Monday, January 28, 2008

Lucia Green MP to keep John Key in line

What a strange story. Sue Bradford is keeping an eye on NZ Political parties to make sure they don't succumb to public pressure because of the up and coming anti-smacking petition.

A petition which looks set to pass Go, collect 300,000 and force a vote on whether or not NZ'ers want the anti-smacking law. A nightmare scenario for both the Greens and Labour. National is most likely really worried, what with John Key's statements on the matter in the article.
However, a Herald Digi-Poll taken over January indicates the issue has died off in the public's mind - just 4.2 per cent of those polled picked the anti-smacking law as an issue that was likely to influence their vote.
Um... wasn't that poll about what was the most pressing issue that you'd vote on in the next election on? I don't think it was a "tick all issues that concern you" type poll. Tax cuts won, and I'm not surprised.

The issue hasn't so much as died off - it's just completely subsumed by more pressing concerns. Concerns such as lack of money at the end of each month which is far more immediately worrying that the consideration that six policemen might turn up on your doorstep because someone hears squealing coming from the house. That last scenario is something out of "horror stories that occur to someone else", and no matter how possible it is, it still defies the imagination that it could actually happen.

No, there is no imagination needed when you look at your rapidly depleting back account after supermarket shopping or filling up on petrol. The government's got way too much money of the public's that they don't need and everyone wants it back!
The law's original promoter Sue Bradford said she was watching for signs that parties such as National which initially opposed the law, were wavering to try and get the Christian vote.
And what is Sue Bradford going to do if she sees "signs"? The tone of this part of the article is the part that I find really strange. It almost implies that Sue has something on NZ political parties and National in particular that she will use if there is any "wavering".
The bill passed into law by 113 votes to 8 in May last year after a compromise clause negotiated between National's John Key and Prime Minister Helen Clark meant police would not prosecute for "inconsequential" breaches.

Yesterday, National leader John Key said until he saw evidence that the compromise was not enough to stop minor incidents being prosecuted, he was happy with the law.

"We've been consistent since the day we signed [the compromise]. But if we start to see good parents being criminalised for lightly smacking then we will change the law."
Uh huh. But inconsistent prior to National's change of tune. National opposed the bill. Then for an incomprehensible reason, Key comes on board, smiling with Helen to save the day by signing the bill. What the?

And The compromise Key managed to negotiate does not prevent investigation of light smacking incidents by burly policemen. A very intimidating experience which a number of parents and children have already been subjected to.
[Key] said many of the signatures were gathered before the compromise clause was reached and he believed the majority of people were now happy to wait to see how the law was applied before calling for change.

He said the petition was "a significant but not overwhelming group" of people who believed it was still an issue.
John Key doesn't listen to talkback, obviously. It comes up constantly.
[Key] said the lack of interest in the anti-smacking law shown by respondents in a Herald Digi - Poll proved his point.
Key is not that stupid, is he?

Is he???

Related Links:
Voters want tax cuts ~ NZ Herald
Bradford keeps careful watch on parties' anti-smacking positions ~ NZ Herald

Hattip : WhaleOil

4 comment(s):

George said...

Lookout John Boy!

Big Mother is watching you!

Simeon said...

Let me quote Sue Bradford on National Radio 21 Dec 07.

She was discussing her law.

"the Epidemic of child abuse and child violence in this country continues, sadly. My bill was never intended to solve that problem"

From her mouth she has said that her law was to criminalize good parents.

dad4justice said...

Will Chester give Sue another kiss !!

Get a backbone National.

ZenTiger said...

The nicest interpretation of what Sue said late last year is that she only wanted to nail people getting off for serious abuse.

What she will not say is that there were only around 21 cases that attempted the s59 defence, and more than half failed. Of those that succeeded, we don't have readily public records for the reasons the jury made their determination - except for the riding crop case.

In that case, what the state did to the family via the CYFS is truly horrible. It didn't stop the Greens lying about the case for political ends.

Also, just before the s59 law change, some-one in the government re-opened a closed case to do with the riding crop mother and ensured the police prosecuted a matter settled a year prior with an estranged son. Again, the news inferred the case was current and that it might be the same boy (it wasn't, it was a 17 year old older son who allegedly hit his mother prior to the bit the newspaper reported.

There was deliberate twisting of information to create a justification for the bill, based on "lies and half truths" (as Jeanette likes to refer to the Brethren's fisking of Green policy). Very bad form.

Finally, I'd like to add that Sue Bradford has been caught in deliberate lies during the campaign. She claimed this bill was not about banning smacking - and now we can see the Police are acting as if this is exactly what it is about. Sue Bradford wanting smacking banned, regardless of the situation, the severity, the reasonableness of force etc.

The result is that Police have the 'right' to question 'suspects for hours on the hearsay of disgruntled neighbours. The result is the parents get a warning entered on their records - quite possibly even if they are not guilty of smacking. It depends how they react to the interrogation.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.