What is best for the ingorant masses?

Posted on November 23, 2009 by Brad Heap

This quote made me laugh this morning:

Another marcher, Steve Baron of Better Democracy NZ, congratulated all those who participated in the march. “They are the gladiators of society, the 6-8 per cent of New Zealanders who get politically involved and get off their backsides in an attempt to make a difference”, he said.

“They will eventually triumph over the elitists in society who believe they always know what is best for the ignorant masses”, said Mr Baron.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10611015

So the claim is elitists don’t know what is best for the ignorant masses but somehow the hard right wing child beaters do?

Family First say assault is not a violent crime.

Posted on July 11, 2009 by Brad Heap

The Herald reports on the latest mad ravings from Family Violence First:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10583860

Lobby group blasts law

The head of a family lobby group says innocent parents are being victimised for the sake of a stupid law.

So a law that protects children from violence is stupid? Now that is stupid.

It follows the latest police report showing minor assaults on children went up from 32 a month to 45, after the anti-smacking law came into effect.

Did the number of assaults really go up, or did the number of reports of assaults increase?

Family First Director Bob McCoskrie says non-abusive parents are being investigated and given warnings with less than 10 per cent prosecuted, which he says is a waste of police time and resources. He says with such a small number of prosecutions it is clear the law is in the wrong and does not stand for anything.

Isn’t the fact that people are being warned rather than prosecuted proof that the law is working? Does McCoskrie want more parents prosecuted? Wouldn’t that cost more time and resources? Isn’t the fact that people are being warned proof that it does stand for something and the changes the National party made to the law to get it passed show that is working as it was designed to?

Mr McCoskrie says the country is struggling with drugs, boy-racers and violent crimes yet police continue to channel their energy into stupid laws such as this one. He says we need to address the real problems which cause child abuse and not focus on a parent giving their child an innocent smack. Mr McCoskrie says proof that the law is not working is that the number of deaths related to child abuse have not gone down.

When did assault stop being a violent crime? And since when was assault not a form of child abuse? And a law does not stop deaths occurring, people stop deaths occurring. The law just removes the excuse of smacking in the case of serious assault cases, it does not stop the parents ability to be parents.

Even Sue Bradford admitted the law was never there to solve child abuse which Mr McCoskrie says is further proof the law is a complete and utter waste of time.

Yes, and no law can solve child abuse, solving child abuse starts and ends with the parents not with the government.

Mr McCoskrie says to tackle the issue of child abuse, the real cause of family violence needs to be addressed.

And if assault isn’t child abuse then what is?

VOTE YES in the upcoming referrendumb.

Father warned for flicking son on ear

Posted on January 19, 2008 by Brad Heap

Okay I haven’t blogged in a while, but got three news related blogs to do this morning. Firstly.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10486718

A father police warned for reprimanding his son by a flick to the ear wants the warning removed from his record.

Professional musician Jimmy Mason flicked his three-year-old son Seth after a biking accident involving his two-year-old son Zach who had injured his eye.

“Seth just wanted to go on riding. He didn’t realise the seriousness of it with the youngest one slipping in and out of consciousness,” Mr Mason told The Press newspaper.

“So I turned to Seth and flicked him on the ear and told him to shut up while we fixed up the young one.”

Police were called by an off-duty police officer.

It was “pretty bizarre” being surrounded by six police officers trying to ascertain whether it was safe for the children to go home with him, Mr Mason said.

He took his sons biking daily and they needed to obey his instructions to stay safe.

“When I say ‘stop’ to the kids they have got to stop.” he said.

He was not charged but told that a warning would go on his record.

“It needs to be on record that I disciplined him for something he deserved, not that I’m a child beater.”

He was considering legal action to get the warning removed, Mr Mason said.

Inspector Rick Jury told the paper police had some discretion in deciding whether to prosecute.

One of the law’s clauses allowed parents to use some force for the purpose of minimising harm.

It was only a matter of time before this happened. A warning for flicking someone across the ear, who was acting in a dangerous manner? 6 cops to speak to a harmless parent, being a good parent? The police should be focusing on serious crime such as serious assults, drugs, burglaries and gangs, not taking cheap shots at parents being good parents.

The only positive that I got out of this was from a discussion I was having with some friends. They said the police may have deliberately sent so many cops to overreact to demonstrate how bad the law is. Cops trying to bring down the rule of law, who would of thought?