International Cat Speculators Since 2006

Posts tagged ‘Sue Bradford’

Sue Bradford does not live in the real world

Not even close.

Police national youth aid coordinator Inspector Chris Graveson caused a stir when he said teachers were legally entitled and “duty-bound” to physically intervene if they witnessed a pupil being attacked by another.

Graveson said restraint could be forceful enough, it might even leave bruising.

“You hear people saying, `You can’t touch children. You can’t do this, you can’t do that’.

“(But) if a child’s being attacked, you’re duty-bound to intervene,” Graveson said at a New Zealand Educational Institute seminar in Wellington on Friday.

Youth violence had become significantly worse in the past five years, and some students had even used weapons in attacks on others.

“They can cause serious harm to another child. They’re serious assaults we’re talking about,” Graveson said.

But Bradford, who initiated the anti-smacking legislation in Parliament, said: “Teachers can use force to stop a child from causing harm to themselves and others and that’s just common sense.

“But what concerns me with the comments from the police officer is you can use force up to the level of bruising the child.

“That might lead to some teachers using what I would consider unreasonable force.”

The Green MP said police officers were specially trained to deal with violent situations.

“Teachers are not police officers and have not been trained for that,” Bradford said.

So if a student is murdering another, and the teacher can’t prevent that without busing a child that teacher should wait for the police, who are trained in this sort of thing.

Reason to home school #5,123…

Who has Standards?

Which party wants to maintain standards in our parliament?

However, the biggest threat to parliamentary standards was posed by the Greens’ Sue Bradford. She twice raised the case of a beneficiary who had allegedly been told to “f … off” by a Work and Income case manager. The first time a weary Wilson said she would “look at the matter” after United Future’s Peter Dunne objected to the use of such language, saying it was unacceptable even if Bradford was quoting someone else.

By the time Bradford spoke again in the following general debate, Assistant Speaker Ross Robertson was in the chair. No sooner had she loudly uttered the offending word than he was on his feet demanding she apologise for using such a “profanity” in the House.

Bradford complained that Wilson had yet to rule. But Robertson was unmoved. He had made his own ruling on the matter and that was that.

Having found an excuse to try and break the rules, Sue has to try again. The woman has no shame.

For a woman who is intent on restricting the ability of parents, she’s quite keen on pushing the boundaries herself.

Except where parents want the right to discipline their children to make the world a better place, she wants to utter profanities in the highest court in the land.

What a nice woman!

Smacking Still Common, Thanks to Sue Bradford

Smacking, it’s the incredibly unpopular law change that just won’t go away.

Almost half of parents with children under 12 have smacked them in the past year, a survey has found.

The Family First lobby group commissioned a market research company to poll New Zealanders on their attitudes to parental discipline since the anti-smacking law came into effect in June last year.

It found that 48 per cent of respondents with children under 12 had smacked their child after the law change.

Now, there’s one mistake here. this is not a survey of those who have smacked, it’s a survey of those who would admit that to a pollster. Let’s face it, would you admit to (what the law now says is) abusing your children to a person on the telephone? Because of that, I’d call these numbers a minimum.

“For a new law to be ignored by so many people who are willing to risk a police or [Child, Youth and Family] investigation indicates just how out of step with reality this law is.”

Again, I disagree with Bob. Sue Bradford is up and front the person to thank for this after she told us all so many, many times that good parents had nothing to fear.

Ms Bradford said yesterday that the new poll indicated an improvement in attitudes, as a year on only 48 per cent admitted having done so.

“We are well on the way; that is a great result,” she said.

On the way to what? After all, Sue Bradford herself said…

this is an anti-beating, anti-child-violence bill, not a piece of legislation that will see tens of thousands of well-meaning parents dragged into court for the occasional light smack…

Why would any well-meaning parent stop giving the occasional light smack when the woman behind the bill says that’s fine? So where exactly are we supposed to be “on the way” to?

Men, people aged more than 60 and those from rural areas opposed it most strongly.

He said only 19 per cent strongly or somewhat agreed with the new law despite the police discretion clause, down from 29 per cent last year.

If The Green’s recent form is anything to go by, expect a law to go through shortly “readjusting the inequality of voting between rural and urban areas”. ;P

I most love this bit thought!

Mr McCoskrie said 85 per cent of those polled – up from 82 per cent a year ago – agreed the new law should be changed to state that parents who gave their children a smack that was reasonable and for the purpose of correction were not breaking the law.

Because that would be a repeal of the law! :D

Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro said yesterday that she had not seen the survey.

But she urged people to move on and learn better parenting skills.

“The key message is, ‘For goodness sake, can’t we move on?’ So much energy has been wasted debating this.”

Dr Kiro said people needed to learn and be encouraged in positive parenting.

Methinks someone is feeling the heat in a big way.  As Lindsay points out…

That’s an interesting attitude in itself. Very. It reveals that the Children’s Commissioner does not care for discussion or debate when it comes to what she wants to do. To those of us who would put up objections, the key message is actually, “you are wasting your energy”. Presumably we will be wasting our energy opposing any other of her initiatives like mandatory screening of every baby’s home life.

I wonder how many people are on a plane to Australia because Kiro, Bradford and Clark are not?

Sue Bradford still struggling with simple truth

Save the Humans points out a dozy in a recent Sue Bradford speech.

At the same time we’ve got peak oil – the point where half the oil in the world has been extracted and global maximum oil production is reached. This is not the end of oil, but it is the end of cheap oil, as we see every time we go to fill our cars up at the petrol station. We’ll be paying $2 a litre within months, and I think the climb to $3 will happen quite quickly after that.

Now, STH points out that petrol coming up to $3 is much less likely than Sue thinks.

But the issue I have is that we have not extracted “half the oil in the world”. We’re not even close.

See, 2/3 of the oil in the world is in oil sands, and these have only been in production for the last few years.

Not only that, but major fields have been discovered in recent years. Not to mention old fields that keep on going, thanks in large part to new technology.

But I guess that doesn’t sound as good. Tales of Doom are always good sellers.

I also noted this quote.

Last year American farmers diverted 20% of their maize crop, one of the world’s main food sources, to ethanol. Rich nations continue to keep other countries’ agricultural exports out of their markets, ensuring more of the poorest people face starvation at home. Food riots have broken out in Mexico, India and elsewhere.

Sheesh. Dammed if you do, dammed if you don’t. Ignore the greenies and you’re destroying the environment, listen to them and you’re killing the poor. We did try to point that out you know!

Another:

Matt’s comments absolutely epitomize some of the contradictions we face. He was saying, I think, that we shouldn’t have the 10 cent regional fuel tax because it would hit low paid workers and beneficiaries the hardest, which of course it will. The Green Party on the other hand supports the tax, because we are fighting for it to go towards the electrification of Auckland’s rail system. We know how urgent it is to get the trains running from a renewable energy source, and to get them running a lot more frequently – so that the citizens of our largest city can get around in a future where many will be unlikely to be able to afford to take their cars to work or study or play, even if they wanted to.

Funny, most Aucklanders cannot take the train to work, “even if they wanted to”.

Alongside this we believe that it is urgent for the gap between rich and poor to be decreased in this country, and that measures to address this are equally urgent.

The minimum wage should be lifted to at least $15 an hour immediately. The ERA should be overhauled, including strengthening the ability to use multi employer collective bargaining and agreements and to deal more strongly with freeloading.

Heck, if you want a prosperous society, why stop with a $15/hr minimum wage? Why not go the whole hog, and up it to $30, or $100! Imagine how that would solve our wage gap!

But nothing beats the opening lines.

The capitalist media and commercial TV keep trying to cocoon us and persuade us that the days of protest and activism are over except perhaps for a few fringe deranged people. But what all of us here I’m sure have learned, and need to keep remembering and passing on, is that no matter what kind of Government we have, it is essential that the political struggle on the streets and in our workplaces and communities continues.

I for one vote that the greens put that quote on all their advertising. It’s a sure winner. Just add that bit about Christians getting off by beating their children and you’ve got the perfect election message.

Section 60

We all know about section 59 of the crimes act.

Sue Bradford is very fond of telling us that children are the only group not protected from assault under the law.

Wrong!

Welcome to section 60.

Seem’s Mia’s just discovered it :)

Updated:

Found one, but not quite what I was after.
“The Green Party cannot understand why it is illegal to assault policemen, wives, husbands and strangers – but not our children. “

Tag Cloud

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 164 other followers