It's hard to feel sorry that Sue Bradford is leaving Parliament - even more so considering it's on the basis of not getting co-leadership of the Greens. I got the impression she started out well, protesting at things that were unjust, but somewhere along the line she seems to have lost a sense of morality. Family First provides the following evidence of her voting on family and moral issues:
She voted for the decriminalisation of prostitution, civil unions and the accompanying relationships bill, euthanasia, anti-smacking law, Care of Children Act, and the failed Electoral Finance Act.
She voted against parental notification for teenage abortion, raising the drinking age, banning street prostitution in Manukau City, and the Marriage amendment (defining marriage as between a man and a woman). She also voted against increasing the penalty for possession of child pornography being increased to 5 years, against P being classified as a class A drug, and would have supported the decriminalisation of marijuana.
Yup, I think it was definitely time for her to go.
PS (2.10.09) In the light of one of the comments to this post, I'm including the link to Chris Trotter's assessment of Sue Bradford and why she didn't really 'fit' into the Green Party. It's probably more positive than I or others might paint her, but he probably knows her a lot better than I do.
4 comments:
She should never have been in parliament in the first place.
Grasping the issues and grappling with them in a reasoned manner, understanding basic rights and freedoms of citizens were all things that were beyond her. Every time I saw her speak she demonstrated ignorance of the law and legal process and made so many conflicting and contradictory statements that it was confusing to try to follow her. Add to that her extreme left views and you have a recipe for disaster. She just was not qualified to be a legislator.
The one bill I tentatively support, admittedly having not read it, was the one that allowed women who give birth in jail more time with their babies before forced separation.
Thanks for your comments, Madeleine, it certainly sums up her ministerial history!
I agree that separating babies from mothers too soon, under any circumstances, isn't healthy - though regrettably sometimes it's a measure that has to be taken. Like you, I don't know much about the actual bill.
If you're going to state an opinion, at least say why, other then "these things are bad".
You haven't addressed the issues at all. There are people who think voting in that way is a good thing, and you haven't given any reasons why you think otherwise.
Thanks for your comments, Rimu. It wasn't intended to be an opinion as such; merely a comment about the fact that to my way of thinking Sue Bradford has achieved little of value in her parliamentary career.
Madeleine pretty much sums up what I'd say about her, too.
Post a Comment