Bonding.

August 1 marks the beginning of World Breastfeeding Week ... so ...women may soon be able to bare their breasts publicly with impunity as long as there is an 'age-based' criterion?? Ican recall a notable criminal case in NZ where the children were reputedly breastfed until the age of thirteen and know of numerous five year olds and older where this has occurred ... no age-based' criteria Steve?

Steve Chadwick says if her member's bill is passed discrimination against breastfeeding mothers will be a thing of the past. From what I have seen, if this process is carried out discreetly there has never been a problem ... not so for those more brazen and exhibitionistic in their actions though and probably rightly so. Breasts are just a body part like ankles and legs and neck and back and cheeks: your whole body enjoys those intimate moments between husband and wife, but that does not mean that the mere act of seeing ankles, legs, necks, backs, toes, etc. should inspire you sexually ... yep and lots of others have used the same argument but not very successfully ... "please your honour, I was only urinating and shaking off the last drops."

Yep, just a body part (breasts) ... but a body part that has aesthetically pleasing qualities and historical fetishistic meaning for a large portion of the population and these are as much biological function as having little or larger suckers hanging off them.

But also ...
A bill that would allow women inmates to look after their babies in prison for two years won support today from two government agencies because it would allow mothers to keep breastfeeding their babies and encourage stronger bonding.
Parliament's law and order select committee today heard more evidence on Green MP Sue Bradford's bill, the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment.

Once again you have to admire Ms Bradfords logic, lock 'em up for offending, enable ongoing contact to encourage stronger bonding and reduce the separation from them as a deterrent to offending and take them off them at the age of two when they have learned quite a few behaviours from their incarcerated mum and all this at a time when removal will have a considerably greater emotional impact on them ... not that I ascribe to this 'new age' notion of attachment disorder but one would have to imagine that separation at the age of two would make this detachment more manifest than no contact at all.

Once again Ms Bradford shows that the welfare of children is not her aim, the reduction of criminal offending is not her aim ... it really just seems she is an intellectual lightweight who has become a pawn of the UN.

More Adult Abuse under the Guise of Child Abuse.

All women entering New Zealand public hospitals will be questioned about whether they or their children have been victims of family violence - even if they are merely seeking treatment for an ingrown toenail.

Whilst in hospital women will be asked these three questions to see if she may have been abused: * Has anybody hurt or threatened you? * Have you ever felt controlled or always criticised?* Have you been asked to do anything sexual that you didn't wat to do?

Well chosen, open-ended questions so filled with meaning and so open to interpretation - in fact change the word hospital for school and omit the word sexual and what have you???
With this sort of simplistic, what can only result in overinclusion, nonsense it is little wonder we have a child abuse problem of grand proportions.
Do women not give men the bash?
Do women not give their kids the bash?
Is it only men who are sexually innovative?

These questions are nothing to do with child abuse, they are the creation of some simpleton whose conception of marrige and relationship is of the subjugation of one of the parties.

I Want to Keep My Job.

Firstly, repeal of sec. 59 ostensibly to protect children from parental excess when everyone else knew the change would simply 'muddy the waters.'

Now, lowering the voting age to 16 years ... why??

The former of course commended by the UN, the latter WHO, two organisations of immense credibility and presence.

Both of these 'changes' (real and mooted) can be seen as empowering children, in some ways attributing almost 'equivalent status' to adults ... when educationally speaking kids are the financial responsibility of parents until the age of 25 ... sooo ........ you can't use force on them at all for correction, at 16 they can vote, they'll have to stay at school until they're 17, but they are not sufficiently responsible to chose their own food, aha ...

Now given that we have something like 40,000 truants a week, 30,000 stand downs/suspensions/exclusions per year and a large percentage of these are secondary school children, presumably a large percentage of which will be deemed sufficiently 'civic-minded' and responsible to vote, yep ...

This lady is really somewhat misguided and in fact constitutes a considerable threat to society. She is undermining parental authority and hence generalised instructional control which is basic for social functioning and learning, both within school and society in general, and it is further empowering kids as independently thinking and functioning. This particularly for that group of children that they, the government, are trying to keep at school because ongoing adult supervision reduces (having firstly disempowered teachers via the removal of force for correction) illegal activity.

This is really very, very confusing as to overall intention and is very, very misguided.

But perhaps the reason is simply self interest. After the repeal of sec. 59, who in their 'right mind' would vote for her ... aside from those young persons, 'idealistic' (green ?), 'educated' (?), whose parents are legally, financially responsible for them ... if you enable all this and give them the means to 'stick it to' their parents you probably have created a pool of loyal support.

School research has shown greater authority and structure results in both greater learning, enjoyment and hence motivation to learn ... the 'life long learners' catch phrase. She has ruined this and arguably she is about to deprive kids of their 'childhood,' no less, in fact on a far grander scale, than a sexual predator would ever be capable of.