Thursday, February 22, 2007

sue bradford's bill

in answer to the comment on the previous post, i believe that having a govt that ignores what it's people are saying because it "knows better" is a dangerous thing. i thought that their task was to represent their constituents. an 80% disagreement factor should cause concern in terms of their (govt) direction. if they (the govt) are to continue misrepresenting what we as a people want, should they hold those positions in terms of policy making in aotearoa? whatever is the right direction regarding the right to smack, the first question is to look at ourselves in the mirror and ask, "is our current culture working?" then we need to ask "why?"
i was interested to read that sue feels as if she has been threatened by a post written on cyfswatch nz. i read the post. it did not strike me as an actual threat, more of an, i think that she needs this to happen (a punch in the face, followed by a smack on the butt) so that she could tell the difference between each course of action. there was a comment re assassination that was not cool. as usual, we are frowned upon for disagreeing with the power state.
interestingly enough, i just went to look at what was being said on cyfswatch, the site is down. govt censor-ship strikes? are we free? are we allowed to say what we think even if we do not agree with the govt? looks like we are not!

Labels: , , ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home