Sue Bradford; the conscience of New Zealand

"I wanted to know when I died that I'd done all I could do to help all people to have a full life, not just those born lucky, rich, strong or beautiful." - Sue Bradford

We read her name every day in newspapers. We hear her name every evening in TV News. She is probably the most fervently loved and intensely hated person in New Zealand at the moment. Her name is Sue Bradford.

Bradford's bill to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act, so-called "anti-smacking bill", has drawn an incredible amount of attention from the media and the public. The name that media gave the Bradford bill; "anti-smacking bill"; is not necessarily wrong, because the bill makes "smacking" illegal. But it is misleading at the same time, because it gives an impression that the Bill is about inserting a new clause, which explicitly bans smacking, in the Crimes Act. Considering the amount of media report on this bill, and that the media primarily refers to her bill as 'anti-smacking bill', the media creates a false impression that the Bradford bill is aiming to specifically criminalise 'caring parents' who occasionally smack their children (Their over-reporting of right-wing pressure group's point also contributes to make this impression). The fact that the Bradford bill allows parents to use reasonable force to protect children from harm or injury under emergency circumstances, which is a crucial part of her bill, is rarely reported.

This illusion of "loving-ordinary-parents-going-to-jail" is just a tactic by pro-violence groups to control people by fear. I mean, not every "illegal" act is dealt with police and prisons. Is speeding legal? No. Do you fear going to prison every time you over-speed? Probably not. Pressure groups, unable to criticise the notion that violence against children is morally bad, shrewdly change the argument from the action (smacking) to the people (loving parents). They may be loving and caring parents, but the act of smacking is neither loving nor caring.

There is really nothing complicated in this issue. Violence is violence, regardless of the age of people against whom violence is targeted. Violence is undesirable and should be avoided. Especially violence against children is cruel because children often can't speak up against the abuse of human rights because of the imbalance of power. Historically speaking, the circumstances under which violence is accepted has been continuously limited as a civilisation has progressed. In the ancient times a war was not considered as moral evil, and now war is outlawed (at least in theory). Geneva Convention didn't exist till sixty years ago. There were times that violence against certain people; slaves, people of different colour or ethnicity, women; were tolerated. This is a part of the gradual progress towards human rights and non-violence we have been making, slowly but steadily, for decades or centuries.

Some opponents of the bill argue for 'parent's rights', as if children were properties of their parents. This nonsense 'parent's right to hit children' is not a legitimate right, just like 'husband's right to hit his wife' or 'a right to kill' doesn't exist. Children are not properties of parents, just like wives are not properties of husbands, and employees are not properties of employers.


Read an amazing story of her life that has been dedicated to the causes to make the world better. And Paul Holmes's interview of Sue Bradford is brilliant and fair; no matter what Holmes said before in regards to the Greens, he's done a superb job as a journalist.

Personally, I met her in the Green Party Conference. Well, I didn't really 'meet' her; I just talked with her for a few seconds. She shook my hand and smiled; 'welcome to the Greens'. Feeling at a loss what to say, I spoke to her; 'it is my great honour to meet you'. She is probably the least person to expect such a formal reply; But I really felt like I am exceptionally honoured to meet her. 'Her face is beautiful. It shows decency, openness and intelligence', Holmes writes. Besides, she has a charisma, vigour and genuine passion of an activist that only few people have.

She represents fearless activism. She is making the lasting, substantial change in the society; establishing the ethical standard that violence, no matter against whom, is not tolerated. Long live Sue Bradford. The great statesperson of our era. The Conscience of New Zealand.