The Section 59 march
March 28th, 2007 at 2:26 pm by David FarrarI’d estimate around 500 people marching against the Bradford/Clark bill and around 30 counter protesters. Recognised a few from Young Labour in the counter march.
Lindsay Perigo was the main speaker and MC and he was in fine form against nanny state. Around six speakers in total. more than a few people winced though when Christine Rankin mentioned the PM’s lack of children. One just knows that will be the segment on the news. It was unnecessary and counter productive.
The marchers starting to arrive in Parliament.
All the media there loved the “Legalise Smack” sign.
Young Labour changing Family First’s name to Family Fist.
This sign cracked me up. One can escape hell if you hit your kids. I never realised it was so easy. I thought you had to go to church and all that, but it seems all you need to do is a bit of whacking!
Two of the younger protesters.
The old sickle and hammer.
An MP leaves Helen in no doubt as to his views, with this sign in his office window.
Even Che is against the bill!
A pretty funny counter protest sign.
A cute police officer. I’ll leave it to readers to work out which one I mean 
March 29th, 2007 at 6:44 am
500! Good to see the silent majority taking to the streets in such huge numbers. Be very afraid Helen.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 7:04 am
I am lost for words as the unscrupulous Bradford has passed the bill to the childless Clark as it will add “mana and credibility.” Neither malign woman would know the meaning of the words, as both their private lives are total farcical lies. To make matters worse the delusions of decency continue to froth from the crazed Bradford when she vomits “ The best torturers of this world know how to hurt people without leaving a mark “
This statement is up there with the insane words of our disgusting Prime Minister who vomited “extrapolated from an anecdote “ when asked if a underclass is a characteristic of New Zealand.
However Bradford is right about the silent torturers as the government has clearly shown by it’s despicable agenda that it is hell bent on labelling all parents who are not homosexuals as torturers, hence they twice refused NOT to back mum, dad and the kids at United Nations level!These women are sick and have tainted consciences. They both need urgent treatment ( labotomy -maybe ?? ) for they’re out of control riddled with culpable psychosis. How long must we put up with the utopian social engineers?
On another note is was pleasing to see that March numbers were twice the amount in Canterbury ( 1000 ) compared with Wellington .
I hate like to think of what numbers we would get along to a week -end March ? I mean for a thousand people to March in pouring rain mid week does indicate the level of frustration people are experiencing with a vile government . The Labour/Green freakshow is all but over – and there can be no doubting that .
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 7:08 am
They think this will be same as smoking and the “gay debates” where there was huge opposition. They think people will settle down once the law is in place and will forget about it. But then the prosecutions will begin. Particularly for spite in domestic dispute siutations. They have covered themselves of course with – you guessed it – a review in 2 years time. Whenever there is a problem or potential problem they set a review. And find a way to blame the National Party.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 7:37 am
500 v 50. The pro-bill team managed to get ALL their supporters there.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 7:40 am
The ones against the repeal look like nothing more than people demanding the right to be able to thrash and beat children……
Or so says our Prime Minister.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 8:36 am
That Che placard was pretty good.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 8:43 am
250 according to the Herald.
So much for that.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 8:44 am
Regarding Rankin’s speech: I think it fair enough that she mentions the childlessness of Clark; after all, how can you have an unbiased view of a law you’re trying to pass if you’ve never had experience of the thing it concerns?
It’s like a person who has never owned a dog saying that it’s wrong to hit the dog with a rolled up newspaper – fine, if you’ve never had to train a dog not to pee inside the house. If you haven’t, then you don’t know what the heck you’re talking about.
And not that I am trying to equate animals and children, but smacking really is all about training; it is only one of the methods that are needed to guide and correct a child.
It is NOT THE ONLY METHOD, and perhaps it will be seldom used, but it is needed.
Sometimes a child can be reasoned with; often he will understand where you are coming from and why you’re saying he is not to do something – sometimes you may as well be trying to reason with the dog not to pee in the house. He is a child after all, and doesn’t yet have the intelligence to understand.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 8:49 am
Sonsick – he who conceals his hatred has lying lips, and whoever spreads spurious slander is a fool.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 8:50 am
Makes a mockery of Sue Bradford’s claim on Breakfast this morning that opposition wasn’t 70 – 80% against, but more like 50/50 (people are framing their poll questions incorrectly!!!).
Based on the numbers at the march it looks more like 95% against!
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 9:03 am
sean14,
When the 80% figure first started being touted about a month ago, Leighton Smith on NewsTalkZB was quite dismissive of it, and said that reality was much more likely to be about 60%.
After a few days, he changed his opinion based upon the feedback he was getting.
It is amazing in one way. I’ve been in the country since mid 1989. I have never seen any single issue unite so many people. It cuts across race, religion, social and political views.
HC tried to raise global warming and the environment as an issue to motivate the country in a move like the anti nuclear one (and to bolster her fast-evapourating support), but she has, quite accidentaly, stumbled upon an issue that is truly uniting the majority of the country.
An article in one of the papers said that Labour was holding all the cards on the issue, with the move to take on board the bill as a Labour bill.
That hand full of cards may well turn out to be a pair of (black) aces and a pair of (black) eights.
(For those of you who don’t get the last reference, google Wild Bill Hickock)
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 9:05 am
Only 250 Sonic? Whoops, only 89% opposed then!
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 9:12 am
Sean, sometimes you have to stand up for what is the right thing to do, whatever the opinion polls say.
Considering however that, even after a campaign of lies and disinformation the likes of which this country has never seen, your side could barely manage to get 300 people on a demonstration, I think the eggis firmly on your faces this morning.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 9:12 am
HERE’s an interesting study, where groups of parents were studied by a group from a University in Berkeley in 1968, then 1972-73 and again in 1978-80. So this is not some hack study, but one done over many years examining many families.
Some snippetts –
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 9:14 am
what a load of fuss about a one-issue debate. it has polarised people either for, or against. i haven’t seen a single official poll, just a bunch of emotive petitions.
Vote:can our brains not be any larger than this??
how about querying an ENTIRE BILL, such as the ridiculous therapeutic goods & medicines bill that the government is trying to shove through? i GUARANTEE this will affect YOUR life more than Section 59.
tuned out yet?
it is too complex to get “one issue” brains around & anyone would think that “one issue” debates are the only types that kiwis have the capacity for.
what an irony of democratic protest.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Fletch:
“There were no significant differences between children of parents who spanked seldom (green zone) and those who spanked moderately (yellow zone),”
So why spank then?
Does it make parents feel better?
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 9:26 am
yes..he has got a long truncheon..hasn’t he david..
and what a bunch of nutbars/jobs..eh..?
led by ‘rockin’ rankin’..and ol’ ‘petulant perigo’..
eh..?
ya gotta laff..!
(i’m nearly falling off my chair here….acc claim..cause:..laughter..)
(did you march in the front row david..?..or just lurk..?..)
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 9:27 am
Sonic, not bad numbers for a working wet day – there were 1000 in Christchurch. If I’d not been working and if it had been in Auckland I would have been there.
It’s funny how the proponents of the bill (the 30 or so who marched in support of the repeal of s59) are the ones who have the most violent reactions – shouting, waving their hands around, and in your face; you would expect it be the other way around.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Sonic,
“Considering however that, even after a campaign of lies and disinformation the likes of which this country has never seen”
The lies and disinformation would be the ones perpetuated by Bradford and Clark.
The lies and disinformation are coming almost exclusively from one side of the debate. Since there is well documented evidence of the deceptions put out by Clark & Bradford I’m afraid it is impossible to take seriously your implication that it is the anti repeal side that are the ones perpetuating lies. Likewise, it is the deliberate use of words like beating to describe minimal force that is the hysteria in the debate.
“sometimes you have to stand up for what is the right thing to do,”
Yes. And that is exactly what the opponents of the S59 repeal are doing.
You may still feel that you are defending the barricades against oppression. The sad truth is that it is many years since that was remotely true of the political left. Labour and left wing parties and their supporters have become the oppressors that their forebears once opposed.
The report of 250 is the lowest (and probably most grossly conservative) estimate of numbers, other reports have been 50% higher or more.
I have seen many wildly inaccurate estimates in the press. The anti C.U. march in Auckland was a classic. TV 3 said 4000, TV1 6000, both were highly conservative, having seen how far the march stretched along the road, and knowing how closely packed the people were, the number was much closer to 10000, meaning that TV3s estimate was possibly 1/3 as low as 1/3 of the actual total.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 9:29 am
8:43! you’re at work early today sonic.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Clark has never had day to day care of children. Just a few quick heeeeelloows to nieces and nephews. So she thinks she can discipline children and tell others how to.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Oh I forgot about the Civil Union issue that was going to destroy the traditional family and lead to the destruction of our fair land.
How did that work out again?
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 9:38 am
gregor, the “differences” mentioned (or lack thereof) are in terms of the child’s well-being – in other words spanking had no detrimental effect when compared to children who were not spanked.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 9:40 am
“Clark has never had day to day care of children.”
Well technically… however, if you factor in cabinet meetings….
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 9:42 am
“spanking had no detrimental effect when compared to children who were not spanked.”
So why do it then?
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 9:52 am
So why do it then?
When I was a child (late 60′s, early 70′s) an often heard saying, when a particularly obnoxious and illbehaved brat was performing was “I bet their parents don’t believe in smacking.”
It was usually true too.
Over time, standards of expected (and actual) behaviour have dropped to such an extent that those children would not stand out today. And this has been to the detriment of society.
The study shows that there is no difference in the likelihood of smacked children or non smacked children to end up as things like murderers and rapists (in complete contradiction of what Bradford so confidently and wrongly asserts). What the study does not measure is the difference in standards of behaviour. I bet if you factored in things like teen pregnancy rates, drug use, school expulsions, minor criminal convictions and such like, then you would get a far different result.
Take Bradford’s own behaviour as an example. She may not have ended up as a murderer, but it would be a long walk to find someone with a record of more obnoxious public behaviour and lack of respect for authority and the law.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 9:53 am
So why do it then? ”
Because it works.Really Judith…having a bad hiar day…?
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Sonic, to correct.
Stop playing dumb.
I’m talking about the detrimental effects of the spanking itself, not whether the children who were not spanked grew up to be *ssholes (which may or may not be the case, but it is possible).
That is not the reason for the study.
The point is, if spanking can be used as a tool to correct and to bring up well-adjusted members of society, then why not?
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Criminalising harmless activity that takes place in the home worked soooo well when we tried it against the gays, we are just aching to try it against parents.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Fletch has it been studied if spanking does any GOOD?
Because otherwise what you are saying is that spanking doesn’t do shit.
So is it really worth all this fuss.
Like I said, maybe it makes the parents feel better.
For me it doesn’t I didn’t get off on smacking my kid & he just got hysterical and scared so that didn’t help.
I just wonder about all this fuss and your report didn’t say anything good about spanking it just said “well it doesn’t do any significant harm” but what DOES it do?
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 10:00 am
“why not”
I see the defenders of spanking have reached a new low in argument.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 10:04 am
“The point is, if spanking can be used as a tool to correct and to bring up well-adjusted members of society, then why not?”
“”why not”
I see the defenders of spanking have reached a new low in argument.”
Riiight, Sonic.
We get it now.
The new low in an argument is that it helps to “to bring up well-adjusted members of society”
Of course, the agenda of Bradford and Clark is the complete opposite.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Cannabis is a harmful, mind-altering drug that causes cancer and we have decided to decriminilise possession of small amounts, because it is a pointless waste of time to persecute small time users.
Smacking is a symbollic reprimand that is completely harmless and we have decided to prosecute all practioners, because doing so will lead to a moral improvement in our society.
Reality disconnected, cannot see logic.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 10:12 am
Yes that’s right Peterm Sue Bradford and Helen Clark have an agenda to destroy society by making kids so unruly they smash our way life and let them introduce a communist dictatorship.
Yet when you tell people that they think you are mad!
Go figure.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 10:14 am
I think certain members of the Pro-repeal got some decent media coverage.
I hate the use of the discussion of the rod being used by the religious fundamentalists in their endeavour anti-repeal.
As a christian, the rod that is referred to is that off the staff which a shepherd carried to lead people with, thereby the rod of correction is the rod that leads people to the right path. Not hit them
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Sonic,
I was stating your logic.
That is unless you were being less than honest in the way you pretended to interpret Fletch’s post.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 10:20 am
“The new low in an argument is that it helps to “to bring up well-adjusted members of society”
Of course, the agenda of Bradford and Clark is the complete opposite.”
So by your “logic” the aim of those against the section is to create badly adjusted members of society.
Sorry, used the word logic there, of course that has nothing to do with it does it.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 10:22 am
I agree DF like the lady coppers cable ties
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 10:23 am
thrashers and beaters? are they like haters and wreckers?
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Not aim, but yes, that might be the outcome.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 10:25 am
welly_girl,
You are correct that the rod referred to is a symbol of authority rather than (necessarily) an actual physical reference, though the rod was a club rather than a staff. (Check psalm 23, which refers to both a rod and a staff)
The rod is both a protection and a correction mechanism.
If you want an example of lack of parental guidance, and the negative consequences, you can look up the story of Absolom.
There is a huge difference between beating with a literal rod, and a correctional smack. It is also worthy of note that the former is already illegal and not covered by S59 (the cases used to argue against that statement were exceptions, and the circumstances were ones that a jury decided upon after hearing the evidence).
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Sonic,
You took the statement “The point is, if spanking can be used as a tool to correct and to bring up well-adjusted members of society, then why not?”
And came to the conclusion that “the defenders of spanking have reached a new low in argument”
Now, you were either being dishonest by just quoting the “why not.”
Or you disagreed with the bit about bringing up the well-adjusted members of society.
I was just applying the logical conclusion to you disagreeing with the well-adjusted members of society bit.
It is also interesting to note that Clark, Margaret Wilson and some other woment that currently hold positions of power did have a stated intention (some 30 years ago) of removing the family as the mainstay of society, and of having the state rearing children.
There is a lady that attended, and documented the meetings that these issues were decided upon, and she has been quoted on a number of radio stations over the last few months.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Thanks for coverage of the march DPF,with your take being quite different from what we got served up on channel 3.
For instance no mention of people like Lindsay Perigo taking part so alluding that all the marchers were nobody fundys.
Creating the impression of the numbers being for and against being about the same.
Spending as much time on Helen`s spin doctor(Brian Edwards) and Judy Baily grandstanding in Auckland as on the march.
As your statement ”one can escape Hell if you hit your kids” I think the verse on the placard implies you are saving your child from hell not yourself!
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 10:35 am
No Sonic, egg for breakfast, not on face. Convenient logic on your part I must say, allowing you to believe that Labour can do no wrong: if public opinion is behind us, we are doing the right thing! If public opinion is against us, we are taking a principled stand and are therefore doing the right thing!
Assuming the amendment bill passes, the egg will be on your face the next time a child is killed. You might then have to face the reality that this amendment bill is nothing more than an exercise in deck chair rearrangement.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 10:36 am
The first effect of the law will to be to move a large percentage of the underclass into institutionalised care, as persecutions for “child abuse” will be impossible to defend.
Future governments will be able to direct persecution of this law (which is only ever intended to be arbitarily enforced) against groups that displease the government. And I’d hate to be a Labour Party lackey or a unemployed rights activist under a government of hardline Tories armed with this bill, good thing none of us here are going to face that sort of persecution.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 10:40 am
ZenTiger attended the protest yesterday and makes some good points over at NZ Conservative –
So true.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 10:52 am
welly girl:
Why did Wainuiomata Catholic School give children the day off in exchange for attending the protest?
The Principal said the kids believed in smacking because they believe in the scriptures.
I heard him say that on the radio this morning.
Maybe you should get together after Sunday School and clarify your different interpretations of the scripture.
We’ll hear your unified verdict in another 2000 years then?
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 10:55 am
I notice even Zen Tiger does not big up the protest, complains about the counter-demo, makes some spurious comparison to being gay.
250, must be hurting chaps.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 11:01 am
250, must be hurting chaps.
Trying to play Remus there Sonic?
How many people did the professional protestors of the left get together?
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 11:02 am
A real concern about this issue is the way it has come to dominate the government of this country for an inordinate period of time. Is this really an issue that should be allowed to almost paralyse all other activities. Or has it?
Perhaps more important and far reaching things are just being quietly dealt with, without any great publicity. That’s a real worry.
Could it be that ants are being trampled on while elephants defecate all over us.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 11:02 am
It was your march Peter, your big day, 250-500 is embarrasing to be honest.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0703/S00507.htm
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Did I say 250?
Barely that
http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/4986/984/1600/754199/AntiAntiSmackingRally002.jpg
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 11:08 am
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10431333
Scoop is hardly an independant view of reality Sonic.
Tell me. What is the largest mid-week march in recent history (lets say last 20 years) that had more people than the Wellington one, let alone Christchurch?
It was not my march, sadly. Like most people opposed to this bill I had work commitments that kept me away.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Peter, do you have a degree in shooting yourself in the foot?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3684953.stm
10,000
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 11:20 am
not so much a demonstration..
more a demonstrationette..
eh..?
and..and..perigo/and whatsername..!
the ‘barking’ leading the ‘barking’..
all 200 of them..
(is there a movie in this..?.we could call it the 200..?..
their resolute christo/ayran struggles against the forces of darkness..?
perigo and whatsername in breastplates and loin clothes..?
(i’m sure they would both quite enjoy that..eh..?.
perigo strikes me a breastplate sorta guy..eh..?..)
i’m still chuckling..
ya gotta..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 11:21 am
“Prime Minister Helen Clark said the march was led by “haters and wreckers”, and refused to address the issue.”
Sound familiar.
OK, foot shot? That was an anti Labour govt. rally too.
Thanks for the reminder that this is not the only issue that Labour & Co are hugely unpopular over.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Apology accepted Peter!
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 11:28 am
i am actually quite surprised to see perigo there…
so..the libertarian ‘rights’ of the adult-hitter…
over-ride the libertarian ‘rights’ of the child-hittee..
eh..?
i guess we all have our philosophical contradictions to bear..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Fine, sonic, if that is the way you want to take it.
It means what? That this is not yet the most unpopular thing the government is pushing through?
Take a moment for thought. That 10000 protest was organised by the fledgling Maori party, which had had months of taxpayer funded huis during which the protest was organised, and it was the culmination of a protest, rather than the opening stanza.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Peter, you asked me to name a midweek march in the last 20 years that was bigger, I came up with one that was 40 times bigger.
It wold be nice if you would at least admit you were wrong.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 11:32 am
So in reality it was 250 hey? There was at least twice that amount in the “Get Rickards” protest. Must be a bit of a disappointment for you guys I guess?
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 11:38 am
There were over 1000 protesters in Christchurch – that is nothing to sneeze at. If they’d held it on a weekend, I’m sure there would have been many, many more.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Closer to 2000 in Christchurch – and it was absolutely hoovering down. Only one person appeared to be for the bill.
The childless Clark makes me wince too but I can understand why people make the comment. It is bad enough that the state wants to put its size 12′s into households and tell families how to bring up their children but having it championed by someone with out children is an added irony. Not that she should be barred from having an opinion but I suspect if I went and told parents who chose not to smack that I thought they were soft and their kids were ill-disciplined I would be given a fairly short shrift too.
Family fist – oh how drool. Good to see those in favour aren’t afraid to demonise those who dare disagree with them.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 11:43 am
so fletch..
“.. If they’d held it on a weekend, I’m sure there would have been many, many more…”
they are stupid as well..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Actually sonic, I never said it was the biggest midweek march, I just asked you to name one that was bigger.
You managed to find one.
It was also an anti Labour one.
What you have done is basically say- “Yah boo, its not the most unpopular thing we have done, look, we have upset even more people in the past”
Real bright.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Trust the police they will enforce this law only when they want to.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 11:50 am
“It’s like a person who has never owned a dog saying that it’s wrong to hit the dog with a rolled up newspaper – fine, if you’ve never had to train a dog not to pee inside the house.”
Hmm… I’ve trained several & did so without recourse to hitting with or without a rolled up newspaper.
So how about someone who has owned dogs who says its wrong to hit it with a rolled up newspaper Fletch?
You’re a few decades behind the dog training methodology, does the same go for your ideas on child rearing?
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Peter, very poor spin, I’d give you 1/10 and that is just for trying.
I honestly thought you were better than that.
Also not sure about your other point as I am not a member of the govt, or indeed the Labour party.
For the record, I opposed the foreshore bill (and marched against it too)
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Yes, this morning’s blurb on kiwiblog is most amusing.
From Fletch, for instance, almighty dog training expert:
“It’s like a person who has never owned a dog saying that it’s wrong to hit the dog with a rolled up newspaper – fine, if you’ve never had to train a dog not to pee inside the house. If you haven’t, then you don’t know what the heck you’re talking about.”
You are making a fool of yourself, Fletch. Get with the times, eh?
aladin
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
I think phil Whore must be tripping out on LSD.
eh..?
the swift man(sonic.co.nz
eh..?
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Basic premise of the Bill:
Using force to correct behaviour is wrong and does not work.
Effect of the Bill:
Use of force to correct behaviour of people.
Seems odd.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
sonic,
Spin?
“Tell me. What is the largest mid-week march in recent history (lets say last 20 years) that had more people than the Wellington one, let alone Christchurch?”
I deliberately phrased it as a question because I did not know any numbers. I had some idea about the usual Bradford style protests, because the numbers are often reported as around the 20 mark (usually the same 20).
I know you claim to not be a Labour party member.
I just have failed to find any contentious issue where you actualy oppose the Labour party line (except the forshore one now
).
I was lumping you in with the Labour party on this issue because you appear to support them on this issue.
The forshore opposition march was a well organised event. It was also the culmination of a lot of effort and protest. It also had the input of a number of entities that have a history of organising protests (and, to phrase it as delicately as possible, a good base of people with a relaxed enough schedule to be able to attend mid-week).
What is happening with the opposition to the S59 repeal is that things are being built from the ground up. There are few organisations that have a history of organising protest (OK if Destiny are involved, then that means there are a couple of prior protests). The supporters of the anti repeal move are also, in the main, people that have no history of protest.
I for one was surprised that the Christchurch march managed to break the 1000 mark (by most accounts), not because of any lack of feeling, but because the people likely to oppose the bill have a past history of non participation.
I think Labour have misjudged the depth of feeling.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Based on the numbers at the march it looks more like 95% against!.
How do you figure that. Up to 1000 people at a march = 95% against? I am pretty wizzy with tricky stats, but even I can’t spin it that good. The anti-war demos used to attract several thousand people. That must make it about 273% against.
500 v 50. The pro-bill team managed to get ALL their supporters there.
This was a march against the bill. Given that there were ANY supporters for the bill is surprising.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Whats the bet that if section 59 is repealed orders will be issued to the top cops from the 9th floor to go easy on any prosecutions on parents brought before the courts for smacking their children. That is until the next election, it wouldn’t be a good look for the police to have parents up on smacking charges before the election. We will then have scum like Bradford and Dear Leader saying to the public “look no one is suffering because of this law, see you had nothing to fear”. But God help the people of NZ if these power mad freaks are return to power in 2008.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Well….don’t Sonic and phil work quite well in tandem?
Not quite sure who to feel sorrier for tho…:)
It has become painfully obvious that no matter how many times opponents of this amendment put forward the many and varied facts as to why this is a bad piece of law change fanatics of the ilk of Sonic and phil will deny,ignore and demonise any opponents to their view.
There is no reasoning with them.
You cannot debate with them.
They are not to be swayed by the majority.
You have to laugh when they degenerate people with strong religious views whilst expounding their own strong (religious??) views.
I laugh anyway.
So , just saying – don’t get to het up about these two and their fellow travellers. There’s no point.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
“You have to laugh when they degenerate people with strong religious views”
Example?
Thought not.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Whats the bet that if section 59 is repealed orders will be issued to the top cops from the 9th floor to go easy on any prosecutions on parents brought before the courts for smacking their children.
It’s good to see you are already coming up with conspiracies as to why repealing S59 won’t result in prisons full of good parents.
Tell me. What is the largest mid-week march in recent history (lets say last 20 years) that had more people than the Wellington one, let alone Christchurch?
Springbok tour
CHOGM meeting
ADB meeting
Numerous Gulf war marches
Numerous student protests
Foreshore-seabed
Several protests against Chinese deligates
Civil Union Bill
Protitution reform
Fart Tax
Just some off the top of my head. This one was pretty small, considering the hysteria. I was also surpised at the amount of kids at the protests. “We want our parents to have the right to smack us”? Seems strange.
I saw one placard that said:
If you love your children, discipline them.
Is smacking the only form of discipline?
By the way DPF, no comment about the rumours that Katherine Rich has been threatened by the pro-choice supporters?
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Re: the cute policeman. Of course he can use his baton on me but he seems fit enough not to have to resort to artificial sex aides, unlike the video stars
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Greater police powers are the answer to child abuse. We all hope the police will use these powers responsibly or at least to target people we do not like.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
This legislation is a red herring. The fact is, in NZ you can KILL a kid and only get a measly 4 years in jail. It was interesting to note that a white collar fraudster got the same sentence yesterday, as the scumbag who undid his kids seatbelts, and drove off Mt Wellington, killing one kid and injuring the other.
Bradford and her cabal of do-gooders can keep her nose out of my parenting policy. I didn’t vote for you (neither did rest of the country), so stay out of my house….
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
are you a bit confused there jen..?
on the one hand you bemoan the low sentences given to those who beat their children to death..
but you still want parents to be able to hit/beat children..?
you see no connection..?
as in a society saying it’s ok to hit children inevitably leading to child abuse/deaths..?
(asi say..confused..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
I notice the Young Labour groupie, holding the delightful ‘Family Fist’ sign, has had quite a lot of media airtime in the past moaning about the Destiny Church renting space at Wellington High school to conduct their church services. Apparently as a gay maori male he found it all such an affrontery that the openly anti-gay church should exsist.
I don’t care about his sexuality and I consider it none of my business as to what he gets up to in the privacy of his home as a consenting adult. Therefore I ask him why the hell he thinks that he can tell me as a childless, teenage, gay man, why I as a hetrosexual, adult parent what I do in my home to discipline my children???
I am sure he would be the first one howling in indignation about the intrusiveness of the state, if we questioned the legality and morality of homosexuality but fails to see the same irony on Nanny State intruding into hetrosexual families.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
IMHO this matter is just a smoke screen to take the citizens minds off the fact that the economy is about to tank. The pollies know how easy it is to wind us up and we prove it to them every time. Pollies want us to debate what THEY want us to debate Not what we should be debating.
Like the good little sheep that we are we have fallen for their trap. The last thing Clark and Cullen want is for the spot light to go on the economic predicators.
Vote:The good news for the anti Socialists is that the economic shit will hit the fan in the run up to 08 and theres nothing they can do about.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Very good point Sally.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
“on the one hand you bemoan the low sentences given to those who beat their children to death..
but you still want parents to be able to hit/beat children..?”
Phil, you are seriously F*cked in the head if you think beating children to death and smacking children are synonymous, do you also think sex and rape are synonymous?
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
The utterly predictable arguments over crowd numbers and their syntagmic relationship to actual levels of community support for one position vs another surely begs a resolution via the only method which can truly measure community attitudes on such an issue – a referendum.
Issues such as this are precisely why I spent a lot of time and energy championing online voting. It initially received a moderately warm reception from most political parties till I pointed out that the same technology which would enable us to vote securely online would also make referenda simpler and cheaper. And thus justify lowering the impossible-to-overcome barrier of signature numbers presently required to initiate one.
Having the plebs run their own country? Can’t have that. And at that point not one party wanted to keep discussing the issue.
Instead of expending so much energy protesting one particular point-of-view on civil unions, smacking, or whatever the issue du jour is, people ought to combine to demand easier access to referenda.
After all, if you truly believe you’re right and furthermore that you’re in then majority (as people on both sides of this argument appear to) then you’d happily work alongside those whose views you oppose, because they’ll lose the eventual referendum, right?
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
“You have to laugh when they degenerate people with strong religious views”
Example?
Thought not. – posted by Sonic
If you could read Sonic you would have read -
“fanatics of the ilk of Sonic and phil”
Thats means you and phil and people like you and phil. It was your own Helen Clarke that called the disagreers (is that a word?) ‘fundies’ or do you deny she said that?
I accept your apology in advance and think maybe you should have the rest of the day off as you seem a little stressed.
Find a good book and a warm corner and relax.
CL
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Andrew Bannister “By the way DPF, no comment about the rumours that Katherine Rich has been threatened by the pro-choice supporters?”
Here we go again? Here we go again!! Undoubtedly the father’s coalition will get the friggin blame for sending her threatening emails warning of possible protest action outside her home – Sunday morning/megaphone type thing . I had complaints made about my emails to Prime Minister and Children’s’ Commissioner recently, so one from Katherine wouldn’t surprise me at all? What’s another conviction -Guilty Sir – as I collect them for a hobby!!Anyway I will make the cops a hot cuppa when they trott around here again. The elderly neighbours asked me to look after their house at Christmas. They are convinced I am a cop because they are always calling about some matter or the other. They are a lovely couple, retired livestock /mixed cropping High Country farmers and they dislike the way this country has plummeted into the gutter.
It would be good it the National Party would show some balls and come out and say that will throw the bill into the rubbish tin if they are elected, as this does nothing to stop child abuse.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
I guess that phils perspective extends to the rest of this pro-Bradford crowd, they really don’t understand the difference, to them the world is all black and white. Those who want the power and responsibility to run their own lives, (Baddies) and those who want the state to have the power to run everyones lives (goodies) with the likes of Clark & bradford controlling the state.
I’m pretty sure that Key is laughing his head off at the stupidity of Clark in bringing about Liabours self destruction, pity about the damage CYFS, the police and disgruntled parents in custody battles will do to the kids in split families in the meantime though.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
So Chicken Helen Clark has said something and that means that I did?
Oh and as far as I am aware I am not a member of any “ilk”
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
snakes don’t have ilk
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
yeah aha – and the parents of today complain about how badly the kids of today behave – well excuse me – but who were the ones that raised them?
good parents dont smack – parents who do smack are pretty average at best.
I think there is not enough criticism of parents in our society – everyone knows that parenting is the hardest job evar and we accept that parents are doing their best and trying so hard. So people get offeneded when these efforts are shown to be not so successful or even detrimental.
Well – suck it up parents of New Zealand – compared to other countries you are doing a real shit job of raising your kids – the sooner you realise this the sooner you can start improving things.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Thank you idiot boy our child abuse stats are disgusting and the utopians havn’t a clue how to fix the very serious problem for the children of this land .Sad really .
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Wasn’t Bradford the leader of the unemployable workers union?
“the parents of today complain about how badly the kids of today behave” Not my kids; the problem kids are the kids that have had no clear boundaries set, either through no discipline altogether, or through being reared by parents who themsevles had no discipline in the way they reared their kids, People who don’t understand the difference between a smack and a beating, so they don’t stop at a smack.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
“I am sure he would be the first one howling in indignation about the intrusiveness of the state, if we questioned the legality and morality of homosexuality but fails to see the same irony on Nanny State intruding into hetrosexual families.”
Silly, Sally:
Homosexuality = two consenting men doing as they see fit, (dare I say, as comes naturally to them).
Smacking = one adult needlessly hitting a non-consenting child who potentially does not even understand the correlation between their action and the smack, who may come to resent the parent’s misconduct, or who may adopt it as their own practice later in life.
I’m yet to see a single convincing argument for smacking beyond: “If we don’t our malicious kids will RULE our lives”, a disaster I’m yet to witness in any of the many ‘non-smacking’ families that I know.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
idiotboy that was a great wake up call for all those suckful parents out there who need to smack little people to get through the day.
Vote:good call.
they are doing a shit job, & yet they act so fkn righteous.
meanwhile the poor workers, volunteers & other suckers working on the frontline of domestic violence (read: too busy cleaning up the blood to attend some righteous hot air protest) quietly felt sick about how much time / energy / money / resources the do-gooder parents put into their right to smack, & got on with their work.
imagine if 500 people (2000 in Chch, whatever) actually gave a shit enough about our appalling domestic violence to volunteer or raise money for some decent organisations yesterday, instead of bribing their kids to sling placards around.
it’s PATHETIC. go & get a grip, parents of nz.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
“”If we don’t our malicious kids will RULE our lives”, a disaster I’m yet to witness”
I’ve seen plenty of families with a no-smacking philosophy in which the kids run wild. And as far as “malicious kids will RULE our lives” that’s easy; Sue Bradford.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
phil
you try to make a connection between having the right to smack with violent child abuse. Frankly that is the most hypocritical thing I have ever heard from someone who tries to deny a connection between consumption of so-called “soft” but nevertheless prohibited drugs and the abuse of “hard” and also prohibited drugs.
Take a couple of aspirins and have a lie down for a while old chap, hopefully the dragons will calm down a bit.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
“I’ve seen plenty of families with a no-smacking philosophy in which the kids run wild. And as far as “malicious kids will RULE our lives” that’s easy; Sue Bradford.”
…come to think of it, I’ve seen plenty of screaming creatures in supermarkets being whacked by their (furrow-browed) parents with no obvious results and I’ve almost never seen what you claim of non-smackers (barring one example of a flaky beekeeping family in the Coromandel whose kids were mad, but possibly saner than the parents). Perhaps smacking parents tend to breed recalcitrant little shits? Is that what I should glean from my experiences?
Different strokes, I guess.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
“imagine if 500 people (2000 in Chch, whatever) actually gave a shit enough about our appalling domestic violence to volunteer or raise money for some decent organisations”
There used to be many such organisations,in fact this country was awash with social organisations like Lions, Kiwanies, Jaycee’s and The salvation Army, they were supported by the exact same people that you arrogantly dismiss, what happened to those organisations?
The government took over with the welfare state and these people who had volunteered their time to do community work found themselves needing two incomes instead of one to support their families, two working parents have much less time to devote to the community, so these social organisations died.
These parents also have little time to attend protests, unlike the layabouts usually waving the placards.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Homosexuality = two consenting men doing as they see fit, (dare I say, as comes naturally to them).
Smacking = one adult needlessly hitting a non-consenting child who potentially does not even understand the correlation between their action and the smack, who may come to resent the parent’s misconduct, or who may adopt it as their own practice later in life.
Silly, Matty:
Matty, it might not have occurred to you that homosexual behavior does affect everyone. The practice spreads disease.
A parent smacking their child within the current law does not affect anyone outside the family.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
“homosexual behavior does affect everyone. The practice spreads disease.”
And heterosexual sex does not?
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Matty
Repeal of Reasonable Force = state needlessly removing parent from contact with child and child will potentially not understand the correlation between the smack and the government taking their parent away. Child may grow to feel it was their fault that their parent has gone away and may feel worthless & unloved.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
“And heterosexual sex does not?”
Don’t ask questions like that lonny. Some fool will ban it because it may, potentially, maybe lead to harm occuring in a small minority of cases and lock up a few otherwise innocent examples – just like being gay or grabbing hold of a child.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
“Oh and as far as I am aware I am not a member of any “ilk”"
Sonic, I am well aware that you are not aware.
As I said – relax.
Oops, theres baby, gotta go
do carry on old bean
yours in awareness
CL
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Matty,
We are not all arguing about smacking, we are arguing that having the state remove the children and imprisoning the parents who smack is a stupid facist rule. You do not have to be convinced on the merits of smacking to see that this is massive overkill that is not helpful, you merely need to be a little bit caring.
This is not about smacking.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Hey chickenlittle:
Unwarranted self-importance is the feeling that you are actually worth something despite not having made any contributions to anything at all, thus making yourself look like a complete twat.
This is common amongst those prone to arrogance, from which this state of mind commonly draws most of its qualities.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Aren’t you a sweaty Chuck. You just waltz around like a big homophobic ferry, joyfully sprinkling blind prejudice and hatred where ever you go. Keep up the good work fella!
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
“Unwarranted self-importance is the feeling that you are actually worth something despite not having made any contributions to anything at all, thus making yourself look like a complete twat.
This is common amongst those prone to arrogance, from which this state of mind commonly draws most of its qualities”
Clearly a reference to Sue Bradford, glad to see you’re finally coming around
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Matty, it might not have occurred to you that homosexual behavior does affect everyone. The practice spreads disease.
Oh dear, how sad, never mind.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
“Matty, it might not have occurred to you that homosexual behavior does affect everyone. The practice spreads disease.”
Mind you wider adoption would cut the teenage pregnancy rate…..
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Andrew W, you have a really good point.
Vote:I don’t want to sound righteous but I volunteer my time and some of my hard earned money to charities (NOT salvation army I have a bug to bear there) AND I bring up kids, work full time plus I manage to do a lot of research.
Andrew W the point is what a disappointing thing all these people getting so hot under the collar about one academic point, yes whether you like it or not that’s what it is, these protests are filled with fervour that could be put to constructive use.
Look at all the debate but it’s just going in a circle everyone digging their heels in.
Surely we all want the same thing a safe society, well this debate has driven a wedge when I know its intention was to address and slow down child abuse.
The venom aimed towards the supporters of the bill lets everyone down.
I bet you agree Andrew W that more NZers could be doing something constructive towards improving our violent society or at least helping pick up the pieces; the protestors should really consider this but for many of them it’s just an exciting “cause” to feel alive about & some consolidarity with a noisy minority / majority – who knows? there hasn’t been a referendum just emotive polls & number guessing.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
and as for Chuck Bird you are low rent mate, the whites spread disease when they came to New Zealand for example, it’s the human condition, check yo head!
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
“Clearly a reference to Sue Bradford”
No No – this was aimed at chickenlittle. sue bradford – i think she is brilliant – not as good as helen though – helen is the greatest!
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Sonic ; Mind you wider adoption would cut the teenage pregnancy rate…..”
No doubt you want to air the adoption rights of homosexuals when you make that statement ?
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Gregor,
Good summation.
The academic point is that all force used against a child is to be considered as child abuse. People using force against a child are child abusers and liable for punishment as such. Their children to be removed and themselves imprisoned, irrespective of whether they use a horsewhip or a wet bus ticket. The academic point is that no distinction can be made.
Since you know that the intention of the bill “was to address and slow down child abuse” can you explain how broardening the legal definition of abuse to include almost all force is going to help? And explain how removal of children from parents to a state run institution (or sub-contractor) is not it’s own form of abuse?
Is smacking a lesser or greater form of child abuse than institutionalising a child?
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Well idiotboy – your contribution so far has been to tell me that I’m making no contribution so….
does that make you a complete twat too?
or just an idiot?
rhetorical question idiot, so, you know, scamper back under whichever little rock you inhabit.
x
CL
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
“I don’t want to sound righteous but I volunteer my time and some of my hard earned money to charities (NOT salvation army I have a bug to bear there) AND I bring up kids, work full time plus I manage to do a lot of research.”
I can claim a similar track record; 6 years on the kindy committee including 4 as chair, involvement with other community organisations, 4 young Kids, work fully time but fortunately self employed so have some flexability.
“all these people getting so hot under the collar about one academic point, yes whether you like it or not that’s what it is, these protests are filled with fervour that could be put to constructive use.”
The point is anything but academic, I’m stunned that you can think it is. This bill will have exactly the effect that it is intended to ie; allow the government to dictate child rearing methods in the home.
Most NZ parents use smacking as a means of disciplining their children, has the results of this widespread use of corporel punishment caused these children to turn in to an epidemic of violent young adults?
This legislation WILL make smacking children a criminal offence, it WILL be used in custody battles, in the same way that charges of abuse are used today, the result will be custody decided on the “criminal” act of smacking, even though it may well be the parent that occasionally smacks who is the one most involved with rearing the kids and concerned with their well being.
Considerable distress to the kids from the police interviews, and the likely punishment of their parents WILL result.
Also, It’s not for you to tell other people what to do with their time.
“Look at all the debate but it’s just going in a circle everyone digging their heels in.”
True, people arguing for the criminalisation of most NZ parents should hold off for a couple of decades or so until the majority of NZers support this sort of thing.
“this debate has driven a wedge when I know its intention was to address and slow down child abuse.”
Are you mad? People who “abuse” (using the kind of definition most NZer’s would accept)children won’t take any notice of this legislation.
“The venom aimed towards the supporters of the bill lets everyone down.”
How about the “venom” aimed at the opponents? You think I “beat” my children? That what Clark has accused me of.
“for many of them it’s just an exciting “cause” to feel alive about & some consolidarity with a noisy minority / majority – who knows? there hasn’t been a referendum just emotive polls & number guessing”
Bullshit, they can see how it is going to affect their lives, Bradford wouldn’t be pushing it so hard otherwise. If the aim was to prevent “abuse” as I would define it, longer terms for those who used what a jury considers unreasonable force would be the logical solution, and an education campaign to teach parents how to manage child rearing better.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
My basic belief is that the sanctions the state can use to punish child abuse are of a greater harm than using reasonable force to punish a child.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Tell that to my mother, who began defining ‘reasonable force’ as light pat and as she progressed began shoving a steel vacuum cleaner pile through the wall.
Frankly, I don’t trust a many rural males I know to understand that ‘reasonable force’ doesn’t leave bruises. For all every two good parents out there there might very well be one borderline one. But to do without the smack as a gateway.
Vote:March 29th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
some of you may enjoy the demonstration video (emphasis on Chester) on NTV. http://www.ntv.co.nz
Vote:March 30th, 2007 at 2:00 am
“Yes that’s right Peterm Sue Bradford and Helen Clark have an agenda to destroy society by making kids so unruly they smash our way life and let them introduce a communist dictatorship.
Yet when you tell people that they think you are mad!
Go figure.
Posted by sonic | March 29, 2007 10:12 AM”
Sue Bradford is a communist and that is exactly what she wants. Clark is probably an ex communist or certainly hard core socialist.
Vote: