Watching CYFSWATCH NZ

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 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/watchingcyfs/

Kiwiblog commentary on “Hysteria from Bradford”

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on March 19, 2007

 Hysteria from Bradford

Just looking through the transcripts from Agenda, and can’t believe this line from Bradford:

SUE To accept Chester Burrows amendment would be the worst possible thing we could do for the kids of this country

I’m sorry but someone find the planet she is on and give it a name. I mean there is hyperbole, but to label an amendment which will lower the degree of force the current laws allow, as “the worse possible thing we could do for the kids of this country” is just hysterical bullshit.

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://kiwiblog.co.nz/mt/mt-tb.cgi/6483

Comments

reid:

Even though I always disagreed with Bradford on every policy she stood for I used to respect her for her hard work and dedication. No longer. I’ve concluded she’s just another lightweight commie-inspired social manipulator who wants to impose her own naive views upon people. She can’t do it by persuasion so she does it by force against people’s wills. She seems to think this bill will be her crowning political achievement. Imagine a politician so naive as to spend as long as she has in Parliament and then finish off with this piece of utter crap. What a worthless career Sue.

Did you hear on Agenda her line on violence against children being a colonial import – yeh right. Before the evil colonists arrived the Maori lived in child-like innocence giggling away in the forest with the pixies and the faries. I guess in her mind there was no tribal warfare, no slavery, and certainly no violence.

Why doesn’t National simply say that if it passes, they will repeal it? Simple. It’s a sitter for that. Why are they equivicating? A golden opportunity is slipping through their fingers.

Ben Wilson:

A lot of hysterical bullshit surrounds this bill.

dad4justice:

National must say they will repeal this bill if it is passed – asap ?

Paul Marsden:

Read said: ‘Did you hear on Agenda her line on violence against children being a colonial import – yeh right. Before the evil colonists arrived the Maori lived in child-like innocence’

…And, she wonders why the people of NZ despise her???

culma:

This legislation was dead once it hit the home stretch, when Clark and Bradford both in the same week indicated the bill didn’t identify smacking as an illegal offence effectively killed this thing as a miss guided attempt to join an exclusive European group.

Bradford isn’t intelligent enough to put this up on her own, my question is – who pulled the strings?

tim barclay:

Sue is reverting to type when she indulges in hysterical bullshit. Her years of protest which involved much violence against the Police is bubbling away just beneath the surface. I do not think she will be co-leader of the Greens, she is far too unstable when it comes to fronting a major issue. I think Jeanette will hang on until someone other than Sue Bradford can take over. I have spoken well of her in the past but I had no idea just how unstable and irrational she is, especially when presenting an argument. She could not front a major portfolio in any future red-green Government.

reid:

Culma, IMO the driving force behind this bill are the same people who bought us civil unions and prostitution law reform. The same signature is there: manipulative social engineering disguised as “human rights.”

Many people fell for that line on the other bills, it’s interesting less are falling for it this time.

As to who: Tamihere alluded to it in his Investigate interview: there are people in this govt who do nothing but scheme.

dad4justice:

Could one of the Bradford puppet string pullers be the feminist and communist , Kay Goodger ?

Maybe time to snip those strings ?

Paul Marsden:

Tim. I think you have made an accurate assessment of Bradford. It dosen’t take a student of psychology to see she’s carrying a big chip on her shoulders.

Andrew Davies:

She is such a flake. Her bill will allow use of force to control a child but not correct it so it seems there is good smacking and bad smacking. However neither she nor Helen Clark can tell us which is which. If they do not know then how can parents possibly work it out with any certainty.
Anyway, any half decent parent knows that proper correction when required will drastically reduce the need to do any controlling.

KA:

She’s just another socialist with an agenda to undermine all moral authority and replace it with the State. The scary thing is that she believes all that rubbish.

We have in our part of NZ like many communities in NZ, the situation where liberal politicians like Sue Bradford have weakened the laws and the social fabric enough that lawlessness and disrespect has increased in society. Every Friday and Saturday night we see it in our streets, we see drunk people by the score and we see boy racers – in fact we see them every day of the week getting away with it, because the stupid politicians have weakened the powers of the police to deal with them and weakened the authority of parents and schools to impose proper discipline.

scott:

Bradford kepts contradicting herslef, In one interveiw she will say the bill is not about banning a parent simply giving a child a smack, in another interview she says she wont support Chester Burrows amendmant (which would have cleared confusion) as it goes against the spirit of the Bill. Its interesting that supporters of the bill are all bleeding hearts who say they dont smack their kids and then they say that Sue Bradfords Bill wont ban parents from smacking.

Fred:

This post from Frogblog shows how they think things will pan out:
Even if the Nats got a clear majority in parliament, they quite likely wouldn’t have the numbers for repeal :
The vote is on MPs personal conscience but all Labour members are voting for the bill and most National MPs are against it. United Future and NZ First are divided.

The fact is, social progress is very rarely rolled back. Even unpopular measures are gradually assimilated. For example, France abolished the death penalty in 1981, even though a majority supported it. Now, a majority opposes the death penalty, and it will never be brought back (it even got written into the constitution this year)

sonic:

Hysteria, over the anti-smacking bill?

Say it aint so David!

David Farrar:

And Sonic again wins troll of the day award, not commenting on the substance of the post, but just posting a provocative statement.

mara:

Before having a child myself,like Clark,I was “expertly placed” to advise parents on child rearing practices.Hah hah hah…i pretty smartly realised the stupidity of this attitude.IMHO there are any number of valid reasons to smack,not least being maintenance of parental sanity.Bradford has no excuse for her ignorance.

sonic:

Sorr David, but for anyone on your side of the debate to talk about “hysterical bullshit” is laughable and it’s hardly “trolling” to point that out.

Fred:

Suzzie thinks she’ll be involved in bringing up my kids.

Sorry sweetie, smacking decisions in my family are made way above your payscale.

She is one pompous socialist…. with a well developed desire to rule.

Frank T Davis:

What Sue Bradford misses entirely is that the vast majority of us were brought up by parents who would , if necessary, smack your behind and even so , we grew up without becoming wife beaters , child molestors etc so where is the harm she protects us from?
I suspect many others are like me and can certainly remember the potential for getting a smacked behind but to be honest , I cannot for the life of me recall any actual event with clarity while being certain that it did happen. Thereby demonstrating what an excellent behavioural modification strategy it was!

The brain dead (Labours constituency mainly) amongst us dont obey the laws now so what difference is a new one going to make ?

Frank T Davis:

What Sue Bradford misses entirely is that the vast majority of us were brought up by parents who would , if necessary, smack your behind and even so , we grew up without becoming wife beaters , child molestors etc so where is the harm she protects us from?
I suspect many others are like me and can certainly remember the potential for getting a smacked behind but to be honest , I cannot for the life of me recall any actual event with clarity while being certain that it did happen. Thereby demonstrating what an excellent behavioural modification strategy it was!

The brain dead (Labours constituency mainly) amongst us dont obey the laws now so what difference is a new one going to make ?

Frank T Davis:

What Sue Bradford misses entirely is that the vast majority of us were brought up by parents who would , if necessary, smack your behind and even so , we grew up without becoming wife beaters , child molestors etc so where is the harm she protects us from?
I suspect many others are like me and can certainly remember the potential for getting a smacked behind but to be honest , I cannot for the life of me recall any actual event with clarity while being certain that it did happen. Thereby demonstrating what an excellent behavioural modification strategy it was!

The brain dead (Labours constituency mainly) amongst us dont obey the laws now so what difference is a new one going to make ?

Peter S:

“Sorr David, but for anyone on your side of the debate to talk about “hysterical bullshit” is laughable and it’s hardly “trolling” to point that out.”

Sonic,

Actually I resent that comment Sonic. I for one have not been at all hysterical, and have used mild language and reasoned arguments.

You, on the other hand have used inflamatory statements (which are a gross assault on the English language) by trying to equate a light correctional physical intervention with beating, hitting and assault.

You have sniped from the sidelines, and, when your arguments have been shown lacking, as usual, you change the subject, ignore the comment, deflect the argument by picking on only part of a post, or go MIA, only to return on another thread to reuse previously debunked arguments.

Here is a challenge. What practical experience do you actually have with raising children?

Come on, front up for once and don’t be evasive.

I’ve seen the argument raised countless times about whether men should have any input on the abortion debate, since they don’t have to carry the child.

Since you want to be part of the debate, lets front up with our practical parenting experience, just so we can all know where we are debating from.

I’ll start.

I have two children, one of each sex, a younger end teenager and an almost teenager.

Both children fall into the strong willed category.

Your turn………..

sonic:

Peter, your “reasonable” level of debate always comes down to personal attacks.

Every single time.

As for my pratical experience, I don’t see it is any of your business, however it is extensive and not once in my entire life have I felt the need to hit a child.

Not once.

Peter S:

Thanks Sonic, you proved my point.

I give out nothing that I am unwilling to take, and I have had many lively debates on this blog, many of which have ended with an agreement to disagree, and there are posters with whom I have disagreed strongly, but who have gained my respect in that disagreement.

I am sorry to say, though, that I feel you are behaving in a cowardly way. I asked you for some specifics, because they are completely pertinent to the debate. You have chosen to give an evasive and equivocal reply.

From your reply it would be reasonable to infer that you are either not a parent or that, if you are, then you took no part in raising your children.

“not once in my entire life have I felt the need to hit a child.”

Ther’d be few people who have significant exposure to children that could claim that. Most would have felt tempted, even if they restrained themselves.

Its a bit like the old statement that the only programmer never to have created a bug is one that has never written a line of code.

dad4justice:

Sonic spews “Not once I felt the need to hit a child.”

Do we live on the same planet ? What drugs is that snake on ?

sonic:

Peter there you go again with the personal abuse.

I’v never been tempted to hit a child as I believe firmly that violence is only morally correct in self-defence. You can infer away as much as you want Peter, however it would be nice if once, just once, you dealt with the actual points rather than trawling for information you can use in ad hominem attacks.

I was not hit as a child, I don’t hit children, mine or anyone elses.

You should perhaps have tried it yourself.

ChickenLittle:

You have to wonder exactly what our little friend Sonic has to hide in that he/she seems extremely reluctant to impart any information of personal knowledge but is quite keen to dismiss anyone with actual personal experience as a “beater”.

So you see Peter S it is you that are the troll and Sonic is the perfectly reasonable commentator with points galore to refute your trollish arguments.:)

Don’t know if you’ve seen Blair’s blog list but he lists DPF’s blog as – ‘David Farrar and Sonic’.

Never a truer word………

sonic:

“keen to dismiss anyone with actual personal experience as a “beater”

Example?

Thought not.

dad4justice:

Sonic – I got 4 kids twin boys and two lovely young daughters – I have not smacked them – why don’t you ask them ?
How did you teach your children boundaries ?

David Baigent:

Sonic,
Although Peter S may have posed the question, you ALONE have provided the easily interpreted answer.

An answer that a more complete person would have been willing to supply correctly.

sonic is not a name to be proud of..

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: