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

Some observations from Kiwi1960.

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on April 3, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH NZ

Some observations from Kiwi1960.
Tuesday, 03.04.2007, 02:23pm (GMT12)

Some Observations….

Why are politicians wanting to ban smacking, when other more important things need to be looked at, here’s a few examples.

Booze kills people, people drink to excess then get behind the wheel of a car, but rather than ban that, they believe education is the way to go, and even though drinking and driving is illegal, it doesn’t stop people from doing it.

Smoking kills people; again, they think education is the way to go. There are laws stopping people under 18 from buying smokes, but that doesn’t stop them.

Both booze and smokes are taxed, and that’s why they won’t make it illegal, even though more people die from drinking and driving than children who are assaulted (not smacked, but bashed) and worse, more people die from smoking in a week than bashed children over an entire year!

Worse, the cost to our health system from drinking drivers having an accident as well as smokers over an entire year is so high that to make both booze and smokes illegal will probably mean that the health system could divert hundreds of millions to life saving operations for children…

worse: booze is the cause of much family violence. Booze is the cause of many injuries to children being bashed by a drunken parent, booze also kills innocent children when a drunken driver smashes into the car they are traveling in, worse again, if the child isn’t killed, the parent behind the wheel probably will be, that parent could be the best parent on Earth who never but never smacked their children.

If they could find a way to tax smacking, they would probably tax it, not ban it, but find the money to educate people.

What’s the logic of taxing booze and smokes then spending a SMALL amount of money (in relation to what they collect in taxes) to educate people not to drink and drive or smoke full stop?

In fact, they DID have an education program at one time to educate against both family violence and child bashing (as opposed to smacking) and that it was caused by booze, but stopped when it was ineffective. Isn’ t that proof that the time was here to ban booze?

To me that is saying that the money they collect in taxes is more important than the families suffering from family violence.

WORSE, way back when, a few politicians were asked why booze wasn’t illegal, their answer was that most people drink responsibly, so why should they suffer because of the actions of a few bad eggs.

Why should good parents suffer by being made criminals because of Sue Bradfords anti smacking bill because of a few bad eggs?

Could a case then also not be made to ban cars? They kill people too!

Sue Bradford is part of the Green party; ironic that a few years ago, Helen Clark named this party the “NZ Looney party”

The Greens want to legalize pot. This rots the brain; worse, in young people it can cause schizophrenia! To the Greens, they are against smacking, but they think it’s alright to rot ones brain with pot.

Sue Bradford is pro choice, she is in favour of women being able to decide if they want an abortion or not, that’s the ULTIMATE way to smack a child to death…

The Greens are also against GE and GM medical research, while most are against GE and GM foods; most are in favour of GE and GM medical research because it could lead to cures for things like MS, which at present, there is no cure.

Now… to sum up….

Helen Clark is:

Happy to keep smokes and booze legal, and taxed, even though it causes more harm than smacking ever did.

Sue Bradford is pro choice, but against smacking.

The Greens are pro pot, they want it made legal, but want smacking made illegal.

The Greens are against GE and GM medical research which could lead to cures for MS and also many MANY childhood diseases for which at present, there is no cure.

Sue Bradford is quite happy for a mother to abort her child (the father has no say) and quite happy for the child to smoke pot which may lead to Schizophrenia, and quite happy for that child to get drunk and smoke (as long as they pay the tax on it) and quite happy for that child to suffer a cancer and die because there is no cure…..

….but NOT happy with a loving parent smacking a child when he/she has been naughty.

What’s wrong with that picture?



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: