ACT supporting anti-smacking law referendum
ACT had a large half page ad in the SST yesterday, backing the petition calling for a referendum on whether a smack as part of good parental correction should be a criminal offence.
Quite smart move, as it is a hot issue with many and they can try and brand themselves as the one parliamentary party against the law change.
The ad I am told, was paid for out of private donations, not taxpayer funds.
It will be fascinating if they do get the numbers for a referendum, as it is not the issue the Government wants to be in everyone’s minds in the second half of this year.
The ad is below, the thumbnail going through to the full ad.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
No tag for this post.
February 4th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
So Act’s now fighting for votes in the same space as the Family and Kiwi parties. It will be interesting to see whether they focus their campaign around protest issues like this or seek to firmly stake out the economic right.
February 4th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
ACT is the party for smacking your kids. Nice move.
February 4th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Dear old Rodney may have listened to my comment sometime ago and finally found his backbone again. That or, it’s election year and he knows he’s a gonna unless he does something, so apart from this there’s only one other thing he will pick up on and that of course being the EFB.
So for now…. good on ya Rodney for getting your cock out of your arse, now get out and do what we fucking pay you for!!!
You may possibly could do, get part of my vote, but you better get louder yet!!!
February 4th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
good move Radar. Are a the hound dog??
February 4th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
That is one weird photo of Rodney Hide and Heather Roy, clearly not taken at the same time, they are ‘photoshopped’ together.
Gosh they only have two MP’s how hard was it to get them to stand next to each other for a photo!
February 4th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Typical stuff up by ACT.
Having found the money for a newspaper ad, they choose to campaign on a subject which is of passionate interest to a small subset of society, and of ever-reducing interest to the majority of society.
Then, they decide to confuse their liberal brand by supporting christian conservative causes.
Lastly, they put the money into an ad inside the Sunday Star-Times, a paper with a decidedly centre-left wing editorial bias!
Dear me. Whatever happened to flat tax, law and order, and reducing compliance costs?
February 4th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Well I like it.
At least there’s a party standing up for keeping government out of our lives. I still can’t get over the fact that National voted for it.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
ACT is NOT supporting a christian conservative cause.
ACT is supporting democracy!
February 4th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
So much for Act being “The Liberal Party”.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
The liberal party. That would be the party that doesn’t think the govt should tell us how to spend our money, or how to behave on matters of moral conscience. This fits exactly – there is research suggesting that an occasional smack is a reasonable part of good parenting, there is research suggesting it isn’t. It isn’t the government’s place to legislate on this, it is a choice for parents. It is exactly a liberal issue.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
SG,
you are enttiled to your opinion. Now let’s look at the facts. This legislation was opposed by anywhere between 70% and 96% of the electorate as indicated by polls at the time. In anyone’s language that constitutes a majority, and one that the politicians should take note of. I have collected many signatures for the CIR that we are aiming for and my personal experience (along with other petition collectors) is that 90% of the people we approach are publically willing to sign (meaning signature, name and residential address). Many signatories are not Christian, some do not smack their children, and some support the Greens. In other words, this is an issue that cuts across the political divide, and makes your claim of what is a “conservative Christain cause” unapplicable.
I’ll be quite interested in your defintions of “small subset”, “ever reducing” and “majority of society” once we have the referendum.
Finally, putting the ad in the SST, which as you say has a centre-left leaning editorial position is possible proof that this is an issue that crosses the political divide (or maybe they are just cheaper because they have lower advertising rates, but then that wouldn’t be relevant for ACT now, would it). Or do you think Rodney is just stupid (in which case did you ask him why he did?)?
PP,
you misunderstand what liberal means on this issue. Freedom of choice for parents is a liberal concept…i.e. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression. Note the “freedom of action”
February 4th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Yea PP, i’m not sure you understand the term “liberal” in the european sense of the word (classical liberalism). PaulL has it right. It’s about less government. It’s about letting people make their own choices based on their own morals and not having an overgrown state do it for us.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Yup ACT is supporting democracy. Something which is very hard to come by in NZ.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Bill of Rights needed for parents of Children
A separate Bill of Rights is needed for prisoners’ children, according to SMACK, a community-based organisation which supports the parents of children. New Zealand has joined lobbying by other countries to introduce a Bill of Rights for parents of children
“The needs of childrens’ parents are quite different and we need to be aware that their rights could be in conflict with what some people, like Cindy Kiro from the Office of the Childrens Commisson (OCC) believe is appropriate,” says Beth Wood, a leading advocate for parents of children and chief executive of SMACK.
The Kansas Institute of the Rights of “the Olds” (KIRO), along with the Office of the Parents Commission, is also lobbying for a separate Bill of Rights that entitles these parents to not be judged, blamed or labelled and to have a lifelong relationship with their children.
“Having a child in the home can bring a massive life change to these parents – they are often isolated and we need to make sure they have been involved in any decisions made for them and to be well cared for should they get a police warning or their child is taken away by CYFS after being smacked lightly,” says Wood.
“There is currently no requirement that institutions, like CYFS, OCC or the police, dealing with children inquire about the parent’s existence or concern themselves with the parents rights or wellbeing.”
Parents have a daunting range of needs, says Wood, but they are never addressed.
“They need contact with the children, to have that relationship recognised and valued, rather than carrying the stigmas of CYFS actions.”
On behalf of these parents, SMACK is lobbying the New Zealand Government to introduce a separate Bill of Rights for parents of children.
“By acknowledging that these parents exist and have different needs, we can make a change that could prevent the cycle of abuse – parents are seven times more likely to lightly smack their children than parents without children.”
February 4th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
dave, you’ve utterly lost me. that is the most abysmal and nonsensical media release i’ve read since yulia’s manic manager announced the engag-ment.
“parents without children”??
are you completely bonkers?
“seven times more likely to lightly smack”?
does ms wood have criteria for “light smack”?
from a pretty objective point of view, “light smack” sounds like something you recently snorted, judging by the waffle above.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
obviously youve never heard of satire
February 4th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
um… yes i have. as in, it’s supposed to be funny. even if mildly so.
wry, even?
February 4th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
radar
“ACT is the party for smacking your kids. Nice move”
Typical lefty blinkered comment. ACT does not support smacking, ACT supports a parents right to choose how to raise their children without nanny state interfering. As such they are the only party that comes close to being liberal.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
So ACT is reduced to advertising for support for someone else’s call for a non-binding referendum?
At least they recognise they don’t need to be in Parliament.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
radvard: you might say that under this legislation, children can roam free…! and grow into adulthood without fear of nannies – or parents, even – interfering with their mistakes through the application of physical discipline.
Now that’s liberal!
February 4th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
“Now that’s liberal!”
Maybe, but only if they are left to take the consequences of their actions.
Unfortunately we have a nanny state that delights in forcing others to protect stupid people from their stupid actions. There is a huge difference between freedom and license.
Classical liberalism is freedom with responsibility. Trendy, wishy washy liberalism is freedom with impunity. Which one do we have in this pathetic country and at what cost?
February 4th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
I can only hope the rest of the Bradford Bunch have the same blinkered view of this issue as it goes forward and that they stick to their wee guns on principle – it will make things so much easier. This is a very good political move for ACT – and the issue resonates enormously with so many parents that he could ride the position to the 5pc and beyond. ACT will be the only party of any credibility with this take – and all those people who care more about this one thing than anything else (and there are many) will be really tempted to go ACT.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
David, I do not think it a smart move for ACT to try and themselves as the one parliamentary party against the law change because it is not true. The Kiwi Party is against the law change.
There are a few things that voters concerned about Bradford and Clark’s anti parent law have to consider. Firstly they must look at the party’s policy. Do they want section 59 restored or some very watered down version of it so anything more that the lightest tap will have the police at the door? Secondly, what priority will each party give to the policy during coalition talks? Finally what chance has each party got of being elected? No one will know the answer the final question until much closer to the election when parties have made their policies known
February 4th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
HB,
that’s a nice euphemism…”roam free”. Care to define what type of children you exclude from that statement? I guess roaming free fits the taggers, teenagers who are murdering and assualting others these days. Or are the children that roam free those who never end up in the criminal justice system and recognise that there are consequences through mistakes?
Wouldn’t be right to “interfere with their mistakes” now would it, as that requires a liberal parent to become illeberal.
Parents don’t interfere with their children; I always knew I was loved after I was smacked, not after I wasn’t smacked. I shouldn’t have to state the obvious.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
David, I do not think it a smart move for ACT to try and themselves as the one parliamentary party against the law change because it is not true. The Kiwi Party is against the law change.
Actually that’s not true. For some reason I can’t fathom Copeland is still identifing as an independent MP rather than a Kiwi Party MP.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Chuck, the Kiwi Party is not a parliamentary Party. It is not in parliament. As far as I know its not even registered yet.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Act have my party vote (at the moment) – and they come out with some decent policies on education and welfare control – then they will keep it.
However they will have to work hard as national are certainly on the rise.
Lesson from last parliament – the bloody greens did more to hurt this country than lanour did to help it. We certainly have a tail wag the dog problem at the moment.
And the anti smaking bill is going to cost labour dearly.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
radvad: much better articulation.
It’s just such a shame you are still living in this “pathetic country”. you poor wee sausage.
why? so hard done by you are!
Matthew: yes please god spare us from you stating the obvious. Of course no parents interfere with their children. At least you were reminded that you were loved! By the noble smack, no less! Imagine if the lack of smack had made you run out and tag something.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
HB,
I’ll take your “Of course no parents interfere with their children” as a retraction. But mocking statements comes across quite judgemental and intolerant of others’ viewpoints.
You are entitled to believe that you shouldn’t smack your children, or that you don’t agree with it, but it is not possible to force that on everyone, as this law does.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:05 am
Parents are liable if little Johnny goes on a criminal rampage and smashes up 10 cars.
Parents are liable for hospital bills if little Johnny hurts himself and goes to hospital.
Parents are liable if they have the temerity to restrain little Johnny with a little force.
The State cannot abide any person daring to use force to chastise their child, or to defend themselves from harm, or to protect their property. We are supposed to roll over like defenseless, supine slugs and wait for the State and the Police to ride in and solve all our problems. It’s not a healthy way to develop a robust nation.
February 5th, 2008 at 6:08 am
I believe the antismacking issue will be on the agenda for National at their retreat.
Frankly, as a parent, it is quite frightening that NZ’ers now constantly have to look over their shoulder in case one of their fellow countrymen dobb them in. This isn’t the NZ I grew up in. No wonder so many are leaving.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:02 am
I remarked in jest the other day that I was the Helllensville Hot Pools which is shall we say ‘ down market’ and said it was such a relief not to be surrounded by middle class-types who were liable to ‘rat me out’ if I had teh temerity to smack the little boy’s legs for being potentially a risk to himself.
How we chortled!
February 5th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Dave, the former Future NZ was challenged about the use of its name. It was Claimed that it could be confused United Future. That is why the name change. They have applied for registration and will be registered before the election so I think my comments are valid.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Sushi Goblin: Then, they decide to confuse their liberal brand by supporting christian conservative causes.
One could argue that it’s a position against governmental interference in the raising of a child and not necessarily a Christian conservative issue.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:46 am
If the word “liberal” has any meaning at all, surely it means the freedom of the individual. With regards to a parent previously the parent had freedom to bring up a child as they saw fit. The state would step in if the parent punished the child beyond the boundaries of “reasonable force”. Surely this is a liberal notion that liberals should support?
What we have with the anti-smacking piece of legislation is a small minority of activists imposing their view on everybody else. 80% of New Zealanders opposed it. But it was put through anyway by parliamentarians who seem to consider themselves to be an elite that know better than anyone else about how to bring up children. Even though some of them do not have children.
So I would argue that the anti-smacking bill was an “illiberal” piece of legislation and the Act party as a “liberal” party is quite right to oppose it.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Chuck,
That doesn’t change the fact that the Kiwi Party are NOT a parliamentary party. From what I can gather, Gordon insists he is an independent MP, even going so far as to point that out specifically in press releases.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
If “right to choose” justifies abortion – the worst kind of child abuse – why doesn’t it justify smacking in their eyes? Typical hypocrisy from people who deal in slogans instead of facts.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
If the referendum does go ahead before the election or better still at the time of the election I suspect electors especially female ones will useit to give Helen and Sue a caning they will remember for decades with DBP sniggering in the wings .
February 5th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
act..the happy-smacky party..
(disclaimer:..raised two children..never hit either of them..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 5th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Phil, I have raised two children and have never hit them. However I have smacked them very occasionally.
February 5th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
smacking is ‘hitting’..
do you ‘smack’ other adults..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 5th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
According to the English language, a spank is a slap is a hit.
February 5th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
smacking is ‘hitting’ in your not so humble opinion. A hit is often with a closed fist. A hit is in most people’s minds is not a smack.
Children are different than adults. They have different rights and responsibilities. Just as I would not smack a adult I would not have sex with consenting child – would you?
February 5th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
What relevance has dictionary menaing got to the debae? Common usage is what counts. BTW, way how many children have you raised?
February 5th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
menaing = meaning
February 5th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
can’t be bothered with your bullshit chucky..sorry..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 5th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Sorry Phil, I have a simple philosophy. When there is a conflict between an ideology left or right and common sense I go for common sense every time.
It is you that started the bullshit. It is nonsense to equate smacking a naughty 3 year old playing up in a supermarket with hitting an adult.
I really resent paying taxes for people with no common sense to go to university.
February 5th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
And it is nonsense to equate smacking a naughty 3 year old playing up in a supermarket, with NZ’s epidemic of abhorrent child abuse, which is virtually entirely the fault of the antichristian Left’s erosion of the traditional values which WERE society’s pillars. And it is hypocrisy of the most revolting kind, to be both an “anti-smacking law” advocate AND an advocate of lowering the age of consent, “man-boy love” and such filth.
February 5th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
And please refer to that creep above as “philu”.
February 6th, 2008 at 6:14 am
“The impact of the abortion revolution may be too vast to assess immediately. It should usher in an era when every child will be wanted, loved, and properly cared for; when the incidence of infanticides and battered children should be sharply reduced.”–Larry Lader. “The Abortion Revolution.” The Humanist, May/June 1973
Sumka Kommie Klarkie has poly to answer for, the scoteena crazyass heterophobic bitch. Yes.
February 6th, 2008 at 7:16 am
phil-the-inferior is shaping up as a ‘right-raver’..eh..?
(possibly up to rat-biter anti-status..?..)
so..it’s the ‘anti-christian left’s ‘fault’..eh..?
who knew..?
(phil-the-inferior..!..doyareckon the miseries of an ‘underclass..fostered by our low-wage economy..and the tearing away of the social-net by national..(and to their shame..not restored by labour..)
..could have anything to do with it..?
(just wondering..eh..?..)
but..’the anti-christian left’..you say..?
and chucky..!..’it is a nonsense’ to be in the position of evaluating when to hit/smack a child..
you just ‘never hit/smack them’..eh..?
and..any defense of that pro-hitting stance is indefensible..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 6th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Common sense says that priority should be given to real child abuse rather than a flick in the ear. Bradford and Clark’s legislation is more that about good parent’s being prosecuted. It is about authorities encouraging children to dob in thier parents. It si no wonder that people refer to there types as feminazis.
Below is my opern letter to Cindy Kiro.
I hope other will let Kiro know how that feel about this attack on parental authority.
Dear Dr Kiro
I am posting this email to you on Muriel Newman’s New Zealand Centre for Political Research Forum. I will be happy to post your response.
http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=124
I am writing in response to your article on Stuff, “Keeping our children safe”.
I realise that it would be pointless to try and debate the issue of parent’s rights with you as you are primarily concerned with keeping your highly paid job and pushing the ideologically driven Labour government line which undermines parental authority.
Do you recall when Phil Goff floated the idea of 12 year olds being allowed to have sex? There was a public outcry. I might have missed but I heard no comment from you. Did you condemn Labour for flying that kite?
I also cannot recall hearing any comment from you regarding the hunter in the Taupo area leaving a 2 and 5 year old in his car for two hours while he went hunting recently. The 2 year old went missing in the bush and was fortunately found after 50 searches looked for about five hours. The police are still deciding whether to charge him. I presume you have heard of this case.
The case that I really take exception to is the one below. Would kindly explain why you are going on with a lot of nonsense about a wall of silence and not demanding that this young man be prosecuted and the mother as well if as alleged in the article that she was aware of the sexual nature of her daughter’s relationship and choose to do nothing about it?
As your employer I urge you to get your priorities right and forget about some child getting a flick on the ear and give this case urgent priority which is long overdue. This case is open and shut. If you cannot ensure this case goes to court I suggest you resign so that maybe your replacement will place the welfare of children ahead of pleasing his or her political master.
Regards
Chuck Bird
Minor has baby: no charges laid
5:00AM Sunday November 25, 2007
By Stephen Cook
Police chose not to lay charges against a 21-year-old who fathered a child with a 13-year-old girl – even though he confessed to police he had been having sex with a minor.
The pregnancy was highlighted last week by Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro, who used the case to illustrate “the wall of silence” protecting people who committed child abuse.
The girl had started having sex from the age of 11 and Kiro claimed that no one in her family would come forward and shed any light on who was responsible.
However, the Herald on Sunday understands the father turned himself in to police but was given only a verbal warning by officers.
Rape Crisis is demanding answers about why police never charged the man with having sex with a minor. It says the police’s failure to do so sends extremely worrying mixed messages to teenagers.
A conviction for having sex with someone under the age of 12 carries a maximum prison term of 14 years. Having sex with someone under the age of 16 carries a 10-year maximum prison term.
Sources involved with the girl’s family told the Herald on Sunday the man had been involved in a sexual relationship with the girl since she was 11. When Child Youth and Family (CYF) became aware the girl was pregnant at 12, she was removed from the mother’s care and placed with a family member. Four months ago the girl gave birth. She was 13.
It is understood the 21-year-old is still involved in a relationship with the girl and has supervised visits with his son. During the day the baby is cared for by a family member, allowing the girl to remain at school.
A source told the Herald on Sunday the girl’s mother was aware her daughter’s relationship was of a sexual nature, but chose to do nothing about it. For five months, the girl had managed to hide the pregnancy, and authorities became involved only after being alerted to the case by the girl’s doctor.
It was then that CYF intervened. CYF is understood to still be monitoring the girl, but with the refusal of police to act in the case it is hamstrung over taking any action about her relationship with the baby’s father.
Asked about police protocols in the case of someone having sex with a minor, a spokesperson at Police National Headquarters said charges were laid only if there was sufficient evidence and proceeding with a case was in the public interest.
Rape Crisis spokeswoman Sandz Peipi said the fact the 21-year-old had been involved with the girl when she was only 11 was “disturbing and quite perverse”.
Whether the sex was consensual was irrelevant because of the girl’s age and the man should have been charged by police.
The fact he had admitted committing “statutory rape” meant police had more than sufficient evidence to go on, Peipi said. She was also surprised police did not believe it was in the “public interest” to lay charges.
MY EMAIL IS IN RESPONSE TO
Keeping our children safe
By CINDY KIRO
The Dominion Post | Monday, 04 February 2008
It’s not okay to hit our children, ever.
I have never met a person in prison or a youth justice residence for violent offences who received too much love and too little physical punishment. The opposite is true. Violence taught them to be violent.
Because of what I see, and all the information showing bad behaviour by adults leading to bad behaviour by children, I supported the Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline, known as the Repeal of Section 59, or the anti-smacking law.
My objective is to see the best for all children and young people in New Zealand, including ensuring their safety. They deserve the chance to grow up free from violence.
Much of what is reported about smacking cases where police talk to parents for disciplining their children is one- sided. Some of what is said is politically motivated with no consideration for children and young people. The child’s side of the story is seldom heard or listened to by this very vocal minority. Some of them don’t even believe children have rights.
In reality, these cases often end up in court, this wasn’t the first time the parent disciplined their child with the use of violence and, in fact, they face charges of criminal assault. These are the same charges they would have faced before the law change.
One of the most important things that has happened since the law change is we have seen communities say no to violence against children. Far from dobbing in apparently good parents, they have decided to keep the children and young people in their community safe.
I continue to urge people to speak out where they see unacceptable behaviour; this is the last line of defence for some children. Babies and young children can’t and don’t fight back.
WHEN I talk to children they tell me they think physical punishment is wrong and ineffective. They think it is about adult issues, and children are used to bearing the brunt of frustrations that may have nothing to do with them. They believe that adults hit children because they would be in trouble if they hit other adults; or they would be hit back.
It is time for old dogs to learn new tricks. Adults have to take responsibility for their own problems and not take them out on children. Punching a child in the head is not discipline and it may well kill them.
Wanting an excuse in law for assault against a child is a very tangible way in which New Zealand continues to say violence towards children is okay.
Physical punishment is a breach of children’s rights as set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC).
New Zealand has signed this international human rights treaty that brings together a universal set of standards for children. UNCROC recognises children as active participants in their own lives and places obligations on adults to respect and provide for the best interests and welfare of children in their care.
One of the most significant achievements of UNCROC is that it challenges adult perceptions of children as the property of their parents. This is a point that some parents and proponents of religious or political ideology cannot accept.
New Zealand has a poor track record when it comes to protecting our children from violence with a reported child maltreatment mortality rate higher than most countries within the developed world.
The motives for physical punishment may be reasonable to the person administering it as they believe they are teaching the child a lesson.
However, physical punishment is a poor teaching method. At best it may result in immediate compliance. In the longer term, the evidence shows that the use of physical punishment increases the likelihood of disruptive and aggressive behaviour in children.
It teaches children that the use of violence is an acceptable way to solve problems or to resolve personal differences of opinion. And so the cycle continues.
If anyone requires information, guidance and advice on why it is not okay to hit our children I urge them to read the literature my office has available or to talk to us.
* Dr Cindy Kiro is the Children’s Commissioner (occ.org.nz).
February 6th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Shame on ACT. Backing the family first anti-securlarist theocrats, what were they thinking. Any chance of me voting for a party that professes to be libertarian (a philosophy I broadly support), but effectively supports a reduction in freedom for our most vulnerable citizens, is gone. Shame on them.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Larry, do support the freedom for our most vulnerable citizens that is children to have sex with whoever they choose?
I can have some sympathy for some of the Libertarian philosophy. But when it is taken to the extreme I tend to the think the Libertarian extremist are just bunch of nutters.
I note in yesterday’s Herald that an adult woman and her father are charged with incest. Do you think incest should be legal between consenting adults?
February 7th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Having watched the Nigel Latta programme, Beyond the Darklands, and Jules Mikus’ home life, I can understand why many parents don’t want people looking behind their walls.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Local paper “A 36-year old xxxxxx man is facing a charge of assaulting a child. Police say the man allegedly tore a piece of timber off his fence, chased his 14-year-old son, then “wacked” him with it.”
Before this anti smacking legislation there would have been precedent to drop the case. Hopefully, this guy will go down. It’s a perfect example of control at any cost with no counting to 10 before acting; no respect for a youth. I’m not surprised youth have no respect for adults. Youth are human beings. I think some parents forget that.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:33 am
My apologies -
I’ve fallen into repeating this stupid, untruthful ‘anti-smacking’ term for the actual legislation for the Repeal of Section 59.
It’s amazing what the English language can create in our minds as to whether making contact with a child is acceptable or not acceptable.
I gave him a clip around the ear, for example – check the age, anger, weight and muscle strength of the ‘clipper’ against the age, fear, weight and muscle strength of the ‘clippee’, not to mention the unequal financial, emotional and supposedly intellectual weight of the clipper and the non-financial, dependent and still learning weight of the clippee.
Then, if the clipper is picked up on that act and is dealt with then, maybe the whipping a few years down the track doesn’t happen. When control starts to slip, there is a natural progression to more aggressive controlling behaviours.
It’s frightening what people will continue to do if they think they can get away with it.
February 7th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Chuck, I too have some sympathy with Libertarian philosophy. Although I don’t agree with all of it, when I weigh up Labour policy against the Libertarianz (for example) it becomes pretty clear which government I would prefer to live under. At least in a truly liberal society I could conduct my life and raise my children the way I felt was best.
It is good to have parties from different ends of the political spectrum supporting a reintroduction of s59.
Note that it is not just The Kiwi Party pushing this on the conservative side, but The Family Party as well. TFP seems to have a better plan to actually get in using an electorate seat, while TKP appears to be just going for 5%. It is unfortunate that they will be competing for votes, it reduces the chance of either getting in, although TFPs strategy should be more robust.