Family Fist

57 comments on “Family Fist ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Psycho Milt 1

   29 January 2008 at 6:32 pm

   Oh yeah – this is easily as apt as Redbaiter accusing every social democrat in the country of being a Stalinist. What incisive wit.
2. Ruth 2

   29 January 2008 at 6:45 pm

   Haha – the referendum questions are idiotic as the cartoonist points out.

   Maybe one should have been “Do you think inflicting physical pain as punishment is a part of good parenting?” That is what their question actually means.

   Retards.
3. Monty 3

   29 January 2008 at 6:57 pm

   or maybe – Do you think a good parent should be criminalised for doing their job. Interesting to note that Nutty Sue Bradford is straight away using emotive language like “beating” and “bashing” to describe the way i raise my well disciplined, well behaved, likeable three children. I am pleased I signed the petition and I pray that the 300,000 signatures are obtained. Certainly when I signed it over the Christmas break there was a queue of people signing up. I think the old Maori lady behind me summed it up when she said something to the effect “what business does Labour have telling me how to raise mylovely children”
4. deemac 4

   29 January 2008 at 7:03 pm

   I cringe to think NZ will once again be seen overseas as living in the past – I try so hard to convince people it’s not like that any more but things like this make us look like social dinosaurs
5. Simeon 5

   29 January 2008 at 7:07 pm

   Absolutely sick Tane absolutely sick

   Family first among other groups want a referendum on the “anti-smacking” law. Do you not get it. They actually believe in democracy unlike you.

   I guess you don’t even know what referendum means
6. Jimmy Mason 6

   29 January 2008 at 7:13 pm

   This smacking law is real sick .
7. The Double Standatrd 7

   29 January 2008 at 7:37 pm

   It’s a good cartoon.

   Of course, Teh Party would be happier if the 250,000 plus who have signed the petition were Party members eh? How many votes do you think the s59 won Labour?

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10489370

   I’m sure stories like this will drive more supporters to FF.
8. Policy Parrot 8

   29 January 2008 at 7:39 pm

   The religious right should follow the Gloriavale example, by breaking off from the rest of the wider community, and going and forming a pure-Christian-“commune” (for lack of a better word).

   Then they can control all they like. And they have the nerve to suggest that the Government is interfering in people’s lives.
9. Psycho Milt 9

   29 January 2008 at 8:01 pm

   And they have the nerve to suggest that the Government is interfering in people’s lives.

   Damn right – all the govt is doing is criminalising parents, whereas these fucking religious mofos are trying to… to… er, what exactly was your point again?
10. burt 10

    29 January 2008 at 8:05 pm

    Policy Parrot

    Good idea, they can take the extreme left wing activists and the extreme right wing activists with them. They can take the telephone cleaners and the dental hygienists as well – we don’t need that bloody diversity thing in our communities. Life will be much easier when we are all drones wearing plain light brown overalls (or perhaps red ones for ceremonial occasions).

    Simeon hits the nail on the head – these guys are asking the public to decide, not just cheering their own flavour of political party because it’s much easier if nanny looks after such tough decisions for us.

    CAPTCHA daily childless – very appropriate.
11. James Kearney 11

    29 January 2008 at 8:08 pm

    Oh yeah – this is easily as apt as Redbaiter accusing every social democrat in the country of being a Stalinist. What incisive wit.

    It’s pretty clear to me that the cartoonist is satirising the religious nutters behind the petition and not the people who signed it Milt.

    Loved the link to sod’s piece – you’re on fire brother.
12. lawyer dude 12

    29 January 2008 at 8:12 pm

    Attention Jimmy Mason.I can assist with your court case.Talk about fire brother.Things are hotting up.Sit tight.Big shake up coming.Lots going down.
13. Simeon 13

    29 January 2008 at 8:51 pm

    vote in the poll at http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/tabid/183/Default.aspx

    The question is “Should there be a referendum on the anti-smacking bill?”
14. Concerned from Tawa 14

    29 January 2008 at 9:09 pm

    Bob McCroskie:” So you do not want to see smacking banned?”
    Helen Clark: “Absolutely not, I think you are trying to defy human nature.”

    I’m antismacking, but if Clark hasn’t signed the petition then she’s a complete hippocrate. Hollow.
15. Simeon 15

    29 January 2008 at 9:30 pm

    on the TV 3 poll 73% say yes there should be a referendum on the “anti-smacking” law.

    Only 21% say No.

    So who’s right. It seems quite obvious.
16. Psycho Milt 16

    29 January 2008 at 9:49 pm

    So who’s right. It seems quite obvious.

    Does it? The matter of what’s more popular seems obvious – “right” is a different question altogether.

    I haven’t and wouldn’t sign these “loving smack” loonies’ petition. It’s one thing to object to being made a criminal by some do-gooder wowsers, quite another to campaign for the right to hit your kids.
17. lawyer dude 17

    29 January 2008 at 9:53 pm

    You wouldn’t sign a ‘loonies’ petition with a name like psycho?
    300,000 ‘loonies’ is a lot of votes Ms Milt.
18. Concerned from Tawa 18

    29 January 2008 at 9:56 pm

    Psycho I wouldn’t sign it either. But in light of Clark’s comment above I feel she should, or is she just a hollow hippocrate?
19. Daveo 19

    29 January 2008 at 10:00 pm

    Give it a rest Concerned. You’re boring.
20. Concerned from Tawa 20

    29 January 2008 at 10:19 pm

    Oh I know I’m boring Daveo. Clark’s statement on smacking was quite clear. Yet is is Family First that wears the smears. You give it a rest or you’ll just sound hollow and hippocritical like Clark. Guess I’ll get banned soon.
21. AncientGeek 21

    29 January 2008 at 10:47 pm

    Well the holiday is over. Back to work.

    As I understand it – virtually every party in parliament voted FOR the repeal of s59, including National. wikipedia (article is inaccurate, from memory Copeland didn’t actually vote against – press conference or something).

    from granny:

    Green MP Sue Bradford’s controversial child discipline bill was tonight passed by Parliament, with only seven MPs voting against it.

    My point is that we have a representative democracy – what convinced that number of representatives to vote for the bill? Probably the same that convinced me to switch from “why do we need the law change?” to why we badly need it. The opposition to the bill scared the hell out of me – the hysteria of the opposition convinced me that there were people around who’d I HATE to give a defense of reasonable force to.

    Looks like they are still around
22. Michele Cabiling 22

    29 January 2008 at 10:59 pm

    Anyone talking about “children’s rights” is actually talking about rights that they wish to take away from parents and bestow on the state.

    Summed up in Shrillary Clinton’s lame-ass observation “it takes a village to raise a child.” This, of course ignores the fact that most people don’t want their child raised by a village.

    Sue Bradford remains a militant Marxist-Leninist dedicated to undermining the institutions of a free society and replacing them with totalitarian socialism.

    The three main roadblocks to the Marxist-Leninist goal of a secular and socialist world order are private property (which provides material independence from state power), the family (which affords loyalties prior to the state), and religion (which claims authority above that of the state).

    Marx claimed that society is evolving inexorably toward socialism through a process called dialectical materialism. Here, an existing condition (thesis) comes into conflict with a new condition (antithesis) that is attempting to emerge. Out of the dialectical conflict between these two opposing forces a new, higher condition (synthesis) emerges. This is then put through the process again as the new thesis, until the institutions of a free society are completely eradicated and full socialism is achieved.

    Lenin expanded Marx’s dialectical analysis from its early focus on economic relationships to take in social and political relationships, thus widening the role of the revolutionary as a change agent. The task of the revolutionary was now to identify and exploit pressure points for dialectical conflict, thus undermining the legitimacy of the existing social and political order, and hastening the eventual triumph of socialism.

    Society must be divided (with the help of useful idiots looking for opportunities to engage in moral preening) into “oppressor” and “oppressed” groups. Bradford’s wheeze of casting normal, loving parents as “oppressors” and children as an “oppressed” group requiring the intervention of an activist government is classic Marxist-Leninist dialectical tactics in action.

    This undermines the family and replaces its determinative powers with that of the state. It also enables organised religion to be attacked and discredited for providing a philosophical base for the Judeo-Christian nuclear family model.

    Think about it. In “Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State,” Engels wrote: “Within the family, man is the bourgeoisie, women and children the proletariat.” Marxist-Leninists therefore regard the family as the instition within which children are socialised into the hierarchical system of capitalist class relations, and thus a key target for dialectical attack.

    To use terminology popularised by another well-known parliamentary leftard, Bradford is nothing but a “hater and a wrecker.”
23. Aj 23

    29 January 2008 at 11:16 pm

    AncientGeek

    Well said.
24. outofbed 24

    29 January 2008 at 11:21 pm

    One thinks that Simoen would have opposed the repeal of slavery, votes for women, the matrimonial property legislation, the homosexual reform bill etc etc.
    Luckily there are people who think progressively eh ?
25. AncientGeek 25

    29 January 2008 at 11:28 pm

    Actually I think that Michele makes my point… well in obverse. Good example of quoting – could you Pleeeassssseeeeee use links. I know you can do it – you’ve done it before..

    Plagiarism could be considered to be a sin…
26. outofbed 26

    29 January 2008 at 11:29 pm

    Michele you don’t need to hit children for no other reason then its wrong . It is poor parenting, does not need to happen, and sends the wrong message.
    If one can “correct” misbehaviour without resorting to violence why wouldn’t you ?
27. Draco TB 27

    30 January 2008 at 1:12 am

    Bob McCroskie:” So you do not want to see smacking banned?”
    Helen Clark: “Absolutely not, I think you are trying to defy human nature.”

    I’m antismacking, but if Clark hasn’t signed the petition then she’s a complete hippocrate. Hollow.

    You may not have noticed this but smacking hasn’t been banned. The only change in the law is that parents no longer have a get out of gaol free card for assaulting their children.

    So, no – she’s not a hypocrite or hollow. You are for not understanding the law and then accusing someone else of your faults.
28. Psycho Milt 28

    30 January 2008 at 6:18 am

    As I understand it – virtually every party in parliament voted FOR the repeal of s59…

    And as I understand it, the bill only passed because Labour stripped its MPs of the right to vote their consciences, and John Key fondly imagined himself to have cut a deal mitigating its worst effects (he hadn’t – but Nat voters are generally such unthinking suckers that many are now fondly imagining he’ll repeal it once in power. How these people ever get to be the govt is beyond me). Our representative democracy has passed crap laws I won’t obey before now, so this is just one more – but I’d prefer it if they didn’t criminalise perfectly ordinary behaviour in the first place. Call it a quirk.

    NB: Copeland did vote against – but only because reporters reminded him in the middle of his press conference that those bells he could hear were of some significance to the subject he was pontificating about…

    You wouldn’t sign a ‘loonies’ petition with a name like psycho? 300,000 ‘loonies’ is a lot of votes Ms Milt.

    So, you’ve learned not to leave a space in front of your punctuation, Dad4Justice? Clever – you’ll figure out how to use sock puppets effectively yet, by the look of it.
29. Psycho Milt 29

    30 January 2008 at 6:20 am

    Grr – “You wouldn’t sign a ‘loonies’ petition with a name like psycho? 300,000 ‘loonies’ is a lot of votes Ms Milt” above should be in italics. It’s a quote from Lawyer Dude, ie Dad4Justice.
30. lprent 30

    30 January 2008 at 6:31 am

    Test
31. lawyer dude 31

    30 January 2008 at 7:57 am

    Test

    [lprent – junk warning – this is probably dad4justice under yet another alias. It is in his usual IP range and with the usual comment type.]
32. dave 32

    30 January 2008 at 8:38 am

    Tane, you say the petition is from the “religius right”. Do you actually know who constructed the petition? Clue: It wasn`t anyone from Family First. Obviously the cartoonist and most of The Standard bloggers arent aware of that.
33. lawyer dude 33

    30 January 2008 at 8:42 am

    Family First did not organize the petition.Provable fact.

    [lprent – junk warning – this is probably dad4justice under yet another alias. It is in his usual IP range and with the usual comment type.]
34. Tane 34

    30 January 2008 at 8:58 am

    Yeah, as I understand it the petition was organised by ‘Unity for Liberty’ or somesuch organisation fronted by Larry Baldock. I’m on their mailing list.

    However, Family First have been the public voice on this issue and have spent tens (if not hundreds) of thousands on advertising against the Section 59 repeal. I imagine will have also been deeply involved in drumming up signatures for the petition. These groups don’t operate in isolation.
35. Psycho Milt 35

    30 January 2008 at 9:19 am

    Er, dave… is there any sense in which Larry Baldock is not “the religious right?”
36. lawyer dude 36

    30 January 2008 at 9:31 am

    Careful Milt
37. Michele Cabiling 37

    30 January 2008 at 9:37 am

    As noted above, the fashionable crusade of “children’s rights” is self-consciously anti-family. The gummint is declared to be more interested in the welfare of children than are their parents.

    It seeks rights and laws for children that neither they, nor their parents, want. It promises children legal sanctions against their parents. In so doing, it pits children into dialectical conflict with their parents.

    The inescapable implication is that children are not in safe hands with their own parents and that Nanny State has to intervene in order to protect them. The assumption that parents are at best inadequate, and at worst, hostile, to the needs of their children is straight-out anti-family propaganda.

    A “right” is classically defined as “the freedom to act without interference, according to one’s conscience.” It means nothing unless the individual has the capacity to act upon their right. Children, by nature of their immaturity and inexperience, do not have that capacity.

    That’s why they have people who act FOR them, in the form of the people who created them and who love them more than anyone else. Those people, the adult parents, have a freedom to act according to their conscience, and within the law, with their children. It is that freedom that the Communist Sue Bradford has snatched away with the help of the useful idiots who supported her Private Member’s Bill.

    Note that s59 already protected children against outright physical abuse masquerading as “discipline.”

    Socialist Sweden was cited by the Bill’s supporters as having similar laws that NZ should emulate. What has been the Swedish experience?

    The Nordic Committee, under its energetic and fearless chairman Ruby Harrold-Claesson (who came to NZ to speak against anti-smacking legislation), has managed to access many of the figures relating to the seizure of children by the Swedish authorities.

    These are difficult to obtain because they are not recorded in the normal, criminal courts, but in courts analagous to our Family Court. Hence the ability of the Swedish authorities to claim that there have been no prosecutions under the 1979 law.

    Children are taken away under the auspices of an administrative court which, in the public interest, of course, keeps the figures safely out of reach of most people.

    To convey an idea of the extent to which the Swedish state has usurped the family, it is necessary to set out the context. Sweden has a population of eight million. It is extremely homogenous as to race, has virtually no poverty, wall-to-wall welfare and no large cities. The capital city has a population of less than two million and the second city has one hundred and fifty thousand people.

    There should be very few cases where children need to be taken from their parents. Yet, in 1981 the authorities seized 22,000 children. This represents an annual seizure rate 86 times greater than that of West Germany. An equivalent annual figure for America would be more than 687, 000 children.

    No doubt the authorities had such a field day because of the number of children who’d been smacked by their parents before the 1979 Act came in. The figure fell somewhat in later years but, in 1995, 14,700 children were still being removed from their homes.

    That’s a seizure rate 57 times that of Germany. In American terms, nearly 500, 000 children would have been taken away from their parents and into state care.

    Recent media reports make it clear we are only starting to see the downstream effect of Bradford’s pernicious legislation.
38. dave 38

    30 January 2008 at 9:46 am

    Tane and Psycho. Baldock did not do the petitions. Someone else did the other one – and guess what – both have nothing to do with Unity for liberty. Dont you read you emails Tane?
39. Tane 39

    30 January 2008 at 9:59 am

    Dave, forgive me if I don’t keep up to date with the sectarian politics of the religious nutjob community. Whichever particular lobby group was technically behind the petition is irrelevant – they’re all campaigning and no doubt drumming up signatures too.

    The criticism is of all the assorted religious right groups that are campaigning to reinstate the riding crop lady’s right to beat her children. I don’t particularly care which label they happen to organise themselves under.
40. Michele Cabiling 40

    30 January 2008 at 10:09 am

    I suggest that the reason the CIR threshhold is 300,000 signatures is to preclude the possibility of any “nutjob community” to hijack the public process.

    Irrespective of who is behind the petition, should it crack the threshhold, it will be because the organisers have tapped into what Parliament long ago a valid public sentiment.

    As for the oft-cited by leftards “riding crop” incident (it’s refreshing at least to see you calling it what it is, rather than a “horsewhip” as leftards typically do) it might prove instructive to read the open letter to the PM by the woman concerned:

    http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/03/open-letter-to-prime-minister-from.html
41. Brownie 41

    30 January 2008 at 10:12 am

    Easy there, Tane fella!

    You are really coming down hard on Christians at the moment. I myself am not a fan (especially when it is inyourfaceyouarealldamnedtohelletc) but they have a right to an opinion and a voice as well – even if we don’t like what that voice says.

    In saying that, looks like the spirit of Jerry Falwell is alive and kicking in Aotearoa.

    [lprent – junk warning – this is probably dad4justice under yet another alias. It is in his usual IP range and with the usual comment type.]
42. Simeon 42

    30 January 2008 at 10:17 am

    Tane,

    Have you forgotten about democracy??

    Family first among other groups want a referendum on the “anti-smacking’ law. Do you not get it. They actually believe in democracy unlike you.

    I guess you don’t even know what referendum means??
43. dave 43

    30 January 2008 at 10:28 am

    Tane if you don’t want to keep up to date with the sectarian politics of the religious nutjob community, dont go on their mailing lists, then..
    Simple,really. To everyone but you it appears
44. Michele Cabiling 44

    30 January 2008 at 10:32 am

    I also suggest you read the lengthy post on this link, in which the “riding crop woman” speaks for herself:

    http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/KiwiSmithFamily/315455/

    What you will see here is not a “child abuser” or a “religious nutter,” but an intelligent, articulate woman with a managerial job with a genuine love for her children.

    Put up or shut up …

    The actual CHILD ABUSE here has been perpetrated by CYFS social workers with an exaggerated idea of their own importance and of the role of gummint.

    Anti-family socialists, in other words.
45. fraser 45

    30 January 2008 at 12:33 pm

    “What you will see here is not a “child abuser’ or a “religious nutter,’ but an intelligent, articulate woman with a managerial job with a genuine love for her children.”…

    You are talking about the same woman who has now accumulated charges related to all 3 of her children right?

    charges which include hogtie-ing one of her kids and letting the step dad assault him in the street (as reported by the media).
46. Michele Cabiling 46

    30 January 2008 at 12:45 pm

    “Accumulated charges” as in CYPF social[ist] workers are operating a vendetta against her for refusing to knuckle under.

    Twat!
47. Tane 47

    30 January 2008 at 12:46 pm

    You are really coming down hard on Christians at the moment.

    Hey Brownie, na I’ve got no beef with Christians in general, just the right-wing nutters of the Family First/Destiny Church variety.

    Have you forgotten about democracy?? … I guess you don’t even know what referendum means??

    Simeon, of course I believe in democracy but I’m not sure a referendum based on media hysteria is the right way to go about it. I’m more of a fan of the citizens’ assembly model myself – get a whole bunch of ordinary people representative of society’s makeup, give them the facts in a neutral manner and let them come to their own recommendations.

    I’m also uncomfortable with the idea of a majority voting on what rights a minority should have, especially if this minority is disenfranchised. Though I’m not sure what the answer is in this situation.
48. merl 48

    30 January 2008 at 4:05 pm

    Michelle, here’s a bit of a response to you:

    “As noted above, the fashionable crusade of “children’s rights’ is self-consciously anti-family. ” – I don’t agree

    “The gummint is declared to be more interested in the welfare of children than are their parents.” – False

    “It seeks rights and laws for children that neither they, nor their parents, want. ” – This is true for some people and false for others. As a sweeping generalisation it is false.

    “It promises children legal sanctions against their parents.” – Yes. Of course, there are already lots of legal sanctions for children against parents. Parents have to feed their children, have to clothe them, can’t put them to work rather than send them to school etc etc. ‘Legal sanctions’ aren’t inherently good or bad, it’s the nature of what the law is that determines whether it is good or bad.

    “In so doing, it pits children into dialectical conflict with their parents.” – False.

    “The inescapable implication is that children are not in safe hands with their own parents and that Nanny State has to intervene in order to protect them.” – Well in some cases, this is true. Remember the kahui twins? If there was no speeding limit and the government was proposing introducing one, would you be railing at them for their direct criticism of the driving skills of everybody in NZ? The Speeding Limit only *really* impacts on the speeders (even though everone watches their speed). Sue Bradfords bill only really affects people who assault their children.

    “The assumption that parents are at best inadequate, and at worst, hostile, to the needs of their children is straight-out anti-family propaganda.” – What crap. You seem to think that every family in the country is going to fall foul of this law. I don’t think that will be the case.

    I’d do the rest, but your posts are too long. I read the ‘riding crop incident’, and I certainly agree that CYFS can rip a family apart. That seems to be the real problem to me in that case, nothing to do with the law being debated.
49. dave 49

    30 January 2008 at 7:32 pm

    Though I’m not sure what the answer is in this situation.
    Gee, you`re Labour through and through. Did you get that direction fron the 9th Floor?
50. Matthew Pilott 50

    30 January 2008 at 10:31 pm

    Michele, I also find it interesting that someone who has now had charges for crimes against all three of her children is the paragon of civility, and is being perecuted by a government department for having the temerity to stand up against the Evil Family-Hating Forces of Oppression.

    So there’s no chance that the charges are true? None at all? It’s all the Big Bad Govt. Right.

    One more thought, you have banged upon about how women shouldn’t breed if they can’t look after the kids. One woman, five kids, and there’s trouble.

    God you’re a hypocrite.
51. Tane 51

    31 January 2008 at 9:46 am

    Gee, you`re Labour through and through. Did you get that direction fron the 9th Floor?

    Yes Dave, they even tell me to vote Green.

    And – here’s some gossip – just yesterday Heather Simpson rang Irish Bill and told him to pan Helen’s speech. It’s all super-complicated reverse psychology stuff that I wouldn’t expect you to understand.

    Seriously though, get a life.
52. lawyer dude 52

    31 January 2008 at 9:50 am

    I am representing Family First in all future litigation against the state.

    [lprent – junk warning – this is probably dad4justice under yet another alias. It is in his usual IP range and with the usual comment type.]
53. Billy 53

    31 January 2008 at 10:09 am

    Dad,

    I have a Swedish duvet.
54. lawyer dude 54

    31 January 2008 at 10:16 am

    Thank you Billy for the kind offer, however I prefer Swedish blonde’s myself.

    [lprent – junk warning – this is probably dad4justice under yet another alias. It is in his usual IP range and with the usual comment type.]
55. dave 55

    1 February 2008 at 8:32 am

    Yes Dave, they even tell me to vote Green.
    You`d probably vote blue if they told you to, as well… yes sir, Heather, three bags full Heather, anything you say Heather.

    captcha Dearly H ( heh)(
56. Tane 56

    1 February 2008 at 8:54 am

    Dave bro, I see you’re having trouble with that whole humour thing.

    Perhaps that explains the racist ‘Maori’ version of Facebook you’ve posted up on your site as ‘humour’.
57. dave 57

    1 February 2008 at 9:07 am

    Tane, I`m not your “bro”, bro.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS