I rarely read Michael Laws, but this caught my eye, and perfectly suits the picture above. This is
Laws on the Key Compromise:
But now the question needs to be asked. What exactly does Key stand for?
Pragmatism isn't a principle - it's a modus operandi. Although a genuinely pragmatic pollie would never have let Clark plot her escape - they would have taken the defeat in the house and ridden the issue all the way until 2008...
We know Key does not want to follow Brash's philosophical lead - that he is softer on race relations, privatisation and downsizing the state. But then he's no metro liberal either - his instincts remain utterly conservative. Which is why his appeasement seems so difficult to fathom...the fact remains that Bradford's bill will still make smacking your kids a criminal offence. Whether a light tap on the bum or a ruler across the fingers.
That it has been left to the police to work out the prosecutorial guidelines is a parliamentary cop- out. It is a surrender of policy to the courts - unelected pooh-bahs at the best of times.
Which is why Bradford was grinning like a Cheshire cat on Wednesday morning. She had conceded nothing - and won, proving that the inflexible can have their way with Key and the new National party. That's a lesson lobby groups will always remember.
And so too should the electorate.
I rarely read Michael Laws, but this caught my eye, and perfectly suits the picture above. This is Laws on the Key Compromise:
13 comments:
I didn't think the tyranny of the majority appealed to you. It would have been easy for Key to have done what was popular by these standards. It's harder to do what is right.
This must be the only time you had had all the fools in town on your side.
"Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform." - Mark Twain
It is not right to disallow your MPs a conscience vote after you have been harassing the opposition for the same action. It is not right to take the judgement of acceptable force away from the courts and juries and pass it on to the police, whose job it is to uphold law - not make it. Arguments about majority or minority opinion are secondary.
"I didn't think the tyranny of the majority appealed to you."
Tyranny? You mean like the govt *imposing* legislation?
Whether 80% or 20% were opposed to Bradford's bill was, technically, irrelevant, because either way she was imposing her rule. However, Klark and co are quick to point out that we live in a 'democracy' - ie majority control - and the majority were overwhelmingly opposed. You cannot dispute that. Neither can they.
"It's harder to do what is right."
Apparently. Much easier to cave in - in spite of your employers consistently telling you what they don't want.
There is a very good post over on Sir Humphries this morning on the aftermath of war-from the losing side. Neville Chamberlain was essentially a businessman turned politician. Deals being the essence of the day. Trouble is you can't deal with people who are dealing with you in bad faith. It's like making an arrangement with a cobra. I put Ms Bradford in this category. Her alleged legitimate concerns for children are a front for her controlling socialist agenda. If you think this smacking bill is manipulative just wait, there is bound to be more coming as these people seek to restrain the remaining liberties of NZ with their global warming hysteria.
John Key would be advised to read Psycho Milt's post to remind him of where making deals with ratbags takes societies.
I don't think John Key would take any notice of a librarian calling himself Psycho Milt ;-)
Adolf has been on the money about this though.
Sus said "Whether 80% or 20% were opposed to Bradford's bill was, technically, irrelevant..."
That's a good 360! You people have been trumpeting this 'statistic' for months! Also your foaming about CYFS spiriting children away is hysterical nonsense, best suited to those who hide under the bed reading Revelations.
Really you and PC are excellent contrarian indicators, you get it wrong so often. Let me explain this financial indicator, which Key is well aware of as a trader...
The more people who stand to be surprised by a given turn in the market, the more money you stand to make. Now the contrarian doesn't have a copy of tomorrow's Herald under his arm --and he doesn't read the future in the stars. He is merely a better judge of man. He knows that when men get together, they tend to amplify and reinforce each other's sentiments. The reality is usually very different.
Throughout history the majority has NOT been right - the majority has have been consistently wrong.
Key will be our next PM.
Anon, you miss my point entirely. Read the "however". Clark's happy enough to use 'majority in favour' rhetoric when it suits her.
Your penultimate comment says it all. I, on the other hand, don't give a continental as to whether the majority is "right" or "wrong".
My only concern is with the respect of individual freedom.
And as for concerns about CYFS being 'hysterical nonsense', your naivety is breathtaking. Glad you've got so much faith in Cindy Kiro. You're going to need it!
Key the next PM? He may well be. But if last week's Southland speech is anything to go by, we'll barely notice the difference ...
ps: why the anonymity?
An individual does not have the 'freedom' to hit children. One's children are not chattels and physical integrity does not stop at the door of the family home. No Right Turn and other experts have stated that protection from violence is is a primary govt role many times.
You ask what Key stands for? He stands for the right to live free from the fear of corporal punishment and violence, and human rights for all.
I work with CYFS in my charitable mentoring role with Barnados. There are no 'reds under the bed' I'm afraid. We try to keep families together, not split them up over trivialities. You are fearmongering and will be proven wrong, as you have been in every political matter.
The anonymity is because of harrassment, and will continue.
Anon, Working in a charitable mentoring role -if you are actually down at the dirty coalface - should enable you to recognise that the children most at risk will not benefit from the removal of section 59. Just as the illegality of violence between men and women doesn't do a damn thing to lessen it. "Sending messages" just doesn't wash in certain sectors of the community and if you were honest you would admit as much. I work for a charity and observe some of the worst dysfunction (although they are not the families I have been assigned to). Here's some ideas. CYFS should stop encouraging pregnant girls onto the DPB when they have no ability, or care, to nourish and protect their children. CYFS should be encouraging adoption instead of stigmatising it. CYFS and Barnardos should be screaming about children being used as meal tickets. Not fiddling about promoting time-wasting legislation.
Anon, you crack me up. Talk about holier than thou. Typical Self-Anointed we-know-best thinking.
For the umpteenth time, those who cannot tell the difference between torture and a smacked hand are barking mad. Further, they should be kept as far away from children as possible - because in their ignorance they achieve nothing, except aid and abet the monsters who do torture.
That you are associated with Barnados does not surprise me. I lost respect for that institution a long time ago.
You're right about one thing, though. There are no reds under the bed. The odious bastards came out years ago. They're well and truly in them; every govt dept; every local council; every blasted agency.
"You ask what Key stands for? He stands for the right to live free from the fear of corporal punishment and violence, and human rights for all."
Gee what a guy. Put like that, he sounds as wholesome as a glass of full-cream milk.
I'd need a bloody good slug of Kahlua to swallow it, though!
ps: Oh, have no 'fear' about harassment re the anonymous thing. I might disagree and even detest your opinion, but in true libertarian style I defend your right to say it, etc.
(It's scary statists like Key and Clark who want to limit your rights to free speech!)
If you really cared for humanity, instead of flailing around trying to justify your own sins, you would spend you time addressing the appalling low parenting standards in this country and the high levels of family violence.
Instead you choose to demonise a decent, self-made man. This says more about you than me and others who support children' rights.
Your opinions do not matter however. You are so out of touch with reality a dead dog could beat you in the polls.
If you don't want CYFS and the Police to take notice of you STOP HITTING CHILDREN.
How hard is that?
Anon, anyone can report you to the police, whether you hit or not. Just like these days it is not uncommon in a divorce to have mothers accusing fathers of incest. This just lowers the bar even more.
And anon, wasn't dear Sue always telling us this wasn't about good parents getting in contact with the police?
Now you're saying they will and should. Exactly what we've told everyone was the intention of the law.
"Justify my own sins"? Gee, I was right. You *are* sanctimonious! You confuse me with the scum who fathered the Kahui infants. Get over yourself.
As for "addressing the appalling low parenting standards in this country and the high levels of family violence", well now you're talking. So let's start by defining the cause.
It wouldn't have anything to do with rampant welfare and its associated misery, created by several decades of socialist bastards shamelessly buying votes election after election? Lindsay provides several good places to start in her short post.
Keep on thinking the state's there to protect you, if it makes you feel better. Your mate John Key will thank you for it. But the state's crap at protection as far as I'm concerned. The Kahui twins might still be alive and well had the state agencies acted.
Here's the thing: Who should control whom - the individual or the state?
Hey, the word verification for the last post was ...
hitrooth
Now *that's* funny!
Post a Comment