looking at Bradford's more ridiculous supporters

this from www.whaleoil.co.nz

I have really had it up to the proverbial with the antics of the Clark Section 59 Bill supporters. So here are a selection of thoughts and observations about the supporters.

First up I would love to see this question put at Question time.

To The Minister for Social Development, Do you believe that a ight smack in order to keep discipline is a good thing? and if not why not in light o your proclivity for such activities?

Now to focus on some of the more ridiculous supporters.

Take for instance one Sonny Thomas, that's him on the right, yeah, I can just imagine Sonny and Parekura bumping into each other (Sonny, I am your father!).

There is also a picture of him from the counter protest over at David Farrar's. That's also right, there he is carying a sign that is perhaps more of an indication that the fist is probably more about Sonny's habits than Family First's people. If we ever needed any more proof that Labour is right behind (so to speak) this bill then there it is right there. Members of their own Youth wing , who are actively and overtly homosexual and childless protesting something they would know almost nothing about. Sonny thomas by the way is the crook who doctored Young Labour's fake poll and then doctored it again when they got snapped by the VRWC cheating.

Then we have silly statements from the Labour Party from Helen Clark down. Idiotic things like'

"I cannot see how those who are demanding the right to be able to thrash and beat children can possibly then turn around and profess concern about what is happening to our children."

Like she would know anything about children anyway.

Michele Wilkinson-Smith, in her excellent article in the New Zealand Herald on Tuesday said;

"I say the repeal of section 59 is unnecessary because in my experience it is just that—unnecessary. I never lost a case which I prosecuted on the basis of section 59 … I've had far fewer cases as a defence lawyer, but I've never fancied my chances of going to a jury and saying: 'Look, bashing that child with a jug cord was perfectly reasonable.' ";

She also pointed out there have been only about three cases where defendants have been acquitted on the basis of section 59, of course, the socialists neglect to observe that those people were acquitted by a jury of their peers based on all of the evidence presented. Now all of a sudden Sue Bradford, Helen Clark and the rest of the sorry lot supporting this legislation are effectively saying that those juries were wrong and as a result we are now going to remove the defense, oh which by the way is not a ban on smacking, really, wink, wink.

So just like the stupid policing of the areas arouns schools we have a massive waste of time and effort to supposedly stop, next to nobody using Section 59 as a defence against smacking and in the process criminalising the vast majority of parents….like that makes sense.