Saturday, March 10, 2007

Bradford's low standards


“Green MP Sue Bradford says it is disappointing two Christian schools still refuse to clarify whether their staff use corporal punishment on children.

Wainuiomata Christian College and Auckland's Taradale Park Christian School have been warned to disclose their policy on physical punishment - or face closure.

Sue Bradford says it is time some Christian schools caught up with modern education.”

Someone should break the news to Bradford that throughout history, it has been the the secular scientific world catching up with Science according to the Bible . I think the whole thing is that Christian schools do not want to “catch up” with modern education.

It is likely that two Christian schools are going to be forced to close their doors, leaving many of the children to the mercy of the State machine. That modern marvel of social engineering. If the parents are happy with senior staff members of the school handing out the odd wallop every now and then, then what is the problem?

This recent turn of events has surely got to get your hackles up. If this is what they are doing before total repeal of Section 59, have a little think about what will be next on the agenda. It could be criminilisation of passing on to your child your own values, whether they be religious, or just core values to live by. It could well be what you may or may not feed your child for breakfast.

Friday, March 09, 2007

Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill - First Reading

Presented to Parliament by Sue Bradford, MP on
27th July 2005
Click here to view the whole speech
Here is a short excerpt that I found interesting:

"...The aim of this repeal is not to subject parents to prosecution for trivial assault [ie. light smacking]. In other countries where laws like this have been changed, there has not been a marked increase in such arrests and I certainly would not expect it to happen here, where the climate of public opinion is so manifestly not ready for a ban on smacking..."

Now let's have a look at Sue Bradford's bill that she wants to replace Section 59
Part two reads:
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force [ie. light smacking] for the purpose of correction.

So does this piece of legislation here, - and Sue Bradford's initial speech before Parliament add up? No, they are contradictory

When Jim Anderton proposed to Parliament that P be classified a Class A hard drug, the Greens were the only party to vote against it. Click here to view the full story

NB: I inserted the [ie. light smacking] into the two articles - they were not in the original articles.

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Incoherency, Oxymorons and sheer Madness"smacking is bad, abortion is good."
Sue Bradford:
- if we stop parents from being allowed to smack their children when they are naughty, then the level of violence against children will drop.
Hmmm, I thought violence against children was already illegal wasn't it?

- smacking is violence
Really? Although the act of smacking/spanking itself is according to the dictionary, a violent act, it is misleading to say that smacking is violence.

- my bill would not outlaw smacking - it would simply remove the defence of reasonable
Right, so smacking is fine... But reasonable force is not fine Sue? Why pass a bill that you say will not be enforced? Get a life.

- "Parents fear that they are going to be arrested, that someone will dob them in for
smacking their child. I can understand that fear and that is not my intention."
Then what is your intention, Sue?

I cannot understand what National, NZ First and United Future MPs are doing, supporting Bradford's bill. The Bill doesn't make sense. She doesn't talk sense. It just doesn't make sense.

The only way this proposed bill of hers is going to become law, is if the government ignores the people of New Zealand, which it really should not do.