Sue Bradford has always had a reputation for being controversial. A former back-bencher politician, she successfully managed to pass three proposed bills into law. One, which is totally valid, is making the minimum wage equal for 16 and 17 year old students and adults alike (that a youth’s ability to scan items or pack shelves should be rewarded with inferior remuneration compared to someone 10-30 years their senior, is baffling). Her second bill, that prison mothers be given further entitlements to keep their babies longer, is open to debate. One cannot, however, mention Sue Bradford, without bringing into account an incredibly unpopular third bill that she put through parliament. The Crimes Amendment Act 2007 was put through in 2007, removing a parent’s right to use reasonable force as a way of disciplining their child. One big question must be addressed about such a law. Why should we even listen to Sue Bradford?
Listening tentatively to a politician and taking their word for it on situations has rarely proven fruitful or beneficial. John Key promised not to raise GST levels, only to later backtrack on it, providing weak-kneed excuses. Julia Gillard adamantly said no carbon tax would be put on sources of energy Australians would be unable to function properly without, only to sneakily push it through by blaming Australians for lack of environmental concern. If one is unable to trust a Prime Minister, why trust anyone sharing a political bedroom with them?
Mrs Bradford, to be frank, is a lying, vainglorious, undemocratic sensationalist woman. It is to the benefit of the New Zealand people that she no longer serves in parliament. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XFaxThapdQ&feature=player_embedded
Her first address as to why the Bill should be passed, asserts that children are entitled to their own rights. Children do have rights, the right to be loved and cared for and brought up in a household where the parent(s) have provided for them a stable home so they are able to flourish through their schooling. Children, right up until their mid-teen years, are still immature with their decision making and if an incessant negligence for the rules arises, no law should prevent a parent using reasonable force to correct their children. Mrs Bradford, though, thinks otherwise. "While on the surface it might appear like a simple smack or a simple hit - what we don't know is what else is happening in that family either with that child, or other children, or the mother or some other family member.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4061/Bradford-says-anti-smacking-law-working-well She has fed an intrigued New Zealand media lies that any parent who disagrees with her warped ideology is some deluded, neurotic person who simply doesn’t cut the mustard. 99.9% of parents want their children to be the best they can be, and are willing to make sacrifices for them to achieve that. Talking to the child, giving them a time out or screaming at them just doesn’t work at times. It must be a parent’s right to know that if a smack prevents their child from being naughty, then a smack ought to be administered.
From day one the Bradfordtism Section 59 Amendment proposal was met with an outcry of public disapproval against the adjustments. A staggering 85% of people were against the law when it was passed and that number remained largely unchanged when an Anti-Smacking referendum was launched in 2009. A multitude of opinions compiled by the New Zealand Herald supports these views. One respondent Sean says “We vote for you to represent us, our ideas, our opinions, how can you ignore them now!” Blomfield mentions that the government should “Stop making criminals of parents who choose to bring up their child (children) in a loving and disciplined manner Focus instead on the real issue of violence towards children.” All opinions voiced can be found in the attached link. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10431340
Knowing all too well she wouldn’t find favour with the common citizen, Mrs Bradford “adopted an elite, lobbying-style of politics,” choosing to go from the top down, rather than from the bottom up. http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2009/05/sue-bradford-the-greens-futile-left-option.html Not only was this completely ignoring New Zealand’s democratic system, it suggests the true colours of a person intent on imposing communist-style attributes onto our political system. Even today, Mrs Bradford doesn’t seem content to let society have any input into her unpopular bill. “I think it should be up to the New Zealand Parliament to decide whether it wants to overturn the law.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XFaxThapdQ
If a parent doesn’t want to smack their child as a means of correction, that’s fine. If they believe there are better ways to bring up their child, they’re entitled to do so. Many great citizens exist who were never smacked. What is not acceptable is Bradford’s attempt to intervene and prevent parents from using force as a means of correction. Parents love their children and want the best for them. If smacking is their way of disciplining their child, so be it. If it isn’t, so be it. Don’t listen to Sue Bradford parents; listen to your parenting intuition.
***It has been confirmed by liberal apparatchik Conrad Reyners that the anti-smacking bill was done as a deliberate act of policy. In a guest column with the blog Norightturn he says "The law is very clear. Section 59(2) clearly states that it is illegal to smack your child for the purpose of correction." Reyners goes onto say that "Smacking a child is assault. It is child abuse by definition." Any person who says this bill was never designed to prevent parents smacking their children must no explain why Conrad Reyners statements are false and provide the sections in the bill which provide parents with the authority to use legal force to smack their children.
No comments:
Post a Comment