Monday, March 26, 2007

Feilding Rally Report

Gidday Folks,

Attended the Feilding rally. About 200 or 300 there. One protestor for the other side. She didn't even know what Section 59 says when we got talking to her! Yet she retorted that she wouldn't talk to people with no brains like us anymore. So she talked to the media...they were keen to talk to her.
The Mum who organised it gave a passionate speech, saying precisely what most mums would say to Bradford and Clark. Get a life.

Craig Smith


Andy Moore said...

Hi Feilding guys!
Please try and get to Welly somehow for the march there!

If you can't - then get on with the ongoing job of emailing our MPs - and getting those petition forms filled in and sent off to Larry!

Andy Moore.

xsryder said...

Hi all,
I was at both the Feilding and Wellington rallies, and in fact filmed them both. Both rallies had excellent turn outs and intelligent passionate speeches.
What I find interesting however is the media's estimation of the number of marchers/supporters.
Any one who attended both rallies would agree that the number of marchers in Wellington was perhaps 4-5 times that of Feilding, and the number at Feilding was clearly 200-250 plus. This would mean that the Wellington marchers numbered around 1000, yet the media consistently gave estimations of 350 for both rallies, describing the Wellington turnout as "disappointing".
Also, Radio NZ described the scene at Parliament as "both sides trying to drown each other out", yet the reality was the roughly 1000 anti-Bradford Bill supporters were well behaved and basically ignored the 30 odd Bradford supporters who attempted to disrupt speeches and place banners between the speakers and audience. Whose side is the media on?

Mitch said...

Well you answered your own question there didn't you? :)

I have posted a summary of the march on if you would like to check it out.

Andy Moore said...

xsryder. no doubt about it, the media is putting a pro-repeal spin on everything that it can get it's hands on.

NewsTalk ZB and MoreFM are better however, and TV3 is marginally less pro-Bradford biased than the other stations.

Graeme said...

S59 debate and law

Sue Bradford needs to be reminded some say, law is more based on who can win the argument then truth or justice. Did you know that lawyers can lie in court? Example if a lawyer knows someone committed a crime they have to do there utmost to try and get them off in the way of a good defense.
Sue Bradford needs to remember the law can be an ass. I know someone who confessed to murder on video and signed a written confession. They got off because the police made a technical error by mistake. I know of a rapist who got off because the police mixed the clothes in the bag for DNA evidence and there was a 0.1% chance of cross-contamination. None of these things are fair and certainly is not justice for the victims. But that’s the system we have and take the good with the bad it is not perfect by any means.
People might be asking what’s this got to do with S59 being removed, well everything in my view.
If people used S59 reasonable force to discipline their child and got off then that’s the system we have as unfair as it may be. If a jury let someone off for using a plastic pipe to discipline a child (which I don’t agree with) then it proves my aforementioned points about the law and our system anomalies.
Murderers, rapists can get off sometimes on a technicality, that’s the price we pay for having this type of system. Are you now going to change all the loopholes or flaws Sue?
I know someone who killed a person claiming self-defense because they said it was reasonable force under the circumstances, are you going to remove that as well Sue?
Years later the truth came out but because of the double jeopardy law the person could not be charged again. Not everyone using S59 gets off and in fact it’s hardly used when you compare it with the amount of child abuse cases. The only issues I have with removing S59 is that innocent parents will suffer which will be another injustice.
In the same way I know of guilty people getting off I know of the innocent who have been wrongly convicted. Again that’s the price we pay for the system.
You are taking away peoples right to justice if light smacking on the bottom with the hand would result in parents being convicted by the removing of S59. That’s equally as wrong as the people who get off using a pipe under the guise of discipline.
Sue you need to let the court and justice system run its course and we all live with the consequences right wrong or otherwise, unknown like David Bain, Arthur Allan Thomas…
I think Sue’s idea equates to the cure being worse then the cause because it will put so many other people in an unfair position. It also gives CYFS even more power then ever when they can’t be trusted to handle what they already have.
I am in favor of stopping any excuse for child abuse but don’t see your idea as the way forward. There are other factors that need to be addressed that could make a bigger difference and not penalize good parents in the way your current idea does.
I think physical punishments should be the absolute last resort and only used when the child is in danger of hurting themselves or others. While Sue might say her Bill allows for this I disagree. It takes away any defense and relies on the police discretion.

Andy Moore said...

Mitch, are you alive mate?