By What Standard?
Bradford's bill to repeal parental authority is simply insane. The only
reason anyone pays it any attention at all is out of a sense of being
polite and unwilling to say in public that this idea is completely
detached from reality. First, it demonises "correction" of children.
This is a core responsibility of parenting. We correct our children's
behaviour, attitudes, speech, grammar, dress and even tone of voice.
Bradford is clearly subversive toward parenting in her intentions.
Second, it is clearly unwanted by the vast majority of the population.
To continue to drive it through is not just unrepresentative and
undemocratic, it is highly irresponsible and exposes its thoroughly
ideological rather than any logical or beneficial motives. It will wreck
any chance of forming the social peace and harmony the MPs all say they
want to develop.
Third, it is hopelessly vague and unenforceable. "Reasonable force" is
allowed to stop offensive or disruptive behaviour. But the Bill fails to
specify by what standard "offensive" and "disruptive" are to be judged?
If the 13-year-old daughter wants to strut around topless in the privacy
of her family house, how can the parents claim it is offensive if
neither the police nor the city councils of Palmerston North, Auckland
and Christchurch would declare toplessness in the centre of town at
midday to be offensive, even though it was performed before
pre-schoolers and some school children to promote pornography?
Will the parents be trusted to make the call, according to the dictates
of their own privately held standards, or will they be forced to conform
to some national standard deemed to be acceptable on an ad hoc basis? If
it is Bradford's standards - which include approval of prostitution,
dope smoking, lowered drinking age and lesbians getting a guy at the pub
to impregnate one of them and casting him aside so the lesbians can have
a live baby to toy with - it will only prove that this country is no
longer a good place to bring up kids. Dump Bradford's Bill.
Craig Smith of Family Integrity
reason anyone pays it any attention at all is out of a sense of being
polite and unwilling to say in public that this idea is completely
detached from reality. First, it demonises "correction" of children.
This is a core responsibility of parenting. We correct our children's
behaviour, attitudes, speech, grammar, dress and even tone of voice.
Bradford is clearly subversive toward parenting in her intentions.
Second, it is clearly unwanted by the vast majority of the population.
To continue to drive it through is not just unrepresentative and
undemocratic, it is highly irresponsible and exposes its thoroughly
ideological rather than any logical or beneficial motives. It will wreck
any chance of forming the social peace and harmony the MPs all say they
want to develop.
Third, it is hopelessly vague and unenforceable. "Reasonable force" is
allowed to stop offensive or disruptive behaviour. But the Bill fails to
specify by what standard "offensive" and "disruptive" are to be judged?
If the 13-year-old daughter wants to strut around topless in the privacy
of her family house, how can the parents claim it is offensive if
neither the police nor the city councils of Palmerston North, Auckland
and Christchurch would declare toplessness in the centre of town at
midday to be offensive, even though it was performed before
pre-schoolers and some school children to promote pornography?
Will the parents be trusted to make the call, according to the dictates
of their own privately held standards, or will they be forced to conform
to some national standard deemed to be acceptable on an ad hoc basis? If
it is Bradford's standards - which include approval of prostitution,
dope smoking, lowered drinking age and lesbians getting a guy at the pub
to impregnate one of them and casting him aside so the lesbians can have
a live baby to toy with - it will only prove that this country is no
longer a good place to bring up kids. Dump Bradford's Bill.
Craig Smith of Family Integrity
<< Home