Why The Anti-Smacking Bill Is A Good Thing

by Garnet Milne
from reformationtestimony.org.nz

As the attack by teenagers on Police in Nelson yesterday has shown, New Zealand society, starting with the youth, is becoming increasingly ill-disciplined. Yet parliament which removed corporal punishment by schools is about to outlaw it in the family also – even though, in a certain sense, the family is the very foundation of any society.

This evening the New Zealand parliament will approve new legislation which will make it an offence to smack one's own child. Once this legislation passes anyone who chooses rather to obey God's instruction concerning child-rearing will be deemed to have committed a criminal act when they smack their child for any purpose (Ac 5:29). The only sop offered to the 85% of New Zealanders who oppose this bill is some vague comment that the police will use their discretion when it comes to prosecuting parents who commit minor breaches of the new law. Nonetheless, there are many who will consider the passing of this draconian God-denying legislation a good thing. So let us survey why the anti-parenting bill, hatched by Labour and the Greens, and now embraced in the same nest by the main opposition party under John Key, might be deemed a good thing.

Many have written negatively about the anti-smacking, anti-parent bill promoted by former Workers Communist League comrade Sue Bradford, now a Green member of parliament. Plainly, for Mrs Bradford the anti-parenting bill is a good thing because it ensures that parents lose control over their own kids.

Good Little Communists
A major goal of any Marxist or communist like Mrs Bradford is to ensure that the proletariat (the masses) are indoctrinated from an early age in the principles of communism. Behind this desire is the need of the good Marxist to control all facets of society. Since religion is deemed to be the "opiate of the people", ways must be found to discourage such troublesome views which tend to thrust a spanner in the workings of Maoist collectivism (actually the control of power by the elite). But the communist has a problem at this point. Even if one possesses the reigns of power, it would not be considered good form to openly persecute Christians for their religious principles by throwing them into jail. No, a more subtle, a more surreptitious approach must be found which will achieve the same result. A method will do which gives the appearance of human kindness but which instead will undermine the moral fibre of society, breaking down the family hierarchy. This method has been used successfully in New Zealand in a number of social engineering experiments in recent decades. Abortion on demand came about predicated on the argument that if hospitals would not provide supervised abortions performed by trained medical staff, desperate women would risk death by having recourse to back street abortionists. Prostitution was legalised because, it was argued, women would not be protected from abuse and would not have access to good health care if prostitution remained outlawed. Thirdly, parliament legalised homosexuality on the premise that what same-sex couples did in the privacy of their own homes would not hurt anyone else, so "let's just let homosexuals do their thing. When they do it, the rest of society won't be affected will it?" It is no coincidence that Sue Bradford was a prime promoter of homosexual marriage legislation; the legalising of prostitution; and has uttered not a squeak about the killing of the unborn in our hospitals. We can well assume that has she been around at the time, Mrs Bradford would have been at the forefront of pushing for the legalising of abortion on demand.

These arguments were as effective as they were fallacious. In all cases laws were repealed and substituted with permission to commit evil. That some women committed criminal acts to kill their unborn children is hardly justification for killing 16,000 babies every year in New Zealand; that legalising prostitution would allegedly make it safer for the prostitute has proved to be a lie. Now more underage girls are sucked into the morass of evil, and illicit prostitution still flourishes even more in the twilight zone. STDs and AIDS infections continue to multiply among prostitutes and homosexuals. Moreover, that homosexuality would not affect non-homosexual society has proved to be a myth. Marriage, that sacred bedrock of society, has been sullied and cheapened as lawmakers have made homosexual unions and de facto relationships on a par with marriage in the law. Homosexuals are now elected to parliament or appointed on party lists and have a disproportionate influence on the direction of social policy. The chief film censor is both a homosexual and ironically the guardian of the nation's morals. The sorts of films and videos he and his office approve demonstrates clearly that he considers sexual perversion perfectly normal and acceptable.

Click here to read the rest of the article