  It has Annette Sykes, who once noted a risk of terrorism in the quest for Maori sovereignty, although she reassured Maurice Williamson she didn't support such action.  The same woman who said she cheered when she saw the news about 9-11.  Hone Harawira himself once said "Our fight for a better world will only be won . . . when the white man comes home", and who cheered Osama Bin Laden as a "freedom fighter".  This is truly the vile party, the party that isn't just about state violence, but sympathises with those who have used terrorism and has candidates that no only have cheered mass murder, but also empathise with Islamist misogynistic totalitarians.   He said ACT policies are like that of Hitler.  This is the politics of the gutter.  Hone Harawira will no doubt get elected though, but will there be enough votes to get a second candidate?  I think probably not, and if the media did its job thoroughly enough, it would treat this party as what it is - the Zanu PF of New Zealand.  Mana makes the Greens look honourable, which quite frankly in comparison, they are.  A case for abolishing the Maori seats if ever there was one, but that would be painted as being like the Holocaust.

Maori Party - No party list seats going to be won here, but it wont win back Hone's seat and will probably lose another.  National's other partner in government, that wont tolerate talk of colourblind government, but which only exists because of the Maori seats.  Is a party for Maori a racist party? Well it is a nationalist party, and a party that is driven by what it sees as the interests of one race, one nationality, by definition.  Not exactly a friend of freedom.  Essentially a breakaway from Labour that is more focused on pragmatism than political tribalism, but as such will probably suffer from having supported National and the loss of its radical wing to Mana.  3 seats with less than 2% of the vote.

National - If you're happy and you know it, tick National.  So if you don't like change and you thoroughly approve of the confiscation of private property and the grotesque mismanagement of Christchurch since the earthquake, then tick National.  Frankly if you claim to be pro-business, pro-property rights and believe in small government and vote National you're a fucking hypocrite or a fool.  I am convinced this debacle is mostly due to Ministers taking the advice of officials and letting council and central government bureaucrats do as they see fit.   It's a disgrace and is destroying downtown Christchurch.  Don't vote National if you believe in property rights, don't vote National if you are in any city and fear what government will do in an earthquake or volcanic eruption or any other major disaster.   The proof is clear - government will run roughshod over those who fund it.

NZ First - The "Asians are coming" party (with an Asian candidate just to "prove you wrong"), which so disgraced itself in 1996-1998 with politicians who were people so inept they sought and enjoyed the baubles of office, and then again in 2005 when Winston didn't want baubles, then became Minister of Foreign Affairs.  By natural attrition, NZ First will probably grab 3% of the vote this time as the slippery short arse Winston proclaims how "unfair" the media is.  Tired populism without the real commitment or modern campaigning skill to really get there again.

United Future - Peter Dunne might scrape through again, having survived common sense, religious conservatism and supporting Labour and National in government, but it's going to be touch and go whether the party vote drops so far that he is an overhang MP.  Nothing to see here because Dunne will go whatever way the wind blows, so voting United Future means you don't care whether Labour or National is leading a government, and you don't mind either so much you want to change them, which means you don't really have strong views on anything, except maybe Transmission Gully, drugs and the creation of the "award winning" Families Commission (oh and outdoor recreation, lots of policies on that).

So that's it, the full spectrum from authoritarian racists to freedom lovers, and all sorts of blends in between.  Don't vote National, it doesn't deserve it.  Don't vote Labour, you're better than that.  Don't vote for lunatics (Social Credit), control freaks (most of the above) or those seeking to pander to the worst in you (Mana, NZ First).  A party vote should express your political philosophy, what do you want government to do.  If the status quo is National, you have a lot of choices for government to do more, and it would appear only three to do less. 

Greens think smokers are just so stupid and pathetic

Nothing shows the Green Party up for the authoritarian control freaks they are than this press release with this statement:

We need to get smokes out of our homes and out of our shops,” Green Party Co-leader Metiria Turei said. 

So blatantly collectivist, so blatantly uninterested in personal responsibility, choice and property rights.  

Who is this "we" Metiria?  Why do I have to do anything as a non-smoker?  Why should I have anything to do with what other adults do in their homes and their shops?

What are "our homes" and "our shops"?  They are NOT your homes or shops.  YOUR homes and shops are the ones you own, not everyone elses.  Property rights still exist in New Zealand.  It is not some grand socialist uber-state where everyone is responsible for everyone else.  

"Too often the focus is on punishing smokers and not controlling the industry that profits from the drug"  Oh and the Greens want smokers to have the right to smoke on their own property or to allow smoking on their own property, including restaurants and bars?  No. The Greens like punishing smokers too.

She has taken upon herself the role of Big Mother, given that Cindy "Stalin" Kiro no longer has he position:

"Mrs Turei said her main focus was on caring for New Zealand’s babies and children.

“This means giving our wahine, our mothers, all the support they need to quit and to stay smoke free."

New Zealand's babies and children?  They don't belong to the state, or the nation or country or whatever collective entity you want to ascribe to them.  They belong to their parents and guardians.  NOT you.  They are not "our wahine, our mothers".   After all, over 90% don't even vote for you.  

Feel free to give them support Metiria.  Through your own efforts and money.   However, you should stop treating smokers as stupid, pathetic and incompetent children who need you to protect them from their own actions.  How patronising and disgusting it is to think of yourself as better placed to make their decisions for them.

The only people who can get tobacco out of their homes and shops are the people who own them.  Feel free to try to convince them, but get the hell out of the way if they tell you where to go.   Yet the problem with the Greens is that they don't believe in peace, they don't believe in non-violence.  They warmly embrace the violence of Nanny State taking people's money, telling them what to do in their shops, and treating them like children.

I say this as someone who personally loathes tobacco, hates the smell of it and who has seen people I love suffer the consequences of smoking.   However, as much as I would not shed a tear if tobacco became a thing of the past, I find far more threatening the finger wagging patronising petty fascism behind the Greens treating people like they are children.

It makes one want to light up.

UPDATE:  Meanwhile the Netherlands has taken a step towards freedom according to the Daily Telegraph.  The new coalition government, which includes the Party for Freedom (the much maligned party of Geert Wilders who is more a libertarian than anything else despite the braindead media thinking he is aligned to neo-fascists) has abolished the smoking ban for owner-operator pubs.  In other words pubs with no staff.  It is a small step, but it shouldn't be debated.  It is simple.  It is private property.  If you own a pub, then you can decided if you or your patrons smoke there.   It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.  If you don't like it, don't go there.

Laws is wrong, but

he is expressing the frustration of those who see an underclass of violent, negligent and destructive people breeding, producing children who face a bleak and difficult future.

His solution as described in the Dominion Post is wrong. Damned if taxpayers should reward people for being indolent, otherwise it becomes a career option for the stupid - be sufficiently vile and threaten to breed and get someone else's money for nothing. It has been deliberately misconstrued as "totalitarian", as if people have a right to be appallingly bad parents, when the likes of Cindy Kiro (backed by Sue Bradford) did advocate a totalitarian solution, yet no mainstream media ever picked up on it.

However he has a point. A point that the Child Poverty (in)Action Group misses, because it worships at the altar of "higher benefits" rather than genuinely combating the lack of ambition and the feral behaviour of so many in poverty. Barnadoes Chief Executive Murray Edridge rightfully says any child could become a doctor but he is wrong in saying "as long as there was community support for them", as he implies that good parents are expendable. The truth is that they are not. Sue Bradford even trots out the usual "more resources" nonsense to combat violence.

No, you don't need money to stop killing your kids.

The fundamental problem is twofold.

Firstly, people are paid to breed. Many who are don't abuse their kids, but they inculcate a culture of entitlement. A belief that everyone owes them a living and should pay to raise their kids. However, you can be a murderer, rapist, violent criminal, burglar or fraudster and still be paid by the state to raise kids, and get more money with every child you have.

The first simple thing to do is to prohibit all people convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence from ever being able to claim welfare. That includes anything for raising children.

Oh, but what about the kids? Indeed, the parents should have thought of that. They are responsible for the children, they bear the burden of paying for that. If people want to help, they are free to do so voluntarily. However, taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for criminals to breed - simple as that. After that, you might ask whether taxpayers should be forced to pay for anyone to breed.

Secondly, the state needs to be willing to remove children from their parents when they abuse them or become an accessory to abuse of them. The threshold should be high, but effort should be put into intervening when there is clear evidence of criminal behaviour towards the children, or fundamental neglect. Indeed, it should be considered in sentencing whether criminals should be permanently denied custody of their children, if the offending is serious or the children were used as accessories.

Finally, parents who clearly can't look after their kids should surrender them as a last resort, those who say they care about child poverty might actually think about doing something about kids in those situations, rather than complain the government hasn't done it.

There has always been an underclass that neglects and abuses children, what we know now is that it is more publicised, and cases appear to be more frequent. However, the answer to this underclass is to stop feeding the attitudes of dependency, victimhood and blame passing that welfarism promotes, and indeed more than a few on the left promote (the nonsense that capitalism stresses people out so much, they turn on their children).

Are you licensed to look after your neighbour's children?

For you see, in Britain, you might be breaking the law if you aren't.

According to The Times, Two Police officers regularly looked after each others' kids while they were on shift work. A perfectly normal voluntary arrangement between parents, for mutual benefit, and the benefit of the kids who have parents willing to work odd hours, to help raise the family.

You might think the state would simply let this be, or indeed private citizens would think nothing of it. No.

You see in Britain, there is an insipid culture that frankly would not have looked out of place in the former German Democratic Republic (that's "communist east Germany" for the confused). A neighbour noticed this arrangement and tipped off, Ofsted. Ofsted? The Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills. It has existed since 2007, and of course how did Britain cope without it?

You see if you look after children, who you are not related to, for more than two hours, for "reward", you must have a licence. You need to have First Aid training, training in childcare (amazing how parents can manage without this!) and be checked as to whether you have a criminal record. Reward in this case was the reciprocal provision of the service. However, money, baking a cake or giving a lift would also be a reward.

Yes, you read right. You cannot look after someone else's children for reward without a licence.

So the vile Stasi agent style neighbour having contacted Ofsted resulted in an inspector coming to visit to ask questions.

THIS is New Labour, this is the Nanny State going yet another step into intruding into the private arrangements of citizens. It follows on from the law that requires anyone who regularly deals informally with children, whether visiting a school or giving lifts to kids to sports clubs, to be vetted not just for crimes, but suspicions by private citizens that someone is a bit weird. It should send shivers up and down the spines of most people. It has shades of the Orwellian vision Dr. Cindy Kiro shared with the Green Party, had for New Zealand families.

At what point do people stand up and say no. When parents have a door knock every year to interview little Sam and Sarah, asking them if they ever get hit, ever see daddy's penis, ever hear anything racist from mummy and daddy, ever see them put recyclable items in with the rubbish, ever see any books that confuse them, ever get scared of mummy and daddy, what they eat and drink, whether they exercise much, etc etc?

Meanwhile, do people think it's ok for the state to licence almost every arrangements parents have with other adults involving their kids?

New Labour’s Britain, with full consent by the Tories and Liberal Democrats, doesn’t trust parents to make judgments about who should look after their kids, but apparently you’re all meant to trust the state.

So when a registered, state approved person next rapes a kid, will the parents be able to sue Nanny State for failing to protect them? No, of course not. It is more intrusion, and no more responsibility.

Those providing childcare should not rely on the state to approve its workers. No. Parents should ask childcare centres to demonstrate they do criminal vetting of their staff, and provide references. Most parents will only entrust their kids to centres who prove their safety and care for the kids. To make this a state regulated activity is in effect to nationalise it. It says to parents, don’t worry, the state has vetted everyone, they are trained, they are ok.

It says to parents, don’t you make your own judgment, the state knows better, and more disturbingly, it says that the state has the right to interfere in any private arrangements you make with others. In short, you can’t be trusted. Everyone’s a suspect until proven innocent. What sort of country does that make it then?

Farewell Sue Mao Bradford

Naturally I can barely concede my joy at this news. Bradford is a Marxist who unashamedly embraces a big violent interfering state that treats the economy as a self-sufficient xenophobic fortress and which has its eyes and hands freely in the homes and bank accounts of everyone, to take what it needs to give to what it wants, and make sure you're being good. What can I say?

Well I do love Not PC's summary of the Greens:

What’s unique about the Greens, of course, is nothing more than their combination of authoritarianism and ludditery – with a a caucus composed almost entirely of the intellectual remnants of the Socialist Workers’ Party they’re little more than a bunch of authoritarians with a marketing wing.

So what has Sue Bradford done that is positive for freedom and prosperity? Let me look back at the times I've referred to her in my posts:

Sue Bradford hates Chinese Workers as she opposed Air New Zealand (mostly state owned which she would consider to be a good thing) buying foreign made uniforms. So she despises trade, wants foreign workers to lose their jobs and is economically illiterate. She'd have NZ pursue a kind of North Korean autarchic self sufficiency no doubt. Didn't stop her flying Air NZ at taxpayers' expense of course. She pushed to make you pay for a Buy NZ Made promotional campaign, that she wouldn't pay for herself of course.

Sue Bradford embracing Cindy Kiro's neo-Stalinist plans to have Big Mother watching over every child, monitoring them all, in case you've been bad parents, rather than focusing on targeting children of parents known to the Police, known to be negligent. She even acknowledged in her press release that "I realise some parents will be horrified by the idea that their children will have regular checkups at key stages of their lives" but it was justified by protecting the kids. Given Sue spent many years gleefully supporting China under the rule of Mao (and drifting away when it started opening up), you can see what her role models are.

Sue Bradford's express belief that nobody should be "forced" to work for a living as she embraced the dole. In other words, why shouldn't everyone just sit on their arses and do nothing and magically food, clothes, electricity, homes, everything you consume will magically appear. Given she long led the self-styled "Unemployed Workers' Union" (quite the oxymoron), you have to wonder how hard she thought anyone should look for a job?

She also demanded the nationalisation of the voluntary sector, by forcing taxpayers to pay for it - which of course, means it is no longer voluntary is it?

Sue Bradford's opposition to Air NZ's efficiency drive which includes cutting staff, she said it wasn't bailed out to become a "mean anti-worker" company. Of course it wouldn't have needed to be bailed out had the likes of Sue and the Greens not rallied wholeheartedly against Singapore Airlines (or any foreign company) increasing its shareholding in the company.

Sue Bradford makes a little news that the SIS was spying on her which a naive reporter thinks it amazing. Hardly a shocker. Trevor Loudon long ago outed her lifelong communism here here and here.

So freedom? Nothing to see here. Prosperity? Nothing to see here.

The truth is that had Sue Bradford's politics had her way some time ago, then none of you would be reading anything other than state approved literature, you'd be working for the state , assuming the People's Republic of Aotearoa had survived the difficult period after 1989. She was a member of the Workers' Communist League in the 1980s after all. Charming really, not that the mainstream media can cope with people having been communists, since the little darlings don't really understand it.

So the Greens and we are all safer without her in Parliament, and this may be a fit of pique at Metiria Turei being selected over her (though Metiria is almost indistinguishable in her views) which of course hardly means the Greens are free of their corrosive, pro-state violence view.

What have others said:

Phil Goff “I admire her passion for the causes she fought for, even if I didn’t always agree with everything she said,” Well at least he wasn't fawning.

The Youth Union Movement cheered her on for increasing youth unemployment by raising the youth minimum wage to the same as the adult. Cheerleaders for Marxism as they are. Finsec and NDU share similar sentiments.

Barnados and Plunket has nailed its colours to the mast of an every interfering state, so maybe some wont be donating so much in the future. Plunket of course was set up to be a eugenics organisation (which it never admits).

Tariana Turia and the Maori Party loved her, birds of a feather they are.

The Maritime Union, the most hardened Marxists of the union movement, and most featherbedded (the single biggest reason why the NZ shipping industry has shrunk to what it is) also embrace her because she advocated protectionism.

Might it be time for the government to stop funding her training camp for radicals in Northland?

Authoritarian Britain to make kids safe?

New Zealand had a close call with the resignation of Dr Cindy Kiro and Labour losing the last election, to avoid a neo-Stalinist level of state intervention in families. Big mother was going to be watching you.

She wanted children monitored from birth, by the state, this was warmly embraced by former Maoist Sue Bradford, Metiria Turei had a high regard for her, as did some Labour MPs. She blamed everyone for child abuse, tarred everyone with the brush that they tolerated violence and made all children the issue. She preferred a nuclear bomb rather than a sniper.

So how could things have been in NZ?

Well let's look at the UK. The Daily Telegraph reports that parents who formally arrange to transport other people's children to and from sports events or the like will need to be criminally vetted:

"Any formal agreement to ferry youngsters to and from the likes of Scouts, dance classes or local football matches, even if only once a month, will fall under the Government’s new Vetting and Barring Scheme.

It means anyone who fails to register and have their backgrounds checked faces a fine of up to £5,000 and a criminal record.

Parents who help children read in class or those who host foreign pupils as part of school exchange trips will also have to be vetted by the new Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) and undergo criminal record checks.

School governors, dentists, pharmacists, prison officers and even dinner ladies are among the huge list of people who will now fall under the scheme, which starts to be rolled out next month and will eventually cover 11.3 million people."

So everyone is guilty till the state proves they are innocent, anyone who refuses to do so, is guilty of the crime of - not letting the state prove you are innocent.

Old Holborn says "This batty Quango seeking a role for itself at the public cost, is seeking to 'restrict access' to children. The little buggers are around us all the time, they are part of our lives not some protected species that is in danger of extinction."

So is this just about those convicted of abusing children? No. After all, not everyone caught abusing kids was caught before, so what will happen? The Times reports:

"Controversially, complaints or concerns from colleagues or members of the public that fall short of prosecutions may be held on an individual’s file, which will be available for viewing by any employer or voluntary group with which the person might work".

So got a grudge against someone, or a bit fearful of the eccentric chap down the street? Make a complaint, and you'll keep them from interacting with children. It IS akin to East Germany, where people were encouraged to report on their neighbours and files were kept about suspicious activities.

The Tories should promise to abolish the Independent Safeguarding Authority. All that should be able to happen is for people to choose to check if someone has a criminal conviction. Anything less is accusing the innocent of being guilty, ignores the truth that much child abuse happens within families (so will never be caught by this).

Most importantly, there needs to be a recognition that the state cannot hope to protect all children from the risk of an adult abusing them.

Remember, you can always justify an increase in state interference in the lives of innocent people on the grounds of protecting children. Take it to its logical end and everyone will need a licence to have children, there will be cameras in every home, children will walk around in burqas (so perverts don't look at them and fantasise), and everyone they interact with, and everything they see or do is officially approved.

By the way, with the exception of the cameras (but there are people watching in every housing block) and burqas (though state approved clothing is fairly plain) North Korea has a lot of this already. That's a place that knows how to treat children, especially children of people who object to any of this.

However, will British people stand up? No, they'll be inert like they have been for years over this sort of authoritarianism. I don't expect the Tories to have the slightest testicular fortitude to do anything about it either.

UPDATE: 10 Drowning Street says the logical extension is to vet all parents, and for the state to remove the children if they are deemed unsuitable.

The Independent Safeguarding Authority website is here. "The Independent Safeguarding Authority’s (ISA) role is to help prevent unsuitable people from working with children and vulnerable adults." Sadly they don't define themselves as being unsuitable people for working at all. What sort of control freak would "work" for this body?

Beyond smacking

Sadly, the terms of the debate on this issue have been very binary focused. One side arguing against the state interfering in how parents raise children, another said saying it needs laws on the use of force to stop horrendous cases of abuse. Neither particularly enlightens about how to raise children. Some will be aware of debate and disagreement among some objectivists about this issue.

I've written here, here, here, here, and here about my hesitancy about both sides on this issue. I despise Sue Bradford's desire to nationalise parenting, as epitomised by her embrace of Cindy Kiro's Orwellian proposals, but also despise the minority in the "pro-smacking" camp who embraced corporal punishment. Notwithstanding that, I believe most parents don't like smacking kids, but also they want to have the option without the Police treating them as abusers. Most parents would do virtually anything for their kids - it is the ones who treat their kids as a nuisance that are the problem.

So what ARE good parenting techniques? Not PC has lifted the debate, and produced an excellent post with many links (and comments) which is worthy of a read by any parent or prospective parent.

So if you don't think the best way to raise kids is to fill them with shivering fear of your violent punishment of them, OR that kids should be allowed to do whatever they like with no boundaries or guidance (except Nanny State), then go have a good read. It's called taking an issue beyond the banality of politics.

The Greens and the Khmer Rouge Part 2

So the Greens got their history wrong and engaged in a bit of USA bashing, so what, they aren’t like the Khmer Rouge are they? I mean, you’d struggle to find the Khmer Rouge spirit and philosophy in most Green party member wouldn’t you? Well, yes probably.

However, the difference between the Greens and the Khmer Rouge is not as plain and obvious as that. Both apply the same philosophical principles, both have some similar political goals and indeed both use the same fundamental methodology, the difference is one of degree.

It is one that sadly the Greens can’t see in themselves, for to admit that would be truly horrifying.

Frogblog stated “every political and religious creed that has allowed any form of violence to be part of its agenda or methodology has at times created the sort of madness that Pol Pot let loose”

Indeed, although I doubt the Greens acknowledge that they themselves have violence at the centre of their methodology. I have said this before many times, but the fundamental means the Greens use to their ends is state violence. The rhetoric of “peace” is wrapped in the fist of the state, the state that the Greens want to ban products they don’t approve of, because of what they are, what they contain, who made them or where they are from. The same state the Greens want to compel, prohibit and regulate, all with the threat of force against those who disobey. The same state the Greens want to force people to pay more, again with the threat of confiscation of property and imprisonment if you refuse. The Greens want to increase the role of the state, which has as its sole difference from every other institution the monopoly right to initiate force against others. In short, the Greens want more violence, yet cannot see that they are on a continuum of political parties advocating more violence – the Khmer Rouge are different by a matter of degree.

Then Frogblog stated “The real underlying human attribute that set the Killing Fields, and the Holocaust, and Inquisition, and 9-11 and Abu Ghraib et al in action, is certainty, certainty on a scale that will impose its will through violence.” Note the selection of targets. Two mass murders by politicians, a torture/murder spree by religious fanatics, an act of terrorism by religious fanatics, and then… a prison run by the US government that saw some working there commit abuses of… humiliation and torture, on a tiny scale in comparison. Again, had to find something the US did, not Stalin, Mao, Hussein, Ceausescu etc.

However, Frog is curious about talking of certainty. For the environmental movement is full of the same philosophy. Certainty that man made climate change is happening, means Armageddon if CO2 emissions are not drastically cut back, and that can only happen by curtailing fossil fuel based industries and transport, and not using nuclear power, and primarily in developed countries. Organic food good, GE food bad. Natural good, manmade bad. Train good, car bad. Recycling good, mining bad. Local good, foreign bad. State owned good, private and commercial bad. You can go on and on. Attacking these points of view can easily get slander and abuse, as if you are attacking a fundamentalist religion. Criticising climate change science means you are called a denier, terminology used to describe those who deny the historical fact of the Holocaust. Of course, the Greens will happily impose their will through violence. It has supporters who happily use violence to break into property and destroy it, or use it to threaten people at protests, and naturally it still believes in state violence to achieve its goals.

However, there is a more fundamental point. The Khmer Rouge expounded a number of political goals that are not that different from what the Greens espouse.

Yes the Greens do not want to engage in mass murder of any group. Yes the Greens approve of education, admittedly state monopoly education. Yes, the Greens wouldn’t abolish liberal democracy, but how many of them believe money is the root of all evil? How many would think doing away with money isn’t a bad thing?

The Khmer Rouge rejected foreign culture, technology and influences, the Greens rabidly back protection from imports, local content quotas and subsidies on media and rage vehemently against foreign investment or foreign ownership of “our” land and assets. The Greens are xenophobic or rather just nationalistic, the difference is the Khmer Rouge were fanatically so. The difference, is a matter of degree.

The Khmer Rouge embraced subsistence, basic agriculture, labour and self sufficiency. All very environmentally friendly, all for one and one for all. Everyone worked in the fields, everyone got fed, everyone was housed. It was organic, it was healthy, it wasn’t commercialized, and notwithstanding the slave labour conditions and insufficient rations to keep people alive – the principle was everyone had a job, everyone had subsistence, everyone ate healthily and nobody got rich. The difference, is a matter of degree.

Certainly, the carbon footprint would have been tiny. The Greens welcome old fashioned agriculture, self sufficiency and reject commercialization of just about everything. Cars had been banned, indeed aviation had virtually be shut down (though so had the railways so, hmmm a bit mixed). No fossil fuel burning power stations, little use of imported oil, so nobody who went through that period could have been accused of “harming the planet”. The Greens would regard any new power station, car or plane to have been a step backwards then. The difference, is a matter of degree.

The Khmer Rouge abolished money, the Greens are against free trade and extremely suspicious of capitalism. They seek to nationalize, regulate and prohibit various business activities. The difference is a matter of degree.

The Khmer Rouge took children from their parents, placed them in state schools so they would learn the official dogma, and to spy on adults. The Greens welcomed Cindy Kiro’s proposal to monitor children from cradle to grave, to prosecute parents who apply a mild smack to their children, the Greens oppose competition in education, oppose alternative ideas being taught from their dogma on the environment, and happily call on children to get parents to recycle. The difference is a matter of degree.

Philosophically, the only core differences between the Khmer Rouge and the Greens are the willingness of the Khmer Rouge to use violence to dispatch opponents, and the degree to which the Greens would go in using force to implement a future of less capitalism, less industry, more egalitarianism and more nationalism.

You see the Greens don’t believe that your body is yours, the Greens don’t believe parents should be responsible to pay for their children (or decide their education, diet, healthcare or media) , the Greens don’t believe businesses and consumers should trade freely, the Greens don’t believe that all adult interaction should be voluntary, the Greens classify people into groups (Maori, women, GLBT, foreign investors, businesspeople, students, disabled, elderly, the “rich”, the “poor”) and regard collective action to be more valuable than individual achievement.

The Khmer Rouge didn’t believe your body was yours, they didn’t believe parents were responsible for their children, they didn’t believe in business, they didn’t believe in voluntary adult interaction and classified people into groups, and regarded individuals as a means to an end.

Be very clear. I believe that most Green party members are light years away from having the intent or desire to do anything on the scale of bloodshed of the Khmer Rouge. However, philosophically, the differences are only one of degree – not principle. The Khmer Rouge believed in a pure Cambodian society without any foreign influences and no individualism. The Greens believe in a pre-industrial NZ society with all that is foreign being carefully selected, and individualism being under the watchful eye of an ever maternal state that directs collective and democratic decision making about much of your life.

Is it any wonder Keith Locke once looked upon the “liberation” of Phnom Penh fondly?

Cindy Kiro's swan song - blame everyone for abuse

The Dominion Post has published an article interviewing Cindy Kiro as she leaves the role of Childrens' Commissioner. While Kiro undoubtedly is a passionate and honest advocate for children, her collectivist way of thinking remains.

She says the risk factors for child abuse are "long periods of neglect, harsh physical punishment, caregivers being unemployed, drugs, a history of spousal abuse". Hold on. The first two of those ARE forms of abuse. Unemployment is a risk, but intergenerational welfare is moreso one. Other risk factors are criminality, poor education and unplanned/unwanted children.

She says the reason for child abuse is "It's pretty simple actually. The reason they're so high is that we tolerate violence to children."

Who is this "we"? She could have said "some people", she could have said "many", but no "we" tolerate violence to children. Because "we" all do, "we" all must be part of the solution.

Then she said "I actually feel quite optimistic about the next generation of parents. I think they are much more conscious of their parenting and they want to do a really good job." As opposed to the past ones, who were abusive and didn't want to be good parents.

She concludes by supporting her highly paid role "Somebody has to be there to step up. Somebody has to make sure that when laws are made, what's happening for children and young people and their best interests are at the forefront. And that's not a simple job."

Actually Dr Kiro, it should be the part of any good Justice Ministry to take into account the impacts of all laws on different groups of people. You were an advocate for surrendering the freedom and privacy of all families for a terrifying level of state surveillance all because you believed that "we" tolerate violence.

Most parents and most families do not abuse their kids, they love them more than you ever will, and do more for them than you ever will. It's about time that you focused your efforts on the minority who do abuse and neglect, instead of thinking you should be doing your bit for all kids.

Thankfully you'll no longer have the power and influence you have had.

I used to like child abuse

until Cindy Kiro came along. So implies Lynne Pillay Labour list MP in saying "Cindy Kiro played an important role in opening our eyes to the detrimental effects of bullying and child abuse".

Child abuse was such a joke beforehand, and bullying? Hey it toughened you up - it was all good until the sagacious Cindy Kiro came along.

Please - she meant well, but she did nothing besides promote a nanny state and more welfarism.

Children don't need very highly paid bureaucrats being their advocates - they need families who give a damn and the state to enforce the law on lowlife parents and guardians who abuse and neglect. Dr Kiro widened the net of her concern to all parents, she thought her role was to ensure all kids did better - letting down those kids living in hellholes of terror and abuse.

Metiria Turei messaged me on my twitter account to say "Completely disagree with you view of Cindy Kiro. best child advocate this country has seen ever". Respect the fact she responded to me, but what has been the record in the last 9 years, what remains the tragic truth that too many kids, particularly in Maori families, are being ignored or abused. Cindy Kiro did precious little to target this.

Good riddance to Stalin Kiro - let's not replace her

The children who benefited from this office were those of the people "working" there, which of course took money from families with their own children.

I have long regarded Dr Cindy Kiro as odious. She is prepared to sacrifice reason and individual rights for a big nanny state that puts safety of children above everything else. She was an authoritarian bully of the worst kind, she wanted all children monitored and planned by the state, under her warm stifling embrace. Instead of focusing on the vileness of parents who brutally abuse and neglect their kids, she adopted a scatter gun.

Meanwhile, the record of child after child murdered and abused by their extended families, far too often Maori, grew under her watch. She was gutless. Unable to confront the gravy train of intergenerational welfare that sees too many have accidental children and pay them at best negligible attention, at worst treat them as violent and sexual playthings, she wanted what's best "for all children" - ignoring that most parents, most of the time raise children who turn out to be reasonably well balanced, happy, healthy and productive citizens.

It was like she saw security at airports (because of terrorism) and figured the same "screen everyone every time" approach should apply to parenting.

I watched the antics of this woman throughout the life of this blog as follows:

In 2005, Cindy Kiro supported airlines having a deliberate policy of never sitting men next to children. She said "children’s safety is paramount" which of course can justify a Police state. It doesn't matter how many adults are offended, blamed for abuse or what freedoms people lose, nothing comes before the safety of children.

In 2006, Cindy Kiro promoted a single ID number for all children, so the state could track them. Her phrase ""If there is glue ear, or major issues about safety at home, then people do not learn properly. All the little bits need to come together." seems to justify monitoring every child. As Not PC said at the time "To say that all children need to be numbered because some children have been beaten by their parents is not just disingenuous, it's downright insulting to the vast majority of New Zealand parents." Indeed, Cindy Kiro wanted it to be about ensuring every child "did better", because the state, somehow can know best.

I first called her Cindy "Stalin" Kiro in June 2006. Why? Because she called for a "plan for every child" agreed by the state in a press release that remains on Scoop, but curiously not on the OCC website (Stalin rewrote history often too). She said "“In future we need to put in place a plan for each child from the day that they are born so that children don’t fall through the gaps again". Terrifying stuff, nonsensical when you consider CYPS is incapable of handling the deluge of cases of children living with criminally negligent/abusive parents already. A chilling vision of the state checking if, maybe you let your 10 year old taste wine, or maybe let your child briefly read Lady Chatterly's Lover, and punish you appropriately.

In October 2006 I blogged how Sue Bradford SUPPORTED Kiro's idea. Kiro called it "Te Ara Tukutuku Nga Whanaungatanga o Nga Tamariki" "This would provide a systematic approach to monitoring the development of every child and young person in New Zealand through co-ordinated planned assessment at key life stages and supporting families to make sure children have the opportunity to reach their full potential. The assessments would take into account the whole child: their physical, social, educational, emotional, and psychological development.”

She was awfully excited about planning childrens' lives.

In September 2007 I despaired it took the MSM a year to catch up on this story. Kiro claimed it would cost NZ$5 million a year. The Dom Post reported she "would make it compulsory for every newborn's caregiver to nominate an authorised provider to assess their family's progress through home visits. Those who refused to take part would be referred to welfare authorities." In other words, state goons to watch on your family. She said "She did not know of any similar schemes internationally. "We can lead the world in it.""

North Korea watches on families constantly Cindy, hardly world leading. I bet you don't know much about North Korea though do you? It's a long way from where you have spent your life.

In November 2007, I blogged about how she talked about "our children" again and how "we" needed to change "our" attitudes to child abuse, as if most people were casual about it. She said "New Zealanders had to change their attitudes and behaviour to become more child-focused". I'd bet most parents would beat to a pulp anyone they caught harming their kids.

No Dr Kiro, perhaps abusers should change their attitudes, and you can stop lumping everyone in the same group you collectivist!

In February 2008, I blogged about how she encouraged people to spend more time with their kids, having recently pocketed her relatively comfortable salary paid for forcibly by the people she wants to spent more time with their kids.

In August 2008, I blogged on how she called for "action on child poverty", not from those who breed without the means to raise kids. No. She wants to force everyone else to pay for those families. She wanted more welfare, and for no penalties for DPB beneficiaries not naming "deadbeat dads" (hey we can all be forced to pay for it).

Finally in December 2008 I asked when she would be fired. Zentiger at NZ Conservative noted how she said "New Zealand has a high tolerance to violence", making the murder of children everyone's problem and fault.

However Dr Kiro never liked picking on those who abused their kids, because it would raise some uncomfortable truths about demographics both of income and race. She let down Maori children in particular because she wouldn't finger point at the disproportionate number of young Maori who have children they never wanted, who leave children in the hands of extended families that include abusers, and who live a life on welfare giving scant attention to the educational, nutritional and emotional needs of the children.

That is the scandal of modern New Zealand - and Cindy Kiro was too ideologically blind or afraid of offence to point it out.

She COULD have called for an outright ban on anyone convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence from ever having custody of children or being allowed to live under the same roof as children - but no.

She COULD have called for a denial of welfare payment to anyone who abused children, but no.

She COULD have shouted loud and clear to Maori, given her own background, that it is disproportionately poor fatherless Maori families on welfare that somehow see the worst cases of abuse. Parents who abuse their kids, neglect them or let them be abused or neglected should have them removed.

but she is a gutless control freak who would rather regulate and monitor everyone Orwellian style (bet she never even read "1984") than point blame at those who ARE to blame. Not only that she wanted you to be forced to pay MORE welfare to those who are to blame, meaning less for you and your kids.

The Office of the Childrens' Commissioner should be abolished, to save the money taken from families to pay for it. To have a bureaucrat willing to advocate to sacrifice the freedoms and responsibility of most citizens because a small number are vile towards children is wrong - the experiment of this bureaucracy has failed - it is time to save a little money, and let the criminal justice system focus on identifying, convicting and punishing abusive parents, and placing the victims in the hands of those who give a damn - which also means abolishing the institutional bias against adoption.

but that's another story.

When is Cindy Kiro going to be fired?

This woman sought to nationalise children under Labour, she continues to collectivise everyone, blaming everyone for child abuse (hat tip: NZ Conservative).

She is an authoritarian, she wants the state to monitor all children, and she engages in the philosophy of collective blame and collective responsibility.

The Commissioner for Children has been abundantly useless in its task, children are NOT safer than they were when the office was set up. It should be abolished, so parents can get a few more cents back in tax cuts to spend on their kids. Cindy Kiro will undoubtedly become an academic and continue to live suckling off the state tit, but her doggerel can be treated for what it is - the ravings of a Neo-Marxist academic.

Abused children suffer because of their parents, guardians and families that abuse them - they are predominantly on welfare, disproportionately Maori and that is not the fault of society - society is forced to pay these people to breed. It is time to focus on the offenders, not some generic nonsensical use of "we".

Cindy Kiro's got her hand in your wallet

Yes, further proving the uselessness of the Commissioner for Children role, Dr Cindy Kiro having advocated Stasi like monitoring of all of New Zealand's children, because a small number of parents abuse them, she is now showing her true Marxist colours in calling for the state to take more of your money to give to parents who shouldn't be having children in the first place.

The NZ Herald reports her poverty plan and it is stark in its adoption of the tired old solutions of "gimme more money", and nothing imaginative about incentivising better behaviour among delinquent parents. What does she want?

- To make you pay for other people's children to have MORE pre-school and after-school care. Nice, subsidise more breeding. After all, you MIGHT have thought about the cost of that before you had a child?

- She wants solo parents to be able to earn more before losing the benefit, which of itself may not be a bad idea, but then having an income tax free threshold would help this too (but lower taxes don't figure in the big Nanny State world of Cindy Kiro)

- To make you pay for HIGHER benefits, HIGHER accommodation subsidies, because again you're responsible for other people breeding.

- To abolish penalties for not naming childrens' dad/s, because YOU can pay for that deadbeat's kids, don't let the state go to the effort of making him responsible. What were you thinking you lazy, rich, heartless pig?

Cindy Kiro has nationalised all of the children in New Zealand in her mind, so it's only fair to her to make everyone pay for everyone else's children. Never mind thousands of families see a good third or so of their income go in taxes to pay for deadbeats who breed with little concern about where the next dollar is coming from or the condition the kids will grow up in. It's HER responsibility, as the big sister of the nation to embrace these children by leaving them with their irresponsible parents and get more money pilfered from single people and families that look after themselves.

It's socialism and it is the problem, not the solution.

On top of that how utterly despicable is it for her to use the election to push an avowedly political platform, a leftwing platform that you can be sure the Greens will largely embrace, as will the Maori Party, Labour will selectively embrace and endorse but say some is too expensive, and it puts the Nats and ACT on the back foot to argue against a public servant.

If the Nats can't put their foot down and abolish this clearly quasi-political role, then they aren't worth spitting on. However John Key has said nothing about this control freak in the past, so...

The dire social underclass

I forget to read Dr Michael Bassett's incisive columns as often as I should. Around a month ago he wrote about the underclass in New Zealand and what sustains it.

He tells some stark truths that are far too uncomfortable for policy makers:

"The criminals share several things in common. They are almost all from families where there is one parent on welfare, too many kids from several fathers in the household, inadequate supervision, easy prey from relatives or de factos, and access to alcohol and drugs. Far too many are Maori. The kids exist because they carry an entitlement to a benefit stamped on their brows, and the parent doesn’t care about their welfare for which the taxpayers give them money."

and

"Domestic violence rises on the days of the week when there is enough money to purchase drugs and alcohol, while for the rest of the week hard luck stories emerge about people resorting to food parcels and there being no lunches at school. The Child Poverty Action Group gives us a sermon about poverty and argues for more money for the parents, which sensible people have long-since worked out would go on more alcohol and drugs."

Contrast him to Dr Cindy Kiro who DOES play the "give them more of other people's money" card. The whole article is worth a read. He leaves one of his most damning lines for the media:

"Before going home to their trendy pads in Ponsonby and Herne Bay, the media treat this social crisis like soft porn – titillating details of one tragedy after another. There’s no proper analysis of the cause of the problems. No brains engaged."

How can anyone on the left seriously believe that throwing money at the problem is the solution? How can they ignore the absolute poverty of responsibility, role models, attention, love and aspiration endemic in far too many parts of the country? They have nothing to do with money - as much of the world is poor, but has stable family units, responsible and dedicated parents and esteem to grow onwards and upwards - this was seen in the Great Depression.

It is about ethics, culture and philosophy - and the philosophy of "it's everyone else's fault", "capitalism makes everything unfair so I'm angry and torture my kids", "everyone else owes me a fair life", is bankrupt.

It's about time those who peddle this are confronted, exposed and policy change radically - they've had their chance, and it has failed, miserably.

The Greens rate the Nats!

Yes well after my scoring of the Nat’s 10 point blueprint, the Greens have done the same and, curiously enough, have taken the opposite tack from me on most issues. The Greens don’t take John Key on his very moderate words, they exaggerate them so that the Nats appear to be better than I think they are. So, just for fun, I thought I’d review the review of the Green Party. Why? Because the review says more about the Greens than they may think.

1. An ongoing programme of tax cuts. I thought that this was positive but vague, but no – the Greens have a different way of looking at it. They see taxes as “being whether the government is spending enough to achieve its democratic mandate and the tax is not too onerous for the people paying it”. Which on the face of it seems ok, doesn’t it? Well, it could be “enough” or “too much”, but the Greens rarely seem concerned about too much spending, unless it is roads. The issue of tax is more curious. What does “too onerous” mean? Clearly “onerous” is ok, and more importantly the idea that the people consuming government provided services pay for it is completely off the radar. It’s pure socialism – government spends money and then it squeezes it from those it can get to pay, whether or not it is “onerous”, whether or not you actually use the services provided by the state.

2. Bring discipline to Government spending, and 3. Rein in excessive growth in the public service

Now why would you ever disagree with the government spending money prudently and why would you not want a value statement like “excessive growth”? Quite simple, you want more government, more state. The Greens are priceless on this though:

Surely these two are very hard to reconcile with a promise not to cut government spending. Bureaucrats are not evil, faceless, money suckers. On the whole they are put there because they achieve good things efficiently.

In the world of the socialist, cutting government spending is “wrong”. However saying bureaucrats are not evil, faceless, money suckers is missing the point. Evil is a strong word, but I believe some are – some like Cindy Kiro who earns a significant salary and is seeking to nationalise children with some Orwellian monitoring system. Money suckers is very true, because after all what are many bureaucrats producing?

This “achieve good things efficiently” cuts to the heart of the difference between socialists and liberals. Why are they good? How is it efficient? If it were good why must people be forced to pay for it? If it is efficient, why has commercialisation and privatisation resulted in enormous cost savings to carry out the same tasks in many sectors? Since when has big government been more efficient than small government, except when it restricts freedom?

4. Launch an attack on gangs and the P trade they support. Now I appreciate the concern of the Greens there that the “war on drugs” is unlikely to be successful, but there needs to be an appreciation that there are genuine concerns about drugs and criminal gangs. Gangs are not just another form of whanau as some make themselves out to be, but similarly the Nats only have tired old failed solutions.

5. Introduce a bill to reform the Resource Management Act The Greens will oppose this naturally, since this is a key plank in their policy to stop development as much as is possible, regardless of private property rights. The Greens will scaremonger about this, even though it will see little useful happen.

6. Invite the private sector back to the table. A welcome move of course, but the Greens want to frighten you by asking whether this is about health, education or conservation. Who cares? Why is the private sector “bad” and the beloved state sector “good”? Again it is socialist ideology, big government is about doing “good things efficiently”, no doubt the private sector is “bad things done inefficiently”??

7. Raise education standards. I thought this was bland and meaningless from the Nats, but the Greens have concocted a bizarre plot “John Key means that he will test primary school kids more often so that the failures can be re-identified and then, umm… well moved aside I guess” Yes, there is some grand neo-liberal plot to kick the less bright out of school, it is against the grand socialist plot to reward the less bright with pass marks, guaranteed minimum incomes, guaranteed university places and jobs to do “good things efficiently”.

8. Grow the amount of superannuation paid to senior citizens each week. Well the Greens love this, more state money being spent on people. Never mind that it discourages people for saving for themselves, hell tax them more and we can give more to, their parents and grandparents! No, the Greens ask for MORE money to be found from the money tree to pay to “struggling beneficiaries”.

Socialism = where you get the money you need without having to do anything for it, because we take it off those who did.

9. Repeal the Electoral Finance Act. Bleh, Greens want their “citizen’s assembly” a nice proxy for an event which busy people who own or run businesses wont have the time to participate in because they are earning money to pay the onerous taxes the Greens approve of, but the beneficiaries and others who shouldn’t be expected to work hard for a living can do so, and skew the result. Nice.

10. Hold a binding referendum on MMP. Yes the Greens are bound to oppose this, hardly a surprise for any small party.

So there you have it – the Greens want more government spending, think taxation should be onerous (not “too” onerous though), think that improving education standards is a dastardly plot and that bureaucrats do “good things efficiently”. It would be fair to say Labour is a rather watered down version of that.

Now if only we could have an election based on two opposing views of the role of the state.

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".

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?

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.