The irony of whipping over smacking

Jim Hopkins in this column this morning mocks the Prime Liar Helen Clark and the cowardly six in Labour.

[quote]But what we can’t imagine and clearly, by a margin of 8 to 2, do not endorse, is the use of legal force to prohibit smacking.

"I think you’re trying to defy human nature," is how the Prime Minister described it in an interview before the election, and most people would say she was absolutely right.

Yet she’s about to do exactly that. Like some behavioural Canute, she’s prepared to defy the tide of human nature.

Well, perhaps she’s changed her mind, you say. Fair enough.

Perhaps she has. But others haven’t, among them some in her own party. Six Labour MPs, including Harry Duynhoven, Damien O’Connor, Dover Samuels, George Hawkins and Mahara Okeroa, have been named as being privately opposed to Sue Bradford’s bill.

But they’re being forced to vote for it. "Smacked" into line, regardless of the dictates of their conscience in what is supposed to be a conscience vote.

So it’s not just parents who are being told what to do. It is, oh, finest of ironies, politicians as well. Could someone please rush some spare spines to the Supine Six? Or knee pads to ease the pain of grovelling.

Damnit, men, if you don’t own your own conscience, you own nothing!!! Go and join the Army. That’s the proper place for chaps who like obeying orders.

It’s harder to know what the proper place is for a party that won’t respect the conscience of its own members (let alone anyone else’s) although Zimbabwe does spring to mind. "Whipping" people into line is something Robert Mugabe would surely applaud.

Ironically, all this whipping to stop smacking may be a waste of time. If we’re to believe Sue Bradford, the real reason we should pass this law is because no one’s going to do anything about it.

The police won’t investigate or prosecute "minor or technical" offences. The worst parents can expect is … errrrr. a smack on the hand with a wet statute.

Oh, Susie, Susie, Susie. Why didn’t you say so earlier? Why didn’t you tell us you only wanted to pass a law because it wouldn’t be enforced?

While you’re at it, let’s have an identical one about paying taxes. Or taking you seriously.

Which is hard to do when the best reason you can offer sceptics for supporting your new bill is that the Old Bill are going to ignore it![/quote]

108%