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/

Bradford offers a “Claytons” apology – for oppostion to her Bill?

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on April 26, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH NZ

Bradford offers a “Claytons” apology – for oppostion to her Bill?
Thursday, 26.04.2007, 05:38am (GMT12)

Sorry for the worry says Bradford.

5:00AM Thursday April 26, 2007

MP Sue Bradford says she is sorry parents have been worried about her bill to change the law on smacking, and blames that on a “campaign of misinformation” run by opponents.

“I do regret that so many decent, good parents have been made to feel guilty about this or worried about it,” she said yesterday after meeting National leader John Key in a failed bid to find a common position on the bill.

“What I’m apologising to them for is that the campaign of misinformation has been such that it has made a lot of decent parents very afraid.

“They’ve believed the misinformation that if this bill goes through then suddenly the police will be invading their homes, arresting them and taking them to court just because they might have once lightly smacked their child.”

– NZPA


web metrics

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Bradford offers a “Claytons” apology – for oppostion to her Bill?”

  1. Graeme said

    S59 debate and law..

    Sue Bradford needs to be reminded some say, law is more based on who can win the argument then truth or justice. Did you know that lawyers can lie in court? Example if a lawyer knows someone committed a crime they have to do there utmost to try and get them off in the way of a good defense.
    Sue Bradford needs to remember the law can be an ass. I know someone who confessed to murder on video and signed a written confession. They got off because the police made a technical error by mistake. I know of a rapist who got off because the police mixed the clothes in the bag for DNA evidence and there was a 0.1% chance of cross-contamination. None of these things are fair and certainly is not justice for the victims. But that’s the system we have and take the good with the bad it is not perfect by any means.
    People might be asking what’s this got to do with S59 being removed, well everything in my view.
    If people used S59 reasonable force to discipline their child and got off then that’s the system we have as unfair as it may be. If a jury let someone off for using a plastic pipe to discipline a child (which I don’t agree with) then it proves my aforementioned points about the law and our system anomalies.
    Murderers, rapists can get off sometimes on a technicality, that’s the price we pay for having this type of system. Are you now going to change all the loopholes or flaws Sue?
    I know someone who killed a person claiming self-defense because they said it was reasonable force under the circumstances, are you going to remove that as well Sue?
    Years later the truth came out but because of the double jeopardy law the person could not be charged again. Not everyone using S59 gets off and in fact it’s hardly used when you compare it with the amount of child abuse cases. The only issues I have with removing S59 is that innocent parents will suffer which will be another injustice.
    In the same way I know of guilty people getting off I know of the innocent who have been wrongly convicted. Again that’s the price we pay for the system.
    You are taking away peoples right to justice if light smacking on the bottom with the hand would result in parents being convicted by the removing of S59. That’s equally as wrong as the people who get off using a pipe under the guise of discipline.
    Sue you need to let the court and justice system run its course and we all live with the consequences right wrong or otherwise, unknown like David Bain, Arthur Allan Thomas…
    I think Sue’s idea equates to the cure being worse then the cause because it will put so many other people in an unfair position. It also gives CYFS even more power then ever when they can’t be trusted to handle what they already have.
    I am in favor of stopping any excuse for child abuse but don’t see your idea as the way forward. There are other factors that need to be addressed that could make a bigger difference and not penalize good parents in the way your current idea does.
    I think physical punishments should be the absolute last resort and only used when the child is in danger of hurting themselves or others. While Sue might say her Bill allows for this I disagree. It takes away any defense and relies on the police discretion.

  2. Wayne Fergusson said

    I feel sorry for Sue Bradford, she is clearly Deluded

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: