Deborah Coddington joins Cactus Kate in supporting Bradford's bill. I mention them together because this endorsement of paternalism surprises me, more so from Cactus.I'll just quote Deborah's final sentence;
I wish we'd changed the law, and thus our attitude to domestic violence, decades ago. Hopefully in May when MPs finally vote, we'll make a start.
I make the point again, it is illegal to hit your partner, there is no defence of reasonable force, and yet this form of domestic violence would appear to be worsening steadily. Indeed when children are genuinely abused it is often a spin-off from the partner abuse.
Paternalists limit the freedom of the subject by well-meant regulation.
In this case, freedom being not the freedom to hit a child with impunity. Freedom being the freedom to raise your child as best you can without the state prescribing some collective best practice which it becomes illegal to ignore and, when you think about, doesn't exist in reality.
But another aspect of Deborah's column raises a question which I cannot find a satisfactory answer to. Deborah says she was whipped into voting against the anti-smacking legislation the first time round. With a conscience vote should a list MP exercise his own conscience or the party conscience? And should a constituent MP exercise his own conscience, the conscience of his electorate or the party conscience?
8 comments:
with a conscience vote, the conscience is an electorate MPs conscience, although it could reflect the electorate if it was a democratic conscience vote, which is what teh electorate expects of electorate MPs. His own conscience shold usually mirror the party conscience otherwise whats he doing in the party....
In terms of list MPs, conscience votes reflect the MPs party conscience, more so than the MPs conscience. It does not reflect the electorates conscience as that MP has no constitutients except the party they belong to.
Anyway the whips should stay out of conscience votes, although there is an argument that list MPs should be whipped.
Debs opinion usually depends on who she last talked to....light weight fluff.
I can't defend Coddington's limp wristed approach to voting but...
Once AGAIN Lindsay the point being that the stupid can't tell between a gentle smack and a beating of their children.
"I make the point again, it is illegal to hit your partner, there is no defence of reasonable force, and yet this form of domestic violence would appear to be worsening steadily. Indeed when children are genuinely abused it is often a spin-off from the partner abuse".
So your answer is then to legalise taking to your partner in a violent way just because the law against it is not working? I doubt this is the case but this is your reasoning.
The big question for those pushing the "other" side of the debate is, if this approach by Bradford won't reduce domestic violence as you claim (which includes violence against children AND usually women) then what the hell will?
Until you have some answers you can't and won't win the debate.
Kate, Had you noticed the weight of public opinion is not with the majority of MPs on this one? We might be winning the "debate" but nevertheless losing the fight against the legislation.
I've constantly suggested ways to reduce the size of the group from which most (not all) of the abuse hails from. http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/2007/
03/section-59-red-herring.html
Perhaps you have no faith that removing incentives would work because of your view that so many people are stupid, ie., if we stopped paying young, ill-equipped people to have babies they would still do it.
If I thought you were right I'd give up.
Lindsay I think you've misinterpreted what I wrote. I wasn't "whipped" into voting against the Bill - it didn't come to a vote until after I'd left Parliament. However, I was on the record, before I became an MP (both in North & South and in a speech I gave to a Wellington conference), that I believed it was time to repeal S59 of the Crimes Act. When I was in Parliament the issue came up (can't remember why) and the media were doorstopping MPs asking them their views. One of the Act caucus, who shall remain nameless, got very perturbed because she thought I would say I supported a change. Richard Prebble, who was then leader, wisely cautioned me to go to the House around the back way and thereby avoid commenting. Prebble did not believe in whipping his MPs into voting against their conscience. Whether as a List MP you have a conscience vote or not is irrelevant as neither an electorate, nor an entire country, can have a conscience. It's not a collective thing, it's an individual thing.
I agree with Deborah that "conscience" is not collective, but a very individual concept.
That makes even more shameful Labour's decision to vote in bloc. How can all these sheep-like MPs justify their position?
"When I was in Parliament the issue came up (can't remember why) and the media were doorstopping MPs asking them their views."
I apologise, Deborah. John Tamihere has recently repeatedly said he told his party he would vote for a bill to go to select committee for debate but no further. I assumed then a bill had come up once and been voted down, but he must have been referring only to caucus discussions in response to UN pressure during 2002/03.
I understand that consciences are individual but the whole democratic process (as unsatisfactory as it is) relies on the concepts of representation and consensus. So with a conscience vote, is your conscience going to tell you to vote for what you personally believe or to vote according to the wishes of those who put you there?
Even if I was an electorate MP, as an individualist I would vote according to what I believed, but if it was against the wishes of most electors, I would feel I was committing a betrayal. Having followed my conscience I would still feel guilt. And criticism of my actions could quite justifiably be described as unconscionable.
The issues beeing discussed on Frogblog now
Post a Comment