Friday, March 30, 2007

National quislings

So National wont repeal or even offer to amend the law if Sue Bradford's smack ban proceeds...
^
I'd like the Nats to promise to amend the law, somewhat along the lines of the Chester Borrow's amendment, or to make it clear that it is legal to use force in a manner to restrain a child, defend someone or something from a child's actions and only to the extent necessary under the circumstances - and that under no circumstances should objects be used to hit children. I don't know what the solution is.... but it nust include legalising the use of force short of corporal punishment.
^
Whether it be tax cuts, RMA or indeed anything Labour does - National just wont repeal anything. In which case what's the point of this spineless philosophically vapid opposition?
^
John Key said "National would also have to consider whether or not it could deliver on such a promise, because of issues such as whether it was a conscience vote, and potential coalition partners".
^
Why the fuck have any policies at all then, if you're going to not have ANY position to start off with to negotiate with potential coalition partners, or are you going to suck up to the Greens you political whore? What sort of nonsense is it to be a major party, but not have a policy until you know what minor party policies are?
^
Well Libertarianz wants the Crimes Act amended to remove all victimless crimes - so if Libz got into Parliament there's a policy - it's even consistent with National Party principles - if you blow away the cobwebs.

3 comments:

peteremcc said...

National are a shoe-in at the next election anyway.

Why bother having any of those risky policy things?

Uroskin said...

"Crimes Act amended to remove all victimless crimes" - well, quite, how dare those chattels, otherwise known as children, threaten us good no-rod-sparing parents with the Bradford amendment. It's about time to only count property-owning people rather than any serf, child or beast.
My solution to child brattiness is to charge them for their upbringing (food, shelter, education, health, toys) with the bill presented when they are thrown out of the house at age 18. That'll make good model citizens of them when they have start adult life with a debt hanging over them. No slacking or work shy-ness will result!

libertyscott said...

Um where have I ever said that spanking is the right thing to do?

The state thinks it owns children anyway, reserving its monopoly right to teach them what it decides is appropriate.

The solution to child brattiness is creative discipline, which doesn't mean hitting them - but can include force, such as having them sit in one spot, being restricted to their rooms or the like.