CYFSWatch “Death Threat”
In the wake of the successful second reading of Sue Bradford’s amendment to the Crimes Act, which would outlaw smacking, CYFSWatch has entered the debate with a post describing a fantasised beating of the MP and suggesting she is “a worthy candidate for NZ’s first political assassination.”
The question is: does this post constitute something close enough to an act of force that it should be banned?
And the answer is no. Expressing violent fantasies doesn’t do much for CYFSWatch’s cause, given that they’re advoctaing on behalf of people who have had children removed by the state - parents who have probably been accused of abuse - but that doesn’t mean that their opinions should be illegal.
The fantasised beating is an attempt to explain the difference between smacking someone and beating them up, a key distinction that opponents of the anti-smacking bill feel is being glossed over. It’s written in a graphic manner but I don’t believe it constitutes a genuine threat. It is simply strong rhetoric.
Likewise, the supposed “death threat” is political commentary. Bradford’s position has roused strong emotions and this is an extreme expression of that. The writer does not threaten assassination, but simply calls Bradford “worthy” of assassination. How many people have made the same assertion about George W. Bush? There’s no evidence that the implied threat is anything more than hyperbole or that the writer has the means or intent to carry out a real attack.
Should genuine violent intent become apparent, a line will have been crossed from thought to action and preventative action will be required by the Police. Until then no action should be taken against the writer and Bradford should carry on with her job as a parliamentarian uncowed.
UPDATE 11:00am: CYFSWatch is gone - shut down by Google. The Watching CYFS site is still active but doesn’t contain all of the CYFSWatch posts.
UPDATE 23/2/07: CYFSWatch is back, this time hosted by WordPress, but the old posts have not been restored. I wonder whether they can stay inside the WordPress terms of service or whether the Ministry of Social Development’s crack legal team will carry the day.
UPDATE 1/03/07: The WordPress site has disappeared, saying that the authors have deleted it. In a post at a new Blogger blog, the authors claim they didn’t delete the WordPress site and have asked WordPress what happened.
UPDATE 3/03/07: They’re back, this time with their own domain.
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:00 pm
The idea of ‘threatening’ even along the lines you suggest is little more than pathetic. However, those who violently oppose the Bill (i.e. very conservative people who also claim to be ‘Christian’ could well have within their ranks some nutters who may just go further.
Of course such Christian will deny that, but I don’t see them condemning the threat.
It goes to show some will stop at nothing to try and impose their fixed ideas on the rest of us. Oh - it is NOT political comment - they have also run out of arguments if they have to resort to threats. (ad hominen)
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Bernard,
Putting aside whether or not the death threat was in fact such a thing, I think you are overlooking the other offence which is where the blog, immediately after the citing of teh desire to kill Bradford, solicited her home address and then said it will publish the address unless she withdraws the bill.
Now that in my mind is an active threat intended to intimidate an MP from their duties. It is most definitely a breach of parliamentary privilege and arguably also criminal.
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:29 pm
I personally do not “condemn” the threat for the simple reason that it was not one - for a threat to exist there must be either statement or demonstration of intent to actually case harm.
There was neither.
From an objective viewpoint it was in actuality a very well written of expression of contempt for Sue Bradfords inability to differentiate between a smack, a rugby tackle and an actual physical assault.
Unfortunately, it relied upon the objectivity and comprehension skills of the audience in order to communicate the point being made effectively - sadly lack of both ensured plenty of opportunity for exploitation and manipulation by both the media and those pushing their own political agendas - especially Sue Bradford.
That is as poor a reflection upon the New Zealand public as it is upon the media and those with political interests.
I personally have my doubts that CYFSWATCH was shutdown as a result of those comments.
Indeed, although no threats were made in that post, CYFSWATCH themselves did indeed threaten Sue Bradford - stating that they would publish the details of her private residence if she did not withdraw her bill (as if that would happen).
Im quite sure that isnt legal in this country.
On that particular issue I was not in support of CYFSWATCH for two reasons.
Firstly I had myself been subjected to similar attitudes and conduct in my dealing with CYFs Social Workers - they dictated and demanded, with threat of negative consequences if I would not conform to their beliefs … their beliefs not only happened to be wrong, to comply would have resulted in immense harm befalling my daughter - a young person who was already suffering as a result of “professional error and oversight” after professional error and oversight.
Secondly, CYFWATCH claimed that it was in no way responsible for any consequences that might arise as a result of their decision to publish the private residential details of Sue Bradford.
If Sue Bradford is responsible for the consequences of her choices (assuming she is mentally stable enough to be deemed accountable) and if CYFs social workers are responsible for the consequences of their choices (which they are whether held to account or not) then surely the same would apply also to CYFSWATCH.
I think it far more likely that the CYFWATCH blog was closed down as a result of that than because of a “death threat” that wasnt.
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:39 am
“Now that in my mind is an active threat intended to intimidate an MP from their duties.”
Are you saying, David, that it’s her duty to interfere in NZ families?
February 26th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Personally Im afraid that politicians in this country will not pause to reconsider their butting into the personal lives of their citizens UNTIL one of them is the victim of RETALIATORY violence from someone pushed too far…
And no I’m not making a threat….more of a sad prophecy. Just as bullies don’t respect you until you hit back I fear the same will be required before some restraint is shown by Government.
March 3rd, 2007 at 1:53 am
CYFSwatch will be back. I have decided to help them by hosting the site for them, but with a few conditions.
There will be no more “claytons” threats, or seeking information about Sue Bradford. Those two incidents, thanks to Sue Bradford knowing how to use the media, did a lot of harm to the cause.
That cause is those families suffering through CYFS intervention. I feel so strongly about this that I am willing to go to prison to defend free speech and the parents right to tell the world what CYFS did to them.
CYFS and the MSD doesnt want social workers being named, but CYFSwatch only names the BAD social workers which is better than not naming them, to not name them means ALL social workers are tarred with the same dirty brush, that includes the good social workers.
CYFSwatch will also have a complaints policy, so the named social workers will have a right of reply. Thats a better complaints system than anything CYFS offers people.
The aim, while keeping the name and shame aspect, is to make it harder for the Government to close the site down a 3rd time. It has a job to do, and will go ahead and do it, if CYFS and the MSD doesnt like it, then they can use the information posted (inc names of social workers) and investigate themselves, provided its a fair procedure conducted by an independent CYFS complaints authority then CYFSwatch can clsoe down, but till then, theres a need for it, if only to allow the parents to vent anger, and PREVENT a murder.
The only reason CYFS wants the site closed is because its airing all their dirty laundry, look at the recent trial of the police officers, not guilty, but two are presently serving tiome for rape… and CYFS would have you believe that NONE of its social workers has ever broken the law? IMPOSSIBLE!!!!
CYFS do not even keep records of how many complaints they get in a year, they dont keep records on how many times a single social worker collects multiple complaints, such a system, or lack of it, means they have no wish to investigate complaints or seek out patterns of offending by its social workers.
The fact is, if they DID collect that data, and DID see a pattern emege with some of their social workers, they could address the problem with more training… but to do nothing is in itself criminal when families are involved.
This is why I am proud to be helping CYFSwaych get back to its core job, demanding accountability from CYFS and its social workers.
I am hoping everyone else will join me. Stay tuned for the link.
kiwi1960
http://www.kiwi1960.com