The Kiwi Party and Abortion

The Kiwi Party has made itself known as a "Judeo-Christian Values Party" - although upon a cursory glance of their website I couldn't find any reference to this. The party's leader is ex-United Future List MP, Larry Baldock. He is backed up with fellow ex-United Future List MP, Gordon Copeland now serving as Party President, and More FM Radio celebrity, Simon Barnett. The party is strongly pro-life, and I have huge respect for their opposition to abortion. The Kiwi Party has just recently adopted Gordon Copeland's "Abortion (Informed Consent) Amendment" bill.

I am absolutely in favour of what this bill seeks to achieve. It seeks to take an incremental step forward through the provision of information through counselling before the mother makes a final request to be considered for an abortion in accordance with the current Abortion Law. Below is a diagram of the change the amendment would make.

It's a great bill, and you can read an excellent short summary of it here. However, it is not going to go anywhere. In another document entitled "Abortion Law Reform in New Zealand; a Political Strategy", the Kiwi Party outlines its strategy for reforming New Zealand's abortion law for the better by passing the informed consent bill. Coincidentally, the strategy involves getting the Kiwi Party into Parliament. However neither the Kiwi Party, nor any of its candidates will ever enter Parliament again. This is because they are incompetent and unprofessional.

Baldock's referendum to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act (subsequently adopted by the Kiwi Party) was a thinly veiled bid to build the platform necessary to get Larry Baldock back into Parliament in 2008 with the newly formed Kiwi Party. It failed in this objective. Baldock's 2011 Election Bid was to run a referendum seeking to amend New Zealand's law on referendums so that they would be binding. The question read: “Should Parliament be required to pass legislation that implements the majority result of a citizens initiated referendum where that result supports a law change?” Confusing, huh. Anyway, this referendum also failed in building a strong platform to get Baldock back into Parliament. Last I heard it was 280,000 signatures short of completion, and with only a few months remaining. So what new strategy from the desk of the Kiwi Party? A policy to make a significant improvement in New Zealand's abortion law.

Let's be clear. The law would not restrict any abortions. However through the improved system of counselling, it is strongly likely that the number of abortions in New Zealand would drop significantly. (over 10% I think).

Earlier this year I wrote Referendum File 1: The Logic of the Campaign for Democracy and Referendum File 2: Can They Be Trusted?, outlining a critical lack of wisdom and integrity in the Kiwi Party. I will be writing further "Referendum Files" shortly. One of the party's key policies embodies the Socialist ideal of wealth-redistribution through an increase in the minimum wage to $15 an hour. There are also major issues with the party's Law and Order policy which I have written about here.

In their political strategy document, they write:

Therefore progress can not be made unless the Kiwi Party or some other Party which is prepared to commit to this issue, is elected to Parliament. The Kiwi Party already has a high recognition factor in New Zealand with an independent poll indicating that 8.7% of voters would “likely” vote for the party if they were confident that it could achieve either 5% of the party vote or one electorate seat, thus ensuring its presence in the next parliament.

This 8.7% figure, obtained through "independent polling" is old news. The Kiwi Party used it at the last election... and I have no idea who the independent pollsters were, but they didn't quite get it right did they... In the 2005 election Baldock received 3.67% of the vote in his electorate of Tauranga. However you have to get roughly over 40% to win in this electorate. In 2008 he received 5.11% of the vote. That election, the Kiwi Party received 0.54% of the party vote, even with their platform, repealing the Anti-Smacking Law being one of the key election issues. How well are they going to do at the 2011 election where neither abortion nor smacking will be key election issues?

I will be writing more shortly about The Kiwi Party; why they should not run at the next election, and why you shouldn't waste your vote on them.

Boscawen to Stall Section59 Ammendment Bill

In a clever move, ACT's John Boscawen has stated that he will be writing to the Clerk of Parliament, requesting that the first reading of his Bill to ammend the Anti-Smacking law be postponed indefinitely. He's pretty much written off any chances of getting a Christmas card from Dear Leader this year, as Mr. Key's intention in his announcement that National would kill the bill at its first reading was that the issue would go away and that he could get on with more important things. Heck, we all want the issue to go away - but the Prime Minister needs to understand that ignoring 87.4% of Kiwis is not the best way to achieve this.

Boscawen will be speaking tonight in Christchurch - all are welcome, details here.

The Herald has the story.

Red is the New Blue

Many Kiwis are sick of our new National Government. John Key continues to wilfully ignore the will of the 83% of New Zealanders who are opposed to the anti-family law, labelled by the Green Party as the "anti-smacking law". When asked if he will honour the result of the upcoming referendum on smacking, Key has evaded the question by stating that unless he hears of good parents being prosecuted for a light smack, he is happy with the law. Key is not a fool. He knows just as well as you or I that that is not the point. The fact is that it is illegal to correct your child with a smack - whether or not the police prosecute is utterly beside the point. - more at the Section 59 blog.

Meanwhile, our Minister of Finance Bill English is failing to prepare New Zealand for the full onslaught of the recession. "Mr English said the budget would focus on reprioritising government spending, particularly spending for public services. There would be no room for significant fiscal stimulus in the budget and the rate of increased spending would be lower than in the past." - TV3 23/04/09. Hard as it is to believe, those are English's words "the rate of increased spending will be lower than in the past", i.e. spending will continue to increase.

National is setting our country up for a full-scale depression. What is desperately needed now is a strong dose of ACT policy - the same thing that pulled New Zealand out of the downward spiral set in motion by the 80's Muldoon Government. Below is an excerpt from ACT MP Hon. Sir Roger Douglas's latest press release with his recommendations for the National Government.

Mr English continues to either sit on his hands or move in the wrong direction. While the OECD tells us to sell poorly-managed State assets, National promised to retain State assets – and is now beginning to stack them with political appointments just as Labour did.

The OECD reports that health spending is out of control and can only be tamed by introducing greater public/private competition. National TALKS about allowing competition in health services – but we need action. We need to privatise ACC and utilise private health services before we will see any benefits.

Further, the burgeoning cost of superannuation caused by retiring baby boomers is unsustainable. If we act now, we can decrease the pain in the long term. In the short term, the age of entitlement will have to rise – as the OECD advises – or we will continue to slide behind other nations even faster. In the longer term, we must move away from the current superannuation system towards one that encourages people to save.

When you’re in a hole, you need to look at all possible ways to get out. We shouldn’t ignore advice simply because Mr English doesn’t want to hear it. In fact most of the advice, if followed, would create the kind of growth that occurred from 1984-96. While Mr English is not listening, Labour is moving in the opposite direction to that needed – continuing to have faith in politicians and bureaucrats to spend money more wisely than individuals.

Enough of National thinking they are New Zealand's saviour. They are arrogant and hypocritical just like their predecessors, Labour. We want a government which listens to the people, which refuses to endorse badly written law, and which will protect the country's economy by drastically cutting government spending.

On the Boscawen Ammendment

ACT MP John Boscawen has introduced a bill calling for ammendments to Section 59 of the Crimes Act, ensuring that smacking (the use of reasonable force in the circumstances), will not be a criminal offence. There is conjecture that the bill has been based on Chester Borrows' proposed ammendments back in March 2007 (which were defeated).

The Borrows amendment would allow physical discipline unless:

1. It involves conduct prohibited by an enactment creating a criminal offence...
2. It causes or contributes materially to harm that is more than transitory and trifling; or
3. Any weapon, tool or other implement is used; or
4. It is inflicted by any means that is cruel, degrading or terrifying.

Samuel Dennis explains why the Chester Borrows ammendment model is not a good move for New Zealand.

"...what need is there for point [3], when you already have point [2]?

If no more than “transitory and trifling” effects are produced, what difference does it make whether a hand or a wooden spoon was used? homerstranglesbart1

In fact, it is quite possible to beat a child to death with your bare hands. You don’t need a weapon to inflict major injuries. Whether an implement is used has absolutely nothing to do with preventing child abuse, and is actually a distraction from the real issue.

It also opens up a new issue - what is an implement? Is a ring an implement if a child is smacked with an open hand but accidentally injured by a ring? What about if the parent happened to be wearing a soft glove? What about a thick leather glove?

Let’s not go there. The issue is whether harm is caused that is more than “transitory and trifling”. Forget about whether an implement is used - that is completely irrelevant and just another point of dispute."

In his usual no-mucking-around style, Samuel sheds some light on this supposedly cloudy aspect of New Zealand's approach to child discipline. Head over to his blog to read the entire article.

Boscawen Introduces Ammendment to S59

Press Release, ACT, 19 Mar 2009: Amendment To Fix Broken Anti-Smacking Law

ACT New Zealand MP John Boscawen today announced that he will introduce a Private Member's Bill to amend the controversial Anti-Smacking law inflicted on New Zealanders by Labour and the Greens in 2007.

"My announcement coincides with yesterday's release of a poll that shows widespread support for the law to be altered," Mr Boscawen said.

"This poll, commissioned by Family First NZ and conducted by Curia Market Research, surveyed the views of 1,000 everyday New Zealanders - 83 percent of whom felt the law should be changed, with a total 77 percent of respondents believing the law would not help reduce our child abuse rates.

"While addressing the concerns of those who felt that the original section 59 of the Crimes Act was too vague, my amendment to the law will protect from criminalisation those parents who use a light smack for the purpose of correction.

"The amendment will change the Act so that: it is no longer a crime for parents or guardians to use reasonable force to correct children; there are clear statutory limits on what constitutes reasonable force; parents and guardians have certainty about what the law permits; it is no longer reliant on police discretion for the law to be practical and workable.

"In an attempt to curb child abuse, this law has simply criminalised law-abiding parents and removed their freedom to decide how best to raise their children - something that ACT has consistently opposed.

"The Labour we know best' Government is out and National is now in. Perhaps we will now begin to see an end to the madness of the past nine years - where politicians saw fit to tell New Zealanders how to live their lives," Mr Boscawen said.

----------------------------------------

This is what we've all been waiting for. Now National has a reason to support a major ammendment (won't be full repeal) of this flawed anti-parental-authority law. ACT, one of the two major parties in their confidence and supply Government will be pressuring National to give their support to this bill.

hat-tip: Constant Joy

2009 Research, 83% NZers say Change Smacking Law

from the Section59 blog

Almost two years after the passing of the controversial anti-smacking law, more than 80% of NZ’ers still want the law changed and 77% say that the law won’t have any effect on our unacceptable child abuse rate.
These are the key finding of research commissioned by Family First NZ, following on from similar research in 2007 and 2008. The Curia Market Research poll surveyed 1,000 people, and also found huge confusion over the legal effect of the law.
83% said that the new law should be changed to state explicitly that parents who give their children a smack that is reasonable and for the purpose of correction are not breaking the law (85% in 2008, 82% in 2007).

---

Key Findings:
83% say the law should be changed – only 13% say to keep it as is
77% says the law won’t help reduce the rate of child abuse in NZ
Less than one third of respondents actually understand the law

---

Below are two graphs from the Press Release

Click here to read the full article

Family First Calls for Referendum to be Dumped

In their latest press release, Family First takes a step out on the ice and makes the sensible suggestion that the Government should forget about the postal referendum on the legality of smacking, that is scheduled for mid-this-year.  Instead of wasting $8,000,000 of tax-payer's money on a lengthy and drawn-out postal referendum, Family First is calling for the Governement to simply glance at the 390,000 signatures that were submitted, listen to the people of New Zealand, and go ahead and repeal Section 59 of the crimes act.

“If the government is serious about cost cutting, tightening our financial belts and prioritised spending to the frontline, it makes far more sense to divert that amount of money to more teachers, nurses, doctors and cops...
The law can be easily fixed by removing the criminality of parents who use reasonable force for the purpose of correcting their children but at the same time having clear statutory limits on what constitutes reasonable force.”

They dumped the anti-democratic Electoral Finance Act.  Now it's time for the anti-family Section 59 to be repealed.

Four-Month-Old Baby Brutalised

"A four-month-old boy was taken to Auckland's Middlemore Hospital on Saturday night (2 August) from his home in Papakura with critical head injuries which police said were non-accidental."  He is now fighting for his life in the same hospital which the horribly abused Kahui twins were taken to, but later died.  "The baby's parents, aged 18 and 19, reside in a rundown home where parties were always being held and people came and went at all hours."  Yeah, well that's going to help isn't it.  "Yesterday, empty beer bottles lay on the unmown lawn with other rubbish."  More detail on this case at www.stuff.co.nz.

FOUR MONTHS OLD!  What animals could have done this to the poor defenceless little baby?  I am sick and tired of the same old, worn out knee-jerk reactions to New Zealand's disgusting and ongoing child-abuse problem.  The Anti-Smacking law is just one pathetic example of a beurocratic, "feel-good" law which has been forced upon New Zealand.  It does nothing to stop real child abuse while at the same time criminalising all good parents who smack their children occasionally, throwing them into the same basket as the low-life that killed the Kahui twins, 3yr old Nia and Coral Burrows.

Darren Rickard at Political Animal says,

"It is perverse that Cindy and her extreme socialist mates in the Labour Party have the whole thing back to front. That is socialism for you though. By its very nature it is dangerous, perverse, backwards, doesn't make sense and has led to much misery and eventually death, everywhere it has been practiced. The 4 month old boy joins a long list of New Zealand child abuse victims. Despite the Labour led Government spending more than NZ 14 million on anti-violence campaigns, at least three children under the age of 5 have died at the hands of parents or others this year. Many others have been seriously injured and the removal of section 59 just sits there blowing nakedly in the breeze, as a reminder of how thoughtless its proponents were. Hang your heads anti smacking zealots, your law is a resounding failure but the sensible among us, the majority of kiwis, already knew it would be before it was passed."

Amazing Grace

This video is taken from the end of Michael Apted's 2006 film, Amazing Grace, featuring the Hornblower TV series star Ioan Gruffudd (one of my favourite actors) as William Wilberforce.  I've watched the movie twice in the theatre, but our family really should buy it on DVD.  While it's not an exact account of the life and deeds of William Wilberforce, no historical movies ever are.  Released in New Zealand at the time that we were busy collecting signatures for the Anti-Smacking Law petition, the film came as a huge encouragement to us.  William Wilberforce collected 390,000 signatures from across England, calling for the abolition of the slave trade.  And we collected 390,000 signatures calling for a referendum on the (anti-democratic) Anti-Parental-Authority law which was passed against the will of 83% of New Zealanders.

We sang this at Church last night, so uplifting.  And then today, a friend sent me a link to this video.  :)

An Australian Crime

I hold my head in my hands.

This is absolutely disgusting, a 12-year-old girl was left without food or water to die in the backyard of her foster home, delirious with pain and unable to move.  Give me a break, she was just 12 years old!  Below is an excerpt from the article (30 July) at www.theaustralian.news.com.au,

"Mr Coates said Ms Reynolds was a "stubborn" woman who insisted the child had sustained a sports injury which would improve with exercise. When the girl refused, Ms Reynolds would "smack her leg with a stick".

"(The child) was unable to stand unassisted and when she was forced to she would just fall to the ground," Mr Coates said during opening submissions.

"When assistance was not forthcoming to help her to the toilet she would urinate and defecate in her clothes where she lay."

Mr Coates said social workers who visited the three-bedroom Palmerston home - which housed 17 people - the day before the death found the child lying on the kitchen floor crying.

When she was told to have a shower she struggled to walk and had to use the walls for support. Mr Coates said the jury would also hear evidence that, hours before her death, the girl was "punished" for soiling her clothes and taken out to the backyard.

"The children were told they were not allowed to help her get food or drink," he said.

"You will hear evidence from children who were out playing in the yard that later in the day (the girl) began to talk about fairies and witches and she said a limousine was coming to pick her up ... (The girl) said yeh, I can see the light now, and she just stopped breathing."

From what I understand of the story, there were fifteen foster children housed in a home, looked after by two sisters (Toni Melville, 43, and Denise Reynolds, 42) in Palmerston, Australia.  It is painfully obvious that they were incompetent as carers, and this tragic situation should have been intercepted much earlier.  The frustrating irony is the cases where good foster parents have been refused foster-children due to their stance on homosexuality, child-discipline or the like.

This case brings to mind the 2007 film, An American Crime an eerie portrayal of exactly this kind of abuse.  And the recent case of the murdered Kahui twins, where at the end of lengthy court proceedings and public outcry, no-one was ever charged for the death of these poor little boys who never got a chance.  I thought the Anti-Smacking Law was supposed to sort out New Zealand's child abuse problem...

"Ms Bradford [sponsor of Anti-Smacking Law] says parents need to accept that it is no longer legal to hit children. She remains confident her anti-smacking laws will change what she describes as a culture of violence." - Newstalk ZB, 15/01/08

However, Bradford said back in 2007,

“The epidemic of child abuse and child violence in this country continues – sadly. My bill was never intended to solve that problem.” - National Radio - 21 Dec 07

Instead of the growing international trend to criminalise good and loving parents for giving their child a smack, let us rather crack down on the real child abusers.  While governments persist with their totalitarian, socialist, nanny-state agenda, the number of child abuse cases can only increase as increasingly, good parents are pushed out, setting the scene for horrific new cases of child-abuse and neglect to mar the front page of your morning paper.

(hat tip, NZ Conservative)

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

Number Plates

Whaleoil ran a PL8s competition a few months ago. Here are four of my submissions for your entertainment. You can see all the submissions by clicking here.