kidlesskim Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Green MP Sue Bradford is the author of the Bill
> that removed Section 59 that included a defence of
> reasonable force. She said the defence ``allowed
> some parents to get away with assaulting their
> children'.
>
> ...Ms Bradford said the poll confuses the issue
> because smacking is not a criminal offence. She
> said proponents of a referendum of the issue are
> confusing the issue on purpose.
>
> ``I believe their real intentions are to change
> the law so that reasonable force is defined,
> creating what would in effect be a whackers
> charter, describing in law the ways in which
> parents would legally be able to assault their
> children,' Ms Bradford said."
>
>
> Articfox, do you know who this Susan Bradford is
> and what her agenda might be? It says she is the
> author of the bill, so I am wondering if she holds
> a political office or is just some concerned, moo
> do gooder activist. Since the police are given
> discretion as to what is criminal smacking and
> what isn't on a case by case basis, is that
> causing discriminatory arrests as well? This
> sounds like a REAL mess and I would like to know
> what triggerred a bill like this in the first
> place. Thanks for answering my questions.
I
> don't know what "green mp" means either, if you'd
> like to fill me in.
Hi Kim,
This hatchet-faced Sue Bradford is indeed the author of the bill, and as Acme explained she is a member of parliament and of the Green party, who are basically a bunch of goddamn tree-hugging hippies (as Eric Cartman would say). Some of their policies are good, to do with environmental issues etc, and some of them, like this law, are nuts. Anyway this woman has four children and loves to bleat on about how she never ever physically disciplined them and they've turned out fine. She fails to realise that millions of people WERE physically disciplined (including myself) and turned out fine, too!! Furthermore, I should really have said that she has three children, because one of her sons killed himself a few years ago. Frankly, and this may be an incredibly heartless thing to say, but I don't think she can be that good of a mother if one of her 'great kids' topped himself.
As for the reasons behind this law, it came about because we have a very high rate of infanticide in NZ. The reason for that is because we have a large Polynesian population in NZ (there are more Tongans in NZ than in Tonga!) and beating your child when it misbehaves (and I mean seriously, violently beating) is the norm in most Polynesian cultures. The vast majority of the victims of infanticide in NZ are Samoan, Tongan, Maori etc. So this stupid law was Sue Bradford's brilliant idea to try and lower the incidences of infanticide.
While of course I am all for measures being taken to lower the high rate of this crime, this law is not the way to do it. It doesn't just apply to Polynesian breeders, it applies to ALL parents/PNBs, who are trying to raise good well-rounded children by giving them the occasional spank when needed. And, as many people pointed out, if you're the kind of person who is going to beat your child to death, you're going to do it regardless of what any law says, and of course since this law was passed there have already been several more high-profile cases of children (again, mostly Polynesian) being murdered by their parents. This so-called wonderful law didn't help those kids, did it?
Further, our youth crime rate is increasing every year, and most people believe this law is just going to help kids become criminals easier and earlier because they won't be allowed to be disciplined.
Sorry, I could rant for ages!!