Well, I didn’t see the Sunday program’s item on the so-called “Ear Flick” child assault case, but Dave did. He covers several points in his post.
First, we have the lack of solid information.
Granted, the evidence apparently was that Mason did punch his son, but the court was told there was no evidence of injury to the face. The count Mason was found guilty of was a punch as well as the ” ear flick” as it is been so widely reported in the media. We don’t know for certain whether he was found guilty for the punch, as Russell Brown authoritatively claims, the ear pull, as Family First’s Bob McCoskrie would like to hope – or both, as appears possible given that they were both part of the same count.
His post then pulls apart those who want to view this as a test of the new Section 59 – “Even the courts said that”.
However, that didn’t stop Deborah Morris-Travis of The Yes Vote claim, after hearing that the boy had been punched in the face by his dad that the [anti-smacking] law has passed a very important test” with the Mason case. Even the judge had cautioned against this stance. Yet most people with half a brain would have acknowledged that the law had nothing to do with this case. Unfortunately this comment was not included in the summing of the interview’s key points.
Brown goes on to attack his critics – and for some time has described them as enablers of abuse – using his his consistently inaccurate use of the word “pro-beating” to cover anything from a light tap with the hand to a vicious beating with a length of hose, which has rendered that term completely useless in any debate. But I’m starting to suspect may have been the intention all along.
He makes a good point – that far too many people are taking simplicstic views of this debate.
Like, an “ear flick” was the same as a whack in the head that can cause death!!! I’m sure you can guess. At the time these people – Sue Bradford and Cindy Kiro – had no idea what they were talking about. They and their ilk are inconsistent. They want adults to be treated the same as kids under the law, ( well, they`ll pick and choose which laws), while saying it is fine to “march [adults] down to the slammer” if they flick the ear of another adult, but say it’s fine to let let them off if they do it to a kid as part of parenting. In other words it’s fine to break the law as long as the police think it’s ok. They are inconsistent when it suits. Russell Brown shares that inconsistent perspective. He needs a good cup of herbal tea and a wee lie down.
Actually, Bradford championed a bill to let mothers (presumably ones convicted of extremely violent crimes) keep their young (under 2 years) children in prison. Now that’s inconsistency.
As I said to someone yesterday, the changes to Section 59 will bread a generation of children who have no reason to respect authority, because none will be legally applied to them.
That is, not until the state and it’s agencies come into the picture. Children will come into the courts who have learnt that they need not respect any authority. They will spit in the face of the law when presented with it, because that law has removed those who taught them to respect that law.
(Oh, I know – this happens now. But this law will make the problem far, far worse in the long term.)
In other words, parliament has passed a law that will end up undermining it’s own authority. And to accomplish this, it is making the correct assumption that those raised under the old regime will respect parliament’s will, it’s suicide attempt.
That’s the worst irony of this law. It’s going to destroy itself.
But all post-modernism is like that, isn’t it?