Sue Bradford was on Breakfast TV this morning regarding one of her supporters being harassed by the police for taping their child on the hand.
Sue took great pains to paint her own supporter as an abuser, who ought to be reported. She clearly had no interest or concern regarding potential harassment or abuse of power by the police (unless you’re a terrorist) and never answered directly concerns about people living in fear because of the law she pushed through parliament.
The following is a rough outline of what was said. I really couldn’t stomach listening to it any more than I had to. I really couldn’t. This woman deserves a life sentence for what she’s done.
Q: Do you think this family was unfairly targeted?
A: This case demonstrates the law is working, I think it’s really great that the school had the courage to report the incident. It sounds like the processes Police and CYFS outlined to select committee are working as promised… They don’t get really heavy at first if it’s really mild at first , but if it happens again [even if it’s “really mild” – S1] they take a behind the scenes to see what’s really going on in that family. [otherwise known as “getting heavy”] SB is hearing of incidents where people are reporting people “hitting their children, surely this is what we want if we’re serious about reducing violence against children.
Needless to say, she shows no sign of concern that this is happening, and even appears like she might be proud of turning New Zealand into a western version of East Germany.
Q: Obviously the family was extremely traumatised by this, obviously other families may have to go through this?
A: Leading to change in culture of violence. It is no longer seen as ok to hit kids. Must learn other methods.
No concern whatsoever for families.
Q: Is Sue still confident that police?
A: Never going to have ultimate confidence in police, but “at some level” must have confidence… say we can’t make judgements on case. On surface may appear to be simple, but don’t know what else is going on. Totally appropriate for police to be called where people are being hit or beaten.
Don’t trust the police on terrorism, but it’s ok for parents! Sue here clearly insinuates that this woman was beating her children, that the small smack on the hand was just a sign of serious abuse that isn’t being seen by the neighbours.
Q: Rise in cases in CYFS – sign it’s working?
A: Yes, it’s a sign culture of violence is changing. We can’t be afraid of reporting, which is difficult step.
Q: What feedback police getting?
A: Sue can’t answer as doesn’t have govt responsibility.
Silly question, and a good point at which to say I’m not impressed at all with the interviewer.
Q: What would you say to the family that has had to go through this trauma?
A: Please think about different ways of bringing up your children. There are a lot of programs out there, … and the SKIP program overall that can help parents learn alternatives to violence in bringing up their kids. There are many many other ways of bringing up our children that don’t involve hitting or beating them and I would really encourage that family to approach a community organisation like that if they haven’t already.
Sue is hell-bent on portraying this woman as a child beater who just got caught by making a small mistake. Reality is that she’s not just done that, but actually is helping run the groups mentioned!
Q: But in this instance this was a smack on the hand, it seems a bit harsh?
A: This is not the only incident, the whole point of the bill is that no violence against children is acceptable. My video keeps cutting out here, but basically she uses the fact that people have different ideas of “smacking” to imply that a light smack therefore is the same as beating a child. Sue implies that this is where child killers start – light smacks on the hand.
That’s like saying that people have different ideas about what is a reasonable level of alcohol consumption, so anyone taking a sip of beer is binge drinking.
I’d have to say, for a woman who claimed more than once that she was not a saint in her parenting, she’s demanding perfection from every single parent if she’s going to imply what she does here. She seems to have no concern at all for the welfare of children who’s parents live in fear, or the massive civil liberties questions surrounding what she’s promoting, which is a surveillance society.
What’s more, this story didn’t even make the news tonight. Amazing.