He is telling the truth when he says “that the act is working as designed” as he wanted all along for parents to change their parenting style by fear and coercion at the threat of CYF into their homes.
The next administartion will be able to change the guidelines to Police and cyfs to nail everyone as they will have had a period of re-education.

What we need is a clear referendum to change the ACT so that samcking for correction doesn’t break the law.
Better still the 80% needs to get a backbone and give their party vote to ACT next time and give John Key, Sue Bradford and National a smack for correction!

Dr Taylor says “since the 2007 Crimes Act amendment was never more than that, either.[symbolism]”

and that their are more substantive initiatives. In other words no need to change the culture of the many for the few?

This issue is more important than wasting time on climate change or the ****** Super City!

3. it would have held parliament up for months (in debate etc about) changing the law [key apologist].

Actually, someone in a letter to the Herald pointed out the other day that this would NOT take up Parliament’s time at all, as there is special time set aside for questions such as these (I can’t remember what it was called). Saying it would take up Parliament’s time is a bald faced lie.

Did anyone see the full page ad in today’s Herald by Family First?
It had details of many stories (giving dates and particulars) of where the new law hasn’t worked, with parents being hassled by Police and CYFS over minor smacking incidents.

http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/we_are_listening.html

You could well be right that she’s using the incident as some sort of post hoc implication that, because one right winger* issued what could possibly be read as a threat then that is indicative of the fact all right wingers, or even a substantial minority, are thugs.

I would hope not. Manipulating the sympathy vote is one thing. Casting that sort of aspersion on a group of people just because of their political beliefs is the type of tactics favoured by the very extremists whom The Standard claims to deplore.

Perhaps some “journalist” could pause in their self-promotion for a moment (e.g. stop sniggering about donkey’s members and congratulating themselves on what a daring little boy they’ve been) and do their damned job and put the question to her.

* could van Helmond be descibed as a right winger? I’ve no idea.

She accused her opponents of double-standards. Bradford said the same people who were saying it was okay to assault a child, would be horrified at the prospect of a law allowing anyone to use physical force against their wife. I don’t know if people really do think about that, that it (should be) okay to do that to children but not to adults,” she said. “There are a lot of people that are absolutely dedicated to getting my law overturned; they want the right to beat their kids, they want the right even to beat them with implements. The true agenda here is to able to beat their kids again legally.”

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-news/news/2815051/Death-threats-to-Sue-Bradford

[The editor of the Press called the referendum "a fiasco"]

this whole thing is turning out to be a small elite versus the people.

In the same issue Guyon Espiner tells us the 1. “law is working” 2. Key would have had to put up with vociferous opposition and 3. it would have held parliament up for months (in debate etc about) changing the law [key apologist].

All of those examples you posted are a series of discrete actions, toad described smacking and beating as a continuum because they are contiguous.

@suebr is STILL a good candidate for NZ’s first political assassination. (watch sue run to the Police because of a death threat, stupid cow)

How is that an actual threat. Surely that statement could never stand up in a court of law. Isn’t it like saying that Parakura Horomia is STILL a good candidate for NZ’s first Mr Creosote incident at Bellamy’s? It is not advocating violence against her, just stating that (and it must be the writer of that comment’s opinion) if there is ever a political assasination in NZ then she would be front runner? He even notes that she will read it as a threat and run to the police. Possibly silly thing for him to write but a credible threat?

This is just more attention seeking by Ms Bradford to portray ANYONE who voted NO in the referendum as some sort of crazed stalker.

[...]That $9m, spent on working intensively to turn around severely dysfunctional families might have saved the lives that were damaged or lost during the referendum,[...]

So, Bradford has blood on her hands because she forced the pro-smacking lobby to organise a referendum and waste $9m. Sure, fine, whatever.

Doubtless you would use the same argument to explain how John Key will have blood on his hands if he cuts the top tax rate. And the rugby world cup — aren’t taxpayers contributing to Eden Park? Rugby fans == guilty of neglect by association. You’ve convinced me: the government must keep spending money until it stamps out child abuse altogether.

They need to be evenhanded investigating political complaints.

If the police put DPF and Kiwiblog under the magnifying glass in any way in relation to the Bradford query, they better be damned sure they do the same to the retards at the Standard over posts about the Brash case and the leftist prick who led that nasty campaign.

If she can’t tell the difference between a smack and beating then there is something seriously wrong with her and she needs help.

Toad says –

Tell me, what is the precise amount of force where it ceases to be “smacking” and becomes “beating”

A good question, but I think a lot of it comes down to intent.
Few of us would hesitate to strike a child on the back to dislodge some food if it would save a child from choking.
Doctors used to smack newborn babies on the bottom to get them to cry and take their first breath, but no one would call that abuse.

Smacking a child on the bottom to cause some transitory pain may save them from a world of embarrassment or a life of crime later on: keeping with that thought, to NOT smack a child when a smack could correct him/her is child abuse.

I think you might be missing one other possible explanation for Bradford’s actions.

It’s long been standard practice for her and other activists to not just portray themselves as victims and elicit sympathy, but to portray their opposition as violent, or at least oppressive, thugs. I can’t remember seeing her arrested once without hearing her agonised screams – YOU’RE HURTING ME, YOU’RE HURTING ME – as the Police bundled her off to the paddy wagon.

It wins sympathy for her side of any given debate, but more importantly it places her opposition on the defensive where, at a minimum they have to go around denying it every time they get involved in the arguments, rather than making their side of the argument. It enables stereotypes to be pushed more effectively, it isolates and fragments the opposition by peeling off “decent people”, and it can even just shut down opposition speech altogether.

All in all it’s a win-win tactic for a specific issue. In this case it’s even more appropriate since the argument is about the use of force in the first place.

Her side of the smacking debate have been gagging to present the other side as child abusers. Virtually every thread on here over the last couple of years has had numerous supporters of the new law making that claim or implying it with deliberately chosen obfuscation of terms.

But the tactic of hysterical abuse has not only failed to work, it has actually backfired. So what’s needed now is proof positive that those who oppose the law change are violent scumbags. This is a golden opportunity and every effort will be made to conflate the words into a threat, and then a believable threat. As usual it won’t matter whether that’s true or not – it will serve a larger political purpose.

Of course it is only a tactic, and only for one issue at a time. Strategically it’s resulted in the cluster-fuck (from the Left’s viewpoint) of having lost power and having to watch things like budget cuts and mining go forward. Perhaps we should be saying – “Go Sue”.

Dr Annabel Taylor teaches social policy and social work practice at the University of Canterbury School of Social Work and Human Services.

I thought that she is a sociologist.

From The Press

“New Zealand taxpayers spent just short of $9 million on a referendum that could never be more than symbolic: a token action against equally helpless symbolism, since the 2007 Crimes Act amendment was never more than that, either.
Gestures such as these are unreal next to the horrific roll that continues in the homes of our most vulnerable children. When a far more substantive response is already addressing the causes of child abuse, albeit to a limited extent due to lack of resources, such expensive gestures are nothing short of obscene. Proven early intervention programmes already exist and are working to turn around our most socially deprived families — just not enough of them.
Some may find this unpalatable, but none of the mothers, fathers, whanau, step families or other caregivers of the children killed or injured over the past few weeks set our to neglect, maltreat or beat them. Rather, they lacked the skills for the vital job of caring for these vulnerable infants
With the right kind of help all could have been shown how to become better parents, and save their children from the fates they have met
Unfortunately, effective programmes, proven to work with the most intractable families, those most prone to abuse their infints, are seriously under resourced. That $9m, spent on working intensively to turn around severely dysfunctional families might have saved the lives that were damaged or lost during the referendum, and substantially assisted hundreds more to turn around similarly blighted lives.
Families most. likely to kill their children are typically beset by poverty, crime, fragile mental health, unemployment, lack of education, poor housing, drug abuse, and histories of violence and victimisation.
However, with diligent, systematic, professional care, provided by experts and focused on the needs of the child, deprivation that spawns child abuse spanning many generations can be addressed, creating a safe environment for children like those who died or were critically injured during the past few horrific weeks.
A specialist service focused on prevention and targeted at the highest risk group, is able to act to help these families learn the parenting skills they lack, and therefore break the cycle of child maltreatment and abuse.
With the referendum over, perhaps we can put polarisation and gestures behind us. Perhaps
we can focus instead on adequately resourcing programmes that prevent ehild abuse. The outcome such programmes provide seems to be something we all want whether we ticked “yes”, “no”,
or were so fed up that we did not vote in the referendum.

Dr Annabel Taylor teaches social policy and social work practice at the University of Canterbury School of Social Work and Human Services. She also chairs the Family Help Trust, a Christchurch-based charity working to prevent child abuse in families suffering the greatest
social dysfunction and deprivation.

For those who can’t bear even to do that, lest their feel their eyeballs would be infected by some socialism virus, here’s a precis:

IrishBill: Best way to deal with nutters is “universal condemnation, followed by universal ridicule followed by ignoring them”.
Me: I agree. Bradford should have quietly reported it to the Police if she felt threatened, but that last thing to do is portray yourself as hero / victim in the frigging Sunday News!!
IrishBill: “Can’t say I agree with you there Rex. These people already have several outlets… They won’t be starved of oxygen until the establishment right stops providing it for them”.

Ummm… so okay… let’s accept for the sake of argument the “establishment right” is providing an “outlet” for the likes of van Helmond. Does Bradford make it better, or worse, by providing them with another outlet in an MSM newspaper, claiming the such nutbarring is “chilling” and she needs bodyguards?

By The Standard’s logic, worse. And I agree. So why do it? My conclusion at The Standard:

Bradford’s reaction, especially in terms of allowing herself to be portrayed as both victim and hero in the media, also provides encouragement. And I’m sure that was weighed in the balance before going public.

So call me a cycnic, but I see some not-so-subtle manipulation here.

Unlike other commenters IrishBill cites in his ongoing criticism of DPF today I don’t think Bradford made it up, nor do I think there’s anything appropriate or justified in van Helmond’s attempted intimidation.

If Bradford were genuinely “chilled” by the outburst of some crackpot she’d have quietly stepped up her protection and not given him the oxygen of publicity. Thus the only conclusion I can draw — having sat in a political office that received all sorts of weirdness through the mail on a weekly basis — is that Bradford knows it’s hot air and is using the whole incident to garner sympathy and publicity.

Sorry Sue… it’s going to take more than a mean tweet to win back the sympathy of those people whose rights and opinions were over-ridden by your law*. In the meantime, here’s a form you might like to complete if you want to complain about such things in future.

* Excellent point above, MikeNZ – Bradford only provided the fuel. Clark and Key stoked the fire, set it alight and, in Key’s case, are determined to keep it burning.

This in itself is almost proof that Mr. Helmond is responsible for the comment.

If he doesn’t agree with the statement, why wouldn’t he delete it?

Mr. Helmond: You can easily remove the tweet by clicking the “Trash” icon next to the tweet message.

Bet you he won’t.

Finally Henk van Helmond, the man behind all the sites, says he did not know who threw the bricks at Clark’s office. He has said he doesnt know them, nor has he met them – just had “contact” with htem. He says he doesnt know the people who post on his sites either – that includes Bryn Rodda. But he certainly knows a lot about the brick chucking. And he knows Bryn Rodda more than he makes out. Both have had contact with the woman who used the riding crop on her son. They`re all connected.

I know that.

Thanks, Dave C, for that.