Thursday, 15 March 2007


For an explanation of how Bradford's anti-smacking Bill was delayed last night, read David Farrar's short summary of the methods by which a Bill may be filibustered.

And note too that before the last election Helen Clark -- who last night was whipping her MPs into the 'Yes' lobby -- answered an interviewer this way:
INTERVIEWER: "So you don't want to see a ban on smacking?"
HELEN CLARK: "Absolutely not. I think you're trying to defy human nature."
So much for election promises. (You can hear the audio of that interview throughout Leighton Smith's morning show on ZB. Here for example, during an interview with Maurice Wimpianson, who argues (correctly) that this Bill will put Nanny State right inside New Zealanders homes.

So who's up for a march on Parliament? Or on the offices of MPs who might be persuaded to cross the floor?

UPDATE 1: Here's the audio from Leighton Smith's show in a slightly better and more permanent package, courtesy of Whale Oil. Image courtesy of Murray: Helen's Mastercard Moments.

UPDATE 2: Barry Soper asked this direct question today of a dissembling Sue Bradford: "After this Bill becomes law, will parents be allowed to smack their children?"
Her response: "No."

Clear enough. those of you who deny that this is an anti-smacking Bill might wish to reconsider their position.

RELATED: Smacking

1 comment:

1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.