Helen Clark made an interesting  observation (honest) the other day in relation to Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking  bill. She said that those whom police were already arresting for assaults on  children would continue to be arrested. Given that, why then do we need a law  that seemingly embraces everybody else? Furthermore, when we have a plethora of  laws covering assaults on any person, regardless of age, where is the gap that  needs to be filled by the 
 I ask these questions because if one  takes this anti-smacking bill at face value it becomes very unsettling.  The  bill is not aimed at those who do great mental and physical harm to children  (they according to the Prime Minister are already being arrested under existing  laws), nor is it aimed at curbing acts of great or even minor brutality—again,  those are covered by existing laws. Technically, even a mild-smacking is covered  by those same laws.
So, I am driven to the conclusion that  this proposed and already redundant law has no purpose other than to issue a  series of statements. They are:
- Sue  Bradford has little else to do.
- A bill  such as this taxes, but just squeaks into, the limits of the Greens’ collective  IQ.
- The  Kahui twins unfairly focussed on Maori.
- The  white middle-class hasn’t been picked on for awhile.
- Regardless of how often it is humiliated, Political  Correctness refuses to give up the ghost.
- Somebody  somewhere always knows what’s best for us.
 ----------------
 Now playing: Rocky Horror Show - I Can Make You A Man
 via FoxyTunes
 
 
No comments:
Post a Comment