More Green Hypocricy

from NZ Conservative blog

Sue Bradford's anti-smacking legislation is a classic example of late
liberal interventionism, and is just the sort of state interference
which traditional conservatives are opposed to.

There has been no public campaign calling for a ban on smacking or any
serious social crisis that would justify such a top down initiative.

The problem the anti-smacking bill is designed to solve, is apparently
only occurring among one section of one ethnic group- in this case
low-income Maori.

However, the liberal left deems that all ethnic groups must now be told
how to discipline their children instead of leaving Maori to deal with
their own issues.

The introduction of unpopular liberal reforms from above is a relatively
new phenomenon.

Prior to the late 1960s, progressive reforms were either introduced for
serious pragmatic reasons, such as to deal with an economic crisis like
the Great Depression, or because of sustained popular activism from
below.

The introduction of religious toleration was in large part a response to
the carnage caused by the 30 Years War, while universal suffrage in
Britain was won through the persistent campaigns of the Chartists in the
early 19th Century.

What makes Bradford's meddling in the private lives of the country's
citizens particularly galling is that she is a member of a party that
claims to be dedicated to conservation. Unfortunately, this doesn't
include conservation of mainstream social norms.

Its high time the Greens made up their mind whether they wish to focus
on conserving the environment or indulging in anti-conservative social
engineering. Given that not all environmentalists are left-liberals, it
is highly disingenuous of the Green party to be claiming to do the
former while also trying to do the later.