Sue Bradford can set the scene for us:
“it’s too soon in this country to criminalize parents who lightly smack their children.” ... “Repeal of s59 is only one small strand of what we need to do.”
Smacking is violence:
I have lost count of how many times I've heard the phrase 'it never did me any harm' — whether it was a light smack [or worse] ... so many of the victims of this violence seem determined to perpetuate it on future generations.
Discipline is religious violence:
There is no getting away from the fact that a huge part of the opposition to my bill has come from people who truly believe that bringing their children up with violence is not only their right but also their literally God-given duty.
On fathers:
This is the question of the connection between sexual perversion and the beating of children and young people. Very few of us want to acknowledge it up front, but in fact the more I've been immersed in this issue, and the more I've heard groups predominantly made up of men proclaiming and lauding the right of adults to beat children ... the closer the unspoken connection gets.
Sue is well versed in maligning her opponents by lumping a few obvious cases of abuse in with implications all people who have a different point of view about discipline are evil. If it weren't for the sheer number of signatures gathered for the referendum, any opposition would have to bear much worse, I suspect.
Anyway, I'm re-advertising an earlier post I wrote rebutting an article by Chris Trotter. I thought it revealed not only his thoughts on the "typical" family, but how Sue Bradford and her ilk (Trotter being one of the ilkier) end up characterising families as part of their justification for "ending child abuse" or "the right to beat children" or whatever they claim.
It's a long read, so only follow the link if you are interested, and it probably helps to read Trotter's appalling article [at end of post], as you might think I've made some of the quotes up. I didn't.
Related Link: Educating Trotter
Also of note: The inhuman liberal left
“it’s too soon in this country to criminalize parents who lightly smack their children.” ... “Repeal of s59 is only one small strand of what we need to do.”
Smacking is violence:
I have lost count of how many times I've heard the phrase 'it never did me any harm' — whether it was a light smack [or worse] ... so many of the victims of this violence seem determined to perpetuate it on future generations.
Discipline is religious violence:
There is no getting away from the fact that a huge part of the opposition to my bill has come from people who truly believe that bringing their children up with violence is not only their right but also their literally God-given duty.
On fathers:
This is the question of the connection between sexual perversion and the beating of children and young people. Very few of us want to acknowledge it up front, but in fact the more I've been immersed in this issue, and the more I've heard groups predominantly made up of men proclaiming and lauding the right of adults to beat children ... the closer the unspoken connection gets.
Sue is well versed in maligning her opponents by lumping a few obvious cases of abuse in with implications all people who have a different point of view about discipline are evil. If it weren't for the sheer number of signatures gathered for the referendum, any opposition would have to bear much worse, I suspect.
Anyway, I'm re-advertising an earlier post I wrote rebutting an article by Chris Trotter. I thought it revealed not only his thoughts on the "typical" family, but how Sue Bradford and her ilk (Trotter being one of the ilkier) end up characterising families as part of their justification for "ending child abuse" or "the right to beat children" or whatever they claim.
It's a long read, so only follow the link if you are interested, and it probably helps to read Trotter's appalling article [at end of post], as you might think I've made some of the quotes up. I didn't.
Related Link: Educating Trotter
Also of note: The inhuman liberal left
I'll reply when I have time to read the article
ReplyDeleteI am not a Trotter fan myself so Will wade through it
And links to any of ref from Sue would be good
BTW I welcome the discussion Zen
but if I have to wade through any of the Bradford is a bitch/cow/idiot comments I will probably give up in disgust they contribute nothing to the debate.
Let us take it as read that you don't like her
cheers
Hi Tom. You cannot take it as read that I don't like her. I don't personally know her.
ReplyDeleteWhat I don't like is her politics. I don't like the way she positions all smacking as violence, and then mixes the extremes with the moderates in her examples. I don't like the way she marginalises the opposition to the bill.
Here's one of her speeches: Think of the children
Settle down Zen, if more an more people come up with rebuttals Bradford wont be able t odefend them.
ReplyDeleteOn smacking is violence.....the Christchurch school of Medicine study notes that it is unlikely that smacking has long term detrimental effects. So it could be misleading to imply that it does. Actually, it is unethical to make out that there is a lot of evidence that mild smacking is violent or can lead to child abuse – and then conclude that caregivers should not lightly smack at all. Just because abusers whack, this does not mean that parents shouldn’t smack.
Some consider that smacking escalates to violent behaviour from parents lacking in self-control. But if someone with limited self-control argues with his or her partner, he or she may lose control and commit assault. Yet it does not follow that it is wrong to argue with your partner, nor does it follow that such arguments should be illegal. If that were so, the consumption of alcohol would likewise be condemned on the basis that some people drink too much before driving. We prohibit the excessive but not the moderate use, so we condemn child abuse but not non-abusive smacking.
Sue may want to lump all smacking as violence, but try asking her about abortion....
Great comment Dave.
ReplyDelete