Though this isn't written to re-litigate the euthanasia debate, happening to listen in for a few minutes this morning (to RNZ National's weekly 'Media Watch') to a conversation upon such referenda between reporter Hayden Vennall and Auckland University politics lecturer Lara Greaves...
I couldn't help myself from - far from even reading between the lines as such - hearing a less than tacit, a veritable explicit admission by said political expert...
...that the actual wording of the question (for the 'end of life choice' referendum) - doubtless as for any and every other such referendum - is all-important...(i.e. in determining peoples' responses)...
Which wouldn't raise an eyebrow - even Judith's, I assume/presume - except for this (fact): the pro-Smacking Ban folk (who'd succeeded a little while previously in seeing Sue Bradford's infamous repeal of Section 91 of the Crimes Act enacted into law - otherwise known as the anti-smacking law of 2007/2008), whether before, during and/or after the debate upon that well-remembered referendum back in P.M. John Key's early years, stressed the selfsame point.
Which was why selfsame 'experts' were subsequently able to explain away the resounding defeat for Ms Bradford's (Labour Government-endorsed) smacking ban (already passed into law in the dying days of the Helen Clark-led Government)...i.e. as a badly-worded question, which, and oh how very, incredibly - if predictably and typically - condescending and patronizing of them, they claimed had confused the voters thereupon, that the voters had misunderstood that question...
...the clear and obvious implication being, if they really had understood it aright, they'd have voted accordingly, i.e. against the (referendum) proposition to overturn the legislation banning smacking. A triple negative being hard to digest/comprehend at the best of times, I'm suggesting selfsame experts really, truly believed the voters would actually maintain the recently-legislated ban on smacking. Clear as mud?
Or so they self-delusionally tried to convince themselves...
Anyhow, the new National Government never carried out/put into legal effect the clear (87%:13%) referendum edict (of the voters), leaving intact the (smacking ban) status quo (which, to be fair, they themselves had taken over the line under (now, Sir) John Key's (pre-Prime Ministership) very fleet-footed, conciliatory, and (political masterstroke) leadership when the then 'anti-smacking bill' was struggling to get over the line).
Just as Nelson M.P. (Dr) Nick Smith et al rather endlessly banged on about in parliamentary select committee debates late last and early this year on the same (i.e. end-of-life) referendum question, pointing out the vast difference between calling the upcoming-and-now-present referendum on ending one's life by every conceivable euphemism imaginable...anything and everything, in other words, except calling it what it most patently is: assisting people to commit suicide.
Another case of conveniently 'screwing the scrum' when(ever) it so happens to suit your particular (side of the) argument? You tell me, but, as I often say about this, that and especially the other (particular matter under discussion),
*/**If it looks like a ............, if it sounds like a ............, and if it talks like a ............, hey, folks, -no, it ain't rocket science- it usually is ............
*You fill in the missing word; though admittedly I simply can't recall it this mo, I believe there are any number of alternative possibilities which would well suffice...
**Alternatively, you might also find my similarly-(en)titled 42-pager in the run-up to the 2016 American Presidential Election - posted on my original blogsite, i.e.
http://nuffsaid:consideryourself-frombothsidesnow.blogspot.co.nz/ (or .com/)
on August 22nd, 2016 -
worth a read/looking at, and not just for this reason...
It's entitled
Yes, They Really Suppose They've Got Us All Fooled: or, If It Looks Like A Set-Up, & It Walks Like a Set-Up, & It Talks Like a Set-Up...Hey Folks - "Wise Up" (& Fast!) - Perhaps It Really Is A Con Job - or, alternatively: The 2016 American Presidential Election A Real Jack-Up? Why, Yes Indeed, And In More Ways Than Might Appear; From Its Very Inception, Moreover; And With Bill Clinton Himself Holding the Trump Card
No comments:
Post a Comment