John Campbell Smacking Debate

Well done John, for hosting this debate and for running over time, very very important debate to have.

Some of the low lights from tonight.

Christine Rankin, “Childless Prime Minister”. What a strange assertion to cast upon anyone (like its a crime?), besides which, it’s about as mature as calling someone names. It has nothing to do with the issue what so ever. I have never been gassed in a gas chamber to know that it is probably not going to be good for anyone else.

With regard to past history, “This bill is a smoke screen, Sue Bradford was spitting, hitting, she is a violent person” So a person can’t see the light, people can’t change their ways? Well what is the point in hitting someone then if theya re not going to be able to change. When was the last time Sue Bradford was violent, I’m pretty bloody sure it’s been quite a while now. Nelson Mandella was an advocate for armed revolution in South Africa before he changed his mind. Under dubbya’s vision of good and evil dear old Nelson Mandella would be labelled a terrorist.

Simon Barnett really needs to get over his ego. How many times did we hear him say, that offends me. You’re the freaking adult with apparently nothing to hide, don’t be afraid (all too generous Simon), if you don’t hit your kids the cops won’t come knocking. If I don’t drive over 50km in a school zone I won’t get stopped by the police. If I don’t grow a big dope plant in my window the cops won’t come knocking, and under this law if you don’t hit kids, the police won’t come knocking. But then to also assume the lowest of the intelligence of the police to work out if a claim is malicious etc is also pretty bloody suupid. Simon get over your radio hyped up ego, I am comfortable with having to finger print going into Amercia – I’m not a terrorist.

Simon Barnet “Polls… TVNZ,” How does one know why people answer the way they do to polls. None of the polls have transparent methodolgies, what are they asking? Ask anyone the right loaded question and you could almost get the answer you want.

For instance with the CIR instigate by dear old Norm Withers the question stated;

“Should there be a reform of the justice system placing greater emphasis on the needs of victims, providing restitution and compensation for them and imposing minimum sentences and hard labour for all serious violent offences?” 92% voted in favor of the question.

Simple enough yes? Well no. Because the question is a classic dubbya Bush “your with us or you’re for the terroists” type question. I voted for this, and my god I wish I hadn’t now. I voted for it because I do think there should be a greater emphasis on the victim, however I don’t agree with the rest of it. It took freaking ages to have to del with this one, the woman in the polling station thought I must have gone to sleep.

You see, load the question, the right way “should the govt be allowed to tell you what to do”, 99.5% would answer no, or, “is child abuse a bad thing”… and of course 100% would agree with the statement.

Ms Rankin and Simon showed themselves to be self absorbed (now there’s a revelation – radio host with an ego), not able to see past their nose for their own pride.

If, as they claim, this law won’t stop one act of serious child abuse, why the hell don’t we do away with the murder law, or any law for that matter, no law is 100% fallible.

Ms Bradfords bill is a line in the sand that needs drawing.


Leave a comment

Filed under S59

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s