Tony Milne sees Christians under the bed

Tony Milne has had a letter to the editor published in the Sunday Star Times today. The paper has taken up Tony's theme, and titled all the letters on the Repeal of S59 as "Fundamentalists behind 'anti-smacking' bill lies".

The title aside, for now, here is Tony's letter:

I'm fed up with the lies that have been told about the Repeals of the Section 59 bill.

So, he's going to replace them with his own lies instead.

The lie that the bill bans smacking has been told so often and for so long that I'm sure many people believe it.

And you know all about that, don't you - that's how propaganda works. It's just a pity that NZ'ers aren't buying your side on this one, that they can see through the lies. So, only way you can think to counter the truth, is to call the truth a lie and then replace the truth with real lies which you then try to label the truth. You think if you do this often enough, people will believe you.

Unfortunately, the name "anti-smacking bill" was coined by extreme fundamentalist Christians arguing against it to intentionally mislead the public.

The first time I mentioned "anti-smacking" was nearly two years ago. Way before there was any organised "extreme fundamentalist Christian" resistance to this bill. Way before I returned to my Catholic roots. During the period which I would have called myself a libertarian.

And the National Party, who should know better, has found it convenient to go along with that line.

I would have thought that if the National Party were truly against the Repeal of S59, that they would have told the 80% or so of New Zealanders that oppose being told how to raise their children by the childless - such as Tony Milne, Labour gay activist - that National would have promised to repeal the repeal as soon as they got into power. Yet, they have not done so. Therefore, Tony is seeking to smear National with the "fundamentalist" link - a continuation of the Exclusive Brethren theme. Somewhere on the internet is a blog post recommending this very tactic.

Ordinary parents have nothing to fear from a bill which seeks to ensure that the worst abusers in New Zealand can't hide behind the Section 59 defence and get away with harming our kids.

The police have stated over and over and over again that they will be forced to investigate any smacking complaint. So Tony is lying. If what he was saying was true, then there would be documentation of this nature explaining this bill to the police - not attempting to propagandise the NZ public.

And, ohhh, they're "our kids". My kids are your kids, are they Tony? Making your intentions known, are you Tony? Tony, keep your bill to yourself. My kids are not your kids. You can't have them, and neither can your Labour and Green cronies or any other childless friends you'd like to share them with.

Lastly, let's finish off with the "extreme fundamentalist Christian" bogeyman Tony and people like him seem so afraid of. This is only used because of the potential fear factor that Tony is banking on it eliciting. In reality, Tony and his type are afraid of all Christians, except for the "progressive" (Marxist) types that Labour believe they have control over. Since most people that oppose this bill do not identify themselves as "extreme fundamentalist Christians", Tony is hoping that the association with such a group will cause such fear and loathing in the average New Zealander, that in order to purge themselves of this they will leap over to his side.

Hope in vain, Tony. The blood tie and protectiveness that people feel towards their children, and the certainty that they are the only people that will love their children over and above their own lives, if necessary, will supersede any such attempt at turning people over to your side. It may even backfire. It most likely will backfire. And you'll be left looking like the social engineering losers you really are.

It's been often brought up that the childless should have an equal opinion on this issue as parents do. There are a number of childless people that can see the danger of the bill and what it will mean and fight on the side of the parents. Since their view is in the right, I have no issue with them being involved in the debate. Those people are quite happy for NZ parents to raise their children how they see fit and knowing that smacking is not harmful, do not seek to impose their view on NZ parents on whether or not they should be able to physically discipline their children.

It doesn't take much to dig under the surface and find that the Sue Bradfords of the world are against smacking, and they seek to ban it. It doesn't take much digging to show them making out a smack is the same as abuse. It doesn't take much digging to see the potential for a badly written law to see a stressed mother smack her child in a mall and have CYFS swoop and act "in the interests of the child" with forced removal.

The childless who do seek to impose their view on how other people's children should be raised are those who have the least credibility in my eyes. Not only do they not have any clue how to raise a child, they also seek to tell those who have experience with children that the way they are raising their own children is wrong, and that they (the childless) know better.

That they even dare to do this shows such an arrogance of the perceived inflated importance of their own opinions. These people have no place in the debate, and certainly no place in the homes of New Zealand's mums and dads.

I hope this is the reason Labour get voted out and voted out for a very, long time. Because the more this S59 propaganda war continues, the more untrustworthy Labour will look. That must be why Tony did not state his political association in his letter - it would have rendered any message of his null and void, and he knew it.