Referendum File 3: Kiwis Might Fly

Referendum File 1: The Logic of the Campaign for Democracy
Referendum File 2: Can They Be Trusted?

Reading between the lines of the latest email update from the Campaign for Democracy (previously "The Kiwi Campaign for Democracy"), it is clear that the petition to bring in binding referendums has hit the brick wall of public apathy to this issue. The petition question reads,

“Should Parliament be required to pass legislation that implements the majority result of a citizens initiated referendum where that result supports a law change?”

The question was approved by the Clerk of Parliament on 17 December, 2009. One year from the initiation of a citizens initiated referendum, the signatures will be required and will be counted by the Clerk's office. The office has a period of three months in which to do this. If the number is found to be insufficient (10% of the voting population, approx. 300,000), the Clerk will allow an additional three months for signatures to be collected, and then re-submitted. Tack on a further three months for the Clerk to tally up the new total, and hey... it's September 2011 already. Two months out from New Zealand's general election.

The update, put out by Larry Baldock (also leader of the Kiwi Party) states,

Yes, it has been a while since you heard from me [Larry Baldock] and the Camapaign4Democracy. Winter is over and the weather much more conducive to signature collecting. Many thanks to those who have faithfully been sending in a few signed petition sheets over the last few months... Please send in any completed forms to P.O Box 9228 Greerton, Tauranga 3142 and I will be able to give an update on totals in the next update."

It sounds like Baldock wants to pull in the last few signatures in the five or six weeks he has left, and then submit them to Parliament, making a public statement about the number collected, and how significant it is to the issue of whether NZ should adopt binding CIRs or not.

The question then is, will he leave it at that and say - "we got 20 or 30,000 signatures calling for binding CIR - the Govt. should act on this... The Kiwi Party is the only party that will introduce a bill which would bring in binding CIR" - or will he attempt to somehow pull in another 270,000 signatures in the extra six months he knows is up his sleeve?

Click here for more info and articles on the Kiwi Party and the referendum.

Referendum File 2: Can They Be Trusted?

In Referendum File 1 we looked at the claims and the logic found in a letter which was sent by Larry Baldock to his supporters. In Referendum File 2 we are going to take a look at the petition itself and ask the question, "Can we trust the Campaign for Democracy with the personal information they are collecting from people around New Zealand?"

The petition is a vast improvement on Larry Baldock and the Kiwi Party's last petition sheet which had two petition forms on one A4 sheet, one asking for a referendum on the legality of corporal punishment, the other asking for a referendum calling for a Royal Inquiry into the wider causes of domestic violence. On 17 December, 2009 the phrasing and format of the new petition which asks,

“Should Parliament be required to pass legislation that implements the majority result of a citizens initiated referendum where that result supports a law change?”

was approved by the clerk of Parliament. It is clear to see that the petition layout has borrowed a lot from the UNITE Union's current petition for a Citizens Initiated Referendum which was launched on 11 June 2009, seeking to have the minimum wage raised to $15 per hour. (The $15/hr minimum wage is also a policy of the Kiwi Party). Instead of squashing 20 signatures onto each page as was the case with Baldock's last petitions, the new petition has space for ten signatories. "If they can't read it, they won't count it!" is written in bold capitals at the top of the sheet - something left off the last petitions, and which Baldock subsequently requested petitioners to say to people as they signed. Illegible signatures were a real problem when collecting, causing between 2 - 5% of the collected signatures to be disqualified by the Clerk. A freephone 0800 number, website address, and logo of the organising group have been added at the bottom of the sheet - all similarities with the UNITE petition which preceeded it.

bottom, right-hand-corner of petition form

The most notable difference between the last petition sheet and the new one is the Optional Contact Info section on the right-hand-side of the form. This again, is a direct adaptation from UNITE's petition which has the same thing, with almost identical wording. In the bottom right-hand-corner, the following claim is made,

"This information is to keep you informed about our campaigns. We won't give your details to anyone else."

The UNITE petition makes the same promise to signatories. And while Baldock's last two petitions did not bear this reassuring privacy information, Baldock instructed petitioners (myself included) to inform people signing, that their details would not be passed on to a third party, and that the only people seeing their signatures would be the Clerk and those assistants who would help count the signatures. I draw your attention to this claim made by the Campaign 4 Democracy, because, quite frankly, I struggle to believe it. Because in the lead-up to the 2008 general election, the Kiwi Party cast aside the assurance it had given to signatories, and breached their trust by emailing out photocopied petition forms to Kiwi Party supporters, asking them to post Kiwi Party promotional material to the signatories in an effort to increase their Party Vote. Below is my summary of this incident which I wrote shortly before the 08 election at the ChristianVote website.

Letter to be sent to 300,000+ who signed petition. In a staggering breach of trust, The Kiwi Party have announced that they intend to send an individual letter (click here to read the letter) to every single person who signed the petition calling for the wider causes of child abuse and family violence to be addressed (click here to read the email they sent out). I and many others have personally assured many hundreds of people signing the petition that under no circumstances will they receive any mail, and that the address is purely for the purpose of establishing that they are who they say they are. And now The Kiwi Party is sending out PDF documents (click to view an example) containing between 200 and 1,000 home addresses to its members, so that they can then send out letters calling for donations and a party vote for the Kiwi Party. "You can help guarantee the referendum is binding by giving your Party Vote to the Kiwi Party." the letter erroneously claims. The Privacy Act states that "An agency that holds personal information that was obtained in connection with one purpose shall not use the information for any other purpose".

Pro-family advocacy group Family First which had backed the petitions the whole way promptly responded to the actions of the Kiwi Party with a press release in which they stated,

"Family First NZ is distancing itself from attempts by the Kiwi Party to write to the more than 300,000 people who signed the anti-smacking petition, encouraging them to vote for the Kiwi Party at the upcoming Election... Family First... is concerned that NZ’ers who signed the petition may not want to be personally contacted by a political party and did not provide their information for this purpose. But then again, they’re not the only political party using private addresses to push their case.”

Baldock of the Kiwi Party then responded in an email to supporters, denying any wrongdoing:

“What I [have] in my possession are the petition forms in my name which asked the question, “Should the Government give urgent priority to understand and address the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in NZ?” Unfortunately although we collected just over 300,000 signatures, the Clerk deemed there were insufficient to trigger a referendum and the forms were returned to me, their legal owner. In keeping with sound legal advice, I will ensure these addresses are not used for any purpose other than the original intent, namely to repeal the ‘Anti-smacking’ law and address the real causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse. Most of the signatures on this second petition were also signatories on the first and are interested in both objectives.
...I believe most will look at our final objectives and accept our sincere motives.

Baldock's line of reasoning is unsound, pragmatic and highly reprehensible. In his original email to supporters in which he asked them to volunteer to receive photocopied petition forms and then send Kiwi Party promotional material out, Balock wrote excitedly, "We have over 300,000 names and addresses of the people who signed the petition and our goal is to write to every one of these concerned Kiwis..." I don't know about you, but I find his attitude towards the full names, signatures, residential addresses and date of births of 300,000 New Zealanders to be unacceptable.

Even Baldock himself stated that he told signatories that the peition would not be used to send them mail. Below is an excerpt from a rebuttal written by Baldock, in response to my report on the Kiwi Party's actions (download here):

Whenever I told people that they did not have to worry about the petition being used to send them mail said it there was usually in the context of someone concerned about the Government getting access to the names of who signed the anti-smacking petition. That is what people were concerned about. A few were concerned about the possibility of receiving junk mail as a result which does happen. The letter we are sending could not be considered marketing junk mail since it is consistent with the purpose of the petition.

Again, here is the pragmatism coming through strongly again. Baldock first acknowledges that he told people that their details would not be used to send them mail, then he attempts to justify the decision to send them mail by saying that it "could not be considered marketing junk mail since it is consistent with the purpose of the petition". The Kiwi Party received 0.54% of the vote at the 2008 general election. I believe that if they had have been considered a more major player, gaining say, 5%+ of the vote, that the media would have held the spotlight to the Kiwi Party, and exposed these dubious activities.

It must be made quite clear that the group that is running the Campaign for Democracy is the same group that organised the last two petitions. When the Campaign was first launched it was named the "Kiwi Campaign for Democracy". The word "Kiwi" was dropped from the campaign name several months into preparations for the campaign launch. In the first few months of the build up to the campaign launch, a large proportion of the material on the Campaing for Democracy website was simply cross-posted from the Kiwi Party website. And incidentally, you'll notice that the colour-schemes for both the Kiwi Party and the Campaign for Democracy are essentially identical.

In summary, we come back to the initial question: "Can the organisers of the petition be trusted with the information they are gathering?" I would love to think that we can trust them. However, I don't know. What I do know is that I will not be signing the petition.

Referendum File 1: The Logic of the Campaign for Democracy

Larry Baldock of The Kiwi Party

The StarStuddedSuperStep blog will be following the progress of the Campaign for Democracy, bringing updates to our readers and visitors. Background to the campaign, details on those behind it, and further information will be presented in future Referendum Files. Our readers from New Zealand will be aware of the apparantly unsuccessful citizens initiated referendum to overturn the Anti-Smacking Law. The man behind the petition for that referendum, Larry Baldock has responded to the outcome of that referendum, with a new petition for a citizens initiated referendum on the question,

“Should Parliament be required to pass legislation that implements the majority result of a citizens initiated referendum where that result supports a law change?”

The implications of this question will be discussed in later posts, but there's a quick summary.

On 28 Jan 2009, an ally of the Campaign for Democracy, Better Democracy NZ published an article in which they reproduced a letter from Larry Baldock to his supporters. An excerpt from the letter follows,

The results were very encouraging with 500 signing the petition in 3 hrs on their way in to the BBB event. Considering there has been very little publicity as yet about the new petition we found that approx 7-8 out of ten were prepared to sign...

The letter states that 7-8 out of ten people were prepared to sign. I can't challenge this figure as I have no first-hand knowledge of what took place, however I can say that, having collected approximately 10,000 signatures myself on the last petition, that 75% is a very high ratio. Whether this figure relates to the number of people who made contact with the campaigners, and subsequently signed, or the number of people walking past who came over and signed, it is still an unusually high ratio - particularly given the lack of publicity, as Baldock commented.

...The conversation generally went like this.

Campaigner: "Will you sign our petition Sir/Maam?"
Passer by: "What's it about?"
Campaigner: "Making referenda binding upon parliament. Do you remember the anti-smacking referendum last year when 87% said no and Parliament has ignored it?"
Passer by: "Sure do. It was ridiculous. What's the point of having a referendum if they are going to ignore it!"
Campaigner: "Exactly, that's why we must now collect signatures for another one to make Parliament listen."
Passer by: "Sure I agree with that, where do I sign?"

The example of the typical conversation outlined in the letter is astounding. The passer by asks, "What's the point of having a referendum if they are going to ignore it!", to which the campaigner agrees and then encourages them to go ahead and take part in the referendum anyway. There is no progression of logic here, simply a desire to rectify the government's shameful rejection of the results of the last non-binding referendum - by having another non-binding referendum.

Baldock's 2011 Election Bid

Petitioner, Larry Baldock in 2007

The petition asking "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand" was put forward by Focus on the Family employee Sheryl Savill, however it was the initiative of ex-United Future list MP, Larry Baldock. The petition was signed by over 390,000 Kiwis and was supported by people from a wide range of backgrounds and political parties. However as the 08 election got closer, questions began being asked about what the petition was all about. This is covered in more detail in my Christian Voting guide for the 08 election but in summary involved a new political party forming on the back of the petition, followed by an unprecedented breach of privacy of the personal details of the signatories to the petition. Then on 5 September the Kiwi Party announced their second petition, this time calling for referendums on a law change to be binding. This is not only a knee-jerk reaction to the National Government's ignoring the 87.6% No vote response to the smacking referendum, but also an attempt at creating a platform from which to relaunch the Kiwi Party into the '11 election - and this time it's even more blatant. The Kiwi Campaign for Democracy website and the Kiwi Party's own website contain identical articles, not to mention a striking similarity in the name - and this despite Larry's denial at a recent Christchurch meeting that the campaign was being run by the Kiwi Party.

However today the Legislation Advisory Committee which is headed up by former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer has come out saying the petition must not be allowed to go ahead as it would contradict the fundamental purpose of the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993, which provided for non-binding referendums - NZ Herald. Petition initiator and Kiwi Party leader Larry Baldock fairly responded, "they're trying to shut down democracy". Simeon Brown of NZ Debate observed that "if they have a right to veto it, we should have the right to veto parliament". The fact of the matter is, there are no legitimate grounds on which to prevent the petition from going ahead. The CIR act was established to ensure that citizens could have their say if they thought they were being ignored - on any issue apart from one which had been the subject of a prior referendum question. The Committee raises many very good points as to why the aim of the petition is at conflict with the way New Zealand's electoral system works. Palmer states that, "It is doubtful that Parliament contemplated that such a referendum could be held under the authority of the Act". However if this were the case, why does the law specify various prohibitions for what petition questions may relate to (Section 4), but neglect to rule out questions relating to the operation of the CIR process itself? He comments further on in the Herald's article,

"The second question that arises is what does binding mean? Does it mean that the content of the referendum is capable of displacing or amending an Act of Parliament directly? As a matter of legal drafting, that cannot be the case. It seems quite impossible for a citizen's initiated referendum to contain professionally drafted amendments that would be legally effective.

Palmer here identifies one of the key problems with the Kiwi Party initiative to amend the CIR Act. A simplified petition question can firstly, not adequately address the plethora of issues surrounding a proposed law change, and secondly, acting on the results of a binding referendum would be extremely difficult as referendum questions never specify the exact changes that should be made to a particular law. As such, referendums are at their best, valuable tools for gaining an accurate gauge on public opinion on a specific issue. According to the guidelines around obtaining a referendum, the Clerk of Parliament has until about 14 Jan to come to a decision on whether or not the petition will ultimately be able to go ahead. The public have had their opportunity to make comment (in the 28 days from 16 Sept to 14 Oct), and we are now in the three month period during which the Clerk may deliberate on the final wording of the question with input from the key parties concerned.

Larry Baldock on the Question

Larry Baldock cuts through the confusion and misinformation with an explanation of how the petition question came into being. Below are a few excerpts from his must-read article on the NZCPR.

The original question we submitted to the Clerk of the House of Representatives back in early 2007 was “should a smack in the context of positive parental correction be a criminal offence in NZ?”

Larry and the 390,000 signatures

As required by the CIR Act 1993, the Clerk published the question in the Gazette and advertised the question in all major papers with an invitation for anyone to submit their opinion on the wording of the question over a 28 day period.

Only two submissions were received. One from a couple who stated their opinion that a smack should never be a criminal offence, and the other from the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry’s submission raised four concerns that were considered by the Clerk in consultation with myself and anyone else the Clerk wished to take advice from as required by S9 of the Act. We eventually agreed to change the wording by replacing “in the context of positive parenting” with “as part of good parental correction.”

The CIR Act requires that the Clerk of the House ultimately determine that the wording;

(a) Shall be such as to convey clearly the purpose and effect of the indicative referendum; and
(b) Shall be such as to ensure that only one of two answers may be given to the question.

At the time the Clerk of the House was David McGee QC who was widely acclaimed as the most experienced and qualified Clerk in the Commonwealth. Upon his retirement as Clerk in 2007 to assume the post of Ombudsman he was given many accolades by MPs for the diligent way he performed his duties.

Surely it is inappropriate for the Prime Minister, Leader of the opposition and Sue Bradford to now be insinuating he did not do his job properly. Especially given that they did not bother to take the time to participate in the submissions on the question when they had every opportunity to.

The words “as part of good parental correction,” simply set the context of an appropriate smack, (reasonable force) rather than the kind of hitting or bashing that might be administered in an abusive (bad) parental situation...

The obvious intent of the question surely is that in the context of good parenting where a smack is not abusive, should a smack be a criminal offence?

Another reason for our use of the word ‘good parental correction is that politicians supporting the new law have constantly been saying that this law was not going to affect ‘good’ parents. They had nothing to worry about.

The real purpose of the law was being hidden as much as possible during the whole debate, and as a result confusion exists amongst the general population about what the new law actually does. The real purpose of the ‘Bradford law’ was to completely abolish any form of physical discipline, for the purpose of correction. This, in addition to smacking, also includes taking a child, against their will, to time out. That is clearly contained in the purpose clause of the new Act, “…by abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction.”

Click here to read the full article.

Hat-tip: Constant Joy
Related articles: Deception from Anti-Smacking Brigade, Herald Article Not Worth the Effort of Reading

Herald Article Not Worth the Effort of Reading

The Herald joins the apparently nationwide attack on democracy by New Zealand mainstream media today, with their editorial entitled "Question not worth the effort of answering". Rather than excercising some journalistic credibility, these media are sucking up to the actions of the larger part of our Parliament. The Prime Minister John Key lambasted the question as "weird", and stated that he will not be partaking in the democratic process by voting in the referendum, while Opposition leader Phil Goff also states that he will refrain from voting.

"People who support the status quo might vote no, thinking that was what the question was reflecting, he indicated," seethed Mr. Key. But why does he think this the case? Who was it that initiated the compromise on Bradford's anti-smacking law which made it so darn hard to understand? The so-called "John Key" ammendment to the bill stated that the police would not prosecute parents for smacking if they believed it to be so inconsequential as to not be in the public interest to proceed.

Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

The question is quite clear. It directly addresses the law, rather than the way that the law is currently being applied.  It would be impossible to come up with a question that would satisfy everyone, and while this question is not perfect, it's not nearly so bad as to warrant utter dismissal. For one moment, consider the intent of the 390,000 signatories on the petition. 99% of those signing did so in the belief that there was a difference between a smack and child abuse, and with the desire that families not be intruded upon by government agencies. But the mainstream media is conveniently ignoring this aspect of the petition question. Since the time the petition was launched over two years ago, we have heard only a few complaints about the question, and these mainly from Sue Bradford's direction. However now, just over a month out from the election there is a host of media decrying the petition question at every chance possible.

The Herald editorial concludes, "[It is] a question that is an insult to intelligence. It is not worth the expense or the effort of answering it. A low turnout would be most telling." Engaging in a simplistic form of social engineering, the Herald is sacrificing truth and democracy for the sake of their agenda which is leading to the realisation of one of Helen Clark's goals: family deconstruction in New Zealand.

Deception From Anti-Smacking Brigade

Deborah Coddington is all over the place in her opinion piece in the Herald on Sunday,

"...this dastardly referendum on smacking, organised by grown men who should know better. In the middle of a deep recession it is costing taxpayers $9 million to ask the loaded question: "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"
Here we go round the mulberry bush. Again. First, a smack is not good parental correction. There is no such thing as a loving smack, just as there is no such thing as a hateful hug."

Deborah claims that the referendum was organised by grown men. Rubbish. Mother of two, Sheryl Savill was the author of the petition question. Further, it was men, women and children throughout New Zealand who facilitated the collection of signatures, just as it was people of all demographics who signed the petitions calling for the referendum. In August 2008, The Press reported that The Ministry of Justice had said a postal referendum could cost taxpayers between $4.8 million and $6.4m. Whether it's the $9m figure that's being tossed around, or something closer to $5m, who have we to thank for this huge expense but Helen Clark? The referendum could have easily and cost-effectively ($1.5m) been conducted at the 2008 election.

Deborah then states her opinion that there is no such thing as a loving smack. I invite Deborah to get out of her office into reality, and speak to some of the many thousands of mums and dads who I have spoken to, who assure me that there is indeed a difference between a smack and child abuse. Sure, some people are angered at the thought of a "loving smack" - but these people are in a definite minority.

Then in today's Press (22 June), Colin Espiner writes that he thinks the referendum question is "misleading, biased, and arguably factually incorrect". He proceeds to take the question to pieces - as many other reporters have attempted to do - examining each piece as if it is completely unrelated to any other part of the question. Despite the ranting and raving from a host of bloggers and reporters that the question is loaded and biased towards a no vote, this is categorically incorrect. "It's a tricky question" whines the Yes Vote group, parroting the recent comments by the leaders of the two major parties. However Espiner got it right when he said that the referendum question is not ambiguous.

Should a smack as a part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

Contrary to the claims of the left reporters, the question does not imply that a smack is necessarily a part of good parental correction. Rather, it asks if a smack should be a criminal offence when it has been done as a part of good parental correction. To phrase it more simply: was the smack reasonable? If the smack was unreasonable, then it is clear that it was not done as a part of good parental correction. However if a mother gives her young child a smack because they were disobedient, then this is an example of good parental correction.

The vast majority of Kiwi parents love their children, and it brings them no joy to give their children a smack - despite Bradford's claim that "The men that are anti this bill are sexual perverts and get a kick out of hitting children". I have spoken to thousands of Kiwi men who are anti Bradford's bill, and they would be outraged that a public servant would have the audacity to make such a statement.

Rather than attempting to attack the people or the question, it would be good if people were able to debate the two issues that are at stake here: democracy and parental authority.

Congratulations to Kristi and the Team

Colorado: Human Life Amendment Petition Succeeds

Twenty-one year old Kristi Burton of Denver, Colorado is the initiative sponsor of the petition calling for the Every Human is a Person amendment to be on the Ballot for November 2008. The ammendment simply states that Article 2 of the constitution be ammended with the addition of a simply worded and excellent new section, reading:

Section 31. Person defined. As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the terms "person" or "persons" shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization.

Watch the three-minute video below for a quick update on the progress the team is making in Colorado.

The Secretary of State's Office's random sampling indicated that there were 103,377 valid signatures, surpassing the 76,047 valid signatures that were required. "The people of Colorado have spoken, the Secretary of State's Office has certified our signatures, and our equal rights amendment will be on November's ballot," stated Kristi Burton, initiative sponsor. "All humans should be protected by love and by law, and this amendment is a historic effort to ensure equal rights for every person." Colorado for Equal Rights has demonstrated an unparalleled grassroots effort thus far, with likely more volunteer circulators than any other ballot initiative in the State's history. The grassroots initiative had over 1,300 volunteer petition circulators.
- from www.personhood2008.com

Side-note. Notice that in Colorado (population 4,753,377), only 76,047 signatures were required to take this issue to the ballot. Compare that with New Zealand (population 4,115,771) where 10% of the electoral roll (aprox 300,000 signatures) are required to force a referendum.

Yesterday

Yesterday I's out in town collecting signatures for the petition for a referendum on the new anti-smacking law - see here for more info: www.unityforliberty.net.nz. For the first two or three hours I had two mums and an eleven-year old boy helping me. He had kind of red hair too, so I was wondering if people thought I was his brother...

People often take pictures of us when we're out collecting signatures, today was the most ever - had to have been five or six.

Had some interesting people past the table.

• Three girls who had all pretty recently turned 18 were more than happy to sign.
  
• A group of Emo boys - probably all about 14 - were wanting to sign. I asked them if they were 18 and they walked away annoyed.
• Two girls came over to the table while their dad stood nearby, on the phone, maybe 14 and 12 years old. "Can we sign?". I asked them if they were over 18. They like it if you sound as if you think that they may be almost 18. Nope... they walked away - as soon as dad was off the phone, he was over here signing.
• A bunch of three guys my sister's age - I knew one of them, they wanted to sign, but of course they couldn't, too young.
• And this one guy with a teal/blue shirt with a picture of a fat buddah, and the words "I have the body of a god". "Nice shirt" I complimented him. He told me his girl-friend had given it to him.
• The guy with the tartan 3/4's and studs all over him didn't look to happy when I told him that I was "loving your trousers, aye". He didn't sign, but his mate did.
• The guy from the UK holding a guitar in a cardboard box. "I coompleetly ****ing disagree with what yer doing".
• A couple of girls and their mum came over. One of the girls signed - I think the other was too young. I asked the mother why she wasn't signing - she said she thought the new law was absolutely stupid. So I said, well you'd probably like to sign the top one here then. She refused and I said "whatever". Heck, it gets pretty frustrating. She walks away saying "whatever?" in a disbelieving way - how could he have said that?
• The family from Holland with 3 little children. They were great. They didn't even get angry when I asked them if they were from Germany. They were totally supportive of the petition and wished they could sign.

Ah, well, that's about all I can remember now... It was a pretty full on day. We got 222 signatures in 7 hours which is a very good ratio for Christchurch at this stage in the game.

Food:
1 thumping great 1.25L bottle of Pump.
2 cold Whoppers from Burger King
2 bottles of V Berry
half a pack of Extra white sugar-free chewing-gum
Some just-juice in a E2 bottle that my younger brother gave me