Saturday, March 31, 2007

Why am I even bothering? The facts are hitting us all in the face!

Oh and another point, if the existing law already bans smacking then why are we even having this repeal when there is no need for it? -

"The men that are anti this bill are sexual perverts and get a kick out of hitting children" - Sue Bradford, Green MP -

"Parenting is for parents, not for the Government" - Heather Roy, Act MP, mother of 5 children - Wellington march speech - see

"You know a lot of people are uncomfortable with the beating but they don't want to see stressed and harassed parents called in by the Police because they smacked their child. So I think there's a debate to go on... I absolutely do not want to see smacking banned. I think you're trying to defy human nature." - Helen Clark, Prime Minister - Radio Rehma interview with Bob McCoskrie, late 2005

Helen Clark yesterday said some bill opponents were "demanding the right to be able to thrash and beat children." -

NZPA quotes Steve Maharey using the standard Labour line of:
"It simply removes the defence of a person who is facing prosecution in court for using excessive force to discipline their children,"

The Labour spin is that smacking is already illegal, and that a defence in the Crimes Act is just something you can use in court. This is with all respect absolute bullshit and we know this with common sense.


If one refers to those against the Clark/Bradford smacking ban as "child-beaters", does that mean you believe 85% of New Zealanders are child beaters?

Also do people not realise that Sue Bradford's bill no longer repeals Section 59? It in fact retains it, enlarges the number of grounds on which you can use reasonable force, yet removes it for correctional purposes only.

the above two excerpts are from

In a short meeting with Clayton "clayton's deal" Cosgrove on Friday, he came accross as a scared man who was simply puppeting Clark's orders. "80% of New Zealanders are wrong" he told me - when I quoted that statistic. "Clayton, 80% IS New Zealand" I returned. All he seemed to be able to do was use the word "constituents" a few to many times, and try and tell me "what the bill would actually do". Oh give me a break, they're all just regurgitating the same Clark/Bradford lines.

from a meeting with myself and Clayton Cosgrove, Friday 30 March, 07

"In Sue Bradford, we have discovered the quintessence of moral consistency. Here's someone who has argued tirlessly (and publicly) that abortion is an issue of individual concience. "A woman's right to choose" has been her insistent cry. But when women become parents, rather than parents-in-waiting, the astonishing Ms Bradford decrees they should have no choice at all.

Presumably, because a smack is a much greater threat to life of a very small human being than ever an abortion would be. Sue, you're an ethical genius!..."

Jim Hopkins, "It's Irrelevance, really",, 5am, March 30, 2007

No comments: