14 June 2006
Greens Left v Right on S. 59 Debate
In a speech given at the installing of new Green Party co-leader, Jeanette Fitzsimons tried to seize the high moral
ground for the "left" when she stated: "The Greens have always identified with the oppressed and the disadvantaged
[including] children beaten by their parents under the protection of s59 [of the Crimes Act 1961] ... That would seem to
position us on the left. " The Society finds such rhetoric self-serving and based on error. It is quite wrong to suggest
that those on the so-called "right" (as defined by the Greens) have not consistently identified with, and sought to
assist, all the victims she identifies.
The "right" v "left" divide - so-called as defined by the Greens - is based on nothing more than rhetoric.
Many opponents of the repeal of s. 59 just do not believe that the bill, as currently drafted, will make one iota of
difference to child abuse figures. In fact they have the hard evidence from Scandanavian countries that it will do much
damage. That is why the S 59 Coalition that includes groups such as Family Integrity, the Society for Promotion of
Community Standards Inc, Sensible Sentencing Trust, Family First Lobby, NZ Centre for Political Debate, PANIC, and
others, are sponsoring and supporting the visit to NZ of Swedish lawyer Mrs Harrold-Claesson, so she can give MPs and
the public the true facts on the disastrous situation in Sweden following the state abolition of all corporal punishment
of children and other introduction of laws severely handicapping parents in their role as disciplinarians.
Green MP Sue Bradford has identified with a tiny number of causes involving the oppressed and disadvantaged. No one
wants to detract from any person, like her, or group, that genuinely seeks to assist such people. But let's do away with
these unhelpful self-serving labels of "right" and "left". Consider the following....
Do the Greens side with the tens of thousands of defenseless and helpless unborn children aborted every year? No they
don't. They strongly support abortion and a woman's so-called right to have an abortion and receive state funding for
it. Why then do they label anyone who opposes abortion and seeks to safeguard the rights of the oppressed unborn,
"rightwing"? The Greens appear not to consider the unborn baby to be a true human worthy of rights and made in the image
of God. Unborn foetuses are nothing more to them than unfortunate messy tissue blobs that can be conveniently discarded.
Do the Greens side with the oppressed Christians massacred by Islamist fanatics in the name of Allah and speak out about
this issue of gross injustice? No they don'y. Why then do they label Christians who do, "right wing"?
Do the Greens side with the tens of thousands of women and childen sold or forced into prostitution, or lured into it by
dishonest entrepeneurs who exploit women? Such oppressed persons might have good cause to answer "no", when they learn
than the Greens strongly supported the effective legalisation of prostitution and do not consider prostitution to be a
moral issue. Why did they the Greens for example approve of the decriminalisation of prostution in NZ when they knew
that world-wide, most prostitution is part of the most evil and corrupt exploitation industry on the planet - a form of
slavery, psychological and physical abuse of women? Why do they label those who opposed decriminalisation "rightwing"?
Why do the Greens wax eloquent on issues relating battery hens and sows in confined pens, when they are willing to
condone the butchering of babies in the womb by doctors who are funded in their crimes by the state?
So much for the rhetoric involving the "rightwing" v "left wing" divide over the repeal of s. 59. When about 83% of the
general public who were polled, opposed the repeal, supporters of the bill must have thought it was a "right-wing"
conspiracy that engineered the result. However, the polll was organised by one of the bill's strongest supporters. The
polls have consistently showed that about 80% of the public do not support the the repeal of s. 59.
ENDS