Sue Bradford - our first political assassination?

**peasea** · 2nd September 2009, 20:23

Originally Posted by Dave Lobster

cough.. Srebrenica.. cough..

You must need a pill.

**Mully** · 2nd September 2009, 21:30

Originally Posted by Hinny

Would I be right in saying that here is a case where Sue Bradford has one up on John Key, - Actually brought a bill before the house and had it adopted.

Yeah, but people actually voted for John Key

**Marmoot** · 2nd September 2009, 23:46

Originally Posted by Hinny

Get over it people, NZ had a child abuse problem - the worst in the developed world in fact.
This change is an attempt to deal with that problem, and rightly so too !

Biggest bullshit I've ever heard.

And when the report showed that the law hasn't changed the child abuse problem a bit, Sue Bradford herself said a few months back that "the law was not aimed at reducing child abuse".

Go figure.

For me it's not about whether I want to smack my child. It's about social engineering and how the gov't is now allowed to go into your personal and family lives. Common sense and his brother Freedom died with a hail of claps and cheers.

**Hinny** · 3rd September 2009, 07:02

Originally Posted by Marmoot

Biggest bullshit I've ever heard.

And when the report showed that the law hasn't changed the child abuse problem a bit, Sue Bradford herself said a few months back that "the law was not aimed at reducing child abuse".

Go figure.

For me it's not about whether I want to smack my child. It's about social engineering and how the gov't is now allowed to go into your personal and family lives. Common sense and his brother Freedom died with a hail of claps and cheers.

Biggest bullshit I've ever heard.

**short-circuit** · 3rd September 2009, 07:57

Originally Posted by Marmoot

Biggest bullshit I've ever heard.

And when the report showed that the law hasn't changed the child abuse problem a bit, Sue Bradford herself said a few months back that "the law was not aimed at reducing child abuse".

Go figure.

For me it's not about whether I want to smack my child. It's about social engineering and how the gov't is now allowed to go into your personal and family lives. Common sense and his brother Freedom died with a hail of claps and cheers.

Social change in what a year or so?

Give us your opinion after a generation of parents or two thanks...until then do yourself a favour (you're just making yourself look ignorant)

**Marmoot** · 3rd September 2009, 09:52

Originally Posted by Marmoot

And when the report showed that the law hasn't changed the child abuse problem a bit, Sue Bradford herself said a few months back that "the law was not aimed at reducing child abuse".

Read the bold part. What's the point of making this law?

For me it's not about whether I want to smack my child. It's about social engineering and how the gov't is now allowed to go into your personal and family lives. Common sense and his brother Freedom died with a hail of claps and cheers.

One or two generations is too much for social experimentation. Hell, even one person is too much for the government to commit social experimentation.

Don't get me wrong, I am also against child abuse and injuring physical punishment. But for the government to start meddling with our internal live opens up a gate to untold precedent. Ponder this: now we allow the government to start controlling our way of diciplining the children. What next? In the name of good intention, they can start controlling what we can and cannot feed to the children and by how much. What about a law that dictates a minimum of 6-9 months of breastfeeding with the threat of jail sentence? It's reasonable! What about a law that dictates you must feed your children 3x a day at 8am, 12.30pm, and 6.30pm just because some parents keep failing to do this? What about a law that says children must be in bed by 9pm otherwise the parents would be liable for criminal offence, JUST because some thick arse keep failing to do this? And what about the showerhead restrictions to save water and the planet? Should we allow the government to control how we have shower? What's next? Ban on ice cream and sugary foods to fight the nation's obesity problem JUST because some people are too fat and couldn't slim down?

Common sense being made into law? Is that common sense or nonsense?

Good parents know these things, and bad parents must be educated. But in no situation should any parents be criminalised for this.

And to murky the water even more, the law actually prohibit smacking in ANY situation. In essence, the moment you smack your kid, light or heavy, you effectively become a criminal. Whether the police decides to prosecute or not is irrelevant to this fact that you have become a criminal to your kids.
And if the government tells the police not to prosecute in certain situations, they are effectively telling the police to "ignore some crimes because it is too small". Is THIS what you want from your law? Is it?
And the same people keep complaining about how petty crimes such as theft are not being investigated thoroughly.
Or do you only care about crimes that directly affect your life, but not others?

Additionally, the precedent for the house of Elected Representatives to ignore the thoughts of 1 million people who elected them is abhorrent. Democracy effectively died. And I am not just talking about this government, but also the government before them.

And for Sue Bradford herself to keep ignoring these facts and repeating the make-believe by accusing her opponents that they are ignorant, hateful, and violent, is just an utter extreme plain arrogance.

If I were one of the Anzac soldiers that fought for the very freedom in this world, I'd be stirring in my grave!

**Winston001** · 3rd September 2009, 10:50

Originally Posted by MisterD

The point I was making, is that there are a lot of parents out there who are muddling through with no help or guidance and whose only idea of discipline is smacking...I'm absolutely convinced that a large number will simply chuck the whole thing in the "too hard" basket and basically stop parenting completely.

Like I said on another thread we had on the same subject, kids need three things:
1) Love
2) Boundaries and
3) Consequences for crossing those boundaries

The problem is why too many kids don't get items 1 & 2, not how most parents choose to apply item 3...

I agree but you'll note the public discussion including KB has focused exclusively on the right to smack as though it was some sacred duty of parents.

There is plenty of help for parents through parenting courses, books, and even television. The problem is the parents who need the help often aren't aware of it.

Originally Posted by Marmoot

........Sue Bradford herself said a few months back that "the law was not aimed at reducing child abuse".

In the short-term that's correct. Section 59 exists as a get out of jail free card, an exception to the general law which states one person shall not assault another. S.59 allows parents to assault their children. Just as the law against kidnapping has an exception for parents.

In the longer term, there is social engineering at work. The intention is to change social attitudes to domestic violence which can only be good for us all. However it will take a generation.

**MisterD** · 3rd September 2009, 11:51

Originally Posted by Winston001

I agree but you'll note the public discussion including KB has focused exclusively on the right to smack as though it was some sacred duty of parents.

Indeed, the right to use a perfectly valid, efficient and effective component in the parental tool kit.

There is plenty of help for parents through parenting courses, books, and even television. The problem is the parents who need the help often aren't aware of it.

Which is why I said the focus should be on giving kids 1)Love and 2)Boundaries...legislating to try to stop most good, or at least trying-to-be-good parents from smacking as a way of correcting kids who cross those boundaries is wrong. Even if you're a confirmed Bradfordite who believes smacking isn't valid, at least we ought to agree that it's putting the cart a long way before the horse...

What pisses me off (and I'd say most of those that voted "no") is that yet again it's the law-abiding majority that are being bashed. It's all far to hard to attempt to actually solve the real problems.

**short-circuit** · 3rd September 2009, 11:58

Originally Posted by MisterD

Indeed, the right to use a perfectly valid, efficient and effective component in the parental tool kit.

Except all the research has proven physical force (not matter how "lovingly" administered) is none of those things

**Mully** · 3rd September 2009, 12:17

Not NZ, but

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news...ectid=10594965

GEORGIA, United States - A man annoyed with a crying toddler at a US Wal-Mart started slapping the 2-year-old girl after warning the toddler's mother to keep her quiet.

Authorities say the young girl and her mother were shopping Monday (local time) when the toddler began crying.

A police report says Roger Stephens (61) approached the mother and said, "If you don't shut that baby up, I will shut her up for you."

The report also said that after the stranger hit the girl at least four times, Stephens said, "See, I told you I would shut her up".

Stephens is now charged with felony cruelty to children.