And they've jumped on the bandwagon that gets hauled out every year around this time, of determining precisely what our war fallen fought for (or didn't). The Kiwi Party reckons "The ‘Steve Crow type anything goes sexual freedom’ is not what they sacrificed and often gave their lives for!" (Their exclamation mark)
Here's another snippet from their release:
Kiwi Party leader Larry Baldock said they see no reason why the Summary Offences Act and Crimes Act should not be amended to clearly define what is offensive public behaviour rather than leaving it to subjective judicial interpretation. Why not have the law simply state that the 'private parts' that have been traditionally covered (boobs, bums and fronts!!) should not be publicly displayed?Now let me tell you what I find the most offensive behaviour in a public place. Anti-abortion protesters who parade around with their misleading fetus pictures and their incredibly emotive slogans, harassing women outside clinics that offer terminations. But somehow I don't think the Kiwi Party would want a law that banned that.
As for "traditionally covered", whose traditions are we talking about?
I've written before about my ambivalence about the Boobs on Bikes stuff, although Anjum is not so conflicted. I'm just sick of morality crusades by the likes of the Kiwi Party. Their basis for opposing Boobs on Bikes is about a paternalistic attitude towards women that to my mind only seeks to reinforce the idea that our bodies can be viewed as property - just not property that we should be devaluing by flaunting. Grrr!