If I Grow Vegetables and Store Gas Bottles, Am I a Potential Tom Phillips?
A recent newspaper article began with the sensational headline: "Gas mask, doomsday prepping and homemade vodka: Tom Phillips warning signs". It got me thinking.
Summary for busy people
The Tom Phillips saga was a tragedy involving missed opportunities to protect three children, prolonged isolation, alleged criminal activity and an armed confrontation with police. These were the genuine warning signs, not vegetable gardens, emergency supplies or practical self-reliance.
People who store food and fuel, collect and filter rainwater, question government policy or raise capable, free-range children are not extremists. The NZSIS guidance concerned people moving towards violence, although emotionally charged language can be interpreted too broadly during divided times.
Freedom must be balanced by responsibility. We should judge people by their conduct, treatment of others and willingness to use violence, not by unconventional opinions or lifestyles. New Zealand needs resilient families who think independently, prepare sensibly and remain peaceful, connected and respectful of other people’s rights.
The Tom Phillips tragedy and its wider consequences
The tragic circumstances surrounding Tom Phillips and his three children deserve serious and careful examination. Whatever sympathy some people may once have felt for a father apparently choosing a simple life in the bush, the story ended with a police officer seriously wounded, Phillips dead and three children emerging from nearly four years of isolation.
According to reporting on the subsequent inquiry, serious opportunities to protect the children were missed by both Police and Oranga Tamariki. Credible concerns raised by their mother and older sisters were reportedly minimised, overlooked or treated as little more than allegations arising from a difficult custody dispute. These failures must be examined properly so that they are not repeated.
However, there is another danger emerging from the public discussion. In looking backwards for warning signs, ordinary features of rural independence, emergency preparedness and practical self-reliance may be recast as evidence of something dark and dangerous. That concerns me because it may harm perfectly decent people who value freedom, question authority, prepare for emergencies and prefer to raise capable, independent children.
Am I a “prepper”?
I suppose I am a prepper. Alofa and I live in Wellington, where there is a very real possibility of a major earthquake. We keep extra food, fuel and gas cylinders. We collect rainwater and have the ability to filter it. In the event of a massive earthquake striking the Wellington region, disrupting municipal water supplies, we can supply our own water if needed.
If the roads, electricity and water supply were disrupted, we could probably look after ourselves for several weeks, perhaps a month, but no longer. Our modest supplies would also leave us in a better position to help neighbours who had not been quite so well prepared.
Is that evidence of dangerous anti-government thinking, or is it simply common sense?
We have a greenhouse and try to grow some of our food. Alofa ties her hair back. When our girls were little, we plaited their hair. I know how to knit. We value practical skills and would rather repair something than throw it away if we can. None of this makes us dangerous. If anything, people who can feed themselves, improvise, mend things and cope with disruption are an asset during an emergency.
There is a world of difference between preparedness and paranoia. Keeping water, food, fuel and cooking equipment for a disaster is prudent. Building one’s life around an all-consuming belief that everyone is an enemy is another proposition entirely. The object sitting in the shed does not tell us which of these we are looking at. We have to examine the person’s character and conduct.
A gas bottle, a vegetable garden and distrust of authority do not make someone dangerous. Look instead at their conduct, judgement and treatment of others.
The danger of looking backwards
A recent Stuff article refers to such things as a gas mask, doomsday preparation and homemade vodka among the warning signs surrounding Phillips. The article must be read in context, and there may have been a collection of behaviours and circumstances known to people close to him that were genuinely troubling. However, when a headline assembles a list of unusual but not necessarily sinister possessions and habits, it invites the public to construct a personality profile from them.
Once someone has committed terrible acts, everything they did beforehand can be made to look like a warning. A gas mask becomes evidence of a doomsday obsession. Growing food becomes withdrawal from society. Distrust of government becomes extremism. Teaching children practical skills becomes suspicious isolation.
This is retrospective storytelling. We know how the story ended, so we rearrange the earlier details to make that ending appear inevitable.
Yet thousands of decent New Zealanders keep emergency supplies, hunt, fish, preserve food, home-school their children, question government decisions or choose to live some distance from town. They do not abduct their children, rob stores or shoot at police officers. A behaviour common among peaceful, responsible people is a very poor warning sign unless it is considered alongside the person’s complete conduct and circumstances.
The significant features of the Phillips case were not vegetable gardens, stored provisions or a preference for rural life. Phillips took children he did not have legal custody of and concealed them for almost four years. They were reportedly deprived of ordinary education, healthcare and social contact. At least one child was allegedly drawn into criminal activity. The saga ended after a burglary and an armed confrontation in which a police officer was shot and seriously injured. Those are the behaviours that distinguish this case from ordinary self-reliance. (The Guardian’s account of the inquiry)
Preparedness was not the problem. The reported coercion, isolation, illegality, weapons and danger to children were the problem.
Difference is not evidence of abuse, just as self-reliance is not evidence of extremism.
What the NZSIS guide actually said
In October 2022, the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service published Kia mataara ki ngā tohu: Know the Signs, a guide intended to help the public identify signs that someone might be moving towards violent extremism. The foreword was written by Rebecca Kitteridge, who was then Director-General of Security.
The guide referred to behaviour such as consuming violent extremist material, supporting violence to advance a cause, researching possible targets, gathering instructions for making weapons, suspiciously stockpiling weapons or explosive materials, conducting reconnaissance and announcing an intention to carry out an attack.
It is important to be accurate about this. The guide did not list knitting or plaiting hair as signs of extremism. It also stated that the indicators were not a checklist and that apparently innocent behaviours should be considered within their wider context. Most importantly, it said that non-violent forms of extremism, however objectionable, fell outside the guide and outside the focus of the NZSIS. (Read the original NZSIS guide)
Lawful protest, disagreement with government policy and unusual opinions are not, by themselves, violent extremism. However, the existence of careful wording in an official document does not end the discussion.
Guidelines do not operate in a vacuum
The NZSIS guide appeared after an extraordinarily divisive period in New Zealand. We had experienced lockdowns, vaccination mandates, employment losses, masking requirements and the exclusion of unvaccinated people from parts of ordinary social life.
Vaccination was not literally compulsory for every New Zealander. Nevertheless, when people faced losing their employment, professional standing, income or participation in community life unless they complied, many reasonably experienced the policy as coercive. Families and friendships were divided. People were encouraged to view one another according to vaccination status. Legitimate questions about safety, effectiveness, proportionality and informed consent were frequently grouped together with the most outlandish claims circulating online.
In that atmosphere, terms such as “anti-vaxxer”, “conspiracy theorist”, “extremist” and “anti-government” could be applied very loosely. A person did not have to threaten violence to acquire one of these labels. Sometimes it was enough to question the Government’s decisions, attend a protest or refuse a medical intervention.
This is why even a formally restrained security document can be interpreted at its outer limits by officials, employers, journalists and frightened members of the public. Phrases such as “trust your instincts”, “if you see something, say something”, “hostile us-versus-them worldview”, “security awareness” and “unusual changes in behaviour” are highly dependent upon the assumptions of the observer.
A neighbour who already regards opponents of vaccination mandates as irrational or dangerous may interpret ordinary privacy, preparedness or political dissent as evidence of radicalisation. The danger lies not only in what a document says, but in who applies it, the emotional climate in which it is applied and whether there are meaningful safeguards against overreach.
A carefully worded guideline may still be applied carelessly when society is frightened, divided and looking for enemies.
Questioning a vaccine is not opposing every vaccine
I am probably described somewhere as an “anti-vaxxer”. The term is inaccurate. I do not oppose every vaccine as a matter of principle. I have serious concerns about certain vaccines, particular ingredients, the adequacy of testing, the way risks and benefits are communicated and the use of coercion in what should be informed health decisions.
Each product and each claim should be examined on its evidence. It is entirely possible to acknowledge that some vaccines have been valuable while questioning the safety, necessity or appropriateness of another vaccine for a particular person. That is not a contradiction. It is discernment.
Similarly, concern about privacy does not make someone a criminal. Concern about corruption does not make someone an insurrectionist. Believing that government has become too large or intrusive does not make someone mentally ill. These questions belong in a healthy democracy.
A society enters dangerous territory when disagreement itself is treated as evidence of disloyalty, instability or extremism. That closes down the peaceful routes by which people question power and seek reform. Ironically, suppressing responsible dissent may increase anger and alienation rather than reduce them.
One person’s terrorist, another person’s freedom fighter
It is often said that one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter. There is some historical truth in this because those holding power usually control the language used to describe their opponents.
Nelson Mandela was once officially regarded as a terrorist by some governments before becoming one of the world’s most respected statesmen. Resistance movements have been condemned as criminal by the governments they opposed, then celebrated after political power changed hands. History is full of yesterday’s rebels becoming tomorrow’s national heroes.
However, slogans and labels do not relieve us of the responsibility to examine conduct. Deliberately attacking civilians, taking hostages, intimidating families, shooting police officers or using children as instruments cannot be excused merely by adopting the title of freedom fighter. A worthy cause does not automatically make every method used in its name acceptable.
Equally, opposition to an unjust, coercive or overreaching government does not automatically make someone a terrorist. Peaceful dissent, public protest, civil disobedience and principled resistance must not be confused with preparation for violence.
A person may claim the noblest cause in the world, but the methods they use still tell us a great deal about what they truly stand for. A free society must retain the ability to distinguish principled opposition from threats, intimidation and violent action.
Those in power may choose the label, but a person’s conduct tells us whether we are looking at principled resistance or dangerous violence.
Free-range is not feral
The name FreeRangers is deliberate. I grew up free-range in Putāruru during the 1950s and 1960s. We roamed the countryside, climbed trees, built forts, swam in rivers, caught fish and looked after animals. Much of what we did would probably give a modern health and safety officer indigestion.
However, free-range did not mean the absence of family, boundaries, responsibility or community. We were given freedom because we were expected to develop judgement. We learnt that choices have consequences. We were connected to neighbours, schools, relatives and the wider world. We were not hidden from society.
A FreeRangers approach to raising children is not about cutting them off from healthcare, education, friendships or lawful protection. It is about helping children become strong and capable adults through outdoor play, exploration, practical competence, manageable risk and gradually increasing responsibility.
Children need enough freedom to climb, fall, fail, learn, recover and try again. They also need love, security, guidance, education and access to the wider community. Freedom without responsibility may become chaos. Responsibility without freedom may become suffocating control. The task of good parenting is to maintain the balance.
If the Phillips tragedy causes authorities or the public to view rural families, home educators, independent thinkers or people living alternative lifestyles with automatic suspicion, we will have learnt the wrong lesson. Children must be protected from genuine neglect, coercion and danger, but difference is not evidence of abuse.
Free-range does not mean feral. It means giving children appropriate freedom while surrounding that freedom with love, responsibility, guidance and connection.
Not everyone who shares a concern is a suitable ally
Movements concerned with vaccine safety, privacy, corruption, human rights and government overreach can attract a very mixed collection of people. Some are thoughtful, principled and well informed. Others may be angry, unstable, fixated or attracted to confrontation.
Shared agreement on one issue does not mean we should ignore everything else about a person.
I avoid casually diagnosing people as mentally unwell. I am not in a position to do so, and unusual opinions are not a psychiatric diagnosis. Instead, I watch behaviour. Can the person consider contrary evidence? Can they disagree without becoming abusive? Do they respect the rights of others? Are they advocating threats, violence or unlawful action? Can they admit when they have made a mistake? Are they interested in solving a problem, or merely in finding an enemy? That is a much more useful filter than whether someone owns a gas mask, preserves food or distrusts the Government.
People concerned about liberty must be especially discerning because opponents will often use the most extreme person in the room to discredit everyone else. If someone promotes violence, intimidates others, makes reckless allegations without evidence or appears to be losing sound judgement, it is sensible to maintain a distance. That is not cowardice or betrayal. It is discernment. Freedom does not require blind allegiance to everyone who uses the word.
Making enemies where none need exist
I recently attended a gathering outside the High Court to show support for Barry Young. A couple of people present were behaving disrespectfully towards the police officers stationed there. I thought this was both wrong and foolish, so I made a point of greeting the officers pleasantly as I passed them.
The individual police officer is not my enemy. Some officers may disagree strongly with my views, just as I may disagree with decisions made by Police leadership or the Government. That does not justify treating every constable as a hostile agent. If protesters shout abuse at police, they may quickly turn people who were neutral, or perhaps even quietly sympathetic, against them.
It also hands opponents a gift. The camera naturally turns towards the loudest and most aggressive person in the crowd. That person then becomes the public face of everyone present, including the peaceful grandmother standing twenty metres away who merely wants an honest answer about what happened to her family.
This is why people who care about freedom must also care about discipline, courtesy and responsibility. We must not allow a few reckless people to define an entire cause.
Principled dissent is not strengthened by abuse. It is strengthened by courage, evidence, courtesy and self-control.
Choose company carefully
I stand by what I believe and will defend it when challenged. At the same time, I am careful about the people with whom I associate closely. Agreement on vaccine policy, privacy or government power does not oblige me to endorse someone’s other beliefs, methods or behaviour.
The standard should be straightforward. Is this person truthful? Are they peaceful? Do they respect the rights of others? Can they distinguish evidence from rumour? Are they willing to accept responsibility for their choices? Would close association with them strengthen or undermine the cause they claim to support?
Freedom requires discernment. It also requires the courage to separate ourselves from people whose behaviour is dangerous, dishonest or destructive, even when they occasionally say something with which we agree.
The lesson we should take from this tragedy
The central lesson from the Tom Phillips saga should be that credible concerns about children must be investigated carefully, agencies must communicate properly, and unusual family circumstances must be assessed according to evidence of actual harm. Authorities should not dismiss warning signs merely because they arise during a custody dispute.
But the opposite error is also possible. Authorities and journalists must not treat self-reliance, rural living, distrust of government or unconventional family practices as substitutes for evidence. If a collection of ordinary behaviours becomes a quasi-official profile of dangerousness, genuine FreeRangers families may find themselves watched or judged simply because they choose to live differently.
New Zealand needs more capable people, not fewer. We need households that can cope when the power fails, communities that help one another during disasters, parents who teach practical skills and people who can think without waiting to be told what to think. That independence must always be balanced by responsibility, respect for the rights of others and regard for the welfare of children.
So, if I store gas bottles, collect and filter rainwater, grow vegetables, question aspects of vaccine policy, value privacy and know how to knit, does that make me a potential Tom Phillips? No.
It makes me a Wellingtonian who is reasonably well prepared for an earthquake and who prefers resilience to helpless dependence. The proper question is not whether I fit a list of superficial characteristics. It is whether I remain rational, peaceful, connected, responsible and respectful of other people’s rights.
We should mourn what happened to the Phillips family, learn from the failures that allowed it to continue and protect children more effectively. But we should not allow a tragic and exceptional case to become an excuse for treating freedom, self-reliance and independent thought as symptoms of dangerous extremism.
A healthy society protects children from genuine harm while leaving room for families to live differently. It can tell the difference between a free-range family and a dangerous one. If we lose that distinction, we will have responded to one tragedy by creating another kind of harm.
Comments