An anti-smacker has attacked a much younger pro-smacking campaigner in a shopping mall. Most people will understand the hypocrisy revealed to all in this heinous act.
However, I'd like to offer my personal theory on why an anti-smacker, who you would think would be a pacifist type, has flipped out and used physical force (she had to be wrestled off her victim by the mall security guard) on a pro-smacker.
Anti-smackers most likely believe, as many people do, that everyone else is like them. These people probably have trouble controlling themselves and their violent urges. Violence of any type therefore must be repressed. Obviously, everyone else is like them in this regard, therefore a law change (repeal of s59) was the most appropriate way that everyone can suppress their own violent instincts, especially around children that they care for.
Now this is where it becomes interesting. The violent, angry, suppressed anti-smacker most likely blames their own violent outbursts on their own parents, or maybe on their school-teachers. As they have trouble controlling this violence, it must not be innate, but taught to them at an early age by those who should have known better.
Therefore, the s59 repeal will save all the children of NZ from becoming uncontrollably violent when they grow up and the violent anti-smacker will have something to feel good about.
In the mean time, the violent anti-smacker just has to work out a way to make campaigning against the S59 repeal illegal so that they will not be accidentally provoked to lose control and attack some one when they innocently enter a shopping mall.
Related Link: Anti-smacker smacks pro-smacker
However, I'd like to offer my personal theory on why an anti-smacker, who you would think would be a pacifist type, has flipped out and used physical force (she had to be wrestled off her victim by the mall security guard) on a pro-smacker.
Anti-smackers most likely believe, as many people do, that everyone else is like them. These people probably have trouble controlling themselves and their violent urges. Violence of any type therefore must be repressed. Obviously, everyone else is like them in this regard, therefore a law change (repeal of s59) was the most appropriate way that everyone can suppress their own violent instincts, especially around children that they care for.
Now this is where it becomes interesting. The violent, angry, suppressed anti-smacker most likely blames their own violent outbursts on their own parents, or maybe on their school-teachers. As they have trouble controlling this violence, it must not be innate, but taught to them at an early age by those who should have known better.
Therefore, the s59 repeal will save all the children of NZ from becoming uncontrollably violent when they grow up and the violent anti-smacker will have something to feel good about.
In the mean time, the violent anti-smacker just has to work out a way to make campaigning against the S59 repeal illegal so that they will not be accidentally provoked to lose control and attack some one when they innocently enter a shopping mall.
Related Link: Anti-smacker smacks pro-smacker
Here is a working link:
ReplyDeletehttp://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/423466/1533876
The story sums up the 'we know what's best' camp so well...
Thanks, Oswald! I've updated my post.
ReplyDelete"In the mean time, the violent anti-smacker just has to work out a way to make campaigning against the S59 repeal illegal"
ReplyDeleteAnd thats where the EFA comes in right?
Lucyna, I do not know if labelling the young lady collecting signatures a pro-smacker is accurate. I am also collecting signatures but I do not consider myself a pro-smacker.
ReplyDeleteI am sure some children can be raised without the need for them to be smacked. For other children particularly young ones the most effective discipline is a smack. The issue is who know best how to raise children – the average parent or a group of MPs many whom have had no experience raising children.
I hope the police take the case at least as seriously as the chap who threw a brick through the window of Helen Clark’s electorate office. It is doubtful if some vandalising of MP/MPs offices with have any effect on legislation. However, if those collecting signatures are allowed to be intimidated it is possible that we could not reach the required number in time.
ReplyDeleteThis is an extremely serious matter. A number of women were reluctant to put down their address. They usually do so after being assured that these details will only be forwarded to the appropriate people. One does not know what the intent of this woman was. If is probable that she just intended to destroy the signatures. The fact remains that the names and addresses of the people who signed the petition should not have got into the wrong hands. Fortunately, they didn’t because of the quick thinking a brave young lady.
If the police not make a serious effect to apprehend this woman who attempted to steal the signed petitions and also assaulted this woman who resisted the attempted theft others will think they can do the same. Most people are quite supportive of those collecting signatures yet there are a few that can even become abusive.
There police know this woman. They have her name and vehicle registration number and know she is from the Hamilton area. If they had this much information about the person who threw the brick through Clark’s electorate office window I bet the person would be in custody now.
This is an attack on the democratic process. Opponents of the petition have done their best to obstruct this campaign. They have approached shop owners who have already given permission for a table to be set up in front of their shop to rescind this permission. We are on course to reach the required number of signatures. However, we have a number of elderly people collecting. The police should ensure these collectors are not intimidated by a speedy arrest. We have less than two months to collect the balance of the required signatures. It is not good enough for the police to give this matter a low priority and take weeks to find this alleged thief.
I view this as seriously as theft of mail. People have a right to privacy when they sign a petition as much as they have right to privacy on who they vote for of if they are a member of a political party.
I call on Helen Clark and Sue Bradford to condemn this attack on the democratic process. I will be following this up with the police and post their response to this blog.
Chuck Bird
I think this is serious Chuck. I've created a post of your comment.
ReplyDeleteA brick through the window of democracy