Best of luck, Len.

Related posts:

1. Official Nonsense
2. Ludicrous Len
3. Viewpoints

This sort of thing is nothing but thuggery. If we indulge in it, we are no better than Robert Mugabe’s butcher boys and have fewer mitigating circumstances than they.

Related posts:

1. Change of Target
2. Zimbabwe Update
3. Worthless

This morning Ms Bradford said not too much should be read into the result.

“I would have a much greater respect for the referendum result if it was based on a clearer question,” she said.

“The ‘YES’ vote is a vote for keeping the law as it is, providing children with the same legal protection from violence as adults.

“Even a large ‘NO’ vote tonight won’t be a clear mandate to the Government to act in any particular way,” she said.

One wonders exactly what would it take for Bradford to admit that her dreadful piece of legislation is an affront to most parents. How much evidence of the country’s displeasure would she need to change this odious law? I suspect that absolutely nothing would change her mind. I have long been of the opinion that Ms. Bradford cares a great deal more for marxist ideology than she cares for the children of New Zealand. Her concern has never been for our horrendous child abuse statistics. The whole exercise in repealing section 59 has been only about the application of control. Had New Zealand buckled down and meekly accepted the repeal, it would not have taken her long to find another encroachment on the functioning of the family. Children’s “rights” (without responsibilities) would have been extended, further eroding parental authority. Bradford’s purpose has always been nothing less than the eventual destruction of the biological family, replacing it with a state upbringing.

You may have guessed from the tenor of this post that I consider Bradford to be a dangerous ideologue who has been given altogether too much power . It is therefore with some horror that I read this:

Ms Bradford will receive a New Zealand Psychological Society Public Interest Award for her contributions to social justice and psychology, including her determination to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act.

This is despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that smacking for corrective purposes has any deleterious affect on children. Of course, the reason why there is no evidence is that most studies have lumped ordinary smacking with violent child abuse. As these studies show the children are harmed psychologically – this leads psychologists to the conclusion that smacking is harmful. Unfortunately, they don’t seem to realise that it is their presupposition that smacking is the same as violent child abuse that produces this result. So far the only study that has bothered to separate the two has demonstrated admirably that smacking makes absolutely no difference to a child’s mental well-being. What a surprise </sarc>.

So it does not surprise me that the psychologists seek to reward Bradford for her egregious attempt at altering New Zealand society against the will of the majority. But the timing is terrible, reminding us once again that the New Zealand Psychological Society is thoroughly out of touch with “normal” people.

John Key needs to move on this quickly. It would be a very bad look if he does not at least set up some sort of inquiry to look into possible changes to the law. He would do well to reverse the repeal immediately, while the inquiry is taking place, but I suspect that would be too much of a back-down. It would be wise to put this issue to bed well before the next election.

And “the law seems to be working” is not going to cut it. 90% of the country thinks the law sucks…

Related posts:

1. Key’s Achilles Heel?
2. Wow! *That* Worked!
3. Criminals

I see the Herald is continuing in its quest to make Bennett look as bad as possible by suggesting she is vindictive – quoting Sue Bradford:

The National Government is sending out a loud message that if any unemployed person or beneficiary dares to speak in public about issues that affect them personally, the Government will use all its power to discredit and humiliate them,” Ms Bradford said, referring also to the case of Bruce Burgess .

Actually, the government is sending out the message that those who attack its policies should probably have their facts straight before starting. And Bradford appear to have forgotten that the previous administration’s main mode of defense was entirely ad hominem.

The Herald also suggests Bennett is stupid, by emphasising she checked the privacy website before releasing the information. In reality, one would expect the privacy website to be able to provide reasonable advice, though, admittedly, she would probably have been better off speaking to a crown lawyer. The advice would have been no more sound, but it would have been a better look.

The Blogosphere, as I have mentioned is highly polarised on this issue, with all the right wing blogs crowing about yet another Labour attack gone wrong. The left are all up in arms about privacy issues with Tim Selwyn even calling for Bennetts resignation (not going to happen, Tim. Key has already added his support for her move – good luck on the no confidence debate). It is like the two parties are not even talking about the same event.

I would agree with Colin Espiner on this one, and ask really “what’s the big deal?” Colin correctly points out the Labour would have released the same information, but covertly, leaking it to a journalist or two, rather than releasing it officially.

This means that, essentially, Paula Bennett is being castigated by Labour for being upfront and forthright. My feeling is that Key should point this out in no uncertain terms, making sure that the public see the issues for what they really are. Hopefully, someone will actually lay a complaint with the commissioner, because, I am fairly certain, that she will find in Bennetts favour, her comments today, notwithstanding.

Related posts:

1. Bennett Spam
2. Toothless
3. Invalid Hysteria

Oneroa reached across Mason to the cot by the bed and grabbed the baby by her clothes to lift her on to the bed. She fell between the cot and the bed to the floor. He then yanked her off the floor on to the bed. He did not tell Mason he had dropped the baby.

Mason noticed the baby’s right leg was floppy about 8am. They did not take her to hospital till late in the morning and stopped on the way at a pharmacy to get methadone for their drug-treatment programme.

Judge Becroft said Oneroa clearly felt he needed to hide what had happened from Mason. He had been warned in the past about treating the baby roughly and had told police he “picked her up like a rugby ball“. [Emphasis mine]

Here is a man with a clear history of child abuse who has fractured a baby’s leg who is slapped on the wrist with a minor charge of neglect. In fairness to the police, this is probably all they could get to stick, despite the fact that it is very uncommon for a baby to fracture a leg falling off a bed. It is far more likely this man broke the baby’s leg man-handling back onto the bed. But this is okay because he wasn’t smacking the child to correct it. He just broke the baby’s leg by accident despite being “warned in the past about treating the baby roughly”. What a tragic illustration of the utter moral failure of the children’s commissioner and Bradford’s silly and unnecessary law.

Some questions I would like answered:

1. What exactly were a drug addict mother and a father with a previous warning for man-handling babies doing with a small vulnerable baby.
2. How much warning do CYFS need before intervening?
3. Are the other children not now to be considered very “at risk”?
4. And will Oneroa’s home detention not exacerbate that risk, especially with the mother out doing community detention.
5. Why no mandatory courses on parenthood and anger management?

This is the sort of stuff that makes me want to weep. This was not a baby “at risk”, this was a disaster waiting to happen.

And nothing was done.

And it happened.

Related posts:

1. Death Blow to Section 92a?
2. Missed The Point
3. Missed Point