Monday, April 30, 2007

Swedish experts talk about their lives

Here are more things you need to know about Section 59 repeal.

The child beaters have made much of Sweden. They claimed that the experience of 'banning smacking' in Sweden had disastrous consequences. Save the Children have done some research. Sweden abolished this form of child abuse fifty years ago and it has not led to riots in the streets by rebellious schoolchildren.

But who cares about the Swedes with their social democracy, their welfare state and their high quality wooden furniture in stylish modern designs? Beating up your kids must be OK, because a former All Black says so. Bull Allen, described as "iconic," has given his support to the Family Values campaign run by "Bishop" Brian Tamaki, Pastor Peter Mortlock and the Reverend Mike Weitenberg. I know almost nothing about Bull Allen, so I cannot comment, but I suspect he knows almost nothing about the issue.

Bishop Tamaki and friends will be having a peaceful mass-gathering on Wednesday 2nd May at Parliament: 'You are invited to join with thousands of other ordinary kiwi’s that want to send a clear message to government – leave our families alone' and who don't care about mangling grammar in the process. Please Note: This is not a pro-smacking event, in case you were wondering.You should go; after all, you are helping pay for it - the Bishop and his pals enjoy generous tax breaks for their churches. We can only hope that the Bishop's intervention will do for the child abusers' cause what it did for the campaign against Civil Unions. An alternative Christian response will be made at the Anglican Cathedral.

Webweaver has a list of the organisations supporting repeal.

The list does not include the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists (Inc). One would have thought that our leading Atheist organisation would have something to say about a campaign led by Christian fundamentalists. In fact, they held a very useful debate between Craig Smith of Family Integrity and Ian Hassell, former Children's Commissioner. Then they asked their membership for opinions about the matter. Some members, we don't know how many, were against change, so the Council decided to ignore the issue. Once again, the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists (Inc) has done sod all.

John Key favours compromise but, as Span points out, the compromise has been made already. Experts have suggested that John Key would not recognise a principle if he found one in his breakfast cereal and observe that he was quite happy to hang out with the Exclusive Brethren for as long as the public didn't know about it.

7 comments:

harvestbird said...

I recall--perhaps incorrectly--a controversy some years ago when Bull Allen, a vegetarian, appeared in a KFC advertisement in which he bit enthusiastically into a leg of fried chicken.

Such slipping of semantics seems to me analogous to those who would retain the protection of Section 59 (although I'm aware an analogy could be similar cast for those who would see it repealed). Let's have our chicken but not eat it, too.

Andy Moore said...

the Section 59 blog for my response...

Cheers.

Anonymous said...

Funny you should mention John Key.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/sections/nzpolitics.html

Scoop asks here whether Key is full of HOLLOW rhetoric.

I suppose he was, if he is a hollow man? Are you suggesting this Paul?

Pascal's bookie said...

Andy, I followed your link but didn't find anything that could be described as a response to this post.

Is there a particular post at the "section 59 blog" in response to this one, or is the whole blog the response. This would seem to be a rather excessive way of going about things.

Interesting blog though. Are you at all familiar with the terms "fair use" and how it differs to the phrase "wholesale theft of other peoples work"?

Hamish said...

Bookie, go back to andy's blog and read is post about "Unborn babies are fully realised humans."
You are not dealing with someone with some serious plot lossage and a complete lack of reading comprehension.

Paul said...

"Bradford is saying: babies should be treated as fully realised humans from the moment that they are born. That means, that before birth, babies are still babies according to Sue, not fetuses or tissue."

Something seems to be missing in the reasoning here.

Hamish said...

"Something seems to be missing in the reasoning here"

Yeah, foundations, walls, windows, doors and a roof.
He is convinced he is right. And when your favourite book is the bible, that's all that matters.