Bob’s weekly email pointed out this column. I’m working on a full fisk, but here’s a bullet point list of what must be one of the most bizarre opinion peaces I have ever seen.
Ironically, the item is titled “A question smacking of deceit“. It’s rather odd choice considering her rather loose regard for factual statements.
- Linley spends her holidays telling her children stories about how teachers beat children for misspelling words
- She confuses the recent law change, suggesting it was the location, rather than the person of authority that is in question
- She tells us that “we” want to beat children (in our homes)
- She believes there is “clear evidence that the world around us is chock-full of people who couldn’t successfully raise a family of tadpoles to adulthood” – I wonder what she does for a living frankly that she can make such sweeping insults of the population.
- She thinks having public consultation on controversial law changes is “utter tedium”
- She misstates the law change in multiple ways
- States that making something parents do a criminal act does not criminalise parents
- States that a doubling of complaints is “very few”
- Effectively states that 4 legal prosecutions have “not happened” when they have
- Implies wide debate is all that’s needed for law change, even if that debate results in rejection of the change
- Apparently believes that if parliament passes a law against the will of the people the people should not use their rights to oppose that
- States that a law that is clearly a disaster, with many families traumatised, but not at all reducing child abuse is “working well”
- Ignores the fact that the $10m bill is due to the former government’s decision not to include it in the general election
- After telling us that teachers beat their students, tells us this is was “never legal”
- Falsely suggests that parents have “attacked” their children with “a plank of wood” and “a horsewhip”
- Blames the media for using the same term for the bill as the author did, using the words “lazy”, “inaccurate”, “partisan” to describe this.
- Sees things in the referendum question that are not there
- Implies that parents cannot or will not be prosecuted. So if that’s not going to happen, why was the law changed?
- Again conflates “reasonable force” with serious beatings by implication
- And again…
- And again…
…For example, I am often struck by the frequency with which students from Victoria University’s campus stroll in front of my car, forcing me to wait for them while they lumber trustingly across the road.
These students apparently have no inkling that, far from sharing their parents’ amused tolerance of them, I would really, really like to run them over.
I think I can safely say I loathe everything about the young. Their infantile hobbies (if you’re too old for a pair of Spider-Man boxer shorts, you’re too old for a skateboard – trust me on this one), their absurd retro fashion (Molly Ringwald called, people – she wants her clothes back) and, most of all, their self-importance (there is nothing cool about making coffee for a living, kids, and “barista” is Spanish for “chump”).
Of course, the other reason I dislike the young is because they are heartbreakingly beautiful, have their whole lives in front of them and are full of passion, energy and hope, all qualities that I seem to have mislaid.
Funny how a person who’s quite willing to conflate loving discipline with savage beatings admits hating and wanting to run down the same people she purports to protect – once they get a little older.
Update: looks like this isn’t the first time she’s written a column so bereft of factual content.
Irrespective of her opinions, Ms Boniface has broken the golden rule of journalism, and doesn’t let the facts get in the way of a good opinion-piece. She confuses our electoral system with that of the US in her very first sentence, forgetting that New Zealand has a three-year electoral cycle. She refers to a “Southland farmer” when in fact the imprisoned agrarian was from Taranaki (and I suspect must now exercise as much caution as Jeremy Wells in visiting the deep south!), and reports that he was jailed for writing an abusive letter to the PM when in fact he went much further than that, causing major consternation at the Beehive. Sheesh, if expressing your thoughts about the PM was an imprisonable offence, there’d be a jail on every corner!
Here at Keeping Stock we don’t agree with Ms Boniface’s views on Labour’s agenda on social engineering. And we find it a little partisan that in eulogising Helen Clark, Boniface has ignored the many “gates” that Helen Clark has passed through in the last nine years, some at breakneck speed! She ignores the fact that more Ministers have been fired by the Clark administration than any of its predecessors. And she ignores the fact that Helen Clark’s last stand was to try and cling to power not on her record, but by smearing her opponent.