General Debate 9 July 2009
I’m on planes for most of the next 24 hours, so not a lot of blogging except some pre-timed posts.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: General DebateGeneral Debate 9 July 2009
96 Responses to “General Debate 9 July 2009”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:15 am
That great big defender of our rights has roared again. The Commerce (overseas traveling) Commission is going to prosecute Methven for overstating the water that their shower head allows to pass in some situations. Award winning with their shower nozzle, exporter of NZ technology but slightly amiss with their advertising (only in NZ) they are now to be subject to the substantial cost of doing business in NZ because our overseas traveling Commissioner has been convinced by a competitor who is either a greenie and doesn’t like us to use water or possibly a former Lairbour participant that Methven need to be sent packing forever from our shores.
Nary a word from the same commission about all those failed finance companies that they approved various prospectuses for. Nothing of any comfort for thousands of people who have lost their life savings, nothing, not a single word about the biggest rort in NZ forever,i.e. leaky building but if a shower head uses a tad more water than the advert says we have a federal case to punish the errant behavoir.
Another case which clearly shows that most women are incapable of sound judgment when put at the head of any public organization.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10583059
Cactus also has something to say.
http://asianinvasion2006.blogspot.com/ Commerce Commission chasing Cars.!
July 9th, 2009 at 7:33 am
A couple of days ago in the general thread I posted this:
Then I see this on Stuff: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2577209/Its-not-a-tragedy-its-a-travesty/
Are the rest of you sick of seeing parents of these kids who kill themselves glorifying the manner of their kid’s deaths. It is almost like some perverse Anzac Day rememberance or “They died doing what they loved”.
That stupid kid killed himself and of his stupid mates who got in the car with him two were killed and another seriously injured. End of story.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:45 am
Just make sure you don’t fly airbus….they have a habit of falling apart.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:54 am
Back Benchs missed you last night, bit flat without your well organised cheer squad.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:54 am
That coffin adorned in beer labels is a disgrace. With parents like that I think that this might be natural selection at work.
July 9th, 2009 at 8:00 am
Just make sure you don’t fly airbus….they have a habit of falling apart.
..which one fell apart bud ? Shed some light…
July 9th, 2009 at 8:08 am
Trev
If you are going to “troll” then I suggest you take some lessons from a few of the lefty scum who infest this place, your effort (like your performance in the house recently) is well below average.
July 9th, 2009 at 8:14 am
A dead 16-year-old glorifying our booze culture? Isn’t the legal drinking age 18?
Trevor – if you’re still there, isn’t this the kind of image that should be encouraging MP’s to review the drinking age again?
July 9th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Not often that I praise a National Party Cabinet Minister, but well done Kate Wilkinson.
July 9th, 2009 at 8:27 am
That’s a brave Southland Times article in the wake of another tragedy/travesty.
But Brian, there are similarities between that funeral and having an x gun “salute” at a military funeral.
July 9th, 2009 at 8:31 am
toad – Have you still not gotten over the 90 day trial thing. You really must get a life. We have seen far more cases of smacking persecution than evidence of “firing-at-will” (Hospital Hill – Napier and Burnside – ChCh excepted) Silly old fart
July 9th, 2009 at 8:31 am
“..# Trevor Mallard (119) Vote: Add rating 2 Subtract rating 6 Says:
July 9th, 2009 at 7:54 am
Back Benchs missed you last night, bit flat without your well organised cheer squad..”
ah..mr mallard..any chance you’ll answer those questions..
1)..on why labour left the poorest to just ‘rot’..for nine long years..
2)..and on just what medical qualifications you have..do you base your rejection of the very idea of medical marijuana..?
are ya gonna ‘run away’ again..?
or are you gonna answer..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 9th, 2009 at 8:32 am
little bruv: “a few of the lefty scum who infest this place”
You could always start your own blog and restrict it to self adulating boors that don’t tolerate differences in opinion, but I guess that would limit your targets of abuse.
July 9th, 2009 at 8:36 am
and hey..!..this should freak out the anti-drug hysterics..
..that mouse you hold was invented by an acid head..off his head on acid..eh..?
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/read-the-never-before-published-letter-from-lsd-inventor-albert-hofmann-to-apple-ceo-steve-jobs/
..and didyahearabout that major/developer of the internet.?
“..“When I’m on LSD and hearing something that’s pure rhythm, it takes me to another world and into anther brain state where I’ve stopped thinking and started knowing,” Kevin Herbert told Wired magazine at a symposium commemorating Hofmann’s one hundredth birthday.
Herbert, an early employee of Cisco Systems who successfully banned drug testing of technologists at the company..
.. reportedly “solved his toughest technical problems while tripping to drum solos by the Grateful Dead.”
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 9th, 2009 at 8:42 am
Philip Ure – seeing as how you’re so into questions, I’ll ask YOU one. Why don’t you just piss off?
July 9th, 2009 at 8:48 am
“…Back Benchs missed you last night, bit flat without your well organised cheer squad…”
Back Benches called, they have a spare E if you need one. Sorted!
July 9th, 2009 at 8:57 am
philu is the only one here interested in some acid head sucking acid.
Phool – why don’t you go join him? You might get more inventive – like looking for a job.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:06 am
So as Neville Key wends his way across the south pacific he sees fit to dish out more of my fucking money to Labour voting pacific islanders.
When will somebody inside the National party tell this idiot to stop, when will somebody remind the prick that there is nothing to gain from pandering to bludgers and Labour voting low life, I wish he would just cross the floor and join the pinko’s and be done with it.
At least with Klark you knew who the enemy was.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:10 am
Serious question: have any of you bloglanders ever thought about the fact that the anti-smacking law lets citizens terrorise other citizens?
If you’re in favour of the anti-smacking law, would you change your mind if a neighbour used that law to terrorise you (as happened to my friend)?
http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/the-anti-smacking-law-lets-citizens-be-agents-of-state-terrorism/
July 9th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Shit bruv.
Judging by your tone, you must be sucking acid too.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Big Bruv: I agree that Key is a commie in a blue suit. National’s left hand is holding Marx’s right hand.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:19 am
No, I hadn’t, because it doesn’t. What it does to is punish parents who use physical violence to terrorise children.
Who, other than parents, should be permitted to whack kids?
The next door neighbour? A school teacher? The bloke down the road who talks to himself all the time? Me when your whining child annoys me in the supermarket?
If you cannot answer yes to each of these, then what makes you so special that you can expect to beat a child with impunity?
July 9th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Don
Would you say the same thing if Klark tripped across the South Pacific dishing out your money to gain votes?
What Key is doing is almost criminal, just like Labour he thinks he can spend your money bribing people to vote for him and the rest of his socialist mates who sit on the government benches.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:24 am
You mean like No Right Turn and the Standard?
July 9th, 2009 at 9:24 am
1)..on why labour left the poorest to just ‘rot’..for nine long years..
Given that the last nine years were prosperous ones then anybody who happened to “rot” deserved everything they got Phool.
2)..and on just what medical qualifications you have..do you base your rejection of the very idea of medical marijuana..?
Far be it from me to defend Trev the thug but I would assume he made his decision based on the same medical qualifications that you made yours.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Phil U asks a question of Duck Face, and hasn’t got the nous to understand that Socialists only worry about the Elite.
As in themselves. They just feign interest in genuine poverty by doling (sic) out enough money to keep their client base trapped in misery.
Like the MP’s and Minister in the UK who have had it Large, most were Labour.
And here Labour use taxpayers money to bulk out a by-election campaign.
They only care for one thing. POWER
July 9th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Agreed – That is why I said it was like a perverse Anzac ceremony. The real difference though is that military funerals usually involve someone who has died either performing their duty or in some act of self-sacrafice for his mates. Encouraging your kids to be dangerous hoons in cars seems a bit off – even for bogans.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:30 am
What an excellent open letter fronting stuff today from Inspector Andrew Burns. Based in fact and to the point! What needs to be heard I believe. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2577209/Its-not-a-tragedy-its-a-travesty/
July 9th, 2009 at 9:31 am
kiwipolemicist:
- what if the neighbour simply ignored the yelling and the child was hung on the clothesline, put in the drier, using as a punchbag and killed?
- what if the parent responded “thanks for caring but it is just a tantrum”
July 9th, 2009 at 9:34 am
KiwiPolemicist,
Regarding your post.
1. State propaganda was not saying that smacking is a bad thing – Sue Bradford was.
2. The state has not made smacking a crime that must be investigated – it has always been a crime that is too small for police to generally investigate.
3. This was always the case – the repeal of S59 did not change it.
4. Your neighbour could always have done this to you – the repeal of S59 did not change it.
5. Your neighbour could always have done this to you – the repeal of S59 did not change it.
What you are complaining about is what has always been the case. If you want to legalise assault on a child, you would have to do much more than reinstate S59.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:35 am
At what point are you allowed to use physical coercion with your child?
when he is chasing your wife around the house with scissors? or is it still illegal to give them a smack across the ass? perhaps we should have just called the police.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Banana, maybe you could get radical – and read what S59 says. It would enlighten more than a few.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Cerium maybe you could buy a sarcasm detector.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Legally, you have never been allowed to use physical coercion with your child – in that it’s always been assault and assault has always been illegal. Practically depends, as it always has, on the discretion of police. Kiwipolemicist is right about one thing – you’re more likely to have the cops called on you now. That’s not because the law has changed, but because people’s perception of the law has changed. If S59 had been repealed very quietly, there would have been little change in people’s perception of the law.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Ok, I’ll try blunt – read the bloody law, then you will know the scenario you describe may be legal
- although I suggest a smack may not be the best intervention, you know, the running with scissors thing, throwing the kid off balance etc.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Ryan, Sue Bradford wanted the repeal of S59. That is not what happened.
A new S59, with four defensable grounds for physical discipline, was substituted http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/0F294939-83D6-486C-B0DF-BEB956729AF6/94185/DBHOH_BILL_6844_491993.pdf.
It seems very few, on either side of the debate, have bothered to look at what S59 says.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:50 am
“..Far be it from me to defend Trev the thug but I would assume he made his decision based on the same medical qualifications that you made yours..”
the difference being..bruv..(in case you hadn’t noticed..that trev just voted against proven pain relief for suffering new zealanders..
..and that vote was based on..what..?
..that is all i am trying to ascertain..
..i realise i’m probably pissing into the wind by asking straight questions in an open forum..
..and it’s not just mallard..
..the greenmp’s are as arrogant/off-hand in their treatment of any questions to their actions..or lack of them..
..they just refuse..
..(i think it’s called ‘hubris’..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 9th, 2009 at 10:01 am
further question for trevor mallard..
..now that 1,000 workers a week are losing their paid income..plus their working for families subsidy..
..(known colloquially as ‘the double-whammy’..)
..do you still think it was fair/equitable..on any level..
..to restrict working for families to ‘working’ families..(and thus slamming the door shut on sole-parents..and the like..?..)
..do you now realise that by just leaving those struggling the most to ‘just rot’..
..that you fostered/created an economic-apartheid in this country..?
..that there are now two distinct ‘classes’ of citizens..?
..the ‘deserving’..and the ‘undeserving’…
..those ‘deserving’ of the needed state-support for their families..
..and those families who ‘don”t deserve’ that support..
..that economic-apartheid will be being well and truely sheeted home to those (however many) newly ‘undeserving’ families..each week..eh..?
..which brings me back to the fair/equitable question again..eh..?
..(and as an aside…as a (key) creator of such miseries/’un-labour’ conditions/economic-apartheid..
..in this country..
..do ya sleep well..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz
July 9th, 2009 at 10:02 am
True, but the fact remains that assaulting a child has always been assaulting a child. Even if Bradford’s desires for repeal had been fulfilled completely, arresting behaviour should not have changed. It was publicity that raised the question about things that had always been the case.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Bigbruv yep, Key is a damn fine Labour PM.
I may vote for the Nats in 2011
July 9th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Phool
Forget about Trev, I would gladly slam the door shut in your face and the face of every other bludger who hides behind the “sole parent” excuse for stealing from the rest of us.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Ryan:
- state publications are pumping out anti-smacking propaganda.
- while it is true that smacking has always been a crime, the law change specifically outlawed smacking for the purposes of correction, thereby leaving parents wide open to the type of terrorism I have described in my post. The police and public can claim that force was used was used for correction, and then the dogs of war are loosed.
- under the old law parents were legally justified in using force for correction, and the state’s beneficent acknowledgement of parental rights (yes, that’s sarcasm) gave some protection against terrorism by citizen-spies and vexatious prosecution by the police.
Compare the old and new here: http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/arrant-arrogance/
Bradford was such an idiot that she wanted to repeal s59 and make forcing a nappy change illegal.
Cerium:
that’s a red herring. The difference between a swat on the rump steak and tying a kid to a washing line etc is blindingly obvious. One is parental training (correction), one is abuse.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Jafas need viagra ?
That tv show the other night showing a typical Jafa, how many more of you Jafas need a pill for a bit of action with your boyfriends ?
July 9th, 2009 at 10:12 am
I agree that without the publicity any S59 change would probably have made little or no difference.
But we have the furore, claims that it cost Labour the election (it didn’t, they were toast anyway), attempts by Act to use it to win the next election, and we have the referendum.
Will anything less than 80% be a failure? Actually eighty something percent was only some pre final version polling. And wasn’t the petition started and phrased BEFORE the final version of S59 was arrived at?
July 9th, 2009 at 10:14 am
NOt1tocommentoften:
Did you spot the communism in the letter that you like so much? Do you like it when cops claim that the community is responsible for your children and thereby attempt to give themselves control over your children?
http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/communism-from-a-cop/
July 9th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Cerium:
that’s a red herring. The difference between a swat on the rump steak and tying a kid to a washing line etc is blindingly obvious. One is parental training (correction), one is abuse.
Sadly, a lot of parents who will be voting No are unable to make that distinction.
Vote YES and give children the same protection from assault we give adults.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:15 am
“The difference between a swat on the rump steak and tying a kid to a washing line etc is blindingly obvious.”
It isn’t blindingly obvious if you ignore cries and don’t check it out.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Do you always travel in circles Cerium? why don’t you go debate a mirror?
July 9th, 2009 at 10:17 am
yes bruv..but you don’t really ‘matter’..eh..?
like me..you are just a voice shouting..
..meh..!
this #*^*# voted for/’did’ all this stuff..
..and if he wants to put himself in the firing line..by/from public pouting/preening..on a rightwing blog..(!)
..well..what can i say..?
..so..stop your hubritic (new word alert!) running away from your (recent) past..eh..?
..let’s talk..!..trev..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 9th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Cerium:
I agree that without the publicity any S59 change would probably have made little or no difference.
With all due respect, that is garbage. Even without publicity making smacking for correction illegal would have given the state thugs in blue far wider grounds for interfering with families. As I said above The police and public can claim that force was used was used for correction, and then the dogs of war are loosed.
Besides which, the state has no right to tell parents how to raise their children: that’s the bottom line.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:18 am
kiwipolemicist (325) 0 1 Says:
July 9th, 2009 at 10:14 am
NOt1tocommentoften:
Did you spot the communism …
No, but I did spot your inability to mount an argument. What has this to do with communism, a system in which the workers own the means of production and exchange?
I suggest you read a bit more widely, a bit of Eric Blair would do you good.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:20 am
Kiwipolemicist,
There are two kinds of “legal” we’re talking about here. There is illegal in the sense that you can be arrested for it, and there is illegal in the sense that you will be convicted for it. S59 only had an effect on the latter. Whether or not citizens can harass each other by laying police complaints is a question of the former.
Consider how seldom S59 was invoked, let alone used successfully, and also how awful a few of those cases were. How much of an effect, legally, could its repeal have? But the publicity around the matter highlighted to people that they can accuse others of assaulting their children – which was always the case. It’s not the law change that’s the problem, it’s the hype.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Does the state have a right to tell Nia Glassie’s parents how to raise their children?
July 9th, 2009 at 10:26 am
MyNameIsJack:
I’ve updated the post to point out that I am describing it as communism because state control of children is a policy from the Communist Manifesto.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:33 am
Tsk tsk, Cactus Kate does not believe that Palin will be the savior of the septics.
Of course a lot of yanks will vote for Palin for one damn good reason.
They believe she is just like them with her lack of intellectual curiosity and a belief that all the answers can be found in a book of fiction
But it would be bloody amusing to see her send the US military to confront the Russians in Georgia, wonder what she would do if the Russians nuked every airfield in Eastern Europe that the yanks were using.
Nuke Moscow ?
July 9th, 2009 at 10:39 am
kiwipolemicist (327) 0 1 Says:
July 9th, 2009 at 10:26 am
MyNameIsJack:
I’ve updated the post to point out that I am describing it as communism because state control of children is a policy from the Communist Manifesto.
Which part? chapter and verse, please.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:40 am
..dont expect mallard to respond..he likes to come on , write a couple of words , disappear and hope everyone goes into a lather over it..meanwhile he sits in the corner masterbaiting… watching the responses….
July 9th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Well they deployed two of these inside “Georgia” during the last conflict Grumpy, so it may very well come to that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTR-21_Tochka
July 9th, 2009 at 10:43 am
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/61/61.txt
July 9th, 2009 at 10:47 am
starboard – Not sure the mental picture of Mallard masturbating goes well with my scone for morning tea – Thanks mate. Really appreciate it.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:48 am
New topic if I may …
The Government’s decision to proceed with Labour’s plan to medicate bread with folic acid despite new health concerns about the risks of this shows two things.
Grumpy (10.06 post) is right that National is Labour in drag. It has voluntarily taken over from Labour the role of villain in this issue, which is going to be highly unpopular. It should be especially unpopular with men, as one piece of recent research suggests it could (and just could at this stage of research) double incidence of prostate cancer, as well as worsening pre-cancerous polyps in both men and women. Labour health spokeswoman Dyson has announced Labour’s pleasure with National’s decision to continue the measure.
Second, it again shows the quirks of the list MP system. Kate Wilkinson, the National Minister responsible, is a list MP. She shows herself weak and arrogant in saying National had no choice but to continue the implementation of the medication of bread. What a damnable lie! She must think we voters are idiots. We are an independent nation and can withdraw from any agreement we wish. How can she look a news camera in the face? The relationship of this to MMP’s list system is that under the previous FPP system voters in her electorate could have sorted out her character and dumped her, perhaps without bringing down a National Government at the next election. Now it’s take Wilkinson with National or take nothing.
NZ men who support National need to weigh up whether this socialist madness is enough to make them switch voting loyalty.
Let’s hope Winnie doesn’t pick up on this hot potato. If so, he might get thousands of new voters.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Ryan:
Does the state have a right to tell Nia Glassie’s parents how to raise their children?
No, but the state does have a right to punish the parents for their crime against a person (Nia in this case). There’s a big difference.
But the publicity around the matter highlighted to people that they can accuse others of assaulting their children – which was always the case.
Yes, that’s what happens when the state starts a witch hunt. I have amended my post to make my point clearer: the state whipped up a witch hunt, and outlawing smacking for the purpose of correction opened the door to terrorism of parents by citizen-spies and state thugs.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Ryan, nice cut and paste, but did you read the section, in its context?
Jack5, Wilkinson is a total waste of space. I have sent her several emails, politely questiong policy. No answer.
I have asked her questions, in person, when she strolls the local farmer’s market. She prevaricates.
In that, I guess she is the ideal national Party MP>
July 9th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Ryan: thank you.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:07 am
One man’s crime is another man’s reasonable corrective parenting. That’s the problem. To see it from the perspective of people who oppose smacking, they don’t want to interfere with parenting, they want to prevent (well, punish) crimes.
It seems to me that the anti-repealers whipped up more interest in the matter than those supporting the small change. And the door was already open for what you call citizen-spies. Five years ago, your neighbour could still have called the police and caused you all kinds of hassles with all kinds of allegations. That isn’t new.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:19 am
Short of time today – no time for civility, so just a quick fuck off to:
MNI Jerk/Borker
Duckman
Philu, the proud father and role model
… and Brian Smaller, I believe the term is trailer trash.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Ryan:
Removing the justification of using reasonable force for the purposes of correction is not a “small change”. It’s the totalitarian nanny state telling parents how they may and may not correct their children. Imagine Sue Bradford and Herr Helen in family homes controlling what parents do when their kids misbehave and you’ve got the picture.
To see it from the perspective of people who oppose smacking, they don’t want to interfere with parenting, they want to prevent (well, punish) crimes.
So it’s “not interfering” when the state controls how parents respond when their children misbehave. Yeah right.
Five years ago, your neighbour could still have called the police and caused you all kinds of hassles with all kinds of allegations.
True, but as I point out in my post the law change made it far easier for them to do so. Add a state witch hunt and parents are going through hell, as can be seen here:
http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Issues/Anti_smacking_Bill
July 9th, 2009 at 11:26 am
“Five years ago, your neighbour could still have called the police and caused you all kinds of hassles with all kinds of allegations. That isn’t new.”
20+ years ago I was “hassled” by social services after an automatic trigger because one of my daughters went to A&E more often than was deemed normal. It was discussed and sorted amicably.
I wonder – are those that complain the most about their parental “rights” being restricted the same that complain the most about social/service/police/government not detecting real abuse in time?
July 9th, 2009 at 11:43 am
“It’s the totalitarian nanny state….”
Find one that doesn’t have laws.
Act seem united against this minor tweak – why exactly? Three strikes and you’re out is not exactly supporting freedom of the individual to do as they please.
Do as I say, referendums for everything else?
The freedom for me, f… you approach?
July 9th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Another topic change – the NZRU has reappointed Henry and co through to RWC 2011. What’s worse is that the NZRU made the decision three months ago, but has only just got around to telling anyone.
I still support the All Blacks, but the antics of the NZRU majorly piss me off!
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2009/07/henry-reappointed.html
July 9th, 2009 at 11:52 am
China and India on “climate change”: “get the fuck out.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article6666576.ece
At least the Nats got the hint. Pity Obummer has yet to do so. Cap and trade is going to strangle the US economy for the next five years at the minimum.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:54 am
So it’s “not interfering” when the state controls how Nia Glassie’s parents responded when she misbehaved. NOT.
Certainly, it’s interfering, but interfering to prevent a crime – which you’ve already said you support. The question is purely what constitutes a crime and what doesn’t. To you, smacking isn’t a crime. To the anti-smackers, it is. To understand where they’re coming from, you have to understand that they don’t see it as meddling, they see it as opposing harm to children.
It didn’t. The hype simply made it far more obvious how easy it is for them to do so.
That is the picture in the heads of people who have believed the hype rather than understanding the law change. Removing a defence at the court level does not (should not) alter police arresting behaviour.
July 9th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Ryan:
Certainly, it’s interfering, but interfering to prevent a crime – which you’ve already said you support.
I never said that I supported interfering to prevent crime; I believe that prevention of crime by the state is illegitimate and immoral (go the link below). Punishing crime is something else entirely.
http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/drink-driving-should-be-legalised/
That is the picture in the heads of people who have believed the hype rather than understanding the law change.
When the state removes the justification of using reasonable force for correction the state is controlling how parents respond to misbehaving children: that’s fact, not hype.
Removing a defence at the court level does not (should not) alter police arresting behaviour.
Clearly it has, as Bradford et al intended.
July 9th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
I thought you were just a common garden variety of idiot; know I know you are not safe to be near a keyboard.
July 9th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Well, I’d prefer neither, but if you’re going to support a state, why would you go for punishing (causing more suffering after the fact) rather than preventing (reducing suffering on all sides)?
Anyway, obviously I meant that anti-smackers want to punish what they see as a crime – but presumably as a means of disincentive. The point is that while you don’t see a smack as harming children, they do. To understand where they’re coming from, you have to take that on board. They believe they are opposing harm to children. You do not believe they are opposing harm to children.
Yes, but it wouldn’t have if the anti-repealers hadn’t made such a big deal of it. I suppose you could call that poetic justice of a sort. And it’s actual genuine irony, which is fairly rare. They put so much effort into making it out to be a smacking ban that they caused it to become, in practice, a smacking ban.
July 9th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Well, I’d prefer neither, but if you’re going to support a state, why would you go for punishing (causing more suffering after the fact) rather than preventing (reducing suffering on all sides)?
The reasons for this are waaaay to long to go into here. For now, consider the effect of allowing the state to prevent crime: destruction of personal liberties in the name of maintaining “social order”. The fruit shows that the tree is poisonous.
Yes, but it wouldn’t have if the anti-repealers hadn’t made such a big deal of it.
That is opinion, not fact.
They put so much effort into making it out to be a smacking ban that they caused it to become, in practice, a smacking ban.
So the Green website announced an “anti-smacking bill” put forward by Bradford and you’re blaming the anti-repealers for the ban on smacking? Come on.
http://www.greens.org.nz/node/12844
July 9th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
I have to depart from Blogland now.
July 9th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
The way i look at it Ryan (12:24 pm) smacking is a form of coercion to prevent undesirable behavior from reoccurring, it is both a prevention and a punishment, the state by saying it may or may not be legal to use physical coercion unless someone is in danger at which point it may or may not be legal to do so is kind of lame and leads me to the conclusion that i should just call the police ( the state ) since they are the only ones who can decide whether or not physical coercion is required.
It also, in a subtle way says that the state is the only one allowed to use coercion to get a desired outcome which i am not comfortable with at all.
July 9th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Smacking is getting boring. Want to get even angrier?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/motorsport/2578776/Big-bill-for-V8-rooftop-freebies
So now a council can tell you if you can stand or sit on your own rooftop. Fuck them. Bueaucractic scum.
July 9th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Religious idiots, Part The First
NEARLY 2,000 people have signed a petition seeking to prevent the removal of a tree stump on the grounds of a Co Limerick church, which they believe depicts an image of the Blessed Virgin
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0709/1224250319175.html
Religious Idiots Part The Second
Parents will be able to choose an alternative state education for their children under Conservative plans to create hundreds of schools.
Shadow children’s secretary Michael Gove today gave his backing to an expansion of state funding for Montessori and Steiner schools, which aim to educate “the whole child” instead of focusing on the three Rs.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23716828-details/Tories+to+offer+alternative+state+education+at+Montessori+schools/article.do
Religious Idiots Part The Third
A Turkish game show is challenging atheists to reassess their views and win “the biggest prize ever”.
Penitents Compete will bring together an Islamic imam, a Jewish rabbi, a Buddhist monk and a Greek Orthodox priest seeking to convert the atheists.
The prize for any converted contestants is an expenses-paid pilgrimage to a holy site of their chosen faith.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8132320.stm
July 9th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Yes, I agree.
Bradford shares plenty of the blame in my mind, don’t worry. As I’ve said before on Kiwiblog, a combination of Bradford and anti-repealers making it out to be an anti-smacking bill combined with media happy to let citizens continue in ignorance – contentious issues are good for sales/ratings – created this ridiculous debacle.
July 9th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
here is the classic NO voter.
He was a “proud” man who was “disappointed” his daughter had elected not to follow his Mormon faith.
Mr Stone said blood on Muliipu’s shirt came from him hugging his daughter just before police arrived at his house.
Judge Rea said a probation officer’s report made “grim reading” because he “still does not understand what all the fuss is about”.
He had been ejected from an anger management course because of his views and had an inability to understand “whacking someone on the head is unacceptable”.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10583411
July 9th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
I love nationals new party colour,dirty purple.This colour was personally selected by johnboy key. the people who voted for national had no say in this colour.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Jack – and here is your classic YES voter. A uni intellectual know-it-all.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2579079/Weatherston-talks-of-his-sexual-relationship-with-Sophie-Elliott
July 9th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
What is it with the Right Whingers that makes them anti intellectual? Is it because it exposes their own lack of intelect? When did intelelctual become a slur?
No fucking wonder the Right’s base is getting narrower and narrower as they cut themselves off from intellectual intercourse.
And no fucking wonder that the poster girl for the right is sarah palin, a woman who is proud of her ignorance.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Jack – I don’t mind intellectuals – just generally don’t like the ones who have never lived outside academia.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
So you have a problem with Stephen Hawking? Maybe Ernest Rutherford is not to your liking.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
jackoff you chose the shade of red in the fucker nats party colour, sigh
July 9th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
MNIJ – I’m right with you on the issue of hitting children – totally unacceptable in any circumstance other than to ensure their own safety or that of others.
The bit I don’t get is why you are with the most racist commenters on this blog over the foreshore and seabed and Treaty issues.
It’s just not consistent. On one hand you stand up against oppression (of children) and on the other you stand up for oppression (of Maori).
I just don’t get it.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Johnboy key is a loose cannon, put a fuckwit investment banker in charge of gods own MY COUNTRY NEW ZEALAND and you get smiley key saying we ALL NEED TO EAT FOLIC ACID (NASTY) AS johnboy key is a DUMB —— PM????? opps going to many sites saying artificial folic acid(check it out) is a poison, FOLIC ACID IS A POISON there is a long list of nasty reactions GOOGLE,I think JOHNBOY KEY HAS A BREAD MAKER he dosnt eat the shit as HES RICH and all PREGNANT WOMEN can TAKE TABLETS for folic acid,(OUR FAMILY DID) TOSSER key, the purple nat colour is getting more brownTHE MANGEY MONGREL MAORI PARTY TAIL IS REALLY WAGGING the NATS arse AND JOHNBOY KEY is SMILING, fuck did you vote this wimp into power, wait theres money to be made soon isnt there johnboy.??? wait wait its comming soon
July 9th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
HR manager of IHC commenting on how terrible it is that he now has to pay his little people the minimum wage for working all night.
No mention of his own remuneration. (I wonder if he too is on less than minimum wage?)
http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=102950508005&h=GF-38&u=TaUpr&ref=nf
July 9th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Ratbitten: I used to see young intellectually disabled people (if that is the currently acceptable term) waiting with smiles at the bus stops to go to work in a disabled plant. I know of firms that took work there, largely to give them work. The wages were low, but they were for the main part doing tasks that could be done by machines in competitors’ plants at low rates to customers. Stuffing promotional in materials was one such task.
Along came the unions and demanded full pay for these folk, few if any of whom are capable of competing with a fully able worker. Now the unions want still more for these folk.
The lefties are shutting down these operations, which are virtual occupational therapy units rather than cheap-labour plants. I no longer see the disable folk waiting for the buses with smiles as they head into the city. There must be some, but I think soon there will be no such workers.
They probably were or are on some sort of state benefit already, but the lefties would increase their dependency on the state. To me the additional cost to the taxpayer is secondary. The worst effect is the ending of basic work that gave these young folk a sense of being part of society, and faces and friends outside their homes.
The lefties, especially the unionists, and including on this issue Laile Harre, who bloggers were praising yesterday, have been heartless bastards towards “sheltered workshops” as these facilities are known.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Honestly, reading all of your comments, I don’t think A SINGLE ONE OF YOU has seen an episode of Sex and the City all the way through.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Remember how Toad often tells us that there are a ‘few” ex commies in the Green party and that those same ex commies have mended their ways?, well check out the following link, it proves that Toad (like all greens) is nothing but a liar.
It also proves (as if there was ever any doubt) that Catherine Delahunty is mind numbingly stupid as well as certifiably insane.
http://unityaotearoa.blogspot.com/
Oh, and there is also a few words from the junkie Labour party MP.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Did any of you see in this morning’s Herald that our aid bill for Niue is $21,500,000 per year.
To put that into context, a family of four in that place would be benefitting to the extent of $1653.84 per week tax free from us NZ taxpayers every week of the year.
The population of Niue is 1000 as the paper reported. Check my arithmetic. The figures are staggering.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:05 am
Thanks for the link Big Bruv …. now I feel bloody sick!