Thursday, 22 November 2007

Honest John?

Good for Whale Oil:

Subject: Time to stand up and be true to your word!

Dear Sir,
We believed you when you said that the first time this happened you would stand up and commit to scrapping this law. No amount of spin will get you off the hook here.

Please read this :

Now show us that it is worth staying in NZ . And show us that National has some guts.
Kind Regards, Whaleoil
I'm sure readers will have no problem composing a similar email to Sue Bradford, who said that the law would be treated by police and prosecutors with "common sense"; that it wouldn't catch good parents, only those who are killing "our" children.

Bullshit. "The law of common sense" that in various contexts Bradford, Key and Annette King have argued will protect people from inappropriate police attention should have another think about delivering laws that they argue won't be fully enforced. As I said here yesterday in respect of the Electoral Finance Bill,
A law with draconian provisions that aren't intended to be applied is bad law. A politician who introduces such a law and who argues that they won't be applied is either a fool or a liar -- and in either case they're a tyrant.


  1. So someone who causes bruising on their child, and whose wife takes photos of the evidence is a good parent?

    I'm interested in what your wife thinks about this BTW.

    But whatever u say homey.

    Just don't expect a lot of support from anyone outside the beltway.

  2. Hi Anon (or is that my old mate in drag?).

    It's true that, according to the Wairarapa Age-Times, the eight-year old sustained bruising. It didn't say as to the extent and it's very easy for a child to bruise.

    Maybe the dad did go overboard and grab him roughly before smacking him three times on the bum. That tells me that the law is still an ass (!) because he'd still be charged, whether or not he lost it.

    So for a momentary lapse of control, the man has a record. Perhaps deservedly.

    But according to the same article, the kid's now lording it over his dad. So let me put something to you. In ten years time that child will be an adult. What of the psychological and societal impact of him thinking he can get away with things or escape discipline? There's a recipe for success.

    More, 40 odd years ago under this legislation it defies logic that my mother could have been charged for smacking me - once - in broad daylight outside the PO when I stupidly did something I was told not to do. Well, let me tell you that there's a world of difference between Chris Kahui and my mum, thank God, but not in the eyes of this insanity.

    And as for Sue Bradford, well, she doesn't give a toss about Chris Kahui, the Masterton dad or at-risk children. Like the good commie she is, she's just working toward her ideal of more and more state control.

    But you keep thinking she means well, if it makes you feel better. Just don't expect a lot of support outside of the usual suspects: other statists.

  3. "Honest John" refers to the real thing, John Howard, not this wee state homey refugee you are talking about. Hell, the local john can't even tell a straight lie. Come on!


  4. The man has previous convictions for violence - what a surprise eh?

    There is no freedom without freedom from violence, and freedom from violence in the home is a basic human right. Jphn Key has nailed his colors to the mast about this, and I hope he doesn't back down.

    Get your invisible hand out of my face and then we'll talk about freedom. Shame on you.

  5. Now *Ruthie, (it is you, isn't it sweet pea?), there you go again, missing the point.

    I don't dispute that if the man is violent, he deserves punishment. But your convenient one-size-fits-all definition of 'violence' doesn't add up. Beware the idiot who doesn't recognise degree. He's the fuckwit who confuses a tapped hand with a fence paling.

    You hope John Key doesn't back down? With his record? That's the one thing you *can* usually count on him doing! :)

    "Get your invisible hand out of my face". Couldn't agree more. Specially if you refer to the 'invisible hands' in the form of Stalinist Sue and Communist Kiro ...

    *oh, and if I have taken your name in vain, well, consider this a head-start for the next time we disagree!

  6. Get your invisible hand out of my face and then we'll talk about freedom. Shame on you.

    Anon , shame on you for feeling hurt from someone else's disciplining their own children which has got nothing to do with you. You don't feed this child, clothe or even pay for his upbringing and welfare? I don't give a shit if someone discipline their own children, since it won't stop me from paying my mortgage, buying my weekly grocery, enjoying my life, etc... Society's problem is their own and not mine. If you think that it is your problem, then get the fuck out there and start a volunteer service to help out stressed parents.

  7. :..and freedom from violence in the home is a basic human right"
    Firstly, who invented that particular "right"?
    Freedom from violence in the home may be desirable, it may be ideal, but..a "right"?
    You lot are bloody good at inventing rights as it suits you--what about the right of adults to run their own fucking lives free from the interference of smarmy-mouthed women who think they have some kind of "right" to impose their mommying ideas on society at large, eh?
    And for your information, before you open your idiot mouth, I never so much as laid a hand on either of my kids, so your usual kneejerk "just another brutal parent" horseshit won't fly here.


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.