Sue Bradford wouldn’t know democracy
if it smashed her in the nose or popped her at 500 meters with a .50 cal.
Sue Bradford wallows in the victim spot light. Thanks for that CYFS Watch you fuckwits.
“I’m hoping that the emotions that have been aroused will calm down as they realise that the democratic processes of this country need to take place and threatening to kill people is really anathema to democracy.”
DEMOCRACY????? You mean because a corrupt government who bought power with our money and has lost its paper thin majority to another corrupt member going down is so desperate to grasp onto to power that you can now hold them to ransom and pass quite possibly the most UNPOPULAR bill in our history that its democratic? And we’re expected to believe that all the labour MPs are voting their own beliefs when they lockstep to support this travesty? Hell most days we have trouble believing they even have their own beliefs let alone the courage to support them.
What.colour.is.the.sky.in.your.world?
“If that website could be closed down, that would be fantastic. It isn’t just about me.”
Yes its “fantastic” that you can utterly smash free speech of voters because they fucked up in the fine print while you’re part of a government that hides behind parliamentary privilege to attack and vilify a religious group going as far as calling for their removal from the country. What a “tolerant” vocalisation from someone who should know better then abusing people for not being exactly mainstream George.
“Some of the parents who want to defend the parents right to hit their kids seem quite fanatical and I think this threat against me is the latest manifestation.”
If by some you mean virtually ALL OF THEM then yes. However when it comes to being the fanatic lets take a look at YOU. With near pathologically tunnel vision you have pursued this bill ignoring facts, altering facts and outright lying to bull it through. The language you have used is telling. Look at that comment alone. ” the parents right to hit their kids”. As always you use the most violent and emotive of language to play up to you audience.
You claimed that the police will use “common sense” in interpretation yet the police have already contradicted this. Yet you choose to ignore them. Outright deception on your part.
If you want to see a fanatic, get a mirror lady.
You’re a communist trying to force your way into the homes of good decent kiwis and impose your socialist agenda on them. You will make criminals of honest people and you will not save ONE SINGLE CHILD.
You are doing this against the wishes of a huge majority of voters. You are the very definition of anti-Democratic.
If you are a parent and you want to retain the right to raise your own children then go to parliament tomorrow and say so. Don’t let Bradford speak for you. Take the kids and make a picnic of it.
Please do not assassinate Sue Bradford or any other MPs while you are there. Thank you.
February 22, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Am I alone in thinking that this bill won’t go through and in the event that it does it will be the final straw that breaks this Govt?
I’d like to think that most people will see the Cyfys watch post as the rantings of an individual and not representatives of parents who smack their kids.
My reasons for beleiving that this won’t become law is this: Labour is scared of real people power as evident with the back down after protests about the fart tax and dog chipping. Real people power only seems to happen in NZ when people see that they are going to personally and directly affected by something as was the case in both of these cases. A majority of people may well have been against the Civil Unioun and Legalising prostitution bills but it wouldn’t have a direct personal effect on the man in the street. The treat of ending up in court for giving one of your kids a slap on the hand when they have been acting up will effect pretty much everyone, and as most people don’t want this to happen, massive out cries will stop it or National will campaign on repealing the unpopular new Law.
February 22, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Well it rather looks like Labour is so out of touch that they will force this though.
Witness Helen now claiming the unicef report means we have to pass this law where not a week ago the report was totally wrong.
She wants power more than anything else and will do whatever is needed to keep it. That means letting the Greens have their way.
God help us all.
February 22, 2007 at 5:08 pm
amen! to that post.
February 22, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Brilliantly put, it is a good job I did not see this post prior to reading insolent pricks take on SOE’s for if I had I would have needed to post “the two best posts I have seen this year” on my miserable blog.
Unfortunately this battle is lost, and with cullen’s sly skills they will get another three year term following this one. They have bought more than half the voting public in the last seven years with bullshit jobs, pandering to special interests and granting interest free loans to students to go to uni and still not be able to read and write.
Then we get to the “why try” subsidy in the form of working for families and moe than half will have to vote labour. I can picture the suckhole twins screaching about national taking it all away to scare up enough votes to stay in.
It is all completely and utterly fucked.
February 23, 2007 at 4:19 am
Oh god, that’s one of the few kinds of people that make me want to reconsider my position on unilateral violence. I mean, there’s always a chance that you actually COULD beat some sense into somebody … right?
February 23, 2007 at 6:49 am
Maybe, if they are young enough
February 23, 2007 at 7:31 am
It’s certainly a noble experiment.
February 23, 2007 at 9:19 pm
I posted this elsewhere and I dunno how relevant it is to the current lunacy sweeping New Zealand, but I thought I’d give it a shot and post it here:
The World Service offered us a touching interlude yesterday in Assignment - first broadcast in October last year - on suspected terr…er.. extremist Ahmed Zawi - who, after dubious activities relating to his native Algeria, Belgium, France and Switzerland, was jailed on seeking sanctuary in New Zealand:
Tonight I am feeling for you
Under the state of a strange la-and
You have sacrificed much to be here
……..I offer my ha-a-and
So weeelllcome home
I bid you welcome
I bid you welcome
We-eelllcome home….
As piano and voice fade wistfully into the background, the BBC tells us who it was:
Singer and songwriter Dave Dobbyn Plays “Welcome Home” for Ahmed Zawi and other refugees landing in New Zealand.
Well, OK. But did he have any idea who he was welcoming?
http://www.navy.mil.nz/know-your…ial/ default.htm
A small question like that is lost in the BBC spin:
Musicians, journalists and some politicians have offered Mr. Zawi support but others have used his case to stir up fears about immigration
Right BBC. Fears of Muslim immigration are unjustified.
Take this comment from Winston Peters who leads the New Zealand First party. He’s now the foreign minister in the governing coalition:
“Ah, look. In all the world and the far-flung part of the South Pacific we’re the only sanctuary for someone who’s genuine? Now excuse me. We’re the softest touch in the world. That’s why he’s here.”
What a sharp contrast that statement makes with the soulful, melodic Dobbyn. Nice touch, BBC. This is agenda-pushing at its best.
What are the chances of New Zealand First leaving the coalition?
February 23, 2007 at 9:22 pm
My link wasn’t good. Maybe this’ll work:
http://www.navy.mil.nz/know-your-navy/news/hyde-park-memorial/default.htm
February 23, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Small issue, Ahmed Zawi didn’t come to New Zealand as a refugee. He was caught trying to sneak in on a false passport and changed his story three times before calling a lwyer known for arranging refugee status for people.
One quick run through of Zawi’s “hoilday video” and anyone with even the slightest bit of intelligence will tell you it’s a recon video for a terrorist attack.
That the NZ taxpayer are supporting this guy and now wheeling his family in must be making AQ & JI hysterical with glee.
The BBC might feel different if they lived next door the world most populated Muslim country and had been at war hot and cold with them for fifty years.
Or maybe they wouldn’t. Doesn’t matter, they have a history of hunting down and killing journalists as well so they might get the message eventually.
February 23, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Good luck with ousting Helen and her motley crew in the next election.
February 24, 2007 at 10:01 am
[...] Bradford’s Twisted View of Democracy Murray lays it out as to his views on Sue Bradford. “Some of the parents who want to defend the parents right to hit their kids seem quite [...]
May 23, 2007 at 12:09 pm
I think that Sue Bradford is doing her job. She has a duty as a politician to support and to bring in legislation that she believes in. Regardless of whether you like the anti-smacking bill or not, you kind of have to admit that taxpayers money is better spent on a passionate politician (Sue Bradford) than a people-pleaser (John Key), a common criminal (Helen), or an election puppet (Jeanette Fitzsimons).
Therefore, I would be happy if Jeanette retired and Sue Bradford became a co-leader of the Green Party.
June 21, 2007 at 6:47 pm
I also like Sue Bradford’s most recent idea that 16 years olds should be allowed to vote. Currently in New Zealand, you can get your learners license at 15, leave school at 15, have sex at 16, but you can’t vote until you’re 18. I think it should all be 16, that would probably be fairest. So I agree with Sue. Yet again she has risen up with potential legislation which is fair to everyone. Ideas such as this are fair to teenagers, and there is, I believe, a correlation between policies which are fair to teenagers and children, and crime. Crime is inevitably reduced if everyone in society is treated reasonably well.
August 16, 2007 at 11:43 am
Sue Bradford is no doubt a good worker for the so called underdog in New Zealand.But like many other Socialists she just keeps looking for causes to put forward on her policital adgender. like the votes for 16 year olds. Based on the fact that they can get a liscense at 15. go into the workforce at 16. What Sue really wants ids more votes in the next election..and by pushing for the vote at 16 years of age she hopes most of these young voters will vote for the Greens. Like her No Smacking Bill (which will never work) giving 16 year olds wont work either. People really dont get too effected by Government policy until the learn to take on some real responsibility. I think votes to 16 year olds is madness. But thats Socialism all over. name me one Country in the world where it has worked long term?
Donald.
March 9, 2008 at 11:14 am
I think Jane could use a bit of spanking of her own.
She is correct however its not right to allow rights spead of 5 years.
Make it all 20.
To Quote the lovely Molly Ringwald “Fucking teenagers!”