Tuesday, October 10, 2006

A disgraceful speech from Sue Bradford


Green MP Sue Bradford has made a disgraceful speech to MAP- Movement for Alternatives to Prison about her take on peoples' views of the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act.

In it she claims:

Christans who submit to the select committee have said that opponents of her bill condone " brutalising" of small children.

She has had threats of defamation. (In fact she has had only one informal threat and that wasn't for anything that was defamatory).

There is a connection between sexual perversion and the "beating" of children. In fact she said that there was a "legacy of hidden sexual violence practised on children and young people under a mantle of so-called discipline" accentuated by groups such as Carey College and Tyndale Park Christian Schools.

Parents who smack their children feel guilty for doing so, and that is why they want the law left as it is.

These sorts of insinuations are just as bad as Reform Church pastor Garnet Milne's allegation that those who promote repeal are under the control of the devil and are seeds of Satan. If this is the best that Bradford can do to promote her bill it is a pretty poor effort.

11 comments:

Lucyna said...

Wow.

If Sue Bradford does manage to get S59 repealed, I would hope that National would campaign for the next election for a repeal of the repeal.

I was thinking today, these social engineering changes put in by members of parliament ought to be put outside their scope. Maybe what we need to do is campaign for referrendums for social engineering changes rather than let special interest groups make law in this area.

Anonymous said...

And the predominantly fundamentalist anti-repeal groups aren't special interest groups themselves? At least most of the pro-repeal organisations consist of qualified professionals in the field of child health and welfare...

Craig Y.

Lucyna said...

Of course they are special interest groups. But they are not out there trying to criminalise aspects of your behaivour that are currently legal, are they?

In this case, special interest groups are trying to criminalise a cultural, legal practise. If people can get away with that, there's a whole lot more they could do that might just impact on you one day.

Maybe when it's too late.

Anonymous said...

Yes, but female genital mutilation was also a cultural practice until it was outlawed here, amongst some immigrant groups.

Given that the parties involved on the anti-repeal side opposed decriminalisation of homosexuality twenty years ago, Lucyna, it's a little late to protest at infringement of others rights.

In any case, what's wrong with nonviolent disciplinary sanctions for child-rearing?

Craig Y.

Dave said...

Craig,nost anti repeal groups consist of volunteers with workers highly subsidised by the Govt like your mates in the AIDS Foundation. Some in the Pro repeal grous are also professionally qualified in child welfare butr they are not getting any govt funding and are currently winning this battle.

How would you feel if the homosexual law reform bill was repealed? Would you protest?

Given that groups like family integrity and Family First, Sensible Sentemcing Trust etc werent even around 20 years ago why are you saying that they opposed Homosexual law reform back then?

Your last sentence in the previous comment is totally irrelevant. So There.

KrazyKiwi said...

Which is more violent :-
(a) smacking a child with an open hand, or;
(b) sucking a tiny human to pieces while tucked safely inside its mother ?!?

Its outrageous that those the most strongly opposed to (a) seem to have no problem with (b)

I deploy violence against anyone, and the more vulerable the victim the more i hate it. However to suggest that all corporal punishment is violence because it involves physical contact is nonsense. Applying that definition should, for the sake of consistency, outlaw a huge number of sports for starters

Chuck said...

Craig says, “Given that the parties involved on the anti-repeal side opposed decriminalisation of homosexuality twenty years ago, Lucyna, it's a little late to protest at infringement of others rights.”

Other people have rights besides your vocal 2% minority. Before decriminalisation of homosexuality twenty years ago very few people were prosecuted if they were not cruising public toilets. Since legalisation there has been a serious problem with STDs some of them deadly like HIV. Unfortunately your lot are never satisfied. You are constantly winging. The latest idiotic demand supported by the taxpayer funded HRC and AIDS Foundation is for homosexuals to be allowed to donate blood.

Surely this is proof that the militant homosexuals have some sort mental problem not those who are sick of their never ending demands

Dave said...

ummmm.... I wouldnt go that far,Chuck, whaddayarecon Craig?

Lucyna said...

Craig, FGM was not a NZ cultural practice. When foreigners bring in abhorent cultural practices, the majority will support their being outlawing.

The repeal of S59, however, is not supported by the majority of NZ'ers. 80% of NZ'ers nothing wrong with smacking. 80%, Craig. A small, vocal minority of moralistic authoritarians is trying to ram this legislation down NZ'ers throats.

I would ask you, what is wrong with physical discipline? What is wrong with parents being able to assert their authority over their children to ensure those children do not run amuck? Children, like some adults I have met, cannot be reasoned with. There are times when consequences to behaviour need to be enforced.

Anonymous said...

Chuck, aren't you supposed to be making yourself a nuisance with Investigrunt?

And as for the members of Family Integrity et al not being involved with antigay groups in the past, Craig Smith and his homeschoolers
network ran a magazine called Keystone and were linked to the CHP; Family First is staffed by ex-Radio Rhema staffers; and SST has gone off the rails, deviating from its core mission, which was to implement more stringent sentences for violent offenders (which I strongly support).

When it comes down to it, the pro-repeal lobby is citing evidence-based pediatric and child welfare information to support its case, while the Christian Right opponents of the Bradford Bill show little real concern about the victims of severe child battery.

Those people are the targets of this legislation, not someone who gives their little one a firm tap on the hand or tells them off for trying to run away into the traffic.

Chuck said...

Anonymous, have you read Sur Bardford's submission. I have and I made a submission and know how it works.

I put in a recomendation that if passed in Parliament the bill would go to a referendum before the bill became law. Bradford of course opposed this as she thinks she knows better than 80% of the voters.

Would you support a referendum or do you support a three year dictatorship?