Nanny says...

The Sunday Star Times has an editorial scolding us for using the term 'nanny state'. Defending the draconian anti-smacking law, it claims:

"It is right... that the government should support [parents] in finding other ways of correcting their kids"

But the govt hasn't 'supported' parents, it has coerced them against the will of the overwhelming majority. Coercion isn't support. Such semantic distortions are typical of self-righteous authoritarians, completely dismissive of the wishes and opinions of those whose wellbeing they claim to champion. The editorial reckons:

"The "nanny state" is a cliche and an obstacle to clear thought."

Yet the article is filled with unproven or unsupported assumptions muddying the debate, e.g.: obesity is a serious public health problem; obesity 'victims' will cram hospital wards in 20 years (is nanny state clairvoyant? do people never decide to join gyms or go on diets?); the average smoker starts at 14 1/2; adults rarely begin smoking (many do, funnily enough, to help keep the weight down); the activities of tobacco companies are immoral (is profit-making and satisfying consumers' demands immoral?); 14 year olds are incapable of making rational choices; the new anti-smacking laws won't criminalise good parents.

On banning junk food from schools, the author insists (in typical nanny-speak) that the Govt "must do what it can to prevent.. harm" and that it "is justified in trying to save adolescents from themselves." It assumes teens and parents are hopeless at decision making and incapable of self-help. The article rightly notes that many agree, "The government is treating its citizens like babies." Indeed. Only an arrogant, paternalistic Govt believes its people can't be trusted to make choices without the meddling hand of officials and bureaucrats.

The author claims the phrase 'social engineering' is empty abuse, and that: "It's time to drop [the term 'nanny state'] from the political lexicon." Such linguistic censorship is a favoured tactic of nannies: futile attempts to silence critics, or frame the debate on their terms. Regardless of the label, people recognise the nanny-state at work, unnecessary & unwelcome government intrusions that curtail liberties.
[PC has a fine list of examples of our "nanny state gone berserk"]

All in all, it's unsurprising that the Times publishes these feeble justifications for the Left's plans for complete despotic control of NZ. Editor, Cate Brett, is an avid Labour supporter who never fails to (ab)use her to position to promote Helen Clark's brand of socialism, particularly near election time. This is but one reason I never buy the Times: it might encourages her to print more pro-Labour garbage, and I'd hate to think I helped fund those who'd wish to muzzle my freedoms.

SHAME!

"Ma te whakama e patu"

Let shame be your punishment ~ Maori proverb

Remember this face!

This is sex pervert, Chris Campbell, an ex-district councillor whose convictions for possessing child pornography were overturned on appeal because of a technicality. Judge Raynor Asher ruled an affidavit appended with a search warrant was not well prepared.

So a child predator goes free. Disgusting! Very little outrages me more than sexual offences against children. Manufacturers of kid pornography, and the consumers who enable them, deserve odium without mercy. They're death penalty candidates (in my remorseless opinion). So remember this face and the name, Chris Campbell, so he may be cursed, spat at, and abused in the streets. Let him feel shame as retribution for his crimes.

The other 'criminal' in this case (imo) is Justice Asher. I've never understood society's reverence for judges. Few hold lawyers in high esteem. Their job is to interpret statutes. In everyday terms, we'd call them spin-masters; deceivers & liars. Judges are mere lawyers who've been promoted; I hold them both in contempt.

The appeal judge chose a very pedantic interpretation of the law. It may he been legally correct, but justice was not done. How many other serious criminals may walk free because of marginal infractions?: a spelling mistake or a minor detail wrongly recorded; basic human errors allowing human monstrosities to go unpunished.

So remember, too, the name, Justice Raynor Asher. May he also be widely vilified as a protector and enabler of child-rapists. And let shame be his punishment.

[photo/Alan Gibson]

finnicky food fanatics

We're becoming more entangled in the ever-encroaching tentacles of nanny-state with the education ministry's decision to ban 'unhealthy' food from school tuck shops. The govt fat-phobics' feeble excuse is their priority to educate students about making healthy food 'choices'. But having regulations forced down your throat is no 'choice'. A shame the govt doesn't give the same due attention to 'educate' pupils in reading & writing as our nation's literacy rates decline.

Their anti-obesity position might hold more credence if MPs themselves were paragons of sleekness. There's more than a few plump pigeons and hefty heifers among nanny-parties, Labour & Greens. Sue Bradford is certainly no catwalk model, and Parekura Horomia won't be attending Anorexia Anonymous meetings anytime soon. The next election can't come soon enough to toss these scraps and leftover zealots into the compost.