Family fist

25 comments on “Family fist ”

• Comments are now closed

1. thomas 1

   22 November 2007 at 7:35 am

   your family first link needs fixing
2. all_your_base 2

   22 November 2007 at 8:04 am

   Thanks thomas. Sorted now!
3. illuminatedtiger 3

   22 November 2007 at 8:50 am

   All the while he is crusading against Californication failing to realize that good “Christian” parents would have their young children tucked away in bed before it’s 9.30pm timeslot. I emailed Bob about this and I got a long winded reply basically saying that it’s shows like Californication which contribute to a rise in violence. Seems like he’s gone and redressed that whole video game argument which was long since disproven.
4. Matthew Pilott 4

   22 November 2007 at 9:16 am

   Cheers for this guys & gals!

   I thoroughly detest this man, and email him every now and then to remind him. Recently there was a three minutes silence protest at midday, largely organised by Family First, to protest against domestic violence.

   When I mentioned to old Bob that it was good, I was happy that he had changed his stance against child abuse, that as a family-vbased organisation it was appropriate to *NOT* condone violence, and that I assume he’s going to apologise for opposing the repeal of S59 he replied teresly that he still opposed it.

   At least the government is has legislated against child abuse – I don’t think we need to protest against it. It’s not like anyone supports it (apart from Bob, as best I can tell).

   Now a child has been roughly treated by his father. The father admitted he lost his temper. The boy had a bruise serious enough for his mother to photograph it. The father has been prosecuted, and is taking agner management courses. Not, in my mind, a bad outcome.

   And Bob thinks that good parents should be worried about this??

   What goddamn planet is this man on?

   He should apologise to Sue Bradford right away!
5. Kent 5

   22 November 2007 at 9:38 am

   Californication has sparked a rise in lawsuits:

   http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117976303.html?categoryid=14&cs=1&nid=2562
6. the sprout 6

   22 November 2007 at 10:46 am

   he seems a very confused christian soldier. but then he’s willing to campaign for the rights of big money to manipulate elections too.

   i would have thought mel gibson’s efforts did more to promote violence amongst the Rods and Todds of this world than the past good boy’s and girl’s bedtime Californication ever would.
7. Ruth 7

   22 November 2007 at 10:53 am

   Hang on a minute – doesn’t McCroskrie hold himself up as a great defender of individual rights and personal sovereignty? Except if you are small and vulnerable I guess. It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
8. the sprout 8

   22 November 2007 at 11:18 am

   there you go expecting logical consistency Ruth, you sound like a freedom hating athieterrorist
9. gobsmacked 9

   22 November 2007 at 11:38 am

   Now Family First is putting the heat on John Key:

   http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0711/S00376.htm
10. Ruth 10

    22 November 2007 at 11:42 am

    Just don’t start mentioning the great Non Initiation of Force principle sprout, cuz that only applies to certain groups too.

    I think maybe Family Fist and the usual suspects are trying to make satire obselete.
11. Billy 11

    22 November 2007 at 12:07 pm

    Nice to see the echo chamber is working well.

    He hit the kid three times on the bottom with an open hand. Turn him into a crminal, I say.

    We can all sleep well (having had a cheeky pinot gris by our swimming pool) knowing that, because this monster has been convicted, our children are safe.

    And…go.
12. Ruth 12

    22 November 2007 at 12:13 pm

    He hit the child so hard it left bruises, the mother even took a photograph. It obviously was not the first time.

    If that sounds like a good parent to you then I feel sorry for you.

    As a National party voter I hope Key holds firm in his zero tolerance for violence in the home. He has tried to distance himself from the wingnut right, but it’s a hydra-headed monster.
13. Gruela 13

    22 November 2007 at 12:22 pm

    Someone should tell Bob that the most effective protests against injustice throughout history have always involved dramatic shows of solidarity between the victims and the protesters.

    Therefore it seems obvious he should be outside parliament right now, bent over someone’s knee and getting a proper thrashing, while yelling out to those concerned “This isn’t doing me any harm.”

    It just makes sense.
14. Matthew Pilott 14

    22 November 2007 at 12:51 pm

    Billy, I gave my views on it – long story short there’s a daddy out there who might not be so inclined to hit his three (soon to be four) kids. It’s not our kids we have to worry about (I don’t know if your point was serious or not, but it’s domestic violence that was the target, not having to worry whether your kids were safe…).

    Also starting to get a massage across to the wider country that violence isn’t ok (yeah yeah Trev and Tau, I sure as hell know they’re not saints). That’s not so bad is it?

    Gruela – did you miss the sweet little girls at the protest march saying that they should get a spank if they’re naughty? Wonder if they’d mind a few bruises, maybe a jug cord or two… (clearly too young to be commenting, christ wasn’t that a cynical moment)?
15. Billy 15

    22 November 2007 at 1:31 pm

    Matthew,

    My point was half-serious. I just got a bit sick of you all slapping each other on the back (gently of course).

    I do not know enough about this case to pass comment on it. The bruises do sound troubling.

    That said, I doubt this law is doing anything meaningful to protect children that the old law didn’t, except making chardonnay socialists feel like something is being done about child abuse. If you guys think this law is doing anything to protect the Nia Glasseys of this world, you are living in a dream world.

    We all do stupid, antisocial things that it’d be better we didn’t. Making them all illegal seems to be fraught (and a little self-important). Whether they should be illegal should be determined by the harm caused. As I say, I do not know if the instant case falls on the wrong side of that line.
16. dave 16

    22 November 2007 at 1:36 pm

    Ruth, he did not hit the kid so hard he got brusies. He was smacked on the bum – the bruise was on his upper body.
    Either that or the guys has HUGE hands.
17. Billy 17

    22 November 2007 at 1:49 pm

    …and I should say, if the force were not reasonable this guy would have been open to conviction under the old law anyway.
18. Ruth 18

    22 November 2007 at 1:49 pm

    A technicality Dave — doesn’t make it ok. Just like the horse-whip woman. The wingnut right were up in arms cuz it was a riding crop, not a horse whip. I note her 13yr old has now been removed from her custody…the right need to apologise to the wider community for supporting this violent pig of a woman.

    All adults have to do is keep their hands off kids and they won’t come to the attention of the authorities. How hard is that?
19. Matthew Pilott 19

    22 November 2007 at 4:40 pm

    Billy as I understand it, it’s pretty doubtful that the case would have gone to court with S59 in play – why bother to try and prosecute when the defence will just use S59?

    This law won’t protect children from torture and murder any more than the crimes act, which is the relevant law. Nothing will short of a stronger and wealthier society. However if it starts to change attitudes to parenting, and encourages parents to find alternatives then it’s working and serving a purpose.

    Pretty cynical view to think that such a law was passed just to make people feel good, and a really blinkered viewpoint. Take this example – four kids are probably better off. Dad won’t be losing his temper in such a hurry. Now ‘scuse me while I shoot off for a chardonnay…
20. Billy 20

    22 November 2007 at 6:23 pm

    “Pretty cynical view to think that such a law was passed just to make people feel good”

    Don’t think that was the intention, Matthew, just the outcome.
21. gobsmacked 21

    22 November 2007 at 6:40 pm

    The man has previous convictions, including one for violence (according to One News).

    That doesn’t make him guilty of a separate offence, of course, but it’s hard to see how a) helping a mother protect her child, and b) helping a father with anger management, is a bad outcome. With permanent name suppression too.
22. Matthew Pilott 22

    23 November 2007 at 8:54 am

    More and more details – seems that the mother was pretty worried about the father’s actions, and the judge pointed out that he could have gotten away with it in the past. So seems to me this is exactly what repeal of S59 intended – that you can’t get away with this type of behaviour now…
23. dave 23

    26 November 2007 at 1:28 am

    In other words Matthew, the law on bruising a child is just as much as assault as it always was, its just that the judges are doing their job and not letting them go now – as they should have always done under a Liabour Govt.
24. the sprout 24

    26 November 2007 at 2:25 pm

    dave, it’s Liarbore – liar and bore – get it? you really must try harder with your infantile putdowns.
25. Matthew Pilott 25

    26 November 2007 at 2:34 pm

    In other words Dave, what was once considered aceptable isn’t any more. Let me spell it out for you: this is the type of behaviour (“disciplining” a child) that one could have gotten away with before S59 was repealed.

    You do realise that in the past, police wouldn’t bother to prosecute in such cases don’t you?

    Judges didn’t have any choice but to “let them go” – that was what the old law said, you know, that funny thing what judges use to convict people and such? Duh.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS