In support of CYFSWATCH NZ and the right of Free Speech. First visit to Watching CYFSWATCH NZ? Visit our home page. Please visit our e/group at

CYFSWATCH asks: Why all the fuss? (aka “we were proved right”).

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on March 16, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH New Zealand

Sunday, February 25th, 2007

CYFSWATCH writes:It would appear that some people (particularly the media) have a vested interest in misrepresenting the anonymous post that was made about Sue Bradford.Since when is venting on a blogsite construed as a death threat?Not one media organisation has accurately explained the context of the post, that apparently being to forcefully demonstrate the difference between a light smack on the bottom, and a full on assault – a difference that Sue Bradford cannot seem to discern. Wishing someone dead, and an actual “death threat” are miles apart, so the fact that one has been erroneously tacked onto the other speaks to the motive of the person / persons doing so – ratings, anyone?

We notice that Sue has now ascertained the difference – on TV tonight, she described “a vicious assault on myself being described on the site” – she was not referring to the light smack on the bottom mentioned in the same post, so at least that is something.

CYFSWATCH have also received a number of emails that range from “publish the Bradford address now” to “what in the world do you think you are doing?” and every hue in between.

We reiterate: the decision as to whether or not to publish the address now lies in Sue Bradfords hands, not ours.

If Sue Bradford honestly believes that the majority public of New Zealand are going to have no problem at all with her pushing this legislation through on a wafer thin majority, and if she is, as a fully responsible adult, prepared to stand by her decision regardless of any consequences (be they positive or negative) that may occur in the aftermath, then she is exercising her decision to go forward with fully informed consent. CYFSWATCH have no control over Sue Bradfords decision – it is for her to make.

However, it would be a fantasy to suggest that Sue Bradford should have some sort of “divine immunity” from the consequences of her decisions – it would appear to us that she once believed this, and now it seems as if that belief has been markedly updated by Sue Bradford in the last 24 hours.

CYFSWATCH believe that this is a good thing, so we ask again: why all the fuss?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: