I commented on a thread on Poneke's blog. Since a later comment than mine is already showing up, it is starting to make me wonder whether my contribution (my second on that thread) is going to show at all. So, it appears here...
The problem is that there are two issues here that are being mischieviously confused by Sue Bradford, purely to achieve a political objective.
The first issue is the gross child abuse, including murder, that happens all too often in NZ. That is child bashing, and we all condemn it.
The second issue is loving parental correction of children. This occurs in the context of families where parents want to bring up their children to know right and wrong, what's safe and what's not...
The big lie that NZ has been sold is that the Anti-Smacking Bill is aimed at addressing the first issue. That this is patently false is clear to the vast majority of voters. (It is evident from the unchanged infant murder statistics since the Bill was passed.)
The real objective of Sue Bradford's Bill is to undermine parental authority, and increase State power in the raising of children.
The problem therefore is not smacking of children. The problem is unwarranted State interference in the lives of law-abiding citizens.
Incidentally, if Parliament was serious about addressing the real issues, it would have voted for Chester Borrows amendment.
No comments:
Post a Comment