Thursday, November 01, 2007

Where are you now, John Boy?

When John Key's gutless, appeasing opportunism allowed the anti-smacking bill to pass into law, he said that if it turned out that the new rules effectively banned light smacking and criminalised the parents, as denied at the time by Sue Bradford and Helen Clark, then he would commit his party to overturning it.

Where's the lying toerag now that parents are being criminalised for light smacking? Just what exactly are his fork-tongued promises worth? Lindsay Perigo isn't the only one who wants to know.

Labels: , , , ,

20 Comments:

Blogger Moz said...

The article only talks about p*lice involvement - have you got inside information that they have actually been convicted of criminal assault and somehow prevented from mentioning that when they talk to the media?

Or do facts not matter?

11/01/2007 01:50:00 pm  
Anonymous DenMT said...

"The police questioned her and the child separately before deciding not to take the matter any further."

Exactly who got criminalised? Sounds to me like evidence the system is standing up perfectly well under the test of common sense.

DenMT

11/01/2007 01:58:00 pm  
Anonymous JimW said...

For fuck's sake DMT. The lady quoted as : "It's brought a lot of trauma to our family unit and unnecessary stress".

The kid is not your fuckn child and the child was not abused, period. It must have wasted her useful time (probably an hour or two) by being interviewed by police. How fuckn idiot for someone like you, not to see the hassle this anti-smacking law has brought to decent parents, irrelevant whether they laid criminal charges or not.

11/01/2007 04:35:00 pm  
Anonymous Eddie said...

The only person saying the family was traumatised is the mother herself. No independent verification.

11/01/2007 04:52:00 pm  
Blogger PC said...

So, Den and Moz, you're okay with teachers asking children "leading questions about their home life"? You're okay with schools acting as shills and informers for CYF? You're comfortable with "a family [that] has been left traumatised" and a child "worried [he] will be taken away"? With police warnings of arrests if "this sort of thing" happened again"? You're quote complacent that a family now has a record with police showing a propensity for violence?

YOu're comfortable that this is the system working "perfectly well"? All because of some aggression in the playground and a hand smack and a push to get a kid to get on with getting dressed for school?

YOu don't think the Bradford/Key law has "effectively banned light smacking"? YOu don't think a police record smears good parents?

You think this is "evidence the system is standing up perfectly well" when the weight of the state comes down on parents for the serious crime of smacking a backside, but you're outraged when the police investigates minor stuff like alleged firearm and terrorism offences?

There seems to be a distinct loss of perspective here, don't you think?

11/01/2007 04:54:00 pm  
Blogger PC said...

Eddie: so you're saying that ipso facto a parent is to be disbelieved, whereas MPs and agents of the state are (just like Al Gore) to be given the benefit of the doubt?

11/01/2007 04:56:00 pm  
Anonymous DenMT said...

PC: I won't be pulling my hankie out immediately for the 'trauma' the woman and her family have been through - not sure exactly how much time elapsed between her getting a CYFS card left on her doorstep, being visited by the Police (who weren't interested in prosecuting her at all) and her scurrying down the road to Family First, and then the media directly afterwards.

If you are that worried about the traumatic impact of being told that your actions are entirely within the law, maybe leave the Sunday rag's number on the bench for a few weeks before dragging your family into the fray again...

To specifically answer your points, are you merely inferring that the school asked 'leading questions,' or is there a media report of this poor woman's case I haven't read?

I remain totally unconvinced as to the 'trauma' suffered by the family. I wonder whether they haven't been cynically exploited by Family First for political ends, but really, being told by two separate enforcement bodies that your correctional behaviour towards your kids is acceptable by them is pretty fucking far from traumatic. Boo hoo.

And you claim the Police have threatened arrests for further similar behaviour. Where did you hear that? Outlandish.

I actually see this as a ringing endorsement of the approach taken by the Police in enforcing this new law. Seems a bit odd that they needed three officers to go around, but the incident obviously slipped well below their tolerance level for prosecution.

As for any 'outrage' shown at the arrest of the Urewera mob, again you seem perfectly happy to ascribe any handily contrary opinion you like to me (I'm a great big Al Gore fanboy etc) regardless of the truth of the matter. Or perhaps you were talking about Moz - who knows. For the record, I am pleased that the cops are doing their jobs putting these guys before a Court.

I'd be super interested in seeing some of these other sources you seem to have access to on this poor family's heartless maltreatment at the hands of the uncaring State edifice.

At the end of the day, if you want to point the finger, point it at the nosy neighbour. The school was acting on info that (it seems) was volunteered by the kid as an excuse for misbehaviour.

DenMT

11/01/2007 05:42:00 pm  
Anonymous lgm said...

DenMT

At the end of the day the finger should be pointed at the vile creatures who empowered this legislation. It should also be pointed at vile apologists such as yourself for supporting it. These are the abusers who enable the nosey neighbours to cause harm. You have sought a means of recruiting them into an informal surveillance network, further claiming a legitimacy for state control over all children and their parents.

How low you are.

LGM

11/01/2007 06:17:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You think this is "evidence the system is standing up perfectly well" when the weight of the state comes down on parents for the serious crime of smacking a backside, but you're outraged when the police investigates minor stuff like alleged firearm and terrorism offences?

Liberty Scott wrote a good post last night...conservatives are just as bad as 'liberals' here...either you have a zero tolerance for violence or you don't. Pushing, shoving, and smacking your kid on the ass is entry-level violence. Nutters running around with AK's and threatening to kill is too.

The moral of the story is keep your hands off kids and you won't come to the attention of the police.

Re Key - he is between a rock and a hard place - everyone you talk to says he is being naive and making mistakes whenever he brings up privatisation or anything like that. It's very disappointing. NZ will get the govt it deserves, and I doubt Key will hang around if he loses. So that should make you happy. Peace.

11/01/2007 06:19:00 pm  
Anonymous Hysterical said...

Tell us that story about global-warming alarmists again uncle Pete.

11/01/2007 06:37:00 pm  
Blogger KG said...

"Pushing, shoving, and smacking your kid on the ass is entry-level violence."
Bollocks.
Following that line of "reasoning, everything is "entry-level" something or other.
And the State intrusion into parenting is entry fucking level totalitarianism.
But then people like you are obviously comfortable with that, eh?

11/01/2007 06:46:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PC,

How do you decide who owns their own body, or do you extend self-ownership only to people who fit within arbitrarily-defined criteria?

11/01/2007 07:08:00 pm  
Anonymous Sam Pierson said...

DenMT, LGM has it right. You are an apologist for an informal surveillance state. If you've seen 'The Lives of Others' that's what you're an apologist for. Sure, not for a formal arm of the state, but the effect is the same. Parents are now monitored by whoever might have 'suspicion' for whatever reason. And the cops come visit. And you don't think that's traumatic. Hope your 1000 qualifications keep you warm, but this is the reality. PC's asked you if you were comfy with this. Seems you are. So low.

11/01/2007 07:46:00 pm  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

Unfortunately, people confuse violence and abuse with discipline.

A smack on the hand, delivered as discipline is not the same as punching someone in anger.

A whack on the soccer field, as an accidental byproduct of an enthusiastic tackle doesn't get the thought police screaming "come see the violence inherent in the system - ban soccer."

Oh hang on, maybe that's next?

11/01/2007 09:53:00 pm  
Blogger PC said...

DEN:
"...are you merely inferring that the school asked 'leading questions,' or is there a media report of this poor woman's case I haven't read ... And you claim the Police have threatened arrests for further similar behaviour. Where did you hear that.. I'd be super interested in seeing some of these other sources you seem to have access to..."

Den, I've simply quoted from media reports of what happened, most of which I would have expected you to have read before declaring your satisfaction with what you think occurred -- particular for someone "super interested" in such sources.

11/01/2007 10:20:00 pm  
Anonymous Softcock said...

It must be an amazing feeling to always be completely right.

11/02/2007 08:04:00 am  
Anonymous lgm said...

Poor little Softy. Nothing of substance to contribute- just a clumsy smear instead of addressing the issues. Not much to you is there.

LGM

11/02/2007 09:43:00 am  
Anonymous Sus said...

Ah Ruthie/Anon, you still don't get it. Unlike LibertyScott, you still fail to distinguish between 'adult' and 'child'. Paedophiles do that, too ...

Glad to hear that you're ok with the whole spectre of the state thing, Den. You're showing those Greenie-Red Party colours!

Spkg of the Green Party: where's Sue Bradford these days? What are we up to now .. four or five cases of unspeakable child torture/murder since the bill to end all that was passed?

And not a peep from the architect. But, of course. She's got what she wanted. And so has Clark.

11/07/2007 11:09:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know the difference between adult and child SUS. If adults want to hit each other on the ass in the name of discipline I have no problem with it.

When one person in the equation is big and powerful, and one is little and powerless, I DO have a problem, and I'm pleased to say so does John Key.

Even if Key loses, his crowning achievement in my eyes will be enabling this legislation - concretising his zero tolerance for violence in the home - the initiation of force (which includes smacking kids).

He is a good man, if a naive politician.

11/08/2007 05:38:00 pm  
Anonymous simond said...

Anon : If adults want to hit each other on the ass...

I would love to do that with other female adults in completely nude.

11/08/2007 10:45:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

<< Home