The Section 59 debate continues to divide the country into two camps, the progressive, enlightened one and one who isn't comfortable with making a progress, and the media, in the past few days, seems to be siding with the latter. Look at all the pro-smacking propaganda dominating the country's media sphere, all the overemphasis on the family fanatic's "pro-smacking protests", "the public opinion is against the bill", etc! The small protest is even reported all over the world, from London to Los Angeles, as the AP wrote from the pro-violence point of view. The Sydney Morning Herald went further to suggest that Kiwi kids love to be hit, grossly emphasising the tiny number of kids in the marches who was brought there and brainwashed by their parents, as if they represent the New Zealand children.
For the polls, they don't even disclose the exact question and method of the opinion polls which they use as the basis of all the reference to the public opinion (a poll yields significantly different results, depending on wording of questions and methodology), and even more, it is natural when the media bombards the public with the irrational fear and emotive parental rights claims, just like a right-wing propaganda machine does, the majority is against it. The media is creating the public opinion themselves and is reporting it which they themselves created. The media has the power to make a sensible policy look like "PC-gone-mad" or whatever, for example, imagine if the media were against the nuclear free policy, had disseminated the fear of terrorism day and night with horrific and graphic images, and a security alliance with the US was the only way for us to protect ourselves from terrorism, how many people would support the nuclear free policy.
This article indeed introduces both perspectives, but it ends with the argument of the opponents that it "catch(es) everybody" (implying "good, loving and caring" parents), which sounds convincing in the article because it is not rebutted. And what is this nonsense reader's opinion page in the Herald, most of them angry rants from regressive right-wingers? Titles of article like "Smack debate fails to sway MPs" or more blatantly, "Public opinions say 'no', but Clark and Cullen say 'yes'"? I didn't know that the Herald had become a propaganda newsletter of the Nationals or the Maxim Institute. Where are the opinions of children's organisations who tirelessly work for the children's welfare, know about the children's issues better than anyone else, and support the bill?
History heads for the social progress, and this is inevitable. There are always people who can't accept it, so some of these backward conservatives in the 19th century opposed Kate Sheppard, inciting fear that voting and political discussions would divide and destroy peaceful families. We think, "what a silly and inane argument", more than a century later. The people will look back pro-violence-against-kids arguments in future in the same way as we see the anti-suffragists now. This futile effort to cling to the "rights to use violence against others because they are young", the remnant of patriarchy, is doomed to fail. Sometimes our MPs know better than the media, and parliamentary democracy exists to protect the country from the hysteric public opinion created by the media. Well done the Greens, Labour, the Maori Party, Jim Anderton, Peter Dunne, Doug Woolerton and Brian Donnelly, you are looking forward not backward. It is great to know that we live in a country where the decent and rational Parliament, not some corporate-owned crazed media, is in charge of our children's rights.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I would also like to add that public opinion is against an "anti-smacking bill", which is a misunderstanding of the bill.
From a legal perspective, the repeal of Section 59 is in fact the end of a passage of law that allowed parents to seriously abuse their children and not be held legally responsible for their actions, and anyone convicted after the repeal will not have been convicted because of "responsible" parenting.
This is simply another case of the media trying to make a story. Stories make money.
As you say, "anti-smacking" is a misunderstanding and I briefly addressed it in the previous post on the Section 59.
You know well that the media creates so-called "public opinion"; when the media, who control the mind, works to constantly undermine and demonise the anti-violence camp and threaten the public making them intense fearful.
The media always does stuff to make a story and money and it is a major problem, but that doesn't explain everything every time. Sensationalism is not partisan; exposing the evils of capitalism is sensational enough to make money, but how many of such stories do you see in the mainstream media?
We are not direct democracy, and MPs are there not to reflect the polling results (not necessarily the public opinion) all the time. If that's the best way why don't the polling companies rule the country?
Post a Comment