further self-contradictions

Sue Bradford - "It is still, in this supposedly enlightened 21^st century, within the law for parents to beat their children." Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill, 21 Feb 2007, Second Reading. However, this goes directly against another comment made by her: "This is not a bill which outlaws smacking".

And how should we take her comment: "The law now, says it is a crime to hit anybody, but the reality is our police are sensible people". If it were really against the law to hit anybody, then the police would not be sensible people, because they are not prosecuting all the thousands of parents around New Zealand who do smack their children from time to time.

According to The New Zealand Herald (see here), Helen Clark said "smacking is already illegal, as is all hitting." when asked by Bob McCoskrie of Family First if she supported a ban on smacking, she said "Absolutely not. Well, I think you're trying to defy human nature", which she made if she supported a ban on smacking. (Radio Rhema interview, 2005).

Sue Bradford - "...However, police did not prosecute parents for smacking children under the current framework and she did not think that would change even though she acknowledged a legal defence would have been removed..." (New Zealand Herald). So, what is her reason for attempting to criminalise the use of force in parental discipline then?