Government panicking over smacking ban bill
The Government looks to be panicking over the damage being done to it by the smacking ban bill. Nothing else can explain the extraordinary, possibly unprecedented, plan to progress the bill through its remaining stages under urgency.
Urgency is almost always used only for Government bills, not private members bills and I doubt it has ever been used for a private members bill of an MP not in Government. I think this confirms it is now Helen Clark’s bill, not Sue Bradford’s.
As a sure sign this is political panic, not a legislative logjam, No Right Turn points out the already thin legislative agenda has become anorexic. Yes the Government has run out of bills, which makes any urgency a total abuse of the legislative process.
Luckily it looks like the numbers are not there for urgency as NZ First and United Future won’t support it. But we should mourn the lack of integrity the Greens are displaying in that they were willing to support urgency. When Rod Donald was alive the Greens were renown for not supporting urgency motions, even on bills they supported, unless it was really necessary such as with tax legislation. Instead their reputation as a party of integrity now is reduced to Bradford saying “It would be great to finish it.”
Bradford is also lying when she says that without urgency the debate could stretch on for months. As I have posted previously there are well known guidelines for how long each clause of a bill can be debated during committee stage. This is merely an attempt to ram it through, despite a majority of the public and of MPs being against it.
My message for opponents of the bill is that your campaign is obviously working, why else would the Government be panicking. The focus for the campaign needs to be on giving Labour MPs a conscience vote on the issue.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:46 am
I for one will not be standing idly by, as we allow a despotic regime of bent social engineers that are focused on destroying parental rights complete the sick job. Bradford froths “my bill doesn’t ban smacking” – yeah right! Lies, lies and more vile lies because this is the characteristic from a encroaching socialist government, which is intent on eroding civil liberties and parental rights.
This is not a democracy and Clark is nothing more than a communist dictator who is destroying the moral fabric of society through her manipulation and deceptive stealth methods. Clark is the laughing stock of the sane world. Good on you George for laughing at the pathetic bitch over the free trade deal. She is a morbid maggot witch and Bradford is a drongo / shrill puppet of the highest order.
You rush this bill through you deranged communist bents and I can guarantee you it will be the last piece of legislation you parrots ever get to stamp your insidious approval.
This is fighting talk and it is time that the anti –family brigade got the cold steel of truth shoved up them!
Election now please , if not then lets burn the witches !!
March 23rd, 2007 at 8:15 am
Crikey d4j, that’s the kind of rant that makes Chris Trotter look like paragon of reason.
March 23rd, 2007 at 8:18 am
The Bill will be passed and when it is Helen Clark will be crossing all her apendages that CYFS will not remove any children because their parents smacked them or that the Police will not prosecute any parents for smacking their children, because if that were to happen Labour will be finished.
March 23rd, 2007 at 8:19 am
Surely Benson-Pope won’t be voting for this bill, will he ?
March 23rd, 2007 at 8:21 am
“I doubt it ever has been used for a private members bill of an MP not in Government.”
Winston Peters’ bill in 2001 to allow councils to create liquor free areas was put through all stages under urgency – and we ended up with a law that banned possession of alcohol in all public places.
March 23rd, 2007 at 8:37 am
Two weeks or so ago there were 6 Labour MP’s against the bill now there are said to be 17 – we have Samuals, Duynhoven, Okerene, O’Connor, Hawkins and a n other whose name escapes me.
Who are the other 11 as surely these are the ones who should be targeted – the more that `cross the floor’ the less Clark and her cohorts can do. There is usually safety in numbers.
March 23rd, 2007 at 8:44 am
I would suggest that their internal polling is showing them to be taking a hit. Better to push it through under urgency and hope the people forget.
March 23rd, 2007 at 8:59 am
Might ne a good idea if Helen asks George if she could borrow the limo to take back to NZ. Her and Bradford looks like they might need it if this bill goes ahead under urgency.
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:03 am
The usual cadre of Labour sycophants are a bit quiet on this thread. Maybe they’re awaiting instructions.
Imagine the howls of outrage if a National led government tried to ram such unpopular legislation through under urgency.This tells me that it must be OK if Labour do it.
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:09 am
It’s not unprecedented.
They passed the Third reading of the CUB under urgency. They know its unpopular legislation, all of it. Urgency is the familiar MO, but nobody in the media seems to give a shit. Especially not that useless Colin Espiner. He was a crap arguer at University and he’s an even more crap reporter.
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:19 am
The CUB was a government bill. It is clear that the anti smacking bill is a Govt bill in all but name, ( just like the CUB was marriage in all but name) purely because the Government didn’t want to initiate it because they had a spoken agreement that if the Greens did it it would be suported.
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:32 am
Grant, sorry just a bit bored with the hysteria.
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:39 am
Mr Tips. Salt instead of sugar on the weetbix this morning.Remember Guyon is away on more important world affairs than to worry about this matter.
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:42 am
The Nats should be making it easier for Labour MPs to vote with their consciences by offering to not standing candidates in the electorate seats of those that have the guts to buck the whips.
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:45 am
DAILY ORDERS – March 23rd.
Don’t be drawn into any discussion regarding our reasons for taking urgency. Just make snide and asinine comments as usual.
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:52 am
“The focus for the campaign needs to be on giving Labour MPs a conscience vote on the issue.”
Maybe so, but let’s not forget there are a number of National MPs who have stated their intention to support it. That they think this way, and are ready to endorse such a blatant attempt by the state to insert itself into the child rearing process at the expense of good parents everywhere is a clear sign they’re in the wrong party.
Its time the Nats got serious, and got rid of these leftist bimbos whose intent is apparently to endlessly compromise the right’s traditional position. They need to understand that its time to take a stand against the totalitarian left and their attempts to impose their political ideas upon NZ culture.
People/ politicians whose ideas just keep giving the left another another plank to power and control over individuals have no business in the Nats. The enemy within is always the greater enemy.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:01 am
This should be a case study on how to make an unpopular bill even less popular. There is obvious public protest from National and from many sections of society over this bill, and the stakes are higher than HC will admit.
All I can say is if Labour wants to hang itself politacally , Give ‘em more rope! They seem keen to take it.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:06 am
Yes Grant thats right, anyone who disagrees with you must be part of a vast conspiracy…
The truth is out there Grant.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:24 am
The bill will pass. The next day the sun will rise and everyone will get on with their lives. The only thing that will change is that people who beat their children will no longer rest so easily – and nor should they.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:26 am
Sonic why is it that when flip flop helen is overseas your usually weak arguments give way to silly sneers? You know that this bill goes against what the majority wants. Just have a little backbone and admit helen is a flip flopper or a liar.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:28 am
Hi guys,
details of the Christchurch March, Wellington March, Nelson rally, etc, all on this site:
http://www.politik.co.nz
More info, email me: theboybiggles@gmail.com
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:31 am
PJ just as the law against rape has stopped those who rape, the fact that murder is illegal has meant that we have no murders. And because theft is against the law, i usually leave my keys in the car and the motor running while doing my shopping.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:34 am
Call me cynical but the fast tracking of the anti smacking bill probably has very little to do with any wish to halt smacking. Yes nanny state does want come into our homes but this is not the prime reason for the rushing of this bill.
Liarbour and the Greens will effectively be an “item” once this bill goes through. I wonder what new nasty peice of legislation hides in the wings. Liarbour are hell bent on securing the Green vote, no doubt they are happy with the anti smacking bill but there is more to this then meets the eye. I would bet that Liarbour will need the Green vote on new rules concerning the enviroment and carbon taxes.There will be a new bill dealing to these issues, within the next month. This will have a greater effect on everyone in NZ then the anti smacking bill as this will cost everyone.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:38 am
Gotta love this from Andy’s link
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/search/label/Coming%20Events
“Defending the Role of Parents and the Well-Being of our Children
Everyone in Christchurch is encouraged to come to the Peaceful Protest March that will begin in Cathedral Square, in the center of Christchurch….
Violence will not be tolerated – Police will be present.
So no hitting the kiddies all!
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:41 am
Hi guys,
details of the Christchurch March, Wellington March, Nelson rally, etc, all on this site:
http://www.politik.co.nz
More info, email me: theboybiggles@gmail.com
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:44 am
What piece of legislation is waiting in the wings that absolutely needs Green support.
Thats what this is about.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:52 am
sonic, Giving my kid a smack is _not_ violence.
PJ, Giving my kid a smack is _not_ beating.
Do you guys really not understand, or are you deliberately distorting the debate?
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:03 am
PaulM, smacking your wife is violence. Smacking your neighbour’s child is violence. Smacking your child is violence.
End of story.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:06 am
ooh look..!..everyone..!
it’s d4j…!
and he’s got his (insertable) ‘cold steel of truth’…!
and he wants to do a bit of ‘shoving’/inserting..with it..
(sphincters closed now..!..)
and look.!.(eveyone/the gang is (all) here..!..)..
and side show bob has come up with a nifty new conspiracy theory..
just for the occaison..
and the convoluted logic of the vanzyl has even been taken out of mothballs..!
..and taken for a bit of an airing/walk…
(put it away/back..!..)
(whoar..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:06 am
How about smacking DBensonP-stylee?
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:10 am
I dont recall mentioning any conspiracies Sonic
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:18 am
Really Grant, having memory problems are we?
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:18 am
I wonder what school phil u attended.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:21 am
“..the school for proper english..”
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:21 am
“PJ just as the law against rape has stopped those who rape, the fact that murder is illegal has meant that we have no murders. ”
please, you’re not seriously advancing this nonsense as an argument at all. The fact that murder isn’t eradicated by its being illegal, is no reason to allow purpertrators to get off scott free.
“PJ, Giving my kid a smack is _not_ beating”
Did i say it was? Police are able to excersize their discretion when prosecuting crimes don’t you know. So if say you give your mate a pat on the shoulder, and for some reason he flips out and decides to allege to the police that you assaulted him, the police arent going to take him seriously. Similiarly, if you give your child a light smack on the bum or hand with an open hand and some dork reports you for it they will laugh at them and tell them to stop waisting their time. On the other hand, if you insist on say punching your kids or whacking them with impliments you may recieve a visit from the police. Decenent people have nothing to fear from this bill.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:26 am
phillipjohn has really put it into a nutshell..eh..?
“..decent people have nothing to fear from this bill..’
those ‘decent people’ should all be celebrating the (late) arrival of this important piece of legislation..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:29 am
dave, is hitting your neighbour in the chest violence? How about if he’s on the ground? How about if he’s had a heart attack and you’re trying to start his heart?
Is slapping your daughter on the arm violence? What about if you’re killing a mosquito that landed there? Or swatting away a wasp?
Or is whipping a horse during a race violence?
What about two guys in a boxing ring? Is that allowed? Or high school wrestling? Or a martial arts tournament?
Hitting something and violence are not always mutually exclusive. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn’t. I think one of the big questions is, is it done in anger? A parent doesn’t hit a child in anger; in fact, more often than not it hurts the parent more to do it.
What if you told your child not to play on the road and he goes and does it anyway and no amount of telling him would stop him? Would you give him a smack on the behind to stop him? To save his life?
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:35 am
hey Andrew, where were you this morning when you were meant to turn up at the City Mission?
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:36 am
ps, perhaps I mean ‘mutually inclusive’ there…lol
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:37 am
No PJ you are suggesting that making it a law will actually stop those who abuse their children now. Do you truly believe that? How about having a look at your cheerleader. Unable to face life without the crutch of THC. teaching children that it is okay to destroy their brain cells? Is that not abuse? Decent people?
Phil talking about decent people is about up there with the Japanese talking about whale protection.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:45 am
“No PJ you are suggesting that making it a law will actually stop those who abuse their children now.”
Sweet Jesus – consider me exasperated. It seems like you’re trying to tell me that there should be no laws because crime still persists in spite of them. Unfathomable logic, really.
“How about having a look at your cheerleader. Unable to face life without the crutch of THC.”
Well, last time i checked over 50% of New Zealanders have looked to Mary Jane for some fun. So once again, a dead argument.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:46 am
phil, decent people have everything to fear. They have the fear of their children being taken away be overzealous CYFS officers, the fear of being arrested for giving their child a little smack on the bottom in the supermarket for throwing a tantrum, the fear that when their child grows into a precocious teenager and they’re not getting their way that he or she will report their parents for smacking them as a child, the fear (in a divorce suit) of a partner bringing up an occasion when the child was deservedly smacked in order to gain custody of the child – the list goes on and on.
I don’t think I’m exaggerating too much to say that this could lead to anarchy.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:50 am
OK Fletch. There are plenty of countries in Europe where this law already exists (i.e. Germany and most of the Scandanavian countries). So can you show me one instance from those countries where a parent has landed in jail for giving their child a smack on the bum with an open hand? No, I didn’t think so.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:05 pm
PJ there is a difference between having tried it (I grew up in Africa and Durban poison and Rooibaard was freely available so have tried it) and using every day or even regularly. So your figures (grabbed out of the air) is a nonsense.
Maybe your use of THC has affected your short and medium term memory. The argument that this law will reduce child abuse was the platform Bradford and supporters started from. And that is unbelievably stupid. If you have any idea about abuse, you would know that anyone willing to harm their child have no regard for the law anyway.
But if you want to use numbers grabbed out of the air to justify your arguments so can I (but I will supply links: http://starstuddedsuperstep.com/section59/htm/vote.htm) out of the NZ population less that 14% agree with your argument. (Did you know that number is around the same as the number of people born with an IQ to low to function independently. I know that it’s just a coincidence
Now I actually have other things to do than argue with a 14 percenter.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:08 pm
“Similiarly, if you give your child a light smack on the bum or hand with an open hand and some dork reports you for it they will laugh at them and tell them to stop waisting their time.”
So we have a situation where Sue Bradford didn’t think that the Judicial process (judge & jury) was able to make the correct decision, so instead she wants the decision to be made at the discresion of individual police officers. Sounds like the hallmark of a police state, really. Isn’t this bill almost ‘contempt of court’?
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Sonic.
`Vilence will not be tolerated’.
How thick are you – this reference does not mean smacking children. It means the marchers will not be like Sue Bradford and the recent anti police marchers and assault the police or innocent bystanders.
For gods sake get a life and get a real job.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:09 pm
> those ‘decent people’ should all be celebrating the (late) arrival of this important piece of legislation..
Make no mistake I will be. With a good old fashioned thrashing a minute before midnight when the bill takes effect.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:13 pm
I see PDM forgot to take his sense of humour pills this morning.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:35 pm
dave “smacking your wife is violence” –
no, thats foreplay ;-p
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:42 pm
It is not police work to make judgement calls on how illegal an offence is. They are meant to enforce the law, as the law says smacking is illegal it must be enforced. Smack your child you are a criminal and are liable to be imprisoned.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:50 pm
My conscience made me drive my rusty old d4j van (with no warrant) out to the lovely North Canterbury Town of Rangiora. I attended the Peaceful March against Bradford’s attack on common sense and parental rights. I liked the way a lot of new mums push them pram’s , ooopps sexist !! I shook the hand of a policeman and I shook the hand of Mark Alexander after his speech, which resembled my early morning rant (without the naughty bits). The sweet was just pissing off his brow, not that hot today – lol – good stuff mate I said, and went and signed couple of petition’s! I did not bother shaking the hand of Ron Mark after his speech, as I had to correct him when he named National MP Simon Power was for the bill, thankfully I raised a point of order, excuse me sir, but Simon is in favour of Chester’s Bill. He looked at me with a sign saying “ children need a mum and dad” and he soon shut up. Clayton did not show up, which is a huge disappointment, as I wanted to remind him what secondary school he went to. He was a year behind at our college
What a good way to get a bit of fresh air and refresh the mind and I look forward to the gathering next Wednesday in the Christchurch Square.
It would be good if John Key spoke at the gathering of good decent and concerned parents?
We don’t want no tricky business in kiwiland.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:52 pm
d4j
How many people on the march?
(At a guess it would be more than the 20 that made it into the news for the anti war one the other day)
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:59 pm
I don’t know but I would say a couple of hundred ? I didn’t count as I was busy talking to people who said that they know so many people that would like to “be here with us ” but they ” both work ” .
I said, Cullen has them by the throat and they all cannot afford to take time off work .
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:00 pm
ok then vanzyl…bye..!
back in the cupboard now…off you go..!
(the big people need to talk..)
(and..btw..shine on u crazy diamond..eh..?..
just not too often..eh..?..
there’s a good chap..)
btw..watch out d4j dosen’t ‘get you’ with his (insertable) ‘cold steel of truth’..eh..?..)
and fletch..!..”..anarchy..”..whoar..!
i’ll keep an eye out the window for it..eh..?
do you know what it will be dressed in..?
phil(whoar.co.nz
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Phil – what drugs are we on today ?
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Getting back to the topic of the post (which is the misuse of urgency, not the rights and wrongs of smacking, just in case we need a reminder this far down the comments)…
I think previous commenters have pretty much nailed the resaons why urgency is being taken:
1. Appalling internal polling sees Labour strategists telling the caucus to get rid of the putrid dead albatross round it’s neck as quickly as possible and try to get some “clean air” back, possibly before introducing the next outrage.
2. Possibly they need Greens support for the next outrage, to be purchased at any cost – even having moderates (who would perhaps have rathered the Civil Union Bill not be passed but weren’t really that fussed when it did) turn against them.
3. The more time that’s allowed, the more soft supporters amongst MPs will peel off.
It will be interesting to see whether, once the dust settles, a government Bill emerges which is so outrageous the only way it will get through is with Greens support, bought at the cost of Bradford’s Bill.
Ironically, that would give me (at least) some comfort. It would mean Labour’s backing for this ill-conceived piece of sloppy law – good in principle, chaotic in practice – was driven by political expediency.
The alternative is to believe that those running the country are actually ideological zealots with the political instincts of a cowpat.
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Fletch. The danger with smacking a child is the potential that when smacking when angry becomes abuse and maybe death.
I have smacked my kids when they where you 2-3 times each.
But as my mother who is 78 has said that the only 2 times she smacked me was in anger.
She frightend herself so badly that she never smacked me again.
That is why i am against smacking now, there is a fine line between discipline and brutality and so people do not know the difference.
If S59 is stopping the Police from proscecuting these people thenthe law has to go and not be bleered by Chester Burrows amendment.
I don’t know if you saw 20/20 last night, the item on spousel abuse. 36 years in jail, now thats a law i can live with.
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Fletch. The danger with smacking a child is the potential that when smacking when angry becomes abuse and maybe death.
I have smacked my kids when they where you 2-3 times each.
But as my mother who is 78 has said that the only 2 times she smacked me was in anger.
She frightend herself so badly that she never smacked me again.
That is why i am against smacking now, there is a fine line between discipline and brutality and so people do not know the difference.
If S59 is stopping the Police from proscecuting these people thenthe law has to go and not be bleered by Chester Burrows amendment.
I don’t know if you saw 20/20 last night, the item on spousel abuse. 36 years in jail, now thats a law i can live with.
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Totally OT but otherwise you might miss your chance to gloat, David. You were right: Woolmer was murdered.
‘The pathologist report states that Woolmer’s died from “asphyxia as a result of manual strangulation”, police said.’
And now back to our regularly scheduled rantings…
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Rex,
3rd option.
Its political expediency by ideological zealots with the political instincts of a cowpat.
You know Winston better than most. He is a polly that (IMO) charts his course based on public opinion. What do you think he is going to do over this? Is it the kind of issue that he might be tempted to jump ship over to catch the latest wave of public support?
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:47 pm
At the risk of offending Rex with whom I happen to agree BTW, John Dalley you are an arrogant prat if you think that the same thoughts that went through your mother’s head don’t go through the heads of a vast majority of parents. That they didn’t oobviously go through yours is testament to something.
Maybe it is that you were such a little bastard that you drove your mother to such anger that she struck you. The world may have been a better place for all if she had given you a hiding and taught you some behavioural boundaries. However to the point – Unless your mother was an intellectual giant why can you not give reasonable people the benefit of the doubt and suspect that they might act reasonably?
dave earlier made the point about smacking my neighbour’s wife. Apart from the fact that she is bigger and uglier than me, the fact also remains that to lock her in a room would be classified as kidnapping whereas locking a child in a room is considered time out. Kids aren’t adults, never have been, never will be. In the eyes of the law they have a number of specific protections (Minors Contracts Act, Crimes Act Legalisation of Prostitution Act etc). If you want to treat them equally why not remove those protections and make every parent sign a guarantee at the time of their birth. No guarantee = no kid. Would that allow the state into your life enough?
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:52 pm
“Kids aren’t adults, never have been, never will be”
Care to rephrase that David?
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Rex,
There is dirty goings on afoot without a doubt.
Always watch what the other hand is doing. The one you can see is generally a diversion and in politics there is amost never a quid without a pro quo some where some time,
Of coourse it might be that the Gummint knows what is about to happen with Field MP, the support of NZ1 and Dunne’s mob is uncertain so they are nailing the Greens while they can.
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:02 pm
there’s only ever one..d4j..
i am boringly monochromatic in my ‘relaxants’..
(..”the magic ‘erb be it..bro..”..)
oh..!..that and a shot of humour..
from laughing at the outpourings/rants of ‘richards’ like yourself..
how about you..?
still hitting/caning the piss hard..?
that was the core/cause of your original ‘issues’..wasn’t it..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:03 pm
sonic
If it makes you happy, anything.
“Kids aren’t adults, never have been, never will be as long as they are still kids”
pedantry must be your middle name.
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:07 pm
david w said..
“..There is dirty goings on afoot without a doubt.
Always watch what the other hand is doing. The one you can see is generally a diversion and in politics there is amost never a quid without a pro quo some where some time..”
now..i am a big fan/user of the mangled/mashed metaphor/homily..
but i step back..and tip my hat to a master..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:09 pm
The message to Radio Live didn’t last long -lol – must adjust the Bat frequency .
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Hi phil
Nice post – almost makes sense. Keep up the pills and ointment and we might even cure your period addiction totally.
(missed a couple of chances to mangle here but have real work to do)
cheers
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:26 pm
This is a frivolous Friday madam speaker – so please answer one question for an extremely busy and confused d4j.
All this concern about the plight of vulnerable children is great but – why have this government twice failed to support Article 13 at UN Doha Declaration?
Talk about out of step, woops I just smacked a witch. They are going to take the biological dad of the birth certificate next!
When will it stop?
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Dad4J, article 13 of the Doha declaration appears to refer to farm subsidies.
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:39 pm
What else would I expect from you. I am not typing it out , you know what I mean , other delegations did at the 2004 DD on the Family .
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:52 pm
You mean this?
http://www.worldfamilyalliance.org/wfa/sign_doha.cfm#declaration
“13.Take effective measures to strengthen the stability of marriage by, among other things, encouraging the full and equal partnership of husband and wife within a committed and enduring marital relationship;”
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:56 pm
You are very clever at times sonic
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Dont thank me, thank The Google!
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:02 pm
The more I think about it, the more I agree with Rex about the next item on the agenda.
Labour, and H.C. in particular, have painted themselves into a corner with this bill. It has become almost a confidence issue, and the attempts at railroading are putting N.Z.1st. & U.F. offside.
This whole saga must be hurting Labour horribly in the polls. So the question has to be asked why it is being pushed through?
Or are we missing the obvious? Has their ideology finally completely overtaken their political common sense?
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:04 pm
The police won’t arrest someone for smacking their kid on the bum with an open hand any more than they currently arrest joe blogs for J walking. So please, just get over it, you guys have nothing to fear but your own abusive temperaments.
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:11 pm
So phillipjohn, since parents apparently have nothing to worry about, you will be only too happy to pay the legal costs of any parents charged with smacking. Right?
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:17 pm
PJ stop posting. For a supposedly educated person you are incredibly stupid.
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Bradford’s bill, as it is currently worded is and appaling piece of legislation. It is so imprecise that even the experts cannot agree on the actual extent to which it will apply.
PJ, the proposed law is so vague it will be abused. One reason is that, unless you downgrade assault as a crime, then it is something that requires investigation. It is not in the same category as J walking, or having a stop lamp out or other such infringements.
Get off your high horse with the abusive temprements comments. You actually have no idea about my parenting skills or temprement, or my relationship with my children.
If you can’t distinguish between discipline and assault, fine, you are better off playing it safe. But don’t project your own inadequacies onto others.
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:21 pm
pj,
In your ever so humble opinion then you are more comfortable for Mr Plod to have the discretion on prosecution than a judge and jury. How bizarre
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:25 pm
“So phillipjohn, since parents apparently have nothing to worry about, you will be only too happy to pay the legal costs of any parents charged with smacking. Right?”
Now what kind of student would put their hand up for that? Better off asking D4J, i bet he’s involved in some kind of mens group that will fork out for all the poor child beaters out there.
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:26 pm
J walking? Sorry but I don;t think that is in any way a crime in NZ so how could the police prosecute? Might be against a council bylaw….
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:28 pm
philipjohn, the fact remains that it will be illegal. I know a police constable and he tells me that, yes, the police will have to investigate any reportings of smacking as it will be illegal.
You’re trying to mimic Sue’s protest of, “it will be illegal, but the police won’t do anything about it”; I’m saying that, by law, they’ll have to.
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:28 pm
and the dumbness continues….nice work PJ..sigh
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:30 pm
PJ hit me with a flower yeah …yeah ..Lou Read was kewl.
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:33 pm
“PJ, the proposed law is so vague it will be abused. One reason is that, unless you downgrade assault as a crime, then it is something that requires investigation.”
Yes i’m aware of this – however police regularly throw out assult cases because of they lack credibility, so the same will logically occur in the instance of child abuse. This means that you will have to injure a child sufficiently for the police to go through with an assult charge. Now i’m no legal expert, but i think this would mean quite an attack. Toward this point, is there anyone reading this that knows what kind of force is necessary for the police to persue an assult complaint?
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:34 pm
1) The cops have to investigate any report of any crime, although often that “investigation” will take only a few seconds.
2) There are thousands of examples a day of the police deciding not to charge someone they know has technically committed a crime, speed limits are a goodexample but also public drunkeness or urinating in the street (both crimes) are usually dealt with by a warning rather than with arrest.
The police do not nick everyone who is drunk on a Saturday night, although listening to some commentators on here you would think that they have no choice or something.
It amazes me how critics of this bill can misrepresent such well known facts.
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:36 pm
dad4justice: yes you are viscious. BTW what was the point you were trying to make?
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Sonic
Once again yuo have multiple posted and once again you have avoided the topic. Do you or do you not agree with the use of urgency to pass this legislation?
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Also, Lou Read still IS.
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Read the domestic violence act , i know the dam thing word by word , by the law which is an ASS !!
Police will often have ” no choice ” but arrest , hardly in the child’s best interest if the notification turns out to malicious and false ?
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Thought that would shut you up – the shark has been talking to the feds .
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Not sure Andrew, normally I am against urgency however as opponents of the bill are trying to fillibuster it perhaps there is a case to be made.
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:49 pm
That wasn’t an answer d4j – so i’ll ask again
“is there anyone reading this that knows what kind of force is necessary for the police to follow through with an assult conviction?”
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Crown law have ample scope to charge under existing law for irrational adult behaviour , the legal defence this bill hinges will sadly create a greater “grey area ” of muddled law !
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:54 pm
So in other words you have no idea?
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:57 pm
So what is the big rush to get such controversial and badly drafted law through if not for reasons of idealogy and/or political expediency ? This is an incredibly cynical abuse of power and could escalate into a catalyst for fresh elections. There must be something else going on in the background to justify HC and Labours rush into political oblivion – it just doesn’t add up.
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Grey area law is sick for society !!
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:01 pm
A father was fined $500 for hitting his son (DomPost today).
Gee, with all this talk on the need to repeal s59 you’d think he couldn’t be found guilty of anything at the moment.
But he was fined $500.
Lucky some-one dobbed him in, eh? Can’t understand why s59 defence didn’t automatically get him off scott free, with compensation payments for the inconvenience?? Any idea Sonic?
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:04 pm
I saw a young lady smack her son today at the park , PJ do I ring the feds about her ?
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:09 pm
“I saw a young lady smack her son today at the park , PJ do I ring the feds about her?”
you could, but they would probably tell you to stop waisting their time.
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:12 pm
You utopian people are quite soft .
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:12 pm
“is there anyone reading this that knows what kind of force is necessary for the police to follow through with an assult conviction?”
No.
The people drafting the law have no idea. The lawyers can’t make up their minds, and the police & police association are saying that they will be playing it safe, meaning that everything that can be classed as assault will be treated as such.
Even if I agreed with the principle of banning smacking, I would not agree with this particular attempt because it is so poorly thought out and ambiguously worded.
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:19 pm
hey PJ, how do utopian people teach young children boundaries ?
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Phillip John…I understand the Police no longer have any discretion when a husband(male) assaults his wife(female). He has to arrest him. What would you advise the constable to do if the husband says
he applied force to her to stop her smacking a child…..As I see it he has to arrest them both or explain to a judge why he didn’t act on the husband’s explanation…D 4 J. The reason Clayton didn’t show is because he also came out as strong as Klark at an election meeting and swore black and blue he wouldn’t support a ban on smacking.
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Funnily enough Zen old chum, I tend to wait for details to emerge before commenting on a case.
You should try it!
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:32 pm
“…I understand the Police no longer have any discretion when a husband(male) assaults his wife(female). He has to arrest him.”
What a nightmare of a country we live in when you can not slap the Mrs around the face a few times without the “nanny state” interfering.
How else can you set boundries for her?
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Good try sonic but no thanks to that bullshit !!
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Does any reader of this thread have anything sensible to say on the subject of why the government and its allies are so determined to push through this law when a clear majority (80% plus we are told) is opposed to it ?
The law change is clearly defying the will of the people; it is a direct assault on our democracy when our elected parliamentary representatives are determined to implement a law opposed by the people. They are elected to represent our wishes, not to defy them. Why is this being done ? Constructive comments only please.
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Radical feminists are to blame Rich Graham, what else could I say from the far right ?
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Idealogy vs democracy.
idealogy by a KO
Nah that is too easy.
As speculated there must be a done deal and for Labour to take on this sort of risk it must be a matter of political survival (or at least the need to retain the reigns of power through the short term) or close to it.
I’m not sure though how far the Greens would compromise their principles in support of Labour in order to get this bill through so it is a bit of a paradox.
Could it be payback for support of the retrospective legislation over the pledge card rort?
Could it be that the Police are ready to move on TP Field at al and there is a bye-lection in the wind unless Labour can strengthen their support in the House?
Is the writing on the wall for Labour and they have some unpopular unfinished business to ram through before they get tossed out on their sorry asses? (Anyone for a Capital Gains Tax all to be spent on public transport?)
Just to upset phil a bit more
“Needs must when the devil drives”
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:52 pm
richgraham,
There could be a number of reasons.
They might just be so arrogant that they think that the voters will have forgotten by the next election.
They may think that their ideals are higher than those of 80% of the electorate, and that they have 18 months to re-educate the rest of us.
It could be that they see the end of their time in power, and are trying to ram as much of their agenda as possible through before the end of the term.
They may also have just made a political stuff up, and be too bloody minded to back down.
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:56 pm
AAAWWW c’mon sonic, playtime, try a little speculation.
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:57 pm
“They are elected to represent our wishes”
They are, but they have chosen to forget that.
HC has never had a proper job, she is a political animal. Politics is her career. For her, being in parliament is not a matter of serving the electorate, but a matter of persauading enough voters to give her the opportunity to pursue her agenda.
It is an ideology that turns democracy on its head. In her view the electors are there to confirm her mandate, she is not there to represent their views.
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:59 pm
come on sonic lets play !!!
March 23rd, 2007 at 5:03 pm
David & d4j,
“AAAWWW c’mon sonic, playtime, try a little speculation”
“come on sonic lets play ”
At 5p.m. on a Friday? I think you may be a little late with the suggestion.
March 23rd, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Oh that’s right Pete sonic doesn’t do overtime. Can the blue corner claim the bout?
I think I will have a Speights and do my Super 14 picks.
Good day gentlemen.
March 23rd, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Oh that’s right Pete sonic doesn’t do overtime. Can the blue corner claim the bout?
I think I will have a Speights and do my Super 14 picks.
Good day gentlemen.
March 23rd, 2007 at 5:47 pm
phillipjohn: …however police regularly throw out assult cases because of they lack credibility, so the same will logically occur in the instance of child abuse.
Yes, I’m sure they do. And they also regularly arrest, detain and bring to trial people against who they have little or no evidence but whom they have reason to dislike. I’m living proof – not just the one well-publicised incident but five – count ‘em pj, five – cases (on totally different charges) before that.
If we could rely on the Police to be fair an impartial to all, I agree with you 100% – only those who overstep the mark would have anything to fear. But as it is, some of us have a lot to fear. I for one would never give a light corrective smack to a child in public – the kind you claim the Police would never prosecute – because once they saw the name of the alleged offender they would prosecute.
Your view of the application of this law is idealistic. Sadly, we live in a far from ideal world.
Peter S: You know Winston better than most. He is a polly that (IMO) charts his course based on public opinion. What do you think he is going to do over this?
A ban against applying reasonable corrective force to discipline a child would be an anathema to Winston. He’s conservative and so is his support base. I imagine he’ll be sitting someplace as I type this, whisky in hand, shaking his head at such lunacy – and deploring sloppy lawmaking in and of itself.
Is it the kind of issue that he might be tempted to jump ship over to catch the latest wave of public support?
As someone commented above, this has almost become a confidence issue. If he destabilises the government he risks losing the precious baubles of office to which he clings so dearly. So no, I think it unlikely, at least on such a trivial issue (in terms of the core issues which keep NZF supporters rusted on). One thing about Winston, he knows how to pick his fights and he doesn’t roll up his sleeves unless he’s fairly sure he’s going to win or knows that a loss will actually give him a tactical advantage.
March 23rd, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Quite a few posts ago DavidW said: “Kids aren’t adults, never have been, never will be.”
No DavidW, they are people/human beings/homo sapiens. Do you get it yet?
aladin
March 23rd, 2007 at 6:13 pm
I think i heard mentioned that if marks or bruising appeared on a childs body, that would be construed.
To those going on about false accusations should i expect that the please would probably exercise discretion if at the least bruising, etc was not evident plus they are usually fairly astute at smelling a lie.
March 23rd, 2007 at 6:17 pm
DavidW. Arrogant about what. I was a little shit when i was young and a bad tempered teenager.
The only point i was making is that there is a fine line between smacking when angry and out right assult. Was i lucky, could well have been.
March 23rd, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Yes aladin kids are all of that but you see they don’t have the same reasoning power of an adult that’s why we call them kids. Understand now?
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:12 pm
AGJ said: “Yes aladin kids are all of that but you see they don’t have the same reasoning power of an adult that’s why we call them kids.”
And is that a good reason to hit them?
aladin
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Sonic, Sorry it’s taken so long to reply. Work etc you understand. No, not having memory problems here.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Anyway, whatever happens, one thing is for sure: a lot of police time is going to be wasted running around after “smackers” when it should be spent on following up REAL crimes.
Sue & co are going to have the police chasing after shadows.
What a waste of time and energy that has already been expended on something that needn’t have been changed, and what a lot of time it’s going to waste in the future.
I hope you’re proud of yourself Sue; your legacy will be that of screwing up New Zealand.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Socialist pricks are always shocked when they discover the citizens don’t want their direction.
OMG!
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Rex,
NZ First is languishing in the polls.
80% of the country don’t want a law change.
That includes a heck of a lot of voters that supported Labour at the last election.
The reason I asked if you thought he might do something is that, if he could summon some reserves of energy and charisma, there is a golden opportunity for a centerist party to do to Labour what NZ first did to National a couple of elections back.
If Winston did act on something like this, then you could possibly be looking at Labour in the low 20% range.
Would that be a fight he would relish?
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Judith….opps I mean “Sonic” don’t work past 5 on a Friday….or past 12pm anyday for that matter….;-)
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:03 pm
You mean…you reactionary scum…that you reject Hulun and Suzzie’s attempts to “inform your choices???”
Both obviously know more about how to bring up your kids than you do.
…………..:-)…………
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:42 pm
This bill goes against human nature – nuff said.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:00 pm
I agree burt – cheers mate -nuff said .
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:03 pm
D4J
This has got to be the loosest bunch of cannons on the deck for some years. WTF do they think they are doing?
H1 (who IMHO is way overrated for her intelligence) has shown her true mental prowess on this one. I’ll say anything for a vote Clark is digging her own political grave. Please stand clear – don’t interrupt her.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:07 pm
I will help shovel the dirt mate – in her own words – ” bring it on .”
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Phew….just as well Suzzie, the commie, is here.
I have some problems with a teenager that I desperately need her advice on.
The smacking thing is just the tip of the iceberg
Anyone have a personal email for Suzz…the advice I need just wont wait.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Phew….just as well Suzzie, the commie, is here.
I have some problems with a teenager that I desperately need her advice on.
The smacking thing is just the tip of the iceberg
Anyone have a personal email for Suzz…the advice I need just wont wait.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:50 pm
“”Sonic” don’t work past 5 on a Friday”
Well I do usually have other matters on my mind on a Friday night, but thanks for the interest!
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Well f..k off !!!
March 24th, 2007 at 5:21 am
Speaking of consistency, will the Greens show support for Maori claim to the water in Aotearoa.
The Green Party, through its Charter and its constitution, acknowledges the indigenous language version of Te Tiriti as the legitimate text of an agreement that described the rights and responsibilities of hapu and the Crown, and which:
1. gave the Crown the right to kawanatanga,
2. confirmed the chiefs’ tino rangatiratanga,
3. gave Mäori the individual rights of British people, and
4. confirmed their religious, spiritual and customary rights.
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/policy5085.html
Where are you Frog?
March 24th, 2007 at 8:50 am
Burt, yeh but do you want to burn down the whole chicken coop just to get rid of one fox that’s in there?
On another note, I’ve wondered about this on here before but – you Labour supporters on here; do you actually believe in the bill or do you just blindly support anything that Labour does?
What if National were trying to ram the exact same bill through? Would you still support it?
If National were trying to put the same bill through, I’d still be dead against it.
March 24th, 2007 at 9:38 am
Hi guys,
details of the Christchurch March, Wellington March, Nelson rally, etc, all on this site:
http://www.politik.co.nz
More info, email me: theboybiggles@gmail.com
March 24th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Back on topic:
Use of urgency to get the bill through… Hmmm… This bill has been in parliament for two years, it has been subject to thorough consultation, and is supported by the majority of parliament.
It seems to me that if you are going to filibuster to frustrate the political process, you can hardly complain when the government applies to have a bill heard under urgency to counteract the filibuster. Remember that the Government still needs a majority to go into urgency.
Political or not, the passing of this bill will see the sun come up the next day, and won’t see a pile of parents prosecuted for smacking.
What disturbs me is that people like D4J think that physical force is the only method by which you can set boundaries.
Oh, and I was watching the blues play last night, but didn’t see a single arrest for a number of assaults. Wonder why that was…
March 24th, 2007 at 11:17 am
“Oh, and I was watching the blues play last night, but didn’t see a single arrest for a number of assaults. Wonder why that was…”
Well not one of the players is a Labour MP, so I have no idea why they were not prosecuted. Pehaps you could explain how you can compare a rugby game played by professional athletes to a frustrated parent trying to control a child in a supermarket. I can’t see the relevance, but I guess you don’t need logic to support a party of twats.
March 24th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Weizguy says, “What disturbs me is that people like D4J think that physical force is the only method by which you can set boundaries.”
I am not going to speak D4J. However, can you quote where is says that? If not, would you explain why you left wing control freak so frequently resort to distorting the facts if not out and out lying? One example is referring to smacking as beating or thrashing which is not being debated as it is already illegal and definately would be under Borrows amendment. another example is Clark’s flip flop from her position before the elextion
March 24th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Weizguy says, “What disturbs me is that people like D4J think that physical force is the only method by which you can set boundaries.”
My four children have just read that insipid acid lined comment and would to supply you with affidavits that would state the contrary. They love and respect me heaps. Don’t suppose with a name like yours that you would know anything about children.
Good try weizguy and remember well – the same old story in the Mafia movies – the wiseguy always get whacked.
March 24th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
I’m with dad4justice all the way. Helen Clark’s commie dictatorship is determined to destroy family authority and place children under the authority of the state. New Zealand is in a sad and sorry state when air-head females can introduce such outrageous legislation and have a lot of third-rate female politicians (of both sexes) fall into line. Face it: NZ is rapidly slipping into tyranny.
When I was a kid during and just after the second world war it was common for kids to get a good hiding with Dad’s belt. It never did any harm, rather it did a lot of good–like teaching respect for authority and self-discipline. The socialist maggots who have slithered their way into parliament are encouraging social chaos, not to mention a nation of wimps.
REDBAITER: email me at lurkeryoo@yahoo.com.au
March 24th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
I’m with dad4justice all the way. Helen Clark’s commie dictatorship is determined to destroy family authority and place children under the authority of the state. New Zealand is in a sad and sorry state when air-head females can introduce such outrageous legislation and have a lot of third-rate female politicians (of both sexes) fall into line. Face it: NZ is rapidly slipping into tyranny.
When I was a kid during and just after the second world war it was common for kids to get a good hiding with Dad’s belt. It never did any harm, rather it did a lot of good–like teaching respect for authority and self-discipline. The socialist maggots who have slithered their way into parliament are encouraging social chaos, not to mention a nation of wimps.
REDBAITER: email me at lurkeryoo@yahoo.com.au
March 24th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
I’m with dad4justice all the way. Helen Clark’s commie dictatorship is determined to destroy family authority and place children under the authority of the state. New Zealand is in a sad and sorry state when air-head females can introduce such outrageous legislation and have a lot of third-rate female politicians (of both sexes) fall into line. Face it: NZ is rapidly slipping into tyranny.
When I was a kid during and just after the second world war it was common for kids to get a good hiding with Dad’s belt. It never did any harm, rather it did a lot of good–like teaching respect for authority and self-discipline. The socialist maggots who have slithered their way into parliament are encouraging social chaos, not to mention a nation of wimps.
REDBAITER: email me at lurkeryoo@yahoo.com.au
March 24th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
I’m with dad4justice all the way. Helen Clark’s commie dictatorship is determined to destroy family authority and place children under the authority of the state. New Zealand is in a sad and sorry state when air-head females can introduce such outrageous legislation and have a lot of third-rate female politicians (of both sexes) fall into line. Face it: NZ is rapidly slipping into tyranny.
When I was a kid during and just after the second world war it was common for kids to get a good hiding with Dad’s belt. It never did any harm, rather it did a lot of good–like teaching respect for authority and self-discipline. The socialist maggots who have slithered their way into parliament are encouraging social chaos, not to mention a nation of wimps.
REDBAITER: email me at lurkeryoo@yahoo.com.au
March 25th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Chuck Bird
D4J asked sonic the other night whether he/she set boundaries for his/her children, after sonic explained that he/she didn’t smack. The implication was that smacking was the way to set boundaries, and that the removal of that punishment would prevent a parent setting boundaries. That may not have been what D4J meant, but considering the tone of his other posts, I’d be surprised if that wasn’t the point of his ad hominems.
Chuck, I note that you claim that I was arguing against a strawman, and then set one up yourself. Quality.
D4J
I’d be interested to hear about how my name affects my abilty to know anything about children… Care to explain your reasoning?
I’m glad to hear that your kids respect you. I never suggested otherwise.
How about either of you respond to the actual issue. Why is filibustering okay while urgency isn’t?
Cheers
March 26th, 2007 at 9:04 am
Weizguy says, “What disturbs me is that people like D4J think that physical force is the ONLY method by which you can set boundaries.”
Please answer the question and do not embellish it. Smacking is one way to set boundaries but not the only way.
It is typical of the anti smacking lobby to distort the facts.
March 26th, 2007 at 9:04 am
wizeguy,
” This bill has been in parliament for two years, it has been subject to thorough consultation, and is supported by the majority of parliament.”
That is not an accurate statement at all. If Labour were not whipping its caucus, then the bill would almost certainly fail. There are a number of Labour MPs that, if allowed to vote with their conscience, would clearly not support the bill.
So there is a bill that is opposed by something like 80% of the population and by a majority of MPs, but which still might be railroaded through.
If ever there was anything that gave filibustering legitimacy, then this would be one of those few occasions.
March 26th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Sad, pathetic NZ…..
Socially engineered by a politician from a tiny minority party you would not let inside your house.
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:17 am
ewyhkvi jzby jacuhg cyzhfeo zosuxci blcvzpq bigtzn
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:17 am
ewyhkvi jzby jacuhg cyzhfeo zosuxci blcvzpq bigtzn
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:18 am
ewyhkvi jzby jacuhg cyzhfeo zosuxci blcvzpq bigtzn