I've been reading these Oxford history books on the United States and that was one thing they brought out about the womens' suffrage movement: that women are far more persuaded by arguments about security and men are far more persuaded with arguments about rights. Can there be a common ground? Maybe. The problem is that we've gone far too far to the side of security and have given up many of our liberties in exchange. Europe has gone even further. And the problem is that once you side with security, liberty dies.

All true, but New Zealand didn't start with freedom or liberty. They started with a limited tyranny and are now beginning to see that if you give a tyrant an inch, he (or she in this case) will take a mile.

This goes much further than that. They are declaring that the government has the right to seize property they (the government) declare contraband without remuneration even if no law has been broken. This is the definition of tyranny because it empowers the government to declare literally anything contraband and seize it.

At the risk of over repeating Ben Franklin’s warning:
“Those who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.”

The practice of confiscating personal assets used or acquired during criminal activity is already practiced in the US. The “crimes” that allow such confiscation only need to be redefined a bit to completely invalidate personal property as a right.

Twisting the law to fit a need for central political power and and brainwashing people to give up their liberty for false security has been repeated throughout human history.
In modern times, letting women have political power has had the side effect of making the illusion of security a priority over individual liberty.