Wednesday, September 02, 2009

DOWN TO THE DOCTOR’S: Smacking Sue, Tweaking Tuku, & Mocking Michael

Libertarianz leader Dr Richard McGrath takes another irreverent weekly look at some of the past week’s headlines.

1. Bradford: Pro-smackers behind threats – According to Sue Bradford, anyone who opposed the anti-parenting legislation rammed through by the National/Labour socialist grand coalition wants to thrash and maim children. According to Sue, it’s not about parenting – by the way, Sue wants to nationalise parenting, which her Marxist study has taught her will help in dismantling the capitalist system. Sue reckons the resistance to her red plague is coming from people wanting to assault and murder their children. As I have stated previously, what inflamed people (if you would care to listen, Sue) is the fact that you and your ilk want to remove the ability for parents to be able to use physical force to keep their children safe and from doing harm to others, when all attempts to use reason and negotiation have failed.

2. Tukoroirangi Morgan: Maori or Pakeha candidate – who’d get your vote? – The $89 man (remember the boxer shorts?) reckons that not many years ago Maori owned all the land over which Rodney Hide’s Super City Council will preside. That’s stretching it a bit. Before European colonization, land was not owned in the sense that we think of ownership. It was fought over, there was no secure title and thus there was little incentive to improve or develop land as it was likely to be pillaged and looted at the time of the next tribal raid.
    Somehow however Tuku reads in the Treaty of Waitangi a right for ‘indigenous’ people to have special representation on the Super City Council. He laments the fact that the advertising industry seems to feature rich, white people in their promotions. He does have a point in that the Maori ‘brand’ is lumped with negative or controversial extremes. But the answer is not for the government to insult Maori by treating them as powerless victims. It is to empower them by treating them as sovereign individuals, unshackling them from welfare dependency, closing down the violent and increasingly anarchic public schools in which many of them are raised, and allowing them genuine tino rangitiratanga – independence from domination by the state.
    New Zealanders should all be subject to equality under just laws, with no discrimination by race or other accidents of birth. More on this at a later time!

3. Mayor hails first day of gang patch ban – There is now a dress code in W(h)anganui, enforceable by law. Michael Laws has made the River City a laughing stock; unbelievably, Timaru now wants to do the same (no word yet from Otara).
    The ultimate reference for new laws and by-laws should be a Constitution or Bill of Rights. Laws incompatible with this should be struck down. New Zealand has a Bill of Rights of sorts, crafted by Geoffrey Palmer, the man whose face needs punching because of his conspicuous and over-the-top wowserism. Section 14 of Geoffrey’s Bill of Rights states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the right to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind, in any form.” To that section has now beeen added three words: “except in W(h)anganui.”     

See y’all next week!
Doc McGrath

Labels: , ,

2 Comments:

Blogger Ruth said...

Sue wants to nationalise parenting, which her Marxist study has taught her will help in dismantling the capitalist system

Bejus christ the libertarian right's take on this annoys me. I promised myself I wouldn't comment further but what the hell.

The purpose of Bradford's amendment is NOT to eliminate child violence or to "destroy da family". Only those IN the family can destroy it. That's just a red herring which has been dragged into the argument by opponents.

The purpose of the law is to make it easier for courts to convict transgessors. One hopes the law will discourage others, but if it doesn't that is no reason to discard it.

Do you think Boscowan's amendment would have had much affect on child abuse either?

Do you think the pro-smackers were not behind the threats?

9/02/2009 03:00:00 pm  
Anonymous Sus said...

Libertarian "right"? Hmmmm.

"The purpose of Bradford's amendment is NOT to eliminate child violence .."

Oh, but it was, Ruth. Helen Clark herself said so. "To stop the heinous abuse" were her very words ... speaking of red herrings.

9/02/2009 03:52:00 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