83% no vote predicted
I’ve blogged at curiablog the Colmar Brunton results on the smacking referendum.
70% of respondents said they intend to vote in the referendum, and 83% say they will be voting no.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Polls, Section 59, smacking
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:05 am
I propose an amendment to the law.
That there should be a $5000 reward for anyone dobbing in any adult that uses smacking as a form of discipline.
Whether that be in public, in the home or abroad.
Should this information prove to be factual, and result in a successful prosecution then a further $5000 reward should be paid to
the citizen that has done their Public Duty.
Not only should smacking carry a SEVERE custodial sentence, but also a minimum fine of $50k. With NO maximum.
Any shortfall shall result in the Family Home being forfeited.
That should do the trick!!!
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:09 am
And this would be the answer to the question “What do John Key and Sue Bradford have in common?”
“A basic contempt for the democratic process” would be another. Not a good look Mr Key.
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:11 am
Oh, and that any card carrying Labour Party member shall have the right to enter said property and remove any alcohol.
Any card carrying Green member shall be entitled to take any HERB, or variants on de HERB.
The House shall be sold and the proceeds given to the aforesaid parties. They are short of money, and booze, and Dack.
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:26 am
I’d be interested in a poll that tested those people’s understanding of the law at the same time as asking whether and what they’ll vote.
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:26 am
Only a complete idiot (or a socialist posing as the leader of the National party) would ignore 83% of the population.
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:27 am
Stop that Glut…
The fantasy of such POWER to these people is better than sex. ‘Don’t feed the aniamals’
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:31 am
re Key, I wonder if his position on this is strategic? To appear decided, unmoved… and then be able to initiate change because he ‘listened to the people’
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:35 am
And what will be the reaction of our strong and decisive leader, the “man of steel” Mr. Key?
He risks dismissing an 83% yes vote at his own peril. Time will tell.
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:36 am
But listen to what? This is another poll that confirms some things abut fails to differentiate between types of smacking.
I would like to see a poll that determines the proportions:
- that want the law changed back to how it was
- that accept the law as it is
- that want the law changed to the Borrow version
- that want something else
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:45 am
May as well make it a ten page survey then. A more cost effective exercise *if* the government wants to hear the people.
Questions on alcohol, abortion, smoking, the Treaty, climate change, common currency with Oz, corporal punishment in schools, capital punishment, the minimum driving age and twenty more questions.
But I have a suspicion that the government ‘knows best’.
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:53 am
It would be nice to see the exact question(s)
The TVNZ news site says “The poll found 83% of New Zealanders think it is okay to smack children under certain circumstances.”
It would be good to know if these are the same 4 circumstances the act specifies.
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:04 am
Should we have our voting envelopes by now?
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:11 am
@ hj ours haven’t arrived but clearly some people have theirs.
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:25 am
Here, from a Herald article, are the names of the Nats who lack the spine to make a decision on the Smacking Referendum, and by their refusal to vote, give credibility to Sue Bradford and her legislation.
David Bennett, Jackie Blue (l), Chester Borrows, David Carter (l), Judith Collins, Chris Finlayson (l), Tim Groser (l), Nathan Guy, Tau Henare (l), Steven Joyce (l), Nikki Kaye, John Key, Todd McClay, Tony Ryall, Katrina Shanks (l), Nick Smith, Anne Tolley, Chris Tremain, Louise Upston, Michael Woodhouse (l).
(Look how many are list)
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/08/general_debate_2_august_2009.html#comment-591489
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:28 am
The problem with this referendum is not that people don’t understand the question, it’s that people don’t understand the issue it represents. At the end of the day, people could probably survive without smacking their kids. Sure, kids would grow up snottier, there would be more accidental child deaths and a higher crime rate, but other than that nothing world-shaking. The real issue is, “Should the State have the right to interfere with your private life?”.
I know which way I’d vote.
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:29 am
a ‘good hiding’..
..(an oxymoron worth contemplating on..)
..in another thread a commenter said that’s what he does to his children..(but only when they ‘deserve it’..eh..?.)
..and that comment..
..really defines why we shouldn’t give adults an exemption on the assault laws..
..for as long as they are (only) hitting children..
..and when exactly does that other oxymoron..a ‘loving smack’..
..when does that cross that line to its’ oxymoronic peer…
..’the good hiding’..
..do we all support ‘good hidings’..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:36 am
What a disgracful performance by John Key on breakfast with Paul Henry this morning, despite what appears an overwhelming majority of responses to the poll on the anti smacking legislation Key refused to acknowledge that the will of the electorate should prevail.Paul Henry made this point most clearly and Key continued to argue what must be his personal opinion – flying in the face of public opinion usually leads to a crash – ask Helen.
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:36 am
It’s good to see that the vast majority of New Zealanders still understand that children need to be trained. There are many types of discipline, but a good smack (yes one that hurts) is a very effective form of discipline for some children (more often boys). Having brought up four children (all now adults) it is great to see them bringing up their own children using similar methods of discipline to that which we used with them.
For all of the do gooders that think children know best and that because we don’t smack adults then we shouldn’t smack children. I say that adults should already be trained and that is the difference.
A very simple check is: Has society improved with the removal of all forms of corporal discipline. The answer is a resounding NO!
The sooner good Parents can get on with the job of just being good parents the better!
Simply vote NO and then hope the MP’s have enough brains to listen.
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:42 am
The main problem with the results will be the significant number of people who don’t respond because they think the question is ridiculous. This will skew the results towards the No response due to the obvious response bias.
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:47 am
“..A very simple check is: Has society improved with the removal of all forms of corporal discipline. The answer is a resounding NO!..”
um..!..it’s only been five minutes..!
..and/yet..yes..the culture of meh! at the hitting of children is changing..
..polling since the exemption was removed..
..showed far less now hit children..than did pre-assault-exemption removal..
..and really..isn’t having to resort to physical punishment just an indictment of the communication/parenting failures of the adult..?
..when everyone knows there are alternatives that work..
..but prefer to remain with their pig-ignorance/violence..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:54 am
Kapital who I assumed is a psychologist posted yesterday on Roughlan’s anti-smacking article various psychological studies to support his point of view (smacking is bad) and I offered him/her an explanation here (the same thread).
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:58 am
Me too, Christopher. It would provide a strong mandate for cannabis legalisation, for a start. And wife-beating legalisation.
August 3rd, 2009 at 10:07 am
My full explanation to Kapital from the other thread is re-pasted below:
Kapital said…
Does causally relevant research support a blanket injunction against disciplinary spanking by parents? Invited address at the 109th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association.
Hehe, Kapital. Psychological studies are mostly bullshit, because they rely heavily on multivariate statistical correlation. Believe me, because I am a data-analyst and I have worked with industrial psychologists before. I was contracted in 2007 to develop the multivariate regression software engine for JRA Ltd in Auckland where they specialize in Online Analytic Work Place Survey. Here is how multivariate analysis is done, if you don’t understand what it is:
An analyst assumes that some predictor variables (causes), say N variables are very influential in determining a single response variable R, for example. N is an integer that is greater than 1 up to infinity. Lets say that N=4 for our simple example and our 4 predictor variables or 4 causes (variable names are arbitrary here) are:
W, X, Y, Z :
The task of the analyst with the aid of software is to regress R (dependent variable – also called effect variable or response) against the supposed predictors (or causes), like the following:
R = a1*W + a2*X + a3*Y + a4*Z;
the coefficients {a1, a2, a3 , a4} are coefficients to be determined by the regression algorithm, which is up to the analyst to select a particular algorithm of his/her choice from the software that he/she uses, since there are many different types of regression algorithms that can be used and they only vary in their accuracy. The analyst, then applies hypothesis testing on the coefficients {a1, a2, a3 , a4} after its being calculated and see if which of the causes or the predictors {W, X, Y, Z} that are indeed influential on the effect (response) R. The hypothesis testing may conclude that on 3 of the supposed causes, say {W, X, Z} or {W, X, Y} or {W, Y, Z} for example are influential on R but not all 4. It may conclude that only 1 or the 4 is influential and the 3 of them are not.
Now can you see how bullshit this sort of analysis is? The reason is that one analyst may use 4 variables while another analyst uses 15 variables and another one uses 30 variables and so on. There may be common variables in some of those 3 different analysts experiments or it could be completely different set from each others. See, one analyst may choose a predictor variable such as the All Black’s winning record has a direct cause or influential in children’s tendency to throw a tantrum (response or effect) or another analyst may think that no, the All Black’s winning record is not a cause (or predictor) has no relevant to children’s tantrum, but he/she thinks that a better predictor (cause) is when the interest rates increases, then children are more likely to throw a tantrum.
Now, you can see how ridiculous of such blind belief in using multivariate statistical hypothesis testing is that any variable or sets of predictor variables (causes) that is dreamed up by the analyst can be applied in the model. Any variable/s (cause/s or predictor/s) is/are deemed applicable even if it defies common sense.
Psychological studies (mostly bullshit) are often used by proponents of Nanny-state worshipers such as yourself & the likes of Sue Bradford to justify social engineering. Here is an excellent blog post from Not PC blog, taking snipes at psychological studies, which you should read:
A new study has found you shouldn’t believe every “new study”
A renowned scientist of recent history, Physics Nobelist , late Richard Feynman held psychology in low esteem, considering it at best a pseudo-science, and this was based on various meetings with different psychologists during his time as academic by observing the validity of their so called scientific methods. Feynman was right on the dot there in his assessment of psychology as not a valid branch of science.
August 3rd, 2009 at 10:25 am
Redbaiter, I agree with MPs who say they won’t vote because it is the opportunity for the ordinary voter to have their say. I think you should distinguish those from the creepy brigade who pretend the question is ambiguous which it obviously is not judged by the public response.
August 3rd, 2009 at 10:25 am
If everyone understood the law we wouldn’t need lawyers. And to quote respected Aussie lawyer, Dennis Denuto, “It is the vibe”. The vibe here is that people don’t like the government telling them how to raise their kids.
August 3rd, 2009 at 10:30 am
It is called Sharia. Already in Britain.
August 3rd, 2009 at 10:30 am
My parents would be in jail if they were disciplining us today.
We were given a whack when it was deserved. Sometimes with the hands, or sometimes with a wooden spoon, or flexible tubing. And, sometimes it would leave a mark. Shock horror you pathetic antismacking pansies .
Did any of us die from this extreme violence? Did we go on to cause violence against others? Were our eyes blackened and bones broken as they must have been according to the anti smackers?
Truth is, all of us are now successful well adjusted adults. Sometimes other discipline methods are simply ineffective or impractical according to the situation.
There is no way that my parents deserve a criminal conviction or get sent to jail, as Sue Bradford, Helen Clark , and John Key would like them to be.
August 3rd, 2009 at 10:41 am
wreck, what you describe would have trouble escaping the old law.
August 3rd, 2009 at 10:46 am
/shrug – wreck’s upbringing sounds like mine as well. Dad never hit me, mum did, never once when I didn’t deserve it. Hand, wooden spoon, fly swat, riding crop (that one hurt). Rather be disciplined by my parents than the fucktards at school who caned me.
August 3rd, 2009 at 10:47 am
GJ 9.36 am: “Simply vote NO and then hope the MP’s have enough brains to listen.
Yeah, but to whom? To what? And then do what?
August 3rd, 2009 at 10:54 am
It is sad that this conversation even needs to happen. It is doubley sad that there exist people who cannot see the difference between a smack, even with a wooden spoon, and beating a child half to death.
Those people are idiots.
August 3rd, 2009 at 10:55 am
Kimble,
You really think that opponents of smacking see no difference between a smack and beating a child half to death?
August 3rd, 2009 at 10:55 am
Just recalled the evidence of media left wing bias by hilighting the cost of the referendum but failing to mention that had Helen allowed it as part of the election its cost would have been marginal – as would her party – perhaps returning to parliament in a taxi – just one taxi. In any case $9m as the cost of democracy is good value compared with the $28m wasted on the family commission!
August 3rd, 2009 at 10:56 am
Alan 10.25 am: “who pretend the question is ambiguous which it obviously is not judged by the public response.”
The public response gives no indication of non-ambiguity. If they polled people on their reasons for voting (yes or no) I am sure you would see plenty of signs of ambiguity.
August 3rd, 2009 at 10:58 am
Freethinker, while Key’s position may be his personal opinion I do not believe that is his main reason for ignoring the referendum. Roughly 20% of the population support the anti-smacking legislation. If Key changes the law he could lose some of that 20% to Labour or the Watermelons. If he ignores the referendum he could lose some votes to ACT. This is a problem to him. The number of people who voted for the Kiwi Party or the Family Party was very low so he would not lose many votes there.
John Key is not a fool just lacking in principal. He has convinced himself like Helen – what is good for John Key is good for New Zealand. He will do whatever is necessary to ensure he is not a one term prime minister.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:01 am
wreck..
“..Truth is, all of us are now successful well adjusted adults..”
be careful the tide dosen’t come in..
..on that little sandcastle you are propped on..eh..?
…(do you have a ‘well-adjusted’-certificate..?
..did you do a ‘course’..?
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:04 am
Ryan, yes it seems the more vocal anti-smackers are unable to see a difference. This is evidenced by their inability to refrain from calling the pro-smackers ‘child beaters’ and by Bradford’s refusal to accept the Borrows amendment.
If that amendment had been adopted it would have saved $9mill.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:05 am
Hey Phlu, well done on being in the bottom 1% according to technorati
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:06 am
have you never heard..wreck..of ..’the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune’..?
nor..’the fickle finger of fate’..?
..i’d keep an eye out for them..
..if i were you..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:12 am
But it’s confuuuuuuuuuuuuuuusingly woooooooooooooorded, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:14 am
“You really think that opponents of smacking see no difference between a smack and beating a child half to death?”
Ryan, yes. Not all, of course, but you may want to take a look through the previous, numerous, discussions on the topic. You will find plenty of people labelling those who support the right of parents to smack their child monsters endorsing child abuse and torture.
Go have a look at the threads over at The Standard. They are chock full of people who say that sort of stuff, but it happens here too. These are the idiots that think they should have the right to force others to raise their kids a certain way.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:14 am
Cerium: “If they polled people on their reasons for voting (yes or no) I am sure you would see plenty of signs of ambiguity.”
Go ahead and do it. Make our day.
And note that different reasons for a No vote don’t by themselves indicate ambiguity. You have to show directly contradictory opinions voting the same way.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:17 am
“Hey Phlu, well done on being in the bottom 1% according to technorati”
He’s used to being in the bottom 1% of alot of things, RN.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:22 am
@ PhilU:
What a stupid response. Since you are mentally incapable of understanding the meaning of well adjusted I will waste 2 minutes of my day explaining it to you.
None of us have criminal convictions nor have been charged with one. All are highly educated and pay taxes (significantly more than a fair share I might add) and have decent jobs. We played sports, and none of us are obese or alcoholics.
My personal worst crime was receiving a speeding ticket for driving at 71kph in a 50 zone. However, the ticket was given as I transitioned from the 50kph to the 70 kph zone. Still bitter, those waikato cops are anal!!
So, get over it, and go buy a dictionary. And, while I’m here, learn to use fewer periods , they are pathetic.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:25 am
But don’t you think that same thing? That parents do not have the right to beat their kids with lead piping or have sex with them, etc?
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:25 am
I have theory what motivates many of the fanatical anti-smackers like Roughan and Bradford – GUILT.
I have smacked my kids occasionally. I would have been angry just like I would be if I said go to your room NOW. However, I have never done so while my state of mind could be described as out of control. You hear the anti-smackers talk about parents smacking while out of control and later regretting their actions. I have never regretted smacking my kids as I was never out of control and the smack was not too hard.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:31 am
Chuck – ditto. My kids are now 11 and 13 and I haven’t smacked them since they were a lot younger – 6 or something like that. Haven’t had to. And they are bloody nice kids despite the wanton violence I inflicted on them.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:34 am
Heh,heh, so what will you lot do if Key does not have the law changed, huff and puff ?
Or will you vote Labour in 2011 ?
Of course you could vote for the party containing I’m entitled Douglas.
So guess what people, the law is working and will not be changed no matter how much the family first mob want it to be.
Key is just like Clarke, yep a pretty good Labour PM is he not ?
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:34 am
Chuck, I know that guilt is also the reason why some people are thinking of voting no, because they feel they need to vote for what they have done.
The biggest danger to kids are when “smacking” combines with losing tempers, and particularly when combined with drunkenness.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:38 am
“But don’t you think that same thing? That parents do not have the right to beat their kids with lead piping or have sex with them, etc?”
I do believe that parents do not have the right to beat their kids with lead piping or have sex with them. So what?
Are you one of the idiots I am talking about, that fails to see the difference between what we are saying is ok and what is obviously not? Why else would you be following this line of argument?
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:45 am
THIS REFERENDUM IS A FARCE.
To anyone who isn’t familiar with section 59 of the Crimes Act, the question is highly inflammatory because it basically reads as:
“Should the Government criminalise my good parenting?”
Realistically, most people who vote in the referendum will be in this category. A strong “No” vote is therefore almost inevitable. How many people (outside Green Party activists) are really going to vote “Yes, good parental correction should be a crime in New Zealand”?
Surely such a pre-determined result renders the vote pretty meaningless to Government, and the referendum no more than a giant waste of your money and mine?
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:48 am
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:51 am
RRM: ‘To anyone who isn’t familiar with section 59 of the Crimes Act, the question is highly inflammatory because it basically reads as: “Should the Government criminalise my good parenting?”’
Your insuperable problem is that is also how it reads to those of us who are familiar with section 59 of the Crimes Act.
It is not a waste of money and time since it sends a clear message to courts and politicians that the present law is unacceptable to an overwhelming proportion of the public.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:55 am
RRM, or you could just be honest and quote what the referendum question actually says instead of misrepresenting it by paraphrasing, but that would ruin your argument.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:59 am
grumpyoldhori – if the government ignore the referendum results I’m going to go hard out to get another CIR with the question ‘Should the definition of reasonable force for the purpose of parental correction be clearly defined in New Zealand law?’
Or the politicians could use their common sense and save another $9 million
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Don’t worry, the Greens will find some way to spin the result as a triumph for social justice.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:04 pm
RightNow, a better follow up would be the referendum: “Should citizens’ initiated referenda bind Parliament?”
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Andrew W, I know what the question actually says, as presumably do you. It is so loaded as to be beyond a joke.
What about:
“Here is Section 59 of the Crimes Act. [_____] Do you agree with subsection 2? Yes or No.”
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:23 pm
The real trouble for kimble is that the distinction they make is one of “assault” vs “actual/grevious bodily harm” rather than “not a crime” vs “crime”.
That is a valid response to kimble’s statement, however I would suggest the real question is not one of “does the state have a right to interfere in general?”. It is a matter of if the application of a degree of pain be an acceptable form of discipline for children, and at what thresholds the state should interfere. You also have the question as to whether these thesholds be explicitly listed in act of parliament, or more obscurely stated then established through case law.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:24 pm
and how many people are actually going to vote in this clusterfuck of a referndum? I know I’m not legitimising this shit question with my time
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:33 pm
RRM, it would be just about impossible to find a question that some people won’t find fault with. In the example you offer, how are people who oppose the present legislation because they think it allows parents too much of a defence supposed to vote?
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Kimble,
I’m just pointing out that your concern clearly can’t be that one person doesn’t have the right to tell another how to raise their kids, because you admit to being someone who believes he has the right to tell others what not to do with their kids.
So your concern must clearly not be whether or not people should be told how to raise their kids, but how they are told to raise their kids.
Keep in mind, this is in response to you saying, “These are the idiots that think they should have the right to force others to raise their kids a certain way.”
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:37 pm
atta boy somewhatthoughtful. bugger democracy. bugger what others care about. bah humbug.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:52 pm
That does seem to be the question. Which means that those people who refer to smacking as a kind of very mild abuse (or abuse as a very intensive smacking) are people who place that cut-off point so far down the non-violence side of the spectrum that it might as well be a binary matter: abuse/not-abuse. (From their perspective.)
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:12 pm
“And note that different reasons for a No vote don’t by themselves indicate ambiguity…”
Correct. There are a lot of people who say they understand clearly but say they will vote for something different anyway. Eg they know the question is about parenting and smacking but they are voting to try and tell the government not to interfere in their lives.
“…You have to show directly contradictory opinions voting the same way.
Incorrect. If different people get different meanings out of the question, if they think it is “”open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations”, “of doubtful or uncertain nature; difficult to comprehend, distinguish, or classify”, or “lacking clearness or definiteness” then it is ambiguous.
If you think it is clear but someone else thinks it is unclear or means something different to you then it is ambiguous. I think it is unclear, that proves ambiguity not matter how sure you are.
I’m voting yes and no. An ambiguous response to an ambiguous question.
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Chuck Bird (587) Vote: 3 0 Says:
August 3rd, 2009 at 10:58 am
Chuck I really fear you are right which means John Key has the same level of integrity that Clark had – practically none – which is why referenda need to be binding thus allowing politicians the luxury of accepting something they may not agree with or resigning if they cannot accept.
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:18 pm
@Right Now
“I’m going to go hard out to get another CIR with the question ‘Should the definition of reasonable force for the purpose of parental correction be clearly defined in New Zealand law?’”
Right on Right Now!
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Cerium: “If you think it is clear but someone else thinks it is unclear or means something different to you then it is ambiguous.”
No it isn’t. They may be illiterate, drunk, half-witted or a Labour voter. There has to be a substantial and significant divide, not a trivial number of quibblers.
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Alan,
If you think that good parenting requires no smacking at all, what do you vote?
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:24 pm
why referenda need to be binding
Are the public curious enough, prepared to be informed enough and not too self interested to make sensible binding decisions? As imperfect as they are I’d far rather leave most of it up to our MPs.
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Ryan, you answer the question. But first clarify your “think”. Does it mean that you think good parents should never be allowed to smack?
Transfer your yes/no response to the referendum.
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Ryan Sproull said…
That does seem to be the question. Which means that those people who refer to smacking as a kind of very mild abuse (or abuse as a very intensive smacking) are people who place that cut-off point so far down the non-violence side of the spectrum that it might as well be a binary matter: abuse/not-abuse.
That should be the correct approach which is easy and understandable to the members of the general public. It should be a binary matter as a simple YES or NO, ie, it should be discrete and not fuzzy. This is the only valid way of doing it, because if someone or some designers of the questionnaire form think that it should be presented with more depth (longer questionnaire sentences/phrases), it wouldn’t change the fact that the answer would still be a YES or NO. If the questionnaires are not aimed to be discrete (binary), then it would lead to more confusion linguistically.
Since the questionnaire is very simple and not rocket science where anyone can put forward some suggestions for better wording, can we hear from the likes of anti-smackers such as RRM of what she/he thinks of a better way of wording/phrasing the questions.
C’mon RRM, it is not differential calculus to be too difficult in coming up with a better suggestion of how the form should be worded? If you don’t show us something better, then you’re not arguing with reason. You’re here for just a piss take or perhaps your socialist agendas already made you decide how to think.
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Ryan – you’re being deliberately disingenious. The CIR does not define what good parenting is, it’s just asks if smacking should be illegal in that context. IMO good parenting is measured by outputs (law abiding kids, work well at school, fair, caring towards others) rather than inputs (activities conducted, boundaries set, instruction/discipline methods used).
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:40 pm
getstaffed,
It means that good parents who do not believe that smacking is ever the right thing to do are asked to vote against good parenting.
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:40 pm
“There has to be a substantial and significant divide”
What makes you the sole judge of who is fit to have a legitimate disagreement with you?
TV3 Extended poll: Is the question in the smacking referendum misleading?
Yes 55%
No 42%
Don’t know 3%
Does it mean that you think good parents should never be allowed to smack?
Good parents are allowed to smack under the current legislation.
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Cerium: “Good parents are allowed to smack under the current legislation.”
Fair point. I should have qualified my question better:
“Does it mean good parents should never be allowed to smack in order to correct a child’s behaviour.”
Cerium: “What makes you the sole judge of who is fit to have a legitimate disagreement with you?”
I didn’t. I merely offered some likely possibilities.
Cerium: “TV3 Extended poll …”
I think this was substantially influenced by the political and media campaign to discredit the referendum and label it ambiguous. The 70% expected turnout suggests most in fact had no difficulty working out which way to vote and think voting on this is worthwhile.
August 3rd, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Ryan asked Alan:
“If you think that good parenting requires no smacking at all, what do you vote?”
Vote ‘Yes’.
August 3rd, 2009 at 2:19 pm
There you go Ryan, even the village idiot understands the question.
August 3rd, 2009 at 2:22 pm
“TV3 Extended poll: Is the question in the smacking referendum misleading?”
The TV3 question is just just plain suggestive – or to use others words the question is highly inflammatory because it basically reads as:
“We suggest the question is misleading, do you agree with us?”
August 3rd, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Village Idiot, Andrew,
You do understand that requires the voter to say yes to criminalising good parenting.
August 3rd, 2009 at 2:28 pm
The expected turnout (usually these are over predicted, don’t know about a postal ballot though) has nothing to do with whether anyone thinks it is ambiguous or not. Having no difficulty deciding how to vote does not disprove ambiguity.
Alan, you have suggested the media are another “likely possible” group who thought it ambiguous, along with the group who responded to their poll. There must be quite a few other groups who think it is ambiguous too.
I do accept that the media were responsible for a lot of the confusion and misunderstanding of the issue and the law in the first place. If they contributed to the resulting ambiguity ittends to reinforce the ambiguousness.
The result of the referendum will definitely be ambiguous. It is certain there will be many fuzzy versions of what it means.
I’m not against all referenda. I just don’t see how this one will provide any clarity, except to maybe a million or so people who think their interpretation is the correct one.
I’m not against changing the law to clear up the criminality aspect. I’m not sure if that is going to happen.
Patrick: “The TV3 question is just just plain suggestive”
Unlike the referendum question, which is ambiguously suggestive.
August 3rd, 2009 at 2:34 pm
“Does it mean good parents should never be allowed to smack in order to correct a child’s behaviour.”
Under the current legislation good (and bad) parents are allowed to smack in order to correct a child’s behaviour. Within reason.
August 3rd, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Cerium: “Having no difficulty deciding how to vote does not disprove ambiguity.”
An assertion that defies logic.
Cerium: “the media were responsible for a lot of the confusion and misunderstanding of the issue and the law in the first place”
An assertion that defies the evidence.
Cerium: “It is certain there will be many fuzzy versions of what it means.”
On that we agree. The PC fanatics will be spinning like looms.
August 3rd, 2009 at 2:36 pm
And the non PC fanatics will be spinning like loons?
August 3rd, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Cerium: “Under the current legislation good (and bad) parents are allowed to smack in order to correct a child’s behaviour. Within reason.”
No. Under the current legislation parents are absolutely forbidden to smack in order to correct a child’s behaviour.
Then the police are given authority not to press charges if they choose.
August 3rd, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Ryan,
Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in NZ?
Yes means you think a smack that is administered as part of good parental correction should be a criminal offence. No means you think a smack should not be a criminal offence.
Very simple really, but I guess if people such as yourself feel they need to misinterpret a very simple sentence they will.
August 3rd, 2009 at 2:50 pm
“So your concern must clearly not be whether or not people should be told how to raise their kids, but how they are told to raise their kids.”
“Keep in mind, this is in response to you saying, “These are the idiots that think they should have the right to force others to raise their kids a certain way.”
Ryan, you are full of shit.
You responded to my first comment which made no reference to those idiots telling everyone else how to raise their kids. Also, it was fairly obvious that the problem I had was with the combination of idiocy and hubris on the part of the idiots. So when you say that your critique was based upon some percieved hypocrisy on my part, you are full of shit.
You probably thought that I was saying that ALL opponents to smacking were idiots, and then got all defensive because someone on the internet seemed to have called you a mean name.
All I originally said was that those idiots exist, which they do. Then I pointed out the special combination of idiocy and hubris in these people that is even more disturbing.
August 3rd, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Andrew, read what you just wrote.
Who is going to say that good parental correction should be a criminal offence?
August 3rd, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Would the cretin who gave me negative karma for correctly stating the law above at 2:38pm like to identify itself and defend its action?
The I will take some pleasure in responding.
August 3rd, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Kimble, you said, “These are the idiots that think they should have the right to force others to raise their kids a certain way.”
What did you mean by that, if not that it’s wrong to force others to raise their kids in a certain way? Whether or not they’re people who think that there’s no difference between a smack and a half-to-death beating, it seemed like your problem with them was that they were telling you how to raise children.
And I’d be interested in an example of these people who equate any smack with beating half to death. I mean, obviously the two are the same in that they are both instances of force or whatever, but I’m interested in seeing people who genuinely consider a smack to be as bad as beating a child half to death.
If you’re going to refer me to The Standard, please refer to something specific – I find that site horrible to navigate.
August 3rd, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Our resident, hand-wringing, nanny-state socialists just don’t like democracy to they. Anyone here think they’d be pretending that the CIR wording was misleading if the current polling was reversed?
August 3rd, 2009 at 2:58 pm
OK, my interpretation of correction and the apparent intention of the Act regarding correction are different.
2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
The assumption here is that they mean punishment as opposed to intervention. This highlights some ambiguities in the Act.
By inference they are saying any of the allowable force described in 1(a), (b), (c) and (9) cannot be “correction”, so I will reword to comply with this.
“Under the current legislation good (and bad) parents are allowed to smack in order to control a child’s behaviour. Within reason.”
I didn’t karmatise you.
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Sorry, Kimble. Didn’t see your late edit.
That’s not the case, Kimble.
I don’t particularly doubt that these people exist. I changed the topic to address something I found inconsistent. If I didn’t think anyone existed stupid enough to equate the two, I would have said so. I have yet to be convinced that it’s a significant number, though.
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:00 pm
How exactly is John Key supposed to act upon this referendum?
It does not even mention section 59 of the crimes act, the result tells us nothing about what the public think of it, its a joke and a waste of money, and the cost should be billed to all those who signed the petition.
It it really is as simple as Bob bob McCroskie’s add in the Sunday Star Times says, they the question aught to be “do you believe the government should reinstate the old version of s59 of the crimes act?”
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:06 pm
@ racer Blame the game not the players. Democracy might be inefficient but we have a referenda process and this is being followed, the cost is just the cost. Others have pointed out the cost could be much less if the previous government had allowed it to occur as part of the general election so maybe we should send the bill to Labour.
Where I think CIR goes wrong is the lack of other than moral suasion for government to then be required to act.
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Key’s take on the whole thing seems to be among the most level-headed of anyone:
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/5770337/referendum-results-may-influence-law-change/
Highlights:
“Prime Minister John Key says the law on smacking is working but should that change results of a referendum would be considered.”
“I’ve always argued that if the law doesn’t work we will change it.”
“We have a Parliament that has a certain number of sitting days, we have a law that at this point no one has been prosecuted under, the country also needs to decide what do they want me and the Government focused on… I personally think it’s the recession.”
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Ryan, “Who is going to say that good parental correction should be a criminal offence?”. “good parental” puts the question into a context that NZer’s recognise, as opposed to smacking without a clear corrective purpose. Perhaps you’d like to suggest an alternative question.
Then go and get 400,000 people to sign a petition.
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Cerium, you were not under any suspicion as the karma cretin.
I find your comment at 2:58 most unclear. But as I read the legislation what is allowed is physical intervention to prevent or end an immediate issue and what is not allowed is physical punishment to prevent future misbehaviour.
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Ryan, just stop it.
Those people exist, and it isnt worth my time proving it. If you dont believe it, I dont care, go google it. Or stick around these conversations a while because they will pop up. You see shadows of it all over the place. Phule for example doesnt like calling it “smacking”, prefering to call it “beating”.
It should be perfectly obvious that the problem I had was with people who label me a monster and child abuser because I think a small smack on the bum is fine for disciplining small children thinking that they are one of the enlightened few that should naturally rule over us all.
If you prefer irony then the problem is that the people who go completely ape-shit crazy over a parent exercising their dominant position and power over their child to administer discipline are the same ones who are far too willing to use the overwhelmingly dominant position and crushing power of the State over other people to force through the unpopular changes to society that they desire.
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Highlights:
” So you do not want to see smacking banned?
Absolutely not, I think you are trying to defy human nature.”
— Helen Clark
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:14 pm
RRM, had the Labour Government not run a mile to prevent this referendum being held cheaply and concurrently with General Election it would not have been delayed to this point.
That said, the reversal of the Bradford Amendment could be part of a package removing a large amount of idiotic Labour legislation from the books. There is no need to do it separately or immediately.
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Racer: “do you believe the government should reinstate the old version of s59 of the crimes act?”
But that’s not what the organisers of the petition want, they’re after something along the lines of the Borrows amendment.
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:19 pm
I remember when the s59 repeal was happening, the anti-smacking lobby made lots of noise about scope for police to exercise discretion in deciding if a smack was worthy of progressing to a charge.
What that argument said, in effect, was that a copper could exercise discretion when assessing the actions of another parent, but when they were at home they are to be denied any discretion in determining the reasonableness of their own force when correcting their own children.
Apparently discretion is fine when exercised/controlled by the state, but not fine when exercised by parents.
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:20 pm
“parental correction” puts the question into a context that NZers recognise, as opposed to smacking without a clear corrective purpose.
Adding “good” does nothing but provide a disincentive for people to vote “yes”. Who is going to say that good parental correction should be a criminal offence in New Zealand?
Oh, I think the CIR question should go ahead as is. 400,000 people signed a petition for that question, not for any other. I just think it’s very obviously not a balanced or fair referendum question, and for it to have any real moral weight or to provide any real mandate, it has to be as balanced and fair as possible.
Wording it stupidly gives the Government an out, as we have seen. A less emotive question cannot be so easily dismissed as emotive.
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Patrick/Alan, I am not sure what you boys expect… you might want to contact the Labour Party if you want someone to explain / apologise for the last government’s programme!
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:27 pm
The legislation is unclear. How I understand it is slightly different to you (Alan).
I agree that it says physical intervention (it is generally assumed this could include smacks) can be used to prevent or end an immediate issue – but that could teach a child to avoid a future misbehaviour or dangerous act. Eg smack hand away from hot stove, prevents burning but they also should get the idea the shouldn’t do that.
I interpret the second part as punishment after the fact (which may or may not prevent future misbehaviour).
I think US terminology is a little clearer, they refer to spanking for the punishment part of this. I’m not totally against spanking, but I have found there are better methods of punishment.
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:28 pm
“Andrew W
Racer: “do you believe the government should reinstate the old version of s59 of the crimes act?”
But that’s not what the organisers of the petition want, they’re after something along the lines of the Borrows amendment.”
Then that is what the referendum said.
“KiwiGreg
@ racer Blame the game not the players. Democracy might be inefficient but we have a referenda process and this is being followed, the cost is just the cost. Others have pointed out the cost could be much less if the previous government had allowed it to occur as part of the general election so maybe we should send the bill to Labour.”
The government was advised not to run it with the election, I am glad they did no override the advice of experts.
“KiwiGreg
Where I think CIR goes wrong is the lack of other than moral suasion for government to then be required to act.”
Others of us are not so keen on mob rule, and binding referendums are one of the easiest ways to institute mob rule.
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:29 pm
RRM said…
I’ve always argued that if the law doesn’t work we will change it.
This is a ridiculous argument. No one would dare to question or challenge the authority or the law in countries like Cuba or North Korea by openly opposing those or publicly demonstrating against them, because the citizens know the consequence, which is a definite death. Can you say that the law is working in those countries ? Yes. It works because it instill fears into the minds of their respective citizens. It will work here, because of the same reason. Who’s gonna spend thousands of dollars with a possible criminal record in trying to defend a charge of a slight smack on a child ?
You need to think deeper in quoting unsophisticated/unsubstantiated claim. Think deeper about the whys and the ifs and not just merely follow the simplistic semantic of a sentence.
Now, have you thought of some better wording/rephrasing for the referendum questionnaire form RRM, that you may want to share with us, since you think it is misleading? See if your wordings are better than the current one.
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Fair enough (that Phil’s an example). However, I expected it to be worth your time to back up your claims. While you were clear you weren’t talking about all anti-smackers, you did leave a certain impression that there are many who equate smacking with beating half to death.
Seems to me there’s Statists on all sides of this equation. The people who go completely ape-shit crazy over the state trying to prevent them from smacking are the same ones who are far too willing to use the overwhelmingly dominant position and crushing power of the State over other people to prevent them from using cannabis.
[EDIT: Not all, of course. KiwiPolemicist is an example of someone whose views are consistent in this respect.]
Really, the difference between the two “sides” of this argument is that one group sees anti-smacking legislation as preventing harm and the other sees anti-smacking legislation as paternalism. It’s interesting – suggests different ideas of autonomous identity between the two groups.
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Ryan Sproull: “Who is going to say that good parental correction should be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”
Probably not many people.
However that is not the referendum question, so stop trying to rephrase it.
The question is: Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in NZ?
Now there are some people that would agree with this, and they will vote yes.
The rest will be like myself and vote no.
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Cerioum, yes, as I read it the prohibition is on punishment which does not prevent an immediate issue. It doesn’t matter when the punishment is given. It might be immediate or some time later. The relevant consideration is that it is not given in order to stop a currently continuing issue.
Thus my example of an immediate smack for deliberately disobeying a command not to throw a glass across the room. That is clearly outlawed in my view.
My position is simply to defend good parents from unnecessary criminalisation and to prevent unjust exploitation of an unfair law by malevolent individuals or bureaucratic functionaries.
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:40 pm
“you might want to contact the Labour Party if you want someone to explain / apologise for the last government’s programme!”
no need – all was explained in the election result really.
Now the expectation is for the new government to listen
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:40 pm
@ racer “Others of us are not so keen on mob rule, and binding referendums are one of the easiest ways to institute mob rule.”
Not a fan of democracy then?
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:42 pm
“Now, have you thought of some better wording/rephrasing for the referendum questionnaire form RRM, that you may want to share with us, since you think it is misleading? See if your wordings are better than the current one.”
If they had waited until the final legislation wording was decided on, and if they wanted to be clear and honest, the question would have been more like:
“Should using any hurtful physical force on children as a punishment be a criminal offence?”
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Falafulu Fisi:
12:21pm
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Stayathomemum,
My point is that you can’t answer the actual referendum question without implicitly voting to criminalise “good parental correction”. If the addition of the word “good” makes any significant difference to the outcome of the referendum, and the addition of the word “good” makes no significant difference to the legal implications of the referendum question, then it’s an emotive and misleading question, designed to favour one particular outcome.
That’s why John Key gets to say he’ll ignore it. It’s a lesson for anyone else thinking of a CIR.
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:48 pm
@Falafulu Fisi
“Kapital who I assumed is a psychologist posted yesterday on Roughlan’s anti-smacking article”
did you mean psychologist or plagiarist?
http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/legacyforum/index.cfm?&ForumID=1&fuseAction=displayMessage&messageID=73
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:48 pm
“KiwiGreg (419) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 0 Says:
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:40 pm
@ racer “Others of us are not so keen on mob rule, and binding referendums are one of the easiest ways to institute mob rule.”
Not a fan of democracy then?”
Big fan of representative democracy, in which politicians as briefed by experts are able to exercise good informed judgment, taking into account the rights of minorities. Angry pitchfork wielding mobs are not so good at this. History has proven it so.
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Or…
Should a smack as part of parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?
Note: no subjective value judgements e.g. “good”. No attempt to create a subtext of “nanny state” interference. Just a logical question, should smacking be legal parenting or not?
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:51 pm
One of our analysts turned this up – it might (or probably wont) add to the debate – I haven’t read past the summary but I’m guessing from the title it’s anti-
http://www.nkmr.org/english/anti_smacking_law_consultation_paper.htm
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:56 pm
“My position is simply to defend good parents from unnecessary criminalisation and to prevent unjust exploitation of an unfair law by malevolent individuals or bureaucratic functionaries.
Yeah, pretty much where I stand too. But it also needs to include a reasonable protection for children.
And, good if the referendum eventually helps lead to an improvement, but I think it could have been done much better with a decent question.
August 3rd, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Cerium: “But it also needs to include a reasonable protection for children.”
I’m unconvinced the previous law did not. I don’t see any way to avoid the conclusion that the courts must return to having discretion to determine what is reasonable force.
Just because a couple of juries made unanimous acquittal decisions that some people didn’t like was a totally inadequate justification for the Bradford Bill. The juries heard all the evidence and judged the reliability of the witnesses. Their critics didn’t.
August 3rd, 2009 at 4:13 pm
I have never seen the old legislation, but it was hardly injustice running rampant. The acquittal decisions you refer to may have been bad decisions (or not). Ironically in today’s climate of public awareness I think bad decisions under the old law are less likely.
I also suspect that if Bradford could have foreseen what her tweak would have resulted in she may have had different ideas. Once started and committed and battle lines were drawn she was painted into her idealistic corner.
August 3rd, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Thanks for pointer RRM, but I read that suggestion of yours from earlier on and it is even more complex than the current one:
See , something like the following as you already suggested:
Here is Section 59 of the Crimes Act. [_____] Do you agree with subsection 2? Yes or No.
will be too complex for the general public to understand, because you need the brain of a lawyer to decipher Crimes Act – S59 for the average Joe Public in order to follow. I don’t see what you’re suggesting is a better than the one that you criticize as misleading . I think that it is more complex.
August 3rd, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Ryan Sproull said:
“Village Idiot, Andrew,
You do understand that requires the voter to say yes to criminalising good parenting.”
Only if they smack. It matters little what the wording of the referendum means. Key can and will dismiss the results, if it suits him, because there is so much room for doubt as to the legitimacy of the result. It’s way to ‘challengable’.
I’ll vote yes mostly to confound the switch wielders.
August 3rd, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Regarding the inclusion of the word “good”:
I think it is necessary to include the word good in the question – it averts the side-issue of smacking vs beating (remembering that Bradford throughout the debate referred to it as beating/bashing), and emphasises the issue the referendum is trying to address – how it affects normal everyday parents.
Remove the word good, and you leave open the question of what type of ‘smacking’ we are talking about. The result may be different, but not as specific.
The question should not be rephrased because a few people do not like the results.
August 3rd, 2009 at 4:39 pm
There are interesting results from the Sunday Star-Times poll
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/news/2711455/SST-poll-Don-t-ban-smacking-outright
No doubt internal National polling probably showed similar results.
Although the poll was not random, the results are interesting.
There were significant differences according to sex, age, and if you were a parent. I am sure Key has taken this into account when he decided on National’s position.
August 3rd, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Ryan – “good” is hardly an emotive word!
Especially not compared to the emotive words Bradford used in trying to push the bill through…
Bashing, beating, murdering, punching, hiding to nothing, etc…
August 3rd, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Patric Starr said…
did you mean psychologist or plagiarist?
Well spotted Patrick. I haven’t read those references that Kapital cited, but I have seen some data analysis research publications originated from the field of psychology by psychologists which uses techniques that I am very familiar with, and the best book I have seen that targets for practitioners in psychology is : Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology . I didn’t bother to follow up on any of the cited references provided by Kapital, since I know how these multivariate techniques work and how DOE (design-of-experiment) is done, where common methods such as the FA (factor analysis), the PCA (principal component analysis) , clustering, and so forth are adopted. It basically depends on how a particular analyst chooses which variables to select as input to his/her models. In other words, some of the variable selection can be completely arbitrary.
August 3rd, 2009 at 5:03 pm
I’m afraid in this context it absolutely is. There is no consensus in this country as to whether or not smacking is just plain wrong. In other words, the question for many people is, “Does good parenting mean no smacking at all?” To place the question in the context of “good parental correction” is to assume the context of those voters who believe that smacking can ever be a good thing. It inherently excludes those who disagree with the assumption.
Consider these:
“Should New Zealand respect Allah in a manner appropriate to His place as Creator of the universe?”
“Should gun owners’ right to bear arms be respected?”
“Should husbands and wives in moral single-sex marriages be able to adopt?”
And so on. The question assumes things that are by no means unanimously believed.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
August 3rd, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Six people in my family voted “No” and posted our envelopes today. Let the battle begin. RightNow I will vote in your new referendum if need be.
August 3rd, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Falafulu Fisi – Thanks, but I don’t think S59 is too full of “legal double-speak” for the average thinking person to be able to make head or tail of it.
In my (non-lawyer’s) opinion, it is pretty clear that the petition organisers and anyone who has ever taken objection to Sue Bradford’s amendment are in essence opposed to what subsection 2 says. Hence my view that the most constructive, sensible way to conduct a referendum that is clearly about section 59 of the crimes act, would have been to present section 59 and allow thinking people to make up their own mind about whether it would be better if Subsection 2 were removed, or not.
…
Crimes Act 1961 No 43 (as at 03 April 2009), Public Act
Section 59 Parental control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.
Section 59: substituted, on 21 June 2007, by section 5 of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 (2007 No 18).
August 3rd, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Falafulu Fisi,
In your criticism of psychology a long way above you’re really referring to issues common with Epidemiological research. Issues to do with factor choosing, clinical ‘vs’ statistic significance, correlation vs. causation etc.
It is wrong to tar the entire field of Psychology with these criticisms. It generally lies with epidemiological research into hot topics. Sure there are some crap studies out there, and generally the media reports them even worse, but the large majority of psychology research in all of its sub-fields takes these issues into account.
There are many critiques to put towards psychology/neuroscience when one contrasts them with the classical sciences, but this is not one of them.
August 3rd, 2009 at 5:40 pm
I remember when Labour passed the electronic dog tagging legislation as a response to violent attacks by dogs
I bet this woman is wondering what the point of that legislation was too!
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2716037/Woman-attacked-by-eight-pig-dogs
This is the same logic that saw Labour and the Greens pass the anti-smacking legislation
Labour’s Clare Curran makes her case for voting YES today on Redalert
“This is the first time I’ve ever voted in a way that doesn’t quite represent what I actually believe.
I believe that all parents have the right to bring up their children as they see fit. I believe that the vast majority of parents are good parents, who do their best and mostly do a good job. I’m one of them. I don’t always get it right.
I have smacked my children. Rarely, and I don’t think it’s a great way of disciplining them.
More strongly, I believe that children, as do adults, have the right not to be abused. Not to be beaten and assaulted. And I could not live with myself if, by voting NO, it encouraged a situation where a law was reintroduced which allowed parents who assault their children to get away with it. That was all the repeal of Section 59 was ever about.
So I could not put myself on the side of the people who ticked NO because they want the right to beat their children. Never.”
Nice to know that all good parents like myself voting NO really only want the right to beat our children…
August 3rd, 2009 at 5:43 pm
KiwiGreg 3:51 pm,
“One of our analysts turned this up – it might (or probably wont) add to the debate – I haven’t read past the summary but I’m guessing from the title it’s anti-”
http://www.nkmr.org/english/anti_smacking_law_consultation_paper.htm
Thanks Greg. I think this has been tabled before [and largely ignored], and presents a strong case for NOT criminalising smacking by parents.
Some quotes/warnings:
• The Swedish law on the abolition of the physical punishment of children has resulted in hundreds of normal parents being harassed by the police and social authorities, prosecuted, sentenced and criminalised, because they have smacked their children for bad behaviour.
• The claim made by EPOCH (End Physical Punishment of Children) that only one Swedish parent has been prosecuted for smacking a child since 1979 is far from the truth. In reality, there have been hundreds of cases, but they are difficult to trace because they appear alongside cases of assault and battery.
• While having the appearance of being altruistic and humanitarian, the 1979 law has led to unwarranted interference in private and family life, and has caused serious damage to the relationship between parents and their children, to the detriment of the family.
• Before the Bill abolishing the physical punishment of children was presented to the Swedish Parliament, several leading lawyers expressed strong misgivings. Their fears that the law would lead to prosecutions of parents who employed mild physical sanctions, while doing nothing to reduce the number of cases of genuine child abuse, have materialised.
• Parents belonging to ethnic minorities and parents with strong religious convictions, in particular, have been victimised under the 1979 law.
Heck, the whole thing is worth quoting – go and read the consequence for NZ if we don’t throw out the ‘Bradford Abomination’.
August 3rd, 2009 at 6:17 pm
The Prime Minister says that the law appears to be working
But in the same way the electronic tagging of dogs has not stopped dog attacks
The anti smacking legislation has not stopped abuse of children
12 children have now died from abuse at the hands of their caregivers since Sue Bradford’s legislation came into effect.
Isn’t the real test of this law whether it has been effective in reducing the number of violent deaths of our children?
Labour say that the reason for the repeal of Section 59 was always about stopping assaults on children
WELL HAS IT?
HAS THIS LAW STOPPED INNOCENT CHILDREN BEING MURDERED???
August 3rd, 2009 at 6:23 pm
democracymum,
The law change removed a legal defence that only came into effect once someone had already been arrested and charged with assaulting their children. It was only ever going to stop the murder of innocent children of repeat offenders who get off on the “reasonable force” defence. Which isn’t many.
August 3rd, 2009 at 6:49 pm
“did you mean psychologist or plagiarist?”
Give me a break
Someone can’t remember who and can’t be arsed to look it up, was using a “”study “”to justify their position fair enough
I just pasted a lot of studies to justify mine
My studies are bigger then your studies nah nah ne nah nah
The point I was trying to make is we can all list various studies to support our position
If you are wrong and smacking can harm kids then, That’s a real bummer eh?
So you had better be sure that your studies are better then my studies surely
Can you honestly make that claim?
And I accept i could be wrong and “my” studies wrong but that won’t result in the possibility of damaged kids through hitting them would it?
Anyway this isn’t about hitting kids though. lets be honest is about the perception that you are being told what to do
which is a completely different argument and one I have sympathy for
August 3rd, 2009 at 7:25 pm
I predict that of the 83% who say they will vote no, 83% will simply not get round to sending their vote in.
August 3rd, 2009 at 7:25 pm
I think some of you are confused.
When you commit a crime say stealing, you are a criminal in terms of the law but haven’t been caught or found guilty in a court.
John Key is playing with semantics (I say lying) by referring to parents not being criminalised and some are falling for it.
His intention is to deflect from the facts which in my book is the same as lying because his intent is to obfuscate.
His and National’s law change makes all parents who give their kid a smack on the bum for correction a criminal.
They commit assault and therefore like the thief are criminals but not caught or prosecuted.
That some plod gets to decide whether you go before the beak is merely adding grist to the mill and shows that none of the 112 who voted the change really applied their minds as they wrote poor law.
For that alone as well as it being so contentious they should have handled this with kid gloves. That they didn’t says to me that they shouldn’t be in parliament in my eyes.
I am voting NO as a smack on the bum by a loving parent to an errant kid is not an assault.
August 3rd, 2009 at 7:31 pm
I am voting NO as a smack on the bum by a loving parent to an errant kid is not an assault.
Is a smack on the bum from a non loving parent an assault ?
August 3rd, 2009 at 7:34 pm
When did common sense begin to die in this country, was there a specific event that marked the beginning of the end?
August 3rd, 2009 at 7:41 pm
“Is a smack on the bum from a non loving parent an assault ?”
No, modern science tells us that love does not exist, it is just a curious chemical reaction from people with poor mental hygiene
August 3rd, 2009 at 7:45 pm
donkey: ever punched someone on the arm? (I’ll assume yes). So you committed battery and are already a criminal?
August 3rd, 2009 at 7:51 pm
The point I facetiously trying make
Is, what is with the ” loving ” bit
That seems to be chucked in the ref just to engender an emotional response
99.999999999999999999999999999999 % of us are loving parents who want the best for our children I think we can all agree on that
If one of the non loving parents smack their child on the bum is that assault?
if the answer is no, loose the” loving” bit
If the answer is yes the pain inflicted is different if you love them ?
August 3rd, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Fishe
So every time you have punched someone on the arm, the police need to be called and CYFS need to investigate you?
And that’s so to stop everyone punching on the arm.
Get real you plonker.
Same to you Kapital, semantics just like Key.
I voted party Vote for ACT last time having never voting for them before.
I will never give my party vote to a party or my individual vote to a candidate that considers me a criminal for giving my kids a smack on the bum.
Wake up people.
If the 80% who disagree with Key and Bradford give their Party Vote to ACT as a protest what do you think will happen to the tossers who consider you Vote fodder and still make you a criminal for giving your kid a smack on the bum when they need it?
August 3rd, 2009 at 7:54 pm
“if the answer is no, loose the” loving” bit”
Yeah it does sound cheesy, so kapital, I agree.
August 3rd, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Why do we do it if we don’t Love our kids?
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Seek help maybe ?
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:03 pm
The “stats” claimed by those like Key and Bradford that the law is working don’t take into account the effect of the self righteous anti-smacking brigade who have taken upon themselves to publically label good parents criminals.
I’ve heard from several people who have been bailed up in supermarkets etc for smacking their kid on the bum for running amock and had these wankers come up and threaten to report them to the police and cyps.
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:15 pm
OT: a Kid running amok in a supermarket.
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:21 pm
donkey: you missed the point. The reality is that the police are not called presently when your friend punches you on the arm even though that is technically battery in a strict legal sense.
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Kapital,
the point is – loving or not, done with the best intentions or not – a SMACK on the bum is NOT, I repeat, NOT child abuse.
Belting a child into next week, loving or not, done with the best of intentions or not, IS abuse.
End of Story.
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:29 pm
“Same to you Kapital, semantics just like Key.”
which part was semantics
this ?
The point I was trying to make is we can all list various studies to support our position
If you are wrong and smacking can harm kids then, That’s a real bummer eh?
So you had better be sure that your studies are better then my studies surely
Can you honestly make that claim?
And I accept i could be wrong and “my” studies wrong but that won’t result in the possibility of damaged kids through hitting them would it?
Anyway this isn’t about hitting kids though. lets be honest is about the perception that you are being told what to do
which is a completely different argument and one I have sympathy for
Or the bit about the “loving” parent part ?
I thought they were well reasoned arguments that added to the debate
But then what would I know I am just one of those weird “non smackers”
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Don’t you hate it with an attempt at pithy humour is thwarted by a dud internet connection.
Retry…
OT – A kid running amok in a supermarket
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Kapital – here’s my ‘study’. In the last 20 years we’ve provided kids with less and less correction as the PC do-gooders have weighed in, and in that time kids have increasingly assaulted parents, assulted teachers and generally given any authority figures the bird. Study ends.
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Is the pithy humour something to do with the link not working ?
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:39 pm
getstaffed
Thank you for that well reasoned and thoughtful analysis
In the same vein
I think children were a lot better behaved when we used to send them upto cleam chimneys in Victorian London
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Updating the family “No” Vote tally… cousin just rang in from another part of the country, hasn’t received papers yet but adamant voting “No” as soon as they arrive. Horrified by the lack of common sense that has engulfed the nation. (Green voter to boot!)
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Is that the loving family or the unloving family?
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:49 pm
“(Green voter to boot!)”
That is actually quite interesting, the only issue that seems to divide the Green membership to any degree is this smacking law. There have been some interesting debates on Frog blog with Green party members on both sides. While Bjchip gets a bit of a hiding on Kiwi blog for his AGW views, he actually presents some of the most balanced and common sense opinions on S59.
Seems even the Greens are beginning to regret certain members of their leadership.
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Another ‘no’ on the way. I don’t have kids, but if and when I do, I’ll decide how to bring them up, not Sue Bradford.
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:52 pm
“Anyway this isn’t about hitting kids though. lets be honest is about the perception that you are being told what to do
which is a completely different argument and one I have sympathy for”
Now your getting it!! Vote no Kapital! it is the loving thing to do for all your countrymen
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:01 pm
and you know this how ? by reading frogblog?
With the greatest respect you are completely wrong trust me on this
again wrong EVERY year the Green leadership has to put itself up for re-election Paty leadership and Exec
Every year .. it is one of the most democratic processes of any political Party
And seeing the last voting was only 2 months ago You are wrong again
)
I think the term is “talking out of your arse” ( all being it a lovingly smacked one
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Recent Herald polls
>Should Bill English get $900 a week accommodation subsidy for his $1.2m home?
Yes: 1127 (23%)
No: 3701 (77%)
Keys response – “we’ll review it”
>Was provocation a valid defence in Clayton Weatherston’s trial for the murder of Sophie Elliott?
Yes: 202 (5%)
No: 4023 (95%)
Keys response – “we’ll scrap it”
>Do you support bakers being forced to add folic acid to New Zealand bread?
Yes: 464 (15%)
No: 2609 (85%)
Keys response – “we’ll defer a decision for three years”
On the basis of Keys reaction to the last MSM driven outcry’s how the hell is he taking this pathetic position on the anti smacking law?
“I’ve always argued that if the law doesn’t work we will change it. If an overwhelming bulk of New Zealanders vote no then what that should do, I think, is give Parliament the strength of courage to change the law if it starts not working,”
“if it starts not working” !!! what bullshit is that? I’m beginning to believe the obvious horse trading involved was a life long commitment?
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:09 pm
For me that’s the problem
)
The being” told what to do” for me is a completely different argument
I will be voting Yes a number of times though ( I keep getting mail from all the people that used to live here
Seriously Its not a very secure way of voting is it ?
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Its called leadership Patrick. Keep up the pressur,e it will be changed at election time if it seen to be a vote winner
If a pollster rings up tell them you will vote green or labour! That will do the trick
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Kapital
That’s an intelligent response? Sigh.
Shunda
She votes green because she’s a tramper and into Forest & Bird etc so she supports the Party she perceives to have conservation interests uppermost.
I think there are two pertinent points to note:
1 – the generation she belongs to. She is not a 20 something whippersnapper and has raised children and gone through the pragmatic role parents take on raising children. (She is my mum’s cousin so older generation to me).
2 – She does not see “smacking” as a green issue, and I too have previously commented that in reality Sue Bradford as a former NZ communist member has hijacked the Greens with her issues, and muddied the “green” vote because she could never get traction under the communist banner in NZ in this day and age.
On that note, they reined in Sue Bradford but let Meteria Turei become co-leader. Ms Turei has announced in the past she is (possibly now ‘was’) an anarcho-communist. Perhaps she has reformed to the point of acceptability to the core voters like Craig Potton a nature photographer (as a well known example of the green constituency) or maybe they just don’t realise what she really stands for. Again, conservation values subsumed by socialist interlopers.
About time the Greens worked out some us know what dynamics are really afoot within their ranks.
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Unless you are only interesting in arguing for its own sake re-read what Ryan said …
“Really, the difference between the two “sides” of this argument is that one group sees anti-smacking legislation as preventing harm and the other sees anti-smacking legislation as paternalism. It’s interesting – suggests different ideas of autonomous identity between the two groups.”
Well said and gets to the crux of the issue.
But then again blogs are only for arguing so back to normal transmission you ideologues.
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Gumby/Ryan, half right:
“and the other sees anti-smacking legislation as paternalism”
Some of us also make the distinction on the bell curve that a smack or tap on the bum or hand is not the same thing as a belt around the legs with a piece of 4×2 or a backbone shattering full force whack, or a broken arm or cigarette burns on the face for fun or to relieve boredom ‘cos there was nuffing else to do today’. It’s called common sense.
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:43 pm
You’re welcome Kapital. You did bemoan the fact that folks from both sides of the debate cherry-pick their studies to suit their position so I was, um, short-cutting that a bit. My observation (a personal ‘study’ yes?) and one I suspect is shared by more than one or two others – is that as kids have experienced diminished levels of correction – generally, not just smacking – over the last few decades there has been a corresponding increase in delinquency.
My contention is that this is causative relationship, and that if we want a society in which kids reach their full potential then we need to have strengthened life-leadership and discipline from the early years.
But all this of this goes over the heads of most ardent socialists. They believe authority structures other than the all-powerful state must be marginalized (eg family, church) or controlled (eg school, police). We’re witnessing the results of the thinking right now. And no, suggesting that we should stick kids up chimneys “like the good ‘ol days” doesn’t pass muster as reasoned and thoughtful analysis.
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Well Greens aren’t just environmentalists
Sure they could hoover up at lot more votes if they just stuck to environmental issues
However The Party has four key principles in keeping with all Green Parties world wide
Ecological Wisdom
Social Responsibility
Appropriate Decision-making
Non-Violence
So smacking is a “Green issue” not a green issue there is a difference
Maybe the Values party name would have been a better name
However,
I do agree that there is a problem that you can’t have social justice if you have not got a planet, so maybe that should take precedence
I think that the Labour Party should move to the left and take up the social justice thing (which IMHO they have been piss poor doing) that would give The”Greens the space to be the environment party that a lot of people want. and leave the SJ to Lab
I can see that being popular here on Kiwiblog
ps sorry about the flippant comment earlier ( just pissed of with how the smacking debate has been framed)
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:48 pm
S59 will never stop kids from getting bashed or killed. It will just piss off good parents and make the little shits roaming the streets with no respect even bigger shits with even less respect.
Just filled out the paper with a big NO from the wife and I and looking forward to Key having to pull his head in.
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:55 pm
my tally …
me – no
wife – no
son – no
sister #1 – no
sister #1′s husband – no
sister #2 – no
father – no
mother – no
brother-in-law #1 – no
wife of brother in law #1 – no
nephew #1 – no
nephew #2 – no
brother-in-law #2 – no
brother-in-law #3 – no
brother-in-law #4 (tbc, in oz)
vast array of uncles, aunts, cousins (mostly Cantabrians) .. i can think of 1 that *might* vote yes.
August 3rd, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Smacking your children is not a criminal offense in NZ anyway… you just can’t get away with hitting them with a 2 by 4 now… what’s the fuss?
August 3rd, 2009 at 10:08 pm
10 No votes between friends and family so far, wonder if National will get told NO – YOU next election.
August 3rd, 2009 at 10:08 pm
“And no, suggesting that we should stick kids up chimneys “like the good ‘ol days” doesn’t pass muster as reasoned and thoughtful analysis”
Just responding in kind glad we are passed that
” there has been a corresponding increase in delinquency.”
that could possibly be so it could a result of kids having a lot more time and money on their hands as families get wealthier (good old capitalism eh)
“and that if we want a society in which kids reach their full potential
then we need to have strengthened life-leadership and discipline from the early years.”
Well kids reaching their full potential on that we can all agree
life leadership discipline ? I am constantly amazed at the lack of boundaries given to kids
There is some pretty piss poor parenting out there. Not sure why.
Also I experience a delinquent free household as have many of my socialist /atheist friends .
What did we do to get it right ? I guess In the long run its about devoting time to the whole parenting experience .
The more you put in the more you will get out I suppose. Treating the kids with respect, expecting respect back, setting boundaries ?
Don’t know how to address this without being all “Nanny Stateish” and teaching the appropriate skills maybe at” High school”
August 3rd, 2009 at 10:42 pm
I’m pulling out of the bullfight with his holiness to state my support for the NO movement in order to repeal this stupid law as I am too young, and live overseas, to vote.
It is penalising parents who try to discipline their child by showing physical restraint while those who don’t give a toss about the law go on and throw their children in white goods.
Admittedly, if I had a child, smacking her/him will be the last thing I’ll do in order to punish them. I’ve been smacked myself in fact, mainly on the hand. Most of the time I realised I deserve it and it has taught me to obey my parents and elders. Smacking is never pleasant, but since when was discipline and punishment ever pleasant?
August 3rd, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Will you lefties make up your minds… that last excuse I heard was deliquency was caused by povety
At least we agree on there being too much piss poor parenting. From my experience this ‘piss poorness’ does not correlate with family wealth, ethnicity or religion. I rather suspect it does correlate to inter-generational welfare dependency. That aside, perhaps part of the problem is parents fearing they’re doing the ‘wrong’ thing, so they do nothing rather than finding help on their parenting. And on that, there are a few ethnicities (incl my own) that could do with esteaming the wisdom of elders a bit more when it comes to parenting and/or life advice.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:16 pm
I’m going to run with Getstaffed’s comments – right up the top.
John Key will look enlightened and totally unlike the Labour Party by listening to the people, and if the referendum does indeed follow the polls and people think a bit of a wack is ok for parenting when the rug rats have been pushing the boundaries, then JK will change the law.
Heaven help him and all other politicians if they ignore this one – it will mean that locally based referenda for council will be more likely to happen.
Voters hate being told what to do by politicians, and this issue is no exception.
This is really an referendum about whether politicians and politics have intruded too much in peoples personal affairs.
August 4th, 2009 at 12:29 am
I have a question for those who would vote ‘yes’ and think the law is OK as it is and that smacking kids at any time is wrong….
Based on the current polling, do you REALLY think that 83% of this country wants the right to be able to be violent towards their children? 83%? Do you really believe that about most of the people in this country? That they don’t love their kids and want to be able to hit them?
And if you don’t believe that about us, then WHY do you think that people are voting the way they do? That’s something you really have to ask yourself.
There is a reason for it, and it’s not so they can beat their kids – not 83% of the country…
August 4th, 2009 at 12:30 am
“democracymum
12 children have now died from abuse at the hands of their caregivers since Sue Bradford’s legislation came into effect.”
Scrap the law against murder as well, since that is obviously not working either?
August 4th, 2009 at 8:20 am
Good luck on your referendum on that racer
“should murder as part of bad parenting be a criminal offence in NZ?”
in fact, I suspect you needn’t bother
August 4th, 2009 at 8:37 am
Sarkozy,
Note that you consider it a distinction on the same curve.
August 4th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Consumerist
This is really an referendum about whether politicians and politics have intruded too much in peoples personal affairs.”
This is not correct.
This is about pride and lack of common sense mixed with an ideological gear change allowed by weak charactered people in parliament.
MP’s who ignored the very larger groundswell to the media campaign against Kiwi Parents.
MP’s who didn’t use their common sense on this issue.
MP’s who don’t have the balls to say NO (on Principle), this is wrong.
MP’s who didn’t apply their minds to the unintended consequences to ordinary Kiwi families in the law change.
worse still, MP’s who did apply their minds to those unintended consequences.
All in all 112 MP’s who shouldn’t be in parliament.
And a PM who is trashing and mocking the democratic process.
Not only that he is treating the electorate with contempt.
Only ONE political Party said this is bullshit.
ACT.
They said that against all the other parties as it was a matter of principle.
If you had all voted your party vote ACT as a protest then John Key wouldn’t be mouthing off the crap he is right now.
His MP’s wouldn’t be sending out email responses written up for them by the PM’s office.
We’d actually have MP’s who served us and not the other way round.
VOTE NO as many times as you can
Better still Vote Party vote ACT next time to protest Key and National’s behaviour right now.
Let’s see him gob off with ACT on 50% of the party vote.
August 4th, 2009 at 10:11 am
What’s really sad is that the ACT MP’s don’t get up on the front page of the paper and say to a man.
This is rubbish and wrong change this law to the burrows ammendment.
Talk about a missed opportunity to clearly make a statement against the staus quo and mark themselves as a party of principle.
and the others as not!
August 4th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
In reply to donkey — totally agree with what you are saying.
As usual my main objection to the anti-smacking legislation was that it went against the biblical understanding of “spare the rod and spoil the child”. Unfortunately we have been captured by a relatively small minority of hard left, radically secular zealots that seek to undermine our traditional Judaeo-Christian values. The anti-smacking legislation is just part of a long production line representing secular, godless thinking.
However — our schools got rid of corporal punishment and have become more violent and undisciplined. If we carry on this way our children will become more and more violent and lawless and the police will be disciplining them — not the teachers and not their parents.
This legislation marks a line in the sand and hopefully a watershed in the march through the institutions of the secular left. That is why the secular left are fighting it so hard. If normal, commonsense people win on this one, what’s next? Maybe we will reintroduce corporal punishment in schools? Maybe homosexuality won’t be a legally protected lifestyle choice? Oh the horror!
August 4th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Scott,
Normal, common-sense people think homosexuality should be outlawed?
August 4th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
@ Ryan they also apparently think it is a “lifestyle choice”
August 4th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Oh, like Islam. Or World of Warcraft.
August 4th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Ryan — I actually think the number of people who think homosexuality is wrong is a lot higher than many may give credit for.
But my point is — the repeal of the anti-smacking legislation is part of claiming the country back — from the radical, anti-theist, left-wing, Marxist inspired, gay rights, activists — who have been setting the agenda for the last 30 or 40 years.
Just what I hope is one small victory for common sense, Judaeo-Christian values, that made this country great and will do again.
August 4th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
That’s fine. Compare it to the numbers who think that drinking is wrong, or that teaching your kids that God exists is wrong, etc. I actually think the number of people who think the state shouldn’t be telling people how to live is a lot higher than many may give credit for.
Sounds to me that your problem isn’t oppression, just the flavour of oppression. Given the chance, you’d support the state interfering with people’s lives in all the ways you approve of.
August 4th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
No actually- living God’s way isn’t oppressive at all.
I’m advocating a return to the values that founded this country. And as Henry Kissinger would say- they have the additional benefit of being true.
But anti smacking is illiberal. It involves a small minority-about 13%, telling everyone else how they should raise their children and that is quite simply wrong.
And that has been the story of the last 30 or 40 years- small groups of activists turning society upside down in the face of an apathetic majority.
So actually I would envisage less government and less laws. Just a few big ones- kind of like the 10 we used to live by.
August 4th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Kapital
” However The Party has four key principles in keeping with all Green Parties world wide:
Ecological Wisdom
Social Responsibility
Appropriate Decision-making
Non-Violence”
Sorry, your fervent desire to make those of us with a brain with more ability than that of the power of an amoeba believe this statement, falls on deaf ears. Ecological Wisdom does NOT (necessarily or always) equate to Social Responsibility, Appropriate Decision-making, Non-Violence.
How gullible do you think we are?
Or how stupid is the green movement worldwide if they can’t tell the difference. More importantly do you really think
Social Responsibility
Appropriate Decision-making
Non-Violence
are the singular domain of the left? Oh, but you said it is, SO IT MUST BE SO. We should just trust you because the Left always tells the truth. Don’t care if you are red or watermelon.
One word: Taito.
Ryan Sproull:
Re: the bell curve comment, your attempt at clever semantics is puerile. Smacking is at one end, damaging physical violence is at the other. All of it is physical behaviour, not all of it is done with malice or the intent to cause horrific injury or death.
Get it?
By the way estimates are 83% of the country thinks your way of thinking is rubbish. GET IT YET?
August 5th, 2009 at 8:26 am
Forcing people to live in accordance with your religion is oppressive.
You could well be quoting an Ayatollah.
Almost everyone in the country thinks they should be telling everyone else how to raise their children, including you. The question in their minds is not whether or not to restrict how others raise their children, the question is how much.
Sharia law encompasses those 10 pretty completely.
Scott, you can’t use the state to force people to follow your religion.
August 5th, 2009 at 8:31 am
The whole argument is semantic. A light smack can be done with malice and a shoulder-dislocating smack can be done with the intent of raising a good well-behaved child.
I don’t think that smacking should be illegal. 83% of the country thinks my way of thinking is rubbish?
August 5th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Ryan — please don’t misrepresent my position. You know and I know, that I am not in favour of forcing Christianity on people by virtue of the State. What I would like is for people to of their own free will return to the Christian values that make this country great. That includes parents being able to discipline their own children using reasonable force.
Your references to Islam are of no relevance- which I think you know. You need to return to Christianity yourself. It would mean that you had something constructive to say — rather than only being able to snipe around the opinions of others.
Scott — out.
August 5th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Scott, you advocated the outlawing of homosexuality. I’m not sniping, I’m illustrating inconsistency in your position. You can’t have it both ways. Either the state can be used to outlaw homosexuality or it should allow people to live how they like – be that Christian, homosexual, Muslim, whatever.
I disagree with your position that I would only have something worthwhile to say if I agreed with you (was a Christian).
But really, you’re either going back on your statement about homosexuality or you’re just advocating one form of state restriction over another. Unless you’re fine with homosexuality being legal, your position can’t be that the state should get out of people’s lives.
You say, “Ryan — please don’t misrepresent my position. You know and I know, that I am not in favour of forcing Christianity on people by virtue of the State.” But when you advocate the state interfering with people’s private sex lives in the name of Christian values, you’re being in favour of forcing Christianity on people by virtue of the State.