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