Monday, April 30, 2007

Anti Smacking Bill looks Doomed

whaleoil says...

The anti-smacking bill is looking doomed after a survey of Maori showed 80% opposed to the bill.

The Maori Party despite the silly utterings of Tariana Turia are nothing if not pragmatists and would be silly to go against their core support.

If the Maori Party decides to back the Key amendment, it would have the numbers to pass.

But Sue Bradford has said she would withdraw it in those circumstances.

Good, then that's that then...

...Just when you think the Maori party has kept on taking their sensible pills they then open their yaps and prove without a doubt that in fact they are still stuck on stupid.

Tariana Turia has blamed smacking on the effects of colonisation and christianity . Apparently Maori just hugged their kids and only learned to bash them to within an inch of their lives from colonising christians.

It is this sort of histroy revision that relly makes my blood boil. It ranks up there with Maori are natural conservationists, except we have to ignore what happened to the Moa amongst other fauna.....and that Maori are living in a modern world, except of course when the opportunity to extort some money comes along and all of a sudden the stone age comes roaring back into vogue with taniwha appearing in all sorts of opportune places.....Maori were peace loving.....oh yeah, then how come they lived in fortified pa and made edged weapons.....spare me this revisionist claptrap.

Take responsibility for your own pitiful ****ing lives and get a decent grip on reality. It is no-ones fault but your own.


Anonymous said...

Re: the penultimate sentence of Andy Moore's post: "Take responsibility for your own pitiful fucking [my italics] lives and get a decent grip on reality."

I think "pitiful lives" would have been quite sufficient description. As it stands it seems to suggest, to paraphrase the limeys comment on yanks of WWII that the Maori are "over-sexed, over-paid and over here".

Graham Wolf

Andy Moore said...

Right Graham. Sorry about this, as you'll see at the top of the post, I have copied and pasted this post from the whaleoil blog.

I have censored the post - thanks for the heads up!


Anonymous said...


I've been browsing through the more recent postings and comments. You've got a few oddballs putting in their 2 cents. The 'people' I would regard as problematic if you want to keep a blog on this serious subject serious are: 'Wackford Squeers' and 'Mister Creakle'. I think these are two game players known to each other rather than just one person because one has a better idea how to imitate an older writing style than the other. Maybe you've already been moderating their comments since they seem to have disappeared but I think either way you should keep it that way.

I've already admitted favouring the S59 amendment even in Bradford's form, but I am keeping an open mind on this important issue and you're doing a good job with presenting thought provoking material and allowing for other points of view in the comments areas. The person calling himself 'Section 59 Survivor' is a particular case in point.

FWIW I think the John Key's amendment to the amendment is a very reasonable "compromise" and Sue Bradford's response looks to me almost like "a child throwing her toys out of the sandpit in a tantrum". An all or nothing approach never does anyone any good. It is totally idealistic and impractical. She would do better to be practical rather than idealistic and accept the "offer" rather than end up with nothing.

Graham Wolf

Andy Moore said...

Thanks for your comments Graham; I agree, John Key's ammendment to Bradford's bill does make a lot of sense.

The problem I have with Chester Borrow's ammendment is that it specifies: no implements, only use the hand to smack. The hand is an instrument of love, not punishment. Also, it should be up to the parents within reason (ie. reasonable force in the circumstances) to decide how they will raise their own children.

No communist social-engineers thankyou very much.

As I've said before, Bradford's pathetic and hard to regulate ammendment to Section 59 will tear apart many families, and will not reduce child-violence one bit.