Robin Thomsen brings to you only the finest of politically themed columns. So what are you waiting for, the Spanish Inquisition? Get reading them!

Hate Speech
DestinyNZ Policies
Private vs Public Property
Govt. Funded Transgenders?
WIN-Freedom of Choice Not Supporting Freedom of Choice
Greens and Tertiary Education
Greens and the Environment
Drinking Age raise inconveniences NZers
Orauta a Good School
More Vague Promises for New Zealand Racing
A 'whiff of Orwell' hangs over NZ schools

Hate Speech

We must not allow laws against hate speech to be put into action! During my lifetime this has to be the single-most dangerous proposal the government has ever proposed. We live in a free society, but legislation preventing our right to freedom of speech is one long stride towards the path of tyranny, corruption and dictatorship. These are things countries all around the world are trying to step away from, not into!

Legislation preventing hate speech is legislation preventing free speech; there can be no argument about this. The power of a government with laws against free speech is well beyond the justified limits of beneficial government. The government's job is to protect rights, not to take them away.

Would laws against free speech have prevented the desecration of Jewish graves in Wellington? Absolutely not – in fact, such laws would merely give the miscreants that carried out this act even more venom for their hatred as they realize just how corrupt the Government responses to such behaviour can be.

How would laws against free speech have affected the Destiny Church mob’s recent demonstration at parliament? Would the government have incarcerated Brian Tamaki, thus turning him into the next Nelson Mandela?

Why was David Irving prevented from speaking in the country? While I have no time for the foolish notions of Mr. Irving, the government exposed just how draconian and unjust it can be by preventing his entry to the country. Was the government seriously expecting David Irving to create a new NAZI party in New Zealand?

What would legislation preventing hate speech accomplish? It would give the government far too much power to suppress dissenting views against it. Perhaps 50% of the letters in the opinion pages of the papers are the voices of citizens who feel they have been put wrong by the government, and it would be too easy for the Gestapo of the day to examine, edit, alter, or censor the views of free New Zealanders. It would prevent publication of such magazines as Ian Wisharts’ “Investigate” and Lindsey Perigos’ “Free Radical”, drastically limiting the ability of New Zealanders to think critically for themselves.

The motives for legislation preventing hate speech are not to stop New Zealanders hurting each other. This is simply about control, and I sincerely hope that someone investigates to motives of those who proposed hate speech legislation. Those people are would be tyrants and dictators. They are enemies of freedom, and unfit to be in charge of this country.

"God Defend Our Free Land" – from God Defend New Zealand (our national anthem)

-Robin Thomsen


Something that has featured on the front page of the Waikato Times, two days in a row, has been a criticism of some parents who have been buying certain adult themed games for their children. The game which has been mentioned by name is Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, which famously allows the player to sleep with a prostitute, before squashing her in your car. The game has on its cover an R18 label.

Now, I'm actually quite familiar the Grand Theft Auto series of games, I was playing one over the weekend in fact. Its enjoyable, brutal fun. Its definitly not designed for children, but thats obvious to anyone who spends 30 seconds reading the packaging. In this game you run around stealing cars, killing drug dealers and being caught in the midst of gang wars and the machinations of crooked cops. Theres a lot of intelligent humour in the game. Anyone who has played computer games in recent times knows they've got a lot more realistic, there are physics engines and amazing graphical rendering, and there is also more and more freedom to do actions even the games designers might not have deliberatly anticipated. Which kinda leaves me questioning the stability of those designated Censors by the government.

In Grand Theft Auto, you can sleep with a prostitute. In Grand Theft Auto you can run someone over in your car. If you run someone over, you aren't rewarded in any way apart from a bloodcurdling scream, in fact you are discouraged as the cops take attention and persue you to take you in. If you do something horrible or illegal in this game, it actually gets pretty tough. There are consequences to your actions. At no point in the game is there a mission or requirement that you sleep with a prostitute and then run her over in your car. You simply can do it because of the realism factor- expect to be punished for your crime.

What sort of wicked, twisted people are these censors? Did they sit down and play this game deliberatly sleeping with prostitutes then running them over for hours on end instead of actually playing the game in a linear fashion? I mean this seems really funny. The government supplies these people - obviously weird and perverted folk - to make sure we don't get exposed to any mind-damaging images.

The censorship office has never been infallible, in fact last year they bowed to public pressure to reclassify Mel Gibsons "The Passion of the Christ" from R16 to R15 as church groups far and wide wanted to show their children this film. We're touching on something good here; parents taking responsibility for something their children watch. I don't think any children were damaged from watching this movie, at least I haven't read any "Child Crucifies Carpenter" headlines in the paper.

Censorship is designed to limit our speach. It is used by government organisations to control what we see or hear, usually under the guise of protecting our children. The role of the state is to protect individuals rights not to nanny us and our children.

Should parents be allowed to give their children access to games like Grand Theft Auto? Absolutely, although I'd imagine most caring parents wouldn't. This is the parents prerogative to shield or expose their children as they see fit, be it violent computer games, rap music, after-school cartoons, or the Sunday service at the church down the road, although given this recent Grant Theft Auto fiasco, I'd personally advice parents to completely ignore the censorship office, and supervise media their children observe themselves.


It seems exciting that there is such great support for tax cuts across the political spectrum. National, ACT, even Jim Anderton's socialist Progressive Coalition Party is supporting cuts on some taxes. The only party which seems to be quiet on the issue is the Labour Party.

In fact, in spite of the record breaking surplus from last year's budget, the Government hasn't committed itself to releasing the tax burden. Instead we've got this massive surplus on standby, with Helen Clark and Michael Cullen waiting eagerly for the next election to unleash its early christmas bribery.

If ever there was a more out of place member of this terms Labour party it would be John Tamihere. The former Metro Magazine man of the year seems to be the only member of the Labour Government to be pushing for tax cuts. Now I don't agree with much that John Tamehere stands for, but he seems to be the only redeeming factor of the current Labour MPs.

The ultimate tax cut of course, would be the complete abolition of Taxation. Every year the Government effectively steals billions of dollars from New Zealanders, hereby restricting growth and prosperity of ordinary people. At the moment the whole country seems to be upset about our economic circumstances. Business owners are complaining about the company tax rate, ordinary families are struggling to make ends meet. Nobody is benefiting from taxes - not even beneficiaries.

The employees, manufacturers and printmakers union is making noises in the media, wanting improved renumeration for workers across the country and threatening industrial action. Well thats fine... except that by having the government interfere and push up wages for workers, it will further cripple employers. Workers would have increased wages - yes, but ultimately jobs would be lost and businesses - who are still bleeding from the recent compulsary increase in holiday allowances - will suffer.

Only by cutting taxes will all life on all levels of New Zealand society improve. By slashing taxes we'll allow the workers to keep more of the money they have rightfully earned. Employers will be rewarded for having the initiative to start businesses and will be more able to employ more staff, reducing unemployment and increasing quality of life.

Taxation is theft. It is compulsary, and you will be thrown into jail if you refuse to hand over what is rightfully yours. Let's trim the country's beaurocracy down, get rid of silly bogus government bureaus like Creative New Zealand - which spends hundreds of thousands of tax dollars sending parasites like et al (an artist collective) overseas, at no benefit to the country.

Let's return the money New Zealanders have earned. With hospital waiting lists the way they are and the appaling inefficiency of the education service, it seems that letting New Zealanders be able to afford their own health care and educational needs and needs of their children is the only feasable way to prevent this country from sliding into third world status.

The Government can't do it right, we see its failure every day in the paper. New Zealanders are smart enough to look after themselves.

Destiny Calls, Liberty Answers

Having examined the Destiny New Zealand Party's policies, Libertarianz spokesman and activist Robin Thomsen wonders why anyone in their right mind would pin their vote on DestinyNZ in the upcoming election.

“While their vision espouses a nation under the governance of God, their policies clearly appear to be a mash of policies stolen from other political parties, combined with some racism and a substantial amount of intolerance and bigotry for good measure.”

To point out DestinyNZ’s racist undertones, Robin points to their immigration positional statements which require “An almost xenophobic attitude towards foreign peoples with their cultural beliefs and possible diseases. Compare this to their ‘Peoples of the Pacific’ policies which seek to maintain a special immigration status for Pacifica peoples, and special education and health policies - all at the taxpayers expense of course. Evidently DestinyNZ is a racist organisation that intends to introduce privileges to people on the basis of the colour of their skin”

Robin also had comment about their policy on taxation. “While their tax policy seems to promote lower and fairer taxes, I doubt they will be able to pull this off after they rain privileges down on the polynesian elite. In any case, DestinyNZ seems to be immune from God's commandment ‘Thou shalt not steal’. Regardless of how it is dressed up, taxation is a form of theft and should be treated as such. Libertarianz remains the only political party in New Zealand to respect the private property and hard work of kiwis everywhere.”

Sighing with disgust, Robin continued to read through the DestinyNZ’s policies, available on their web site. “They seek to legislate and regulate their version of the family unit, and then promote it both through bribery involving tax cuts, and also with expensive brainwashing media campaigns and school education. It is not the business of governments to interfere with people's private relationships and the manner and content parents teach their children. DestinyNZ truly seeks to be molesters of the children's mind.”

“Their law and order policies are unremarkable,” continues Robin. “There is nothing new or original here, and there is no attempt to return to New Zealanders the right to self defence. With citizens remaining disarmed of any reasonable means of protection, criminals will continue regarding ordinary innocent people as fair game.”

“Censorship under DestinyNZ will be severe. They seek to regulate and control all media, including the internet, television and even music that is available, they intend to do this by increasing the monitoring and broadcast standards, and also to increase the states stake of communication and media systems in this country - more tax-victims' money down the toilet.” Notes Robin, well aware that this could be one of the last times he ever uses the word “toilet” if the DestinyNZ regime takes control.

“My conclusion is that DestinyNZ seeks to get into parliament by promoting privileges and seemingly good morality, and then maintaining their position of authority through the media. The leaders of DestinyNZ might well be good intentioned people, but they are more interested in creating a fundamentalist and despotic state than a free society, and their principles are rarely if ever Christian.” Robin finishes, “Libertarianz is the only political party to promote individuals' freedom and liberty, and DestinyNZ is just another socialist party with agendas and opinions about how other people lead their lives.”

In Defence of Private Property

When property is public, there is an idea that it belongs to everyone. Yet in reality it belongs to no-one. Take toilets for example, public toilets such as the ones on Victoria Street here in Hamilton are hideous, and if the frightening sight doesn’t get you, the smell with tranquillise you. Those public toilets are a no-mans zone. They might get cleaned once or twice a day, and then the first perverted opportunist makes a disgusting mess, sprays whatever he can from his orifices on the walls and walks away scot free. You have to be a sturdy and stoic soul to enter the Hamilton public toilets.

But 200m up the road is a popular KFC fast food restaurant, and the toilets there are always clean. If on the off chance some dork has gone in and messed up the place, you can go to the counter and ask for someone to clear it up. They’re probably only going to clear it up for you if you are a customer - and fair enough.

But there are other options in some places. In France for example some entrepreneurs have set up private toilets, and they are absolutely sparkling, amazing. The walls are clean and they actually feel safe to be in. Why are these French crappers so clean? They’re private and they are treated with pride. There is an attendant on duty and it is his or her job on the line if the services are substandard.

Nobody owns public toilets.

What about forests? Lets head a little further away from home for an example. According to 20/20 reporter John Stossel most forest fires happen in public forests in the U.S. Why? It’s in no-ones interest to protect them. Yet in private forests, if a fire happens it is quickly contained and extinguished, usually by an elite privatised fire brigade. Why does the private forest get such special treatment? Someone CARES about it, someone's livelihood depends on that forest being there and whether that forest is being used to raise trees for timber, or to maintain a beautiful untouched native scene by some environmentalist is irrelevant. Someone cares about the forest enough to protect it.

Nobody owns public, or state owned forests.

And examples go on and on. In a public property scenario exists an “every-man-for-himself” attitude. Want an example? Oceans! 71% of the worlds surface is essentially ocean and considered public property and the fish stocks are plummeting dramatically. The fishermen know that if they don’t catch a fish, the next man will. The waste is enormous as may of the fish are inedible, and they also catch larger marine creatures such as dolphins which have little or no commercial value. We are running out of fish in the oceans.

Lets use some rivers as an example of privatisation. In commercial trout farming operations, it is in the owners interest to sustain and maintain stocks of fish in the river by breeding more trout. Otherwise they run out both of fish, and of profit, their livelihood.

On a smaller scale, consider tropical fish. At home I breed a rare variety of african fish. The fish is all but extinct in the wild as its native habitat has been used as a toxic toilet by surrounding industries. No-one owns the lake, except for some despotic african regime. No-one cares about the lake enough to protect it, and were it not for passionate tropical fish owners who care for the fishes existence and recognise the commercial value of fancy tropical fish, countless species would be forever lost.

Nobody owns the ocean, nobody cares for it.

Private property is good, it gives people jobs and provides resources to make money. On private property people can set up homes and businesses. On private property the environment is protected - someone should tell the Green Party this.

Private property rights are one of the foundations of freedom. In the dark old ages feudal lords and kings would own all the land and the people who lived there were mere peasants and serfs who - with permission - could build a house and - with permission - raise a family and - with permission - have a couple of chooks or pigs or whatever. But if the ruler of the land wanted the land beneath the house (or the house for that matter), he just took it using whatever means necessary. If a quick verbal eviction didn’t do the trick, swords and flaming brands would.

Come the development of private property rights, freedom increased and prosperity followed. A mans house was his castle and he could defend legally. And some wonderful things started happening - since it was his property, the landowner would take pride in it. Architecture was improved so houses were stronger and would last longer. If the owner didn’t like the view from his window he could plant a tree. If there was a tree there that blocked his view, by God he could just chop it down, it was his tree after all. With prosperity the landowner could trade and thus innovation increased... and the rest is just history. Private property allowed freedom, and freedom made people happy, and the next generation would be happier still.

Note how much we’ve turned back time under socialist and collectivist laws. You can buy some land - yeah... - and then build a house - with permission, and you have a book full of regulations to adhere to - and you can plant a tree - with permission - and chop it down - with permission (and hundreds of dollars to comply with the R.M.A.). You can set up your home as a business - with permission, as long as you comply with X laws and hire no more than Y people and make less than Z amount of noise.

Private property rights have served mankind incredibly well, and with even the poorest of folk able to buy a patch of land somewhere, his family and the generations to come will be able to live without rent or subservience.

In a Libertarian society, your property rights are respected. You can build a house, plant trees, chop them back down, dig holes, put up fences, prance around in the nude, build churches, build shops and so on, all without permission. Why? Your property, your life, no-one else's business. Especially not the government's.

Libertarianz Slams Government Funded Sex Change Operations

Libertarianz Hamilton East spokesman Robin Thomsen has furiously spoken out over the latest politically correct (and expensive!) folly from the Labour Government.

“Once again the Labour Party has treated taxpayer money with contempt, this time they are throwing about $170,000 of our money at four lucky transgender recipients, that's around $42,500 each.”

While Mr Thomsen acknowledges that a small minority of people feel they are trapped in the body of the wrong gender, “What we are seeing here is the Labour Party essentially bribing the transgender community for support, at the sacrifice of money earned by vastly overtaxed New Zealanders.”

“New Zealanders have a right to feel angry about this. When our money is taken away from us via taxation, we have an expectation that this money will be returned to us in the form of medical care, education etc. What has become plainly obvious now is that the take simply goes to whichever group the Labour Party regards as easy votes. Thousands of people are languishing on the die-while-you-wait health system, and instead of this valuable money going to help those in need, it is going to an elite minority for what is essentially cosmetic surgery.”

“It is now patently obvious that the Labour Party does not stand for responsible governance. That money, along with countless other examples of misuse of taxes, is being robbed from the pockets of hardworking New Zealanders who are in many cases struggling to make ends meet.”

“Those seeking transgender operations have my sympathy and well wishes, ‘To thine own self be true’ as Shakespeare wrote, but that money taken from New Zealanders is theft, and should be treated as such.” Robin finishes, “Under a Libertarianz government, we would remove the state from intervention in the health system, New Zealanders would no longer pay for socialist agenda, and without taxes being forced from us, we would be more capable of maintaining and affording our own healthcare needs.”

WIN-Freedom of Choice Not Supporting Freedom of Choice

"The new WIN-Freedom of Choice political party seems admirable enough at first gloss, but sadly closer inspection reveals WIN-Freedom represents - not freedom of choice - but mob-rule socialism," says Libertarianz Spokesman Robin Thomsen.

WIN's leader John Van Buren has based the party around his admirable campaign against the smoking-ban in bars. However, he says his new party's campaign will focus on making referenda binding on all major issues. "This is just a call for mob-rule," says Thomsen, " a counting of heads, regardless of their content that shows a dangerous misunderstanding of the legal protections that our liberties require."

"There are some things that should be beyond the vote," declares Thomsen, who says he is "surprised" Mr Van Buren doesn't understand that. "Those things include our life, our liberties and our rights in property. It is our rights as property owners that should give us the freedom of choice to allow smoking in bars," continues Thomsen, "not a majority vote."

Mr Thomsen explains "Freedom of choice is just that - freedom of choice. How sad it is that a party with 'Freedom' in its title could instead be advocates of majoritarian dictatorship.

Greens Tertiary Policy Indistinguishable From Theft

"The Greens are resorting to outright bribery in a bid to return to parliament after the next election, trying to woo tertiary students with dubious promises of a free education," says Libertarianz Hamilton East candidate, Robin Thomsen. "Nandor Tanczos would like to dress up the student loan scheme as 'intergenerational theft', although the system they would replace it with is simple full-scale burglary."

"They would like to phase in free tertiary education and write off existing debt, although they seem oblivious to the fact that someone would have to pay for this 'free' education. The people to whom the education is not free are the poor long-suffering taxpayers, who -- you would think even the Greems might have noticed this -- are screaming out for tax cuts."

Thomsen concludes: "Libertarianz would remove the state from all aspects of tertiary education and stop taxing the hell out of them. Supply and demand would lead to more people receiving training in trades (which New Zealand has a tremendous shortage of) and students would have to be realistic about their goals and with their money when enrolling in university courses. The student loan system would be scrapped and the 'debt tail' sold, and students would fund their courses the old fashioned way - through scholarships or personal means."

Green Party Abandons Environment

"The Green Party has abandoned environmental protectionism in favour of social engineering, and has abandoned drug reform in favor of bribing students with a free education. These are the issues they've chosen to promote at this election - gone is their stated concern for a healthy planet, and exposed now is the socialist underbelly of the green machine," says Libertarianz Hamilton East candidate Robin Thomsen.

"The Greens have filled the vacuum for leftist supporters caused by the collapse of the Alliance and the PC parties," says Thomsen, "taking the Green Party away from its stated principles and down the authoritarian road mapped out by the Alliance and the PCs, and in turn has begun to disregard the environment."

Thomsen notes that the environment scored barely a mention at the weekend's Green conference. Instead, "Rod Donald verbally chastised Winston Peters, Jeanette Fitzsimons focused mostly on perceived (by her) race and gender 'imbalances,' and former drug reformer Nandor Tanczos eschewed cannabis altogether and concentrated instead on his unsustainable $2 billion bribe to students."

"Effectively," says Thomsen, "Tanczos has converted from a promoter of personal choice to an advocate of mass confiscation, and the Greens have gone from 'small is beautiful' enthusiasts to promoters of interfering, big government. Environmentalists must be feeling extremely betrayed."

"The good news for environmentalists however is that there is light at the end of the tunnel," concludes Mr. Thomsen, himself an environmentalist with particular concern for the waterways. "Libertarianz acknowledge that the tried and tested and successful formula for protecting the environment lies with private property rights and common law, rather than irrelevant political promises and the promotion of big government and self-anointed elites. Libertarianz has a message for those truly concerned with the state of the environment: Put your vote with us, and have a real hand in preserving property rights and the future health of the planet."

Drinking Age raise inconveniences NZers

"While Progressive Party deputy Matt Robson is claiming that his new Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill is a victory for democracy, all he has accomplished is exposing many of the current MPs in Parliament as erratic and scatterbrained, and demonstrating the patronising 'Nanny knows best' attitude of the Progressive Party and 78 of this country's MPs," says Libertarianz Hamilton East Candidate, Robin Thomsen.

"It is widely expected that raising the drinking age will achieve little in changing the drinking culture in New Zealand," says Thomsen, "and simply adds inconvenience. There is no magic bullet that will solve the drinking trend in New Zealand. The vast majority of teenagers drink responsibly and are guilty of nothing more than socialising and having a good time. Those few that cause trouble should be prosecuted for the trouble, not for the drinking."

"Libertarianz is committed to treating adults as such, with all the liberties that accompany adulthood."

Orauta a Good School

"The persecuted school Orauta is a bright, cheery place with a friendly, positive learning environment, and bright, energetic, inquisitive and well-behaved children," says Libertarianz Hamilton East Candidate, Robin Thomsen. "Orauta School is everything that state schools are not, and it's probably this contempt of success which is the reason for the Ministry of Education's reprehensible attempt to close down the school."

Libertarianz supports the rights of parents to choose a school of their choice to educate their children, which is why several Libertarianz Candidates decided to travel to Orauta yesterday to support the parents whom the Ministry of Education is attempting to prosecute: Julian Pistorius who is campaigning in Northland; Helen Hughes who is campaigning in Whangarei; and Robin Thomsen who is campaigning in Hamilton East.

According to Thomsen, "Orauta School has a wealth of resources to draw upon with dedicated supporters from as far away as Australia. The teachers are remarkable, passionate and well trained people who inspire the children to their maximum performance."

Robin finishes, "The best thing that can happen to schools in New Zealand is the immediate dissolution of the Ministry of Education. The Ministry's tactics of bullying, intimidation and imposition of a dysfunctional culture are counter-active to the opportunity for children to receive quality education, and a happy childhood."

More Vague Promises for New Zealand Racing

"Labour, The Green Party and Winston First have nothing valid to offer New Zealand racing, and are set to continue the destruction of a once wealthy industry with high taxes, mischievous regulations and vague promises," says Libertarianz Hamilton East Candidate Robin Thomsen who was in the audience of the Waikato Thoroughbred Breeders Association political meeting last night.

"The racing industry is under siege with punitive taxes that make bloodstock production an expensive ordeal. The Holidays Act introduced last year by Labour deteriorates business even further. Labour's Minister of Racing, Damien O'Conner, insulted everyone's intelligence by expressing his expectation that New Zealand Racers would have to work even harder and make even more money to prove to Nanny-state that they deserved more support (i.e., more return of their own money) from the government. The condescending behavior of the Labour Party shows no limits," remarks Robin.

"Winston's xenophobic attitudes toward foreign investors and foreigners in general could on its own drastically limit growth in the industry."

As there was no whipping in evidence, Sue Bradford from the Greens left early, but there were some promising comments from National who pledged to abolish the Ministry of Racing, and from ACT who pledged to remove all gaming taxes. "Both would improve opportunities and profit for the racing industry," says Mr. Thomsen. "Libertarianz policy goes even further; we would privatise the TAB, deregulate the gambling industry, and free horse and greyhound racing from the greedy clutches of the state. Breeders should no longer have to tolerate the repeated interference of busybody politicians, who know nothing about how to run a business."

A 'whiff of Orwell' hangs over NZ schools

"News that children will be receiving a course teaching them right from wrong from an organisation that understands neither is wrong on its face," says Libertarianz Hamilton East Candidate, Robin Thomsen. "There is more than a whiff of Orwell about it all."

Thomsen notes that the announced programme for New Zealand's state-run schools is to focus on the themes of: Honesty, Respect, Rules and Laws, Consequences, Right and Wrong. "Great values," he says, "but none are evident in the government inflicting this course on impressionable children. Would you send your children to learn morality in a course designed by thieves, con-artists and alleyway thugs? The same argument applies here," he says. "Children spot hypocrisy when they see it. Voters and parents might learn from them in that regard."

Libertarianz calls for a complete separation of school and state. "We would completely remove the state from all aspects of education," confirms Thomsen, "and return schools to the communities. Parents would be able to teach their children as they wish, and if they choose to educate their children in morality they would be free to pick a more reliable source than 'do what I say, not do what I do' Labour Party cronies."

"It's Enough to Make You Vote Libertarianz!"

--- Robin Thomsen