“Horse Whip” Woman Sent to Jail

Sadly, not all people are perfect.

The woman who smacked her son and became the “Poster Parent” for the anti-smackers has been sent to jail for an unrelated assult.

No one ever claimed this woman was perfect. What we claimed was that her actions were not abuse – a claim backed by the facts and the courts.

We also claimed that CYFS was wildly out of line – and evidence still remains that that is the case.

Russell Brown stick the knife in, and gives it a good twist.

Note: I’ve made the decision to redact significant parts of today’s post because they may breach a suppression order relating to an earlier case. This seriously vexes me, because it has the effect of protecting some people — most notably Family First’s Bob McCoskrie — who have been dishonest about their role in what happened.

Implication is a good way if impugning character without stating facts.

Bob has never, ever advocated child abuse, or behaviours that would lead to it. Neither have I or most (sadly I cannot say all) advocates of parental rights.

Goodbye then, Barbara Bishop. Until such time as you receive the help you need — and sadly, I don’t really think your nine-month prison sentence for your role in a beating with “unjustified, excessive and brutal force” will provide that — your children are safer in your absence.

A rather sick comment, given the state’s “help” was a contributing factor in her demise. By taking her son and telling him that her mother was evil, the child lost all respect for his parents, and that disrespect created this situation.

“your children are safer in your absence” – indeed, if you can call “safer” being kept drugged up to stop them trying to return to their parents.

But I think it’s time for some apologies: from all the people who depicted Bishop as a victim of the state, and who demonised Child Youth and Family for intervening and the police for bringing charges against her.

CYFS were demonised by myself and others (as well as the Police) for taking this woman to court in a case where she was let off. I make no apologies whatsoever for that. CYFS were wrong – and they were proven wrong in court, a fact that Russell fails to mention. Kiro also sticks the boot in, in the SST but forgets one little fact…

Cindy Kiro told the Sunday Star-Times that Family First should be held to account for using mid-Canterbury woman Barbara Bishop’s case as a prime example of parents being justified to use force to discipline children.

“Which good parent could ever think that was appropriate discipline? This is vindication that some people have no idea where to draw the line and that this sort of behaviour is untenable,” Kiro said.

…the fact that 12 citizens (presumably including “good parents”) heard all the facts of the earlier case and decided that the evidence showed that, indeed this was appropriate discipline. It didn’t help that the boy’s behaviour improving was how it came to light!

That is in vast contrast to this case, where an early guilty plea was laid on what she did do.

That’s called taking responsibility.

Barbara Bishop’s sentence follows a court hearing in which she and her then husband were accused of hogtying, kicking and beating her 17 year-old son.

This is from the Sunday Star Times story:

The judge said Bishop appeared unremorseful and believed she had done nothing wrong. He noted Bishop had previous convictions for violence, including one for attempting to procure the murder of a former husband.

Kiro said Bishop had spoken publicly about her violent past and the violence of her previous partners, which had been witnessed by her children. “She doesn’t seem to make the connection that violence breeds violence.”

Bishop has claimed that it was her right as a good parent to discipline her children

More and more is coming out about this woman’s past. She is most certainly not a saint. But again, I must repeat, in the earlier case after all evidence was heard, the discipline that improved her boy’s behaviour she was found not guilty. She is, however, a saint in my book for having to put up with the abuse heaped on her by Kiro, Brown et al after being vindicated.

But to continue…

And perhaps if so many people had not indulged her delusions and told her she was a hero, it might not have come to this.

On the other hand, perhaps if she had not been dragged through the law courts and court of public opinion, maybe her son would have respected his mother more? If he had, he would not have retaliated against his mother, and the situation would have ended there – if indeed he was hit as he has described.

I’m wondering what exactly the “delusions” were? The verdict of the jury?

Just don’t blame Bob McCoskrie or Family First. Oh no, Bob McCoskrie told the Sunday Star Times, Family First had never held up Bishop as its poster girl: “The children’s commissioner has misrepresented us.”

Not as much as you’ve misrepresented your own role, Bob. It’s a damn shame I’ve removed a large part of this post, because I think it very clearly demonstrates what a hypocrite you have been in the case of Barbara Bishop. You, a man who touts a website named stoptheabuse.org.nz. It’s not so much ironic as outrageous.

Again, we’re left with a straw man to argue with, no actual evidence is supplied.

While we’re at it, perhaps the other news media could forswear from fanning cheap outrage every time one of these “smacking” cases becomes news. Jimmy Mason’s recent account of having “flicked” his son on the ear was almost universally reported as fact, for example, when it would have been wise to avoid treating the defendant’s characterisation of events as gospel until his two consequent child assault charges have been heard in court.

That case will be interesting – either Jimmy is a liar, or he is a victim. Of course, one of the media “fanning cheap outrage” was a columnist who found 3 police at her door after her child didn’t want to go to bed.

“Cheap outrage” indeed.

And I would hope that internet commenters and uploaders who have acted as enablers for Bishop will now remove or annotate material which relates to her, because leaving it intact is tantamount to continuing that enablement.

I guess pointing out that someone was found “not gulity” is a bad thing. Who knew that if someone is found “guilty” that changes all previous verdicts? I didn’t.

I wonder if Dave Crampton has already realised quite how marginal some of those people are. A recent post on his blog covers some IP sleuthing that led Cameron “Whaleoil” Slater to suggest that the “People Power” group chucking bricks through windows as an EFA protest is linked to the people behind the horrible CYFSWatch site.

The subsequent discussion in comments, from memory, briefly included what read like a threat against Slater’s young son. The thread as it stands is deranged.

In his stance on this issue, Russel sits in a group consisting of about 20% of the population. With 80% of the population on the side of the rule of law, I have no doubt that there are quite a few unhinged people supporting smacking – but somehow there seem to be plenty left on the minority side conducting criminal assaults of their own, not on foul-mouthed  children, but on respectful and law abiding petitioners. Oh, include theft in that.

 Dave concludes:

Finally Henk van Helmond, the man behind all the sites, says he did not know who threw the bricks at Clark’s office. He has said he doesn’t know them, nor has he met them – just had “contact” with them. He says he doesnt know the people who post on his sites either – that includes Bryn Rodda. But he certainly knows a lot about the brick chucking. And he knows Bryn Rodda more than he makes out. Both have had contact with the woman who used the riding crop on her son. They’re all connected.

I know that.

I write a while ago that I thought that the anti-EFA protest movement would suffer the same fate as the anti-GE movement — it would be undermined and destabilised by its own lunatic fringe. And some of these people seem far worse.

Indeed, we’ll try to return them to your side just as soon as we can.

1 comment

  1. I have nothing to say about this post, but your ‘Don’t Vote Labour’ badge implies that the logo paid for the website. It would be clearer if it said ‘The taxpayer paid for this logo. It did not pay for this website’.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: