Family Intergrity’s blog have some comments from Family First about a recent speech by Sue Bradford in Dunedin. Her grasp on reality has not improved.
Some statements from that post (which is sourced from the ODT):
- The “most powerful forces” working against the law change were those involved in the petition for a referendum on the issue (FALSE – IT’S THE HUGE PROPORTION OF NZ’ERS).
Sue has no idea, or is politically unwilling to admit that it is in fact the people of New Zealand rising up against her.
- There was no question the petition had been “amazingly successful” (TRUE) given that it was very difficult to meet the required 10% target, she said. “They have poured a huge amount of time and money into it. (TIME YES MONEY NO) ”
Again, she is willfully ignorant or deliberately lying for political purpose. Exactly where is money being spent on collecting signatures? No, parents are spending their own time collecting signatures on streets, malls and public events.
- “I feel sure some of the people who signed it then have changed their mind since (FALSE),
Wishful thinking at it’s most extreme!
- Her biggest concern would be any attempt to change the law to define an acceptable level and nature of violence, as that would send the message violence against children was acceptable (FALSE),
Violence is was and always will be illegal – however force that is reasonable in the circumstances might be, and that is what we want.
- The role of academics and researchers in any future debate would be “incredibly important”.
Or more accurately, their willingness to put aside their professional integrity and lie.
- There was no evidence people were being “dragged off to court” for minor offences (FALSE)
Another outrageous falsehood – how many is that so far? Cases have been all over the news and Family First ran an advertisement over the weekend highlighting the latest ones.
- and she welcomed research presented at the seminar which showed 44% of voters were in favour of the new legislation (FALSE),
The research actually showed that only 44% would admit to breaking the law. That’s actually extraordinary high, not low.
- she said. “While Family First are creating the perception 80% are against it, I feel this is much more in line and that the proportion is about 50-50. (FALSE)”
And how do Family First do that? Why, by pointing out survey after survey that show that 80% figure holding true.
But I guess that’s another lie that serves it’s purpose.
Something should go here, maybe later. 
2 responses to “Sue Bradford at Children’s Issues Centre national seminar”
Speaking of gaining political mandate arising from petitions:
Sue Kedgley of the Greens blogs: “Tomorrow I will present my 37 thousand signature petition calling for mandatory country of origin labelling of all fresh and single component food to the Health Select Committee.”
Eat Your Greens
Regarding Sue Bradford and Co:
They continue to confuse a smack in discipline as equivalent to child abuse and violence. I suspect it is this blinkered equivocation between a smack and being abusive that worries parents so much.
The thought of the State being able to march in and steal ones children because a neighbour thought they heard a smack, all because the State are desperate to reshape society by poking at the middle class to somehow cure the real dysfunctional families of their pretty specific and identifiable issues is quite scary.
If the State could offer an open and transparent family court system, a very clear and effective process for managing complaints about zealous CYFS workers, and show a great deal of respect for family’s as the key unit that makes our communities function, then I might be less worried. Frankly though, the State has proven to be inept in these areas.