In which I continue to hate people
In the Sunday Star Times there's an interview with one of the frontmen for the anti-"anti-smacking bill" dipshits. They asked him if he regrets the $9m cost of their proposed referendum in sight of the fact that the government have already stated they won't be putting the "you can beat your children as long as you don't beat the little buggers too hard" clause back into law. Here's what he said:
"Nine million dollars sounds like a lot, but really it's about three bucks a voter. Now, if you were hacked off with the government, would you spend three bucks to get a message to the government?"
I would, yes. Will it cost more or less than three dollars to have a package of dog shit delivered to this guy? I would not, however, presume to spend the three dollars of everybody else, including a lot of people who were perfectly satisfied with what I was objecting to and did not want their three dollars spent on making a fuss over it.
These people piss me off so much. The removal of this ridiculous, archaic clause is not about sending "good parents" to jail, no matter how much I would like to argue that anyone who has to hit their child to get their attention is far from a good parent. It's about changing attitudes, turning this country into one where people fell that they can speak up, that it's not meddling or stickybeaking to call the police when you see your neighbour beat their kid. James Mason, the man that the pro-smacking lobby were touting as a "test case", proves the point exactly. Everyone was all excited about whether he would be the first man to go to jail under what is popularly but incorrectly know as "the anti-smacking bill". Here's the thing: James Mason was found guilty of PUNCHING HIS CHILD IN THE HEAD. Which would have been a criminal offence even before the changes to law. Would the woman who witnessed this and called the police have felt able to do so before the changes? I guess she's the only person who knows, but that's what this is REALLY about. It's about making people feel able to stand up and say this shit is not okay, so that when we do have idiots who punch their children in public, tell the police officer confronting them "that's what I do and she" (the woman who reported him) "needs to mind her business", and then claim not to be aware of the charge they were convicted of (they read them out, James, try listening), we can punish them appropriately.
"Nine million dollars sounds like a lot, but really it's about three bucks a voter. Now, if you were hacked off with the government, would you spend three bucks to get a message to the government?"
I would, yes. Will it cost more or less than three dollars to have a package of dog shit delivered to this guy? I would not, however, presume to spend the three dollars of everybody else, including a lot of people who were perfectly satisfied with what I was objecting to and did not want their three dollars spent on making a fuss over it.
These people piss me off so much. The removal of this ridiculous, archaic clause is not about sending "good parents" to jail, no matter how much I would like to argue that anyone who has to hit their child to get their attention is far from a good parent. It's about changing attitudes, turning this country into one where people fell that they can speak up, that it's not meddling or stickybeaking to call the police when you see your neighbour beat their kid. James Mason, the man that the pro-smacking lobby were touting as a "test case", proves the point exactly. Everyone was all excited about whether he would be the first man to go to jail under what is popularly but incorrectly know as "the anti-smacking bill". Here's the thing: James Mason was found guilty of PUNCHING HIS CHILD IN THE HEAD. Which would have been a criminal offence even before the changes to law. Would the woman who witnessed this and called the police have felt able to do so before the changes? I guess she's the only person who knows, but that's what this is REALLY about. It's about making people feel able to stand up and say this shit is not okay, so that when we do have idiots who punch their children in public, tell the police officer confronting them "that's what I do and she" (the woman who reported him) "needs to mind her business", and then claim not to be aware of the charge they were convicted of (they read them out, James, try listening), we can punish them appropriately.